Speaker 1: Good evening and welcome to the Rochester Community Schools Board of Education regular meeting. Call to order at six o'clock. Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. This Board of Education regular meeting is a meeting of the board in public for the purpose of conducting the school district's business. We value community input and public comment, which will be heard under agenda item six. If you wish to speak tonight and have not already filled out a yellow card, they're located on a table near the entrance. Once you've completed the card,
please put it in the box on the same table. Please note that cards must be completed prior to speaking. I will call names of those who I have a card for during the public comment section. For agenda item two, roll call. All board members are present. Agenda item three is communications. This is where we reference various communications that we have received. 3.1, secretary of the Board of Education, secretary Patel, will you please give us an update? Speaker 2: Yes. At this time, one communication has been received and is in the packet for reference.
We also received three emails that did not go through. Contact the board on our website. We received one email from Skye Teton inviting us to a webinar on the new Safe Home Safe School law. Nisha ha invited us to the annual Interfaith Community event at IAGD and Rita Chu wrote to share her views on school closures. Speaker 1: Thank you. Ex agenda item 3.2, members of the Board of Education. This is where members of the board share communications that were shared directly with them but not sent to the full board. Did any board members receive
communications from the public? Trustee? Kuia? Speaker 2: Kelly Browski wrote to me on January 22nd about my treatment as a board member and connecting it to how residents are being treated and asking how to support me in representing the Rochester community. Speaker 1: Thank you. Anybody else? Trustee Ospa. Speaker 3: Ms. Ha also reached out to me inviting me to the interfaith dinner. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay, up next we have our PTA Council update agenda item 3.3. And with that I'll turn it over to Jamie Sack, PTA.
Council Vice President. Hello. Thank you. A couple updates for everybody regarding council. The theme of this year's Reflections program is I belong Entries. Were due November 10th, the first and the second place, school winners will advance to the district level and then the district award ceremony will be held on Wednesday, March 18th at 7:00 PM at Stony Creek High School. This year's Founder's Day is less than a month away on Wednesday, February 18th with a snow day of Monday, March 12th. Second, this year's theme is impacting Futures Together.
The logo design contest has concluded and a student from Hampton Elementary submitted the winning logo design. That was kind of hard to see, but it'll be on all of our invitation materials. It'll be on the program. The logo winner will be invited and honored there. So really proud of our Hampton fifth grader. Adam's PTSA is holding a stem plus Family's day on Saturday, February 7th from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM Join them as they explore creative uses for household items that will spark your child's interest in STEM
activities include explore the universe, create bioluminescence, make your own lava lamp, and bring drawings to life. The Health and Wellness Committee chairs will be doing the fourth grade health fairs starting next month. Our council chair has also done a great job of updating all of the materials within the health and the health fair kit, so they'll have some new activities or new new products in the, in the Kits Green schools will be collecting pop can tabs for Ronald McDonald House and the green school applications will be due in early March.
The goal is for all schools to apply and obtain green school status. Authors in April is coming up in just a few short months. For anyone who may not be familiar with this program. Authors in April was founded in 1984 and is a program that promotes literacy in the greater Rochester community by bringing in renowned authors and illustrators each year. Students in RCS are so fortunate to be able to experience this unique program. Authors in April week includes author visits and presentations at each elementary, middle, and high school and adult banquet, and an autograph party at the library.
Schools sell books by the authors getting the kids excited to meet their author before they come. This year's program is April 27th through May 1st. This year's authors include Julie Fogo for TK in first through first grade. Angela Dominguez for second and third grade, Ben Hackey for fourth and fifth grade, and Neil Schusterman for middle school. January is Board of Education Appreciation Month on behalf of Rochester community, PTA council and the 20 P-T-A-P-T-S-A units in RCS. We thank all of our trustees for everything you do for our
for our school community. Thank you also for the support that you give the schools that you are the liaison for. So many of you attend PTA meetings to provide board of education updates and attend school events and it's very appreciated. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have a report from the pack and with that I'll invite Jackie Marker chair of the pack. Speaker 4: Thank you. Good evening PAC's. January meeting focused on student transitions. Specifically how students and families experience moving between schools,
programs and grade levels. These transition points are oftentimes of heightened stress and uncertainty, particularly for special education students. PAC facilitated a collaborative interactive discussion with families centered on what helps transitions go well, what is challenging and what could be improved across all grade levels. Families consistently emphasize the importance of early exposure, clear and consistent communication and proactive planning to reduce anxiety and support student success. Success. A strong theme that emerged was the critical role of sensory friendly transition opportunities,
especially dedicated sensory time at large events such as World of Welcome, which families identified as essential for access and meaningful participation. Parents also highlighted the value of visual supports, advanced notice of staff and schedules and inclusive communication practices across all programs. Overall, the discussion reinforced that thoughtful inclusive transition practices benefit not only students with IEPs or five oh fours, but the broader school community as well. Pat continues to collect resources and examples of inclusive practices across the district
and we encourage schools to reach out for support when planning events to ensure access for all students. Looking ahead, we have several exciting upcoming events. Our next PAC meeting will take place on February 10th, that West Middle School at 7:00 PM where we will welcome special education mediation services as our guest speaker. EMS provides free facilitation, mediation and training services that support collaborative solution-focused communication between special education families and districts. Our next enrichment event regulate to relate will be held on February 26th at Adams High School.
This session will help caregivers understand how their own regulation influences a child's sense of safety and connection and will share potential, excuse me, practical brain-based strategies for responding and compassion. Finally, sparkle award season is officially underway and we are thrilled to begin celebrating the incredible staff and community members who make inclusion come alive across our district. Sparkle Awards honor individuals whose dedication, creativity, and compassion have made a meaningful difference for our special ed students and their families. The award ceremony will take place on April 16th at Adams
High School and is always one of the most joyful feel good events of the year. Nominations are open through March 8th and we encourage families, staff, and community members to share stories that highlight the positive impact happening in our schools every day. This special event is made possible by our amazing parent volunteers and community sponsors and we warmly welcome. Anyone interested in nominating, attending, volunteering, or supporting the celebration. More information is available@wwwrcspac.com or by connecting with PAC on Facebook.
Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. And now we're onto agenda item four, which is public comment. This provides an opportunity for board members to hear from community members. If you wish to speak tonight but have not already filled out a yellow card, please fill one out. Now, if we have more than 30 minutes, which I don't anticipate, the remainder will be heard under agenda item 10. When your name is called, please move to the microphone and address the board. When addressing the board, you will have three minutes to speak. We will try to let you know when you have
30 seconds remaining. Please be mindful of this time limit when addressing the board. Please state your name and your relationship to the district to provide, to protect student privacy. We ask that no one identify a specific student without their permission even if the student's name is not used. Also, we ask that you address your comments to the entire board and not to individual board members, school district employees, or to members of the audience. The board will not be responding to comments or questions during the meeting. However, someone will follow up if needed.
Sorry. So first we have Mike Reno, followed by Rick Bick, followed by Lisa Haluka. Thank you. Followed by Carol Beth Kui. Speaker 5: Hi, I'm Mike Reno, longtime resident and former board member. So I'm thinking the past several days, the past several weeks, even the past several years. I mean, where do we even start? So I'd like everybody to think for a minute about power, raw political power and think of it in light of what Trump is doing at the national level. Many of you I'm sure find it abhorrent
and quite frankly un-American as do I, and I hope you are as outraged as I am that this use of power has already cost some protestors their lives in Minneapolis driving. This is this MAGA mindset that election winners can dominate the losers. It's as if losing an election means losing your voice and losing your rights. Our greatness isn't about winners and losers and unity never comes from force. And this really isn't about Republicans or Democrats and it's not about conservatives or liberals or populace. It's really about the heavy handed use
of raw political power in the dismissive domination of those without power. When power is used this way, those without power are treated as if they have no legitimate role, no rights in society or its governance. We watch leaders treat them like a problem to manage, inconvenience, a nuisance, something to be contained, which leads me to our local situation. Exploitation of raw political power at any level of government is divisive. And RCS is a microcosm of what's been happening nationally. Raw power was used by this board
to discourage people from speaking at meetings. There was no consensus for this, you just did it. Public comment on individual agenda items was removed, meetings removed earlier to discourage working parents from coming and meetings removed further away, making it participation more difficult. And what's worse is that you're using raw power to dominate the minority on your board instead of involving the full board, one person now controls the agenda just like Washington minority trustees are restricted from legal counsel and district documents. They're cut off mid discussion sidelined and silenced.
And I predict that even tonight based on the pattern we've seen, the minority will offer ideas and the majority will use their raw power to swat 'em down. Not because they're necessarily bad ideas, but because of who they came from. Trustee Luzon just spoke about that recently, powerfully I might add. So don't kid yourself. What you guys are doing here is Trumpian domination and those who oppose authoritarianism at the national level 30 seconds need to face the uncomfortable truth that the exact same thing is happening right here locally. The exact same thing.
And I'll add that those who don't like it at the local level need to stop ignoring that it's happening at the national level. Speaker 1: Rick Balick, Speaker 6: Good evening, Rick Balick, resident of district. You know, I was kind of hoping with the new year that maybe the board would adopt a resolution that would kind of say, Hey, we're not gonna live in denial anymore. And what I mean by that is you just don't seem to recognize that how your curriculum, your policies, your regulations affect the community and how they drive people away. You know, for years there was less than 10%
of the kids in this, in this district in private school, we were less than the state average, less than the national average. And then 10 or 12 years ago, you adopted the Bell framework and some of our best principals quit. Some of our best teachers left and then we experienced what I'd call a mass exodus and, and it was we had over 2000 people just disappear from the district within a year and a half. And we didn't notice it much be because the place was the, the district was still growing so fast that enrollment pretty much stayed flat. We never noticed it. Okay, and I, I bring this up
because you're gonna face another moment of truth here sometime this year. Alright? And, and, and that, that moment is going to be when you take a look and when you take a vote on the new health and sex education stuff. Now we've already had two local districts take a look at it, review it, and turn it down. See that's too radical. No thanks. We're gonna stick with what we've got. So when you take a, I'm not here to advocate for it or against it. The point I'm trying to make is I haven't seen it and neither has anybody else. So whatever you do with that, you better make sure that you just don't say, well here's the framework.
You better show the public the curriculum. You better show 'em every piece of it because they're gonna have to make a decision about whether or not they want to opt kids out of the sex part and then make a decision about whether the health part which they can opt out of is acceptable to them. And if you hide it from them, they will leave. You've already had two or three letters on the subject and I don't know if how they got ahold of the material, but they said, Hey, I'm outta here. Now if, if, if you don't listen to the public on that one, you are going to experience another Exodus event.
It will not be the size of what it was when you adopted the Bell framework. Lord knows I was ridiculous when people got ahold of that. I mean it was, you know, it was like CRT and DEI on steroids. Speaker 7: 30 seconds. Speaker 6: I thought I was reading Dos Capal all over again. You know, then you then, then you finally took it off the website and pretended like it never happened. You dropped that like a hot potato, but you spent a lot of money with 'em, you did a lot of training with them and that stuff stuck around and it drove a lot of people away. So keep that in mind. Don't vote with your ideology, vote with the community in mind when you review that stuff.
Thank you Speaker 8: Lisa Speaker 7: Haki. Good evening. My name is Lisa Haluka. I am a graduate of Rochester High School. I have five children, four of whom have graduated from Rochester Community Schools and one who is a senior at Stony Creek High School right now. So I have been part of this community, okay, I won't say how many years, but a very long time since my own second grade. And so I care deeply about the Rochester Community Schools. I'm also a lawyer and I'm a former superintendent of a charter school and was previous president of that school's board prior to my appointment as superintendent of that school.
So I know a little bit about the responsibility that you folks have on this board and I have attended one Rochester Community Schools board meeting and that was two weeks ago. And I was stunned by what I observed as a school board and as administrators in the school district, you have a responsibility in your role for some very specific things. You have a mission and your mission is to be ensuring that there are the highest academic standards for the students in this school district and that you are fiscally responsible as a school board
and that you are supervising the administration and superintendent because you are their boss. I didn't witness any of that last week. Any adherence to mission? There were some reports, there were some pending legislation, there was some budget talk and there was some talk about some facilities as well. But the only conversation that I heard that sincerely addressed whether or not we were meeting the highest academic standards is when Trustee Lai talked about Ms. Trustee Gupta's conversation during the discussion when she was running for the office
that she now currently holds. The second part of your responsibility is transparency. You are elected officials, meaning that taxpayers who send their children to your care for their education in this community have chosen you to be responsible for their child's academic and mental and physical wellbeing. And what I witnessed two weeks ago was an utter lack of transparency on several counts that were stunning to me. First of all, trustee Lanne said that she had not been included in a conversation about
who was going to be on the slate to be elected as the executive officers of the school board. And when she brought it up to the other trustee in conversation, she was not told that the conversation didn't happen. She was instead told that she wasn't included in the conversation, 30 seconds who she aligns with, which suggests to me that there was a conversation by a majority member of this board, which is a direct violation of the Open Meetings Act. And all of you know that that is the case. When we were having the election for president, this board did not even understand the parameters
of their own censor of Trustee au and thinking that she could not even stand for election for that office. When she asked to have discussion about that position, she was going to be shut down by the, your time is up. Thank you Carol. Beth Kuey. Speaker 2: My name is Carol Beth Lit Coy. I'm a trustee and since the board voted at the last meeting to eliminate board member comments, I'm speaking tonight in my capacity as a resident. Here's my question. When is this board going
to publicly review the state's new health framework? And to be clear, 'cause I know this has come up a couple times before, I'm not asking to adopt a new sex ed curriculum tonight. And I'm not asking about the Sex Ed advisory committee process. I'm asking about the framework itself because frameworks set direction, they guide what Advisory Committees review and what eventually comes back to the board. I've already brought forward a parental rights and local control resolution twice and this board chose not to discuss it. As a resident mentioned earlier, we already have parents writing to the board with concerns
and families are not asking for more focus on political or ideological sex and gender topics. They're asking us to stay focused on education. And given the wide range of views in our community, it makes sense to keep health class basic, to keep sex education clearly separate and transparent. And I knew of at least one other board, it sounds like maybe there's more than that, that's already discussed this controversial framework and chose to reject it, which is a solid neutral approach. A public board discussion early could help rebuild, trust
and keep our focus where it belongs. We've gotta get more in the habit of doing that. Too often our board will notify the public the Friday before the board meeting, they barely have a chance to digest what's going on. Let's give people some advanced notice. Same thing happened with the tax proposal that I brought brought up earlier, which was already being discussed publicly in other districts. And this board chose to censor me because I disclosed that in our district before the district decided they wanted to do that. Anyways, as for parents who want updates or have questions, I do share information publicly. You can find my Facebook page
by searching Trustee Carol Bethle Kui on Facebook. Speaker 1: Thank you Kyle Meier, sorry for mispronouncing. Speaker 9: You did fine with the pronunciation. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Kyle Meier. All three of our children have been through Rochester Community School since kindergarten. I now have one at Van Huen Middle School and two at Adams High School. They've had overall extremely positive experiences in the district and I wanna share a few of them. It's high time. I've had this on my to-do list for probably years now, and it's my first time speaking at a board meeting to be transparent, no one asked me to be here tonight.
My kids actually try to talk me out of it, believe it or not, they know this is like televised on YouTube. So, but here I am, most notably. And recently I want to thank the Adams High School administration, especially Principal Luke Swanson, for helping get the unified sports program started in Rochester Community Schools. My daughter Lucy approached Mr. Swanson last year about this as an initiative that she would like to see get started and participate in. And it bloomed from there. For those of you who don't know, and those of you who are watching Unified Sports is a Special Olympics program, a branch of it
that brings together students with and without neurological differences together to play sports cooperatively. Currently it's basketball season and this is instead of separating students with special needs out to have their own team, they play together cooperatively. And it is fantastic for everybody who participates and everybody who watches the Unified Sports program creates an inclusive team based approach to students who may not otherwise be able to interact with each other very closely during the school day. So thank you to Mr. Swanson, the entire special education department, athletic directors,
unified coaches and district staff for making this possible, including providing practice space and the opportunity to play at last weekend's. Last Friday's Cross Town Showdown at Oakland University. They played between games there between the girls and boys varsity games. Listen, I know it's not always easy to start a new impactful program at the high school level. I'm proud of my daughter for taking that step and I'm happy that Mr. Swanson heard her. I know that there's a lot of behind the scenes things that have to happen in order to make this reality. I also want to thank Superintendent Russo, his administrative team
and the entire board of education for continuing to prioritize inclusivity as a priority in our district. I'd also like to rec recognize Van, who's a middle school English teacher, Sean Jacobson for his leader of the Weak Program. Our youngest daughter doesn't always love school. My my wife gets a lot of emails during the day, take me home, those types of things. However, when we, 30 seconds, thank you. When we re, when we received his leader of the week email with anecdotes about why our daughter deserved that pro, that award, it truly changed her attitude
and ours towards school for the better. And put a huge smile on all of our faces. Finally, thank you to the administrative team for being so visible throughout the district. I see you at art shows, I see you at band events and sports events on the weekend and in the evenings you could go home and relax, but instead you're out there making sure that Speaker 1: You're visible your time, sir, of all these things. Thank you so much. Speaker 9: Thank you everybody. Have a great evening. Speaker 1: Sam Van Dale. Speaker 10: Good afternoon. I'm a current student of Stony Creek High School. I'd like to talk about the board today. You guys are like sitting there and you're like, there's a high school
student coming up here. I should not be doing this because that tells you, you guys should be thinking in the back of your mind that damn you guys suck. I mean like clearly you're doing something wrong, yet you keep doing it. You know, it's like I'm young and it's like I, I might not have enough experience, but clearly I have a better sense of common sense with me than you guys. So you guys just sit there, you guys have your egos inflamed because you guys think that you hold a position of power. You guys don't interact with the community once during the entire two weeks that you guys have.
And so you sit here and you look me in the eyes and you guys have that look of satisification of I think I'm doing something right. No, you're not. You guys are not doing anything remotely, right? If you want a piece of advice for me, I'll give you one. And that's to do the exact opposite of what you guys think you should do because that would improve this board and these schools faster than you guys could blink. The only two people that are doing something right is Shelly and Carol, The other rest
of you guys not doing anything good. You guys, you guys are tearing down this board and not doing anything, right? So I'll also tell you this too, Barb s Julie Ock, Nicholas Russo, Jessica Gupta, Jason Blake, Michelle Bele, you guys should put in a resignation letter tonight. And I, and you think I'm joking, I'm not. You guys should do it tonight because you guys are not doing anything right? And should, and Jessica, you just looked at Jason being like, what the hell is he talking about? You know exactly what I'm talking about.
And I'll tell you this too, your political views are so messed up. People do not come out of the womb thinking of sex right away, okay? It's unbelievable that you even remotely think of that. You want to know what I'm thinking about right now? I'm not thinking about sex. I'm thinking about 30 seconds going home and playing video games and what I'm gonna do tomorrow. Because what I'm gonna do tomorrow is I'm gonna go to school. I'm gonna get an education, something better than what you have. And I'm gonna go to work. I'm gonna be an actual productive member of society instead
of you with your gender study degree. I mean like, honestly, that is a complete joke. Go to something, go to school and get a respectable degree. You're, you're sitting here, your Speaker 1: Time is up. Thank you. Speaker 10: And Speaker 1: You're Stephanie Van Deel. Speaker 10: You seem mad, Speaker 1: Sir, your time is up. I'm thank Speaker 10: You. Thank you. Speaker 8: Okay. Speaker 3: My name is Stephanie Van Dale and I am a taxpayer. So prior to my coming into the room, you guys said the Pledge of Allegiance and everything and I was told that Barb didn't stand up and face the flag
and everything. And I'll tell you something, Barb, that's a big insult to me. My sons are Marines, one is deployed, one is in Hawaii right now, and they are serving so that you can have the privilege of your First Amendment rights and everything else secured by the United States Constitution. And you can't even stand up and say the Pledge of Allegiance. You are evil. Now the subjects that I was going to talk about
was resignations. Barb, why don't you serve your resignation tonight If you can't say the Pledge of Allegiance and it would make everybody feel much better. 'cause you're a waste of space. That's what you are. Speaker 1: I'm gonna call for decorum, please. Speaker 3: I'm gonna call for you not to interrupt me. Give me my time now. Please Speaker 1: Direct your comments to the board about board Speaker 3: Members. Gimme me my time back Speaker 1: Please. Please don't direct your comments to individual board members. Speaker 3: I'm directing it to you. Speaker 1: Great. I'll take it. Speaker 3: Good. Give me my time back.
Speaker 1: Your time is going Speaker 3: Anyways. Mr. Russo, I think you should resign also. You are a waste of space. You asked for a raise of $50,000 prior to the end of your contract. Yeah. Jason, go ahead and shake your head please. Please shake your head. Just drive me a little bit more nuts. Okay? You're all a waste of space. Okay? Russo, you couldn't even make a decision about closing school on Monday in time when a two star general at take com could make it way before you could. Alright, so 30 seconds.
You're all a waste of space except for Carol Bath and Shelly. You guys are perfect. You guys are wonderful. You reflect the values of this community. The rest of you trash. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, moving on to the consent agenda, which is agenda item 5.0. All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered routine in nature by the Board of Education and will be acted upon by one motion. There is no separate discussion of these items. If any members of the board request discussion of an item, that item will be removed. Our consent agenda today consists of 5.1,
current bills payable for November 1st, 2025 through November 30th, 2025 in the amount of $16,139,676 and 46 cents, and 5.2 current bills payable for December 1st, 2025 through December 31st, 2025 in the amount of $13,372,654 and 17 cents. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented?
Moved by Trustee Blake. Is there a second? Trustee Beel? Any discussion? And Trustee Kui? Speaker 2: During my review of the November and December bills payable, I noticed some legal invoice point of order subject areas that raised, Speaker 1: Excuse me. Excuse me. There's been a point of order. Trustee Beel, what's your point of order? This Speaker 2: Is a consent agenda item and so there's no discussion. Someone can pull something if they wish, but there's no discussion. Speaker 1: The point of order is well taken. That is correct. We can pull an item at this time. Those are the options.
Would you like to pull an item? Speaker 2: Sure. We'll pull the, we'll pull item 5.1. Speaker 1: Okay, so Trustee Kui is pulling Speaker 2: And we'll pull, pull item 5.2. Speaker 1: So basically we're gonna vote on each of these as separate motions with discussion. So is there a, do we need a second for that? No. To pull the item? I don't think so. I'll check into that for next time. I'm not sure not to pull, Speaker 2: But you may need to have people move and support for each individual item Speaker 1: For each one, right. Okay. All right. So 5.1,
the current bills payable for November. Is there a motion to approve that? I've got a mo first. A motion from Trustee Blake. Is there a second? So moved. Trustee Annis discussion on 5.1. Trustee Laco. Speaker 2: Alright, during my review of the November bills payable, I noticed certain legal invoice subject areas that raised some fiscal oversight questions for me. As part of my duty as a trustee, I asked to see basic supporting documentation to explain what work was performed
and why so that I could understand what the district paid for. That information has not been provided. Last I've seen, I'm having trouble accessing my internet now. I don't know if it's been provided since, but the last time I checked right before this meeting, I had not received it. Speaker 1: I'm not sure I know that it was being worked on. Speaker 11: Correct? Madam President? We were gathering the information. I believe the request came in yesterday and we were working on that today. Speaker 2: I'm sorry, what? I couldn't hear 'cause of the room. I Speaker 11: Believe that the request came in yesterday and we were working on that today. So it is being pulled. Speaker 2: It came in a couple days ago, but yes. Got
Speaker 1: It. Well, today was the first working day, business day. So today would be either way, today would be the day it would be worked on. Okay. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Speaker 2: No, Speaker 11: I abstain. Speaker 1: Okay, so that is a 5 1 1 vote and the motion passes. So on 5.2, the current bill's payable for December as previously noted. Is there a motion? So Trustee Blake, a second Trustee Yiannis discussion?
Speaker 2: My same statement applies. Oh, Speaker 1: Give a chance to call your name. Okay. Trustee. Look me? No, you Speaker 2: Okay. I'm sorry. I thought I was acknowledged. Speaker 1: Just wanna stay consistent here. Speaker 2: Same right. I thought I was acknowledged. Same statement applies. Speaker 1: Okay. Any other discussion on that? Trustee Blake? Is Speaker 11: This the same invoice or you're saying there's another invoice in the second batch? Speaker 2: There were more in the second batch. Did you see? Yep. Speaker 1: Any other discussion? All right, with that, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? No, I
Speaker 11: Abstain. Speaker 1: So again, that's a 5 1 1 and the motion passes. Moving on to agenda item six reports. Tonight we have two reports, a discussion of superintendent goals and an update on strategic plan 15. Mr. Russo, would you like to start with an update on your goals for this year? Speaker 11: Yes, please. Thank you, Madam President. So as just as to track back a couple weeks ago, I did present the goals for the board's consideration. I received feedback at that meeting and went back
and did some revisions trying to incorporate what I could from the discussion. There was a few, there was a few kind of what I believed would be consensus around a couple of items. And so those goals were, have been presented to you again with the changes in goal one for PSAT and SAT data and changes in goal Three and changes to goal four. For goal three, it was a three year to be, I'm sorry, to present to the board a strategic plan by May 15th, 2026.
For goal four, I increased the percentage from four to 5% for the number of pre-K enrollment. Moving into the 26 27 school year, I provided in goal one with PSAT and SAT readiness plan. That has been discussed with our principals and what they're doing through three of our high schools. And so I did provide also some accompanying information in last week's superintendent cabinet notes regarding why that was, why that is being done, what the percentage represents, what the history is in RCS,
and happy to talk or receive feedback. But at these, at this time, this is, this would be the final draft that I'm presenting unless there are a consensus around changes. Speaker 1: Okay. I'm gonna first put a motion on the floor and then we can have discussion. So I move that we approve the current evaluation, your goals proposed by Mr. Russo. And enclosed in the packet, is there a second? Speaker 2: Second. Speaker 1: Seconded by a trustee. Speaker 2: Point of order. SH Madam president, should this be under new business then versus voting on an under report? Speaker 1: Perhaps, but we'll do that next time. Thank you.
So Trustee Anis has seconded. Let's move on to discussion. So we, we have had good discussion over the past month or so on this and have provided a lot of feedback. I think as Mr. Ru Russo shared, the resulting goal goals that we have in front of us are well aligned with our STR strategic plan, our district's mission and reflect a lot of input from the board at this time. Is there any other discussion from the board? Trustee Beel? Speaker 2: I just had a question for the starting with goal one,
because it really changed what you were measuring and could you talk about why you switched from what you had proposed to this new goal? And then when you say it will improve by 43 points, do I remember seeing that Currently it's 42 points that we have moved. So this is just a one that's a one point and is that a certain percent or how did you come up with that number? Speaker 11: Great question. So last, when I presented this last time, the feedback I heard and didn't hear much opposition to was
to give a stretch goal for PSAT and SAT. So I went back to our building principles and we looked at data for the, the last 10 years, 12 years at RHS, 10 years across the district and found that every, so I'm gonna kind of walk you through from PSAT to SAT. So the jump from PSAT 8 9 10 SAT, the average across the last 10 to 12 years in RCS was between 41.8 and 42.6. So the jump, the average jump between all
of the years is about, let's say a 42 point jump. That's the same student taking it from eighth grade to ninth grade, then to 10th grade or ninth grade to 10th grade, 10th grade to 11th grade a a one point increase. When we have a history of data that represents 42 as the average seems like a very big stretch considering all of the new implementation we've been doing in the last year and a half since SAT became a focus, PSAT and SAT became a focus of mine and of the high schools, not that they weren't focusing before, but that I have put a focus on it in my goals. So 43 points I think is achievable.
It has not been achieved as an average over the last 10 years, but I do believe it's achievable given the changes we've input over the course of the last year and a half. Speaker 2: Follow up. Just, yeah, just one follow up. In the first goal that you had originally, you had broken it out by school, but this one is not broken out again. Is there, can you explain the rationale for that? Speaker 11: Yeah, only the last goal was written for each category inside of the, in, inside of PSAT and SAT. So looking at like what the five 30 or five 20 average would be in my stretch there, this,
because it's a, it's an average across the district, considering that data proved that that was only at 42 for the past 10 years, I figured that this was a better way to capture all of this and give the opportunity for all three high schools to demonstrate their data and then use that as a combination across all three if it pleases the board. Breaking it down is I can provide the breakdown when, when it's there, but I, I don't think the wording of the goal would make a difference, if that makes sense. Speaker 2: Trustee Blake? Speaker 11: Yeah, so I had a lot of comments last time about your goals,
so I'm not gonna go over those same things again. I will say the, the goal too, the data protocol that we're gonna follow, can you briefly explain that for people who don't know what that means, what, what that is, that's gonna be implemented and why we think that that's gonna improve student achievement? Sure. So there's a, there's a data protocol. There's many data protocols that are research based, but in RCS we wanna make it a habit to be using data and using this same kind of process and protocol with it,
whether it be a grade level team meeting at third grade to look at literacy, whether it be looking at iReady data all the way through, you know, bi-annually, meaning two times a year because at the end of the year really isn't a data dig, whether it be looking at P-S-A-T-S-A-T, whether it's looking through the MTSS process to say, does this, is this student meeting what they need? And where do we go from there? So it basically says, what is our data? And I can, I you've seen the, you've seen the, the protocol. So for the community, what it really does is encourage our staff to say,
what is the data we're looking at? What are we going to do with it? How do we know it's working? And then measure that against our process we've been doing. So we've used, we've created this based on input from, well, first it was research based. I wanna say that both of the protocols that I presented are research based and then with input from our administrators to implement for this year. Speaker 2: Anybody else? Trustee Kuey? Well, I had different statements for the different goals, so, but it sounds like we're talking about both goal one and goal two For goal one.
I was gonna say that I thought it seemed like a legitimate smart goal, like it measures growth and I read through the P-S-A-T-S-A-T readiness plan and I recognized a lot of the strategies that I remember seeing Rochester High School promoting last year. And of our three high schools, Rochester High School achieved the highest level of growth, you know, from a pro proficiency standpoint. It's different between those three. But as far as growth is concerned, they happened to do that. So standardizing that and scaling that across the three schools made sense of me, made sense to me.
My question was more about the target and if we're just, if we're trying to prevent slippage or if we're really trying to drive improvement. And so just trying to understand that 43 points is where I was at with that one. And so you're, you're explaining that you think that that seems like a, like a good stretch goal. So, so that's for goal, goal one, for goal two, I had the same comment back in December, and I think this was some of the, some of the comments that we said was, it seems more like an implementation tactic than an improvement goal because it measures whether principles are following a
process, but it's not directly tied to outcomes. And using data analysis is part of the job, and I know it's what they're already doing. So whether or not this data, data protocol process is relevant, the r part of the smart goal just depends on whether the use of this protocol actually changes results for students. So the key question for me is if this goal is met, what's going to be different for students versus what we're, what we've already got? Speaker 11: Well, what we different for students would be in, hopefully in outcomes in assessments, whether they be high stakes assessments
or i-Ready assessments or classroom based measurements. But what would be different for staff is that it's a consistent protocol used across all buildings. We have a host of staff, and I'm not gonna put Mr. Murphy on the spot for how many of these we have who share buildings or who travel or might work at school a one year and school B the next year. And so having consistency across the district in regards to how do we, how do we address student data to improve outcomes is an organizational goal. It isn't a student driven goal, it is an organizational goal where the product would be student achievement.
Speaker 1: Okay. I would also add, i i I would disagree that implementation cannot, isn't a goal in and of itself, oftentimes depending on where you are in a process implementation is, is a goal when you're starting something new. So, and that has outcomes associated with, with that, how well it's implemented. So, but I hear you what you're saying in terms of outcomes related to student achievement, like the impact longer term, but initially the impact of implementation would be getting the system underway.
Right. Speaker 2: Well, what I would I, if you're asking me if I think that implementation of a process ought to be part of a goal, I would agree with you implementation and the strategy that should be part of the goal, but I'm asking more of how do we evaluate what's been accomplished by implementing the, the tactic. So I guess I'm wondering, as we've been sitting here, Speaker 11: I just, can I address that piece? So LA at the last conversation we had at this table, and I believe in our superintendent cabinet notes, I know we have a lot of communication, so I could be mistaken there.
I did mention that I could give you agenda items from meetings, how they're using the goal, et cetera, from each and every building or a sample of from the middle, the elementary and the high schools. But the, the evidence of us using it would be the written documentation of what, what they're going through the protocol on at each one of our, each one of our levels. Speaker 12: Hmm. Speaker 1: Just a sec. Does anybody else have anything? Okay, yeah. Trustee, Speaker 2: What if, what if we added, what if we added something to this goal where instead of simply saying that 100%
of principals will utilize with their staffs this RCS data protocol during the 25 26 school year, we said to do that, like to analyze student data, identify priority needs and inform instructional or intervention adjustments with evidence impact reported to the board so that we can see how the data protocol is changing what we're doing in a positive way. I can write this down here if that's helpful. If you, if we wanna discuss that. Speaker 1: I guess I would ask the board if the consensus is to do
that right now or to table this discussion to the next meeting and give Mr. Russo and his staff a chance to consider that and and, and give back to us before we vote on it. Speaker 11: Since that's the first time I'm hearing that. I guess the, the only question that my, my immediate reaction to that proposal would be when it says priorities, who would be determining the priorities? Speaker 2: Well, that would be the administration. So what, what I'm, Speaker 11: Yeah, but if it's, if it's supposed to be student outcomes, why would the, I'm not closest to what's happening in the classroom. If I have a, if I have a classroom full of third graders
or AP calc or a categorical classroom, those priorities would change based on student need. So I would vehemently be against that, Speaker 2: Me directing that. Well, I think you could, what I would envision is that you would work with your team to figure out, okay, how are we gonna decide what student outcomes we're measuring and how it's going to improve you. You're basically the one that gets to decide how you're gonna go about that and what evidence you're gonna show the board to show that, you know, things are different. But Speaker 11: What I'm saying is trustee the queen, and I could be misunderstanding, so don't, I'm not trying to be argumentative.
What I'm saying is we have 850 to 890 classrooms for me to direct what their priorities are. And we're, we're, we're, we have certified professional staff in the building. What I'm trying to do is get our teachers and, and more than just teachers, our administrators, our ancillary staff, et cetera, to buy, to, to participate in a, in a system-wide way to look at data, student data. So if it's about prior, like what are the priorities? I have to give that professional courtesy to my staff
because those people who are in front of students, and, and again, I could be misunderstanding what you're saying, I just can't, if I, if I'm hired to manage 890 classrooms, then I probably that, that, that would be a failure. Well, Speaker 1: Well what I, what I would, Speaker 2: Excuse me to respond. Could I respond to, Speaker 1: In a sec? I would like to say something too. So I think what I'm hearing Mr. Russo say is that he feels uncomfortable with that charge because the defining what the priorities are is not something that you can do.
So generally and across the district, because they're nuanced, they're based on the students in the classroom and, and that what that data shows to that teacher. So am I, am I understanding that Speaker 11: Correctly? Yes, and I'm happy to revise. I mean, at some point we have to, to decide on what my goals are because it's shortening my time for me to achieve them. But at the same time, I, I'm, I, this is not an argumentative situation. I'm happy to revise and look at things, but when I, if it's gonna come at the, at the board table, I, I would agree that I'd need some more time to look
and say, what does that really mean in terms of implementation, right? Because my knee-jerk reaction or my immediate reaction was, I'm not gonna set priorities for the various things we teach from CTE to AP to special education. I'm not gonna set those priorities for students. Teachers are going to do that. Speaker 2: May I respond Trustee Speaker 1: Lacoy? Speaker 2: What I would say is, you know, in the same way that I am not trying to dictate to you exactly what those outcomes have to look like, you could consult with some of your different principles in the different buildings and work with your team to figure out, okay,
what is it, what's the end goal? Like, I don't know if you've read Steven Covey's seven Habits of Highly Effective People. They talk about, number two I think is begin with the end in mind. So we're trying to figure out what is it that we want to see? What is it that this is trying to accomplish? So like what kind of outcome are we trying to improve? And when you begin with that, then we know what that RCS data protocol system is supposed to be doing. We'll know how to evaluate whether it's effective or not. Because if we just implement it and we don't understand what our end goal is,
what is it trying to improve, then why are we doing it? You know, we, we have to have like a reason for doing it. Otherwise, it's hard to know what that would be. Speaker 11: I think to answer your question, again, not being argumentative, I'm just saying, I think to answer your question, what I'm trying to prove improve is data literacy amongst our professionals. That's, that's the goal, right? Speaker 2: You're trying to improve data literacy and the reason we care about data literacy is to improve education for students, right? So I'm just saying how Speaker 11: Do we figure out and figure across departments and right. And finance and Sure. I mean we are an organization.
So there, there, that's why it's an organizational goal, Speaker 2: Right? Ultimately the purpose of schools is to educate students. So I always look at it from that lens, but you're right, you could do it with any department. Like what is analyzing the data supposed to get us? It's supposed to get us some kind of better result. So that's where I'm just trying to, I'm just trying to figure out what is our result gonna be, and that's where I wouldn't expect you to necessarily dictate to all these different types of departments what their outcomes should be. But if you collaborate with those different departments, they could probably explain to you, this seems reasonable and they could give you a good explanation
for why it seems reasonable and you could agree or disagree, but then that's how you might know how am I gonna set those kinds of expectations that I can evaluate people on effectively. Speaker 1: I I would just say I think the desired outcome here would be to maximize each student's academic potential. I think that's implied in the goal without saying it explicitly, but Trustee Blake, Speaker 11: I, I guess this seems to me like one of those things that's staged. So first we're going to roll out the data protocol
and make sure that all of our buildings are, are conversant with it. They understand it, they're using data in, in a proper way, or they're at least understanding it now everybody's got this base understanding and the next thing that we do might be what she's talking about. Like that we would figure out, now that we understand this, how are we going to use this to improve student achievement or student experience. But we're only talking like less than a year here to roll all this out and have these kind of results that you're talking about. Seems like it's a lot in that amount of time.
Speaker 2: I have a question. Is the Speaker 1: Data protocol excuse, excuse me, I'm gonna go to Trustee Alpa at this time. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you Madam President. I know I originally, I had some concerns with this goal. I was wondering what the data protocol was and was it new? And I really appreciate you linking in this and I was also concerned about what artifacts you would show, and you've addressed those concerns. And I understand the goal of improving data literacy and creating a common experience so that we can talk. We're not talking apples to oranges when we move data from buildings to buildings or when our administrators come together.
My concern would be that if we, it's inherent when you look at data that you're looking for student outcomes. You're not just doing math for the fun of it. But my concern is if we tie it too tightly and bind it too tightly to the outcomes, it may be perceived as micromanagement. So we don't want, you know, the superintendent setting goals for the kindergarten classroom and setting goals for CTE. So we may be getting Mr. Rus on a position where he's viewed as a micromanager or, you know, we might get into areas that you're not as familiar with.
No, no offense fair. But I, so I had, I've never tried Speaker 11: Calculus, Speaker 3: Neither have I. So I'm, I had some concerns about this and I feel they, they are addressed and I'm, I would support the goal as it's written. Speaker 1: So with that, we do have that motion already on the floor and seconded. We've had lots of discussion. Speaker 2: Madam President, Speaker 1: Trustee Kui, Speaker 2: My question is, is the data protocol in the agenda packet so that the public can see it? It's only a couple pages. Speaker 1: There's a link to it, Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 1: So Speaker 2: There was also Madam President, remember
how a couple days ago I sent you a revision to goal three to consider, and we had said that we were gonna discuss that revision today. Speaker 1: I, I said we could see where the discussion went. So are you wanting, you've already spoken Well, more than twice, which is what our bi, what our handbook stipulates. But I will go ahead and entertain this. Speaker 2: I can fix, I can fix it by making, I'll fix it by making a motion. Okay. So I move that we change goal three as written to provide the BOEA culminating list
of year three goals to be built into year three of the strategic plan by May 15th, 2026. Two to provide the BOEA culminating list of year three goals that include clear measurable student achievement and operational outcomes with defined metrics and evidence for board evaluation by May 15th, 2026. Speaker 1: Say that again please. Speaker 2: This is the same thing I emailed you guys. Speaker 1: Do you have that typed up? Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? I Second. Second. Okay. Discussion. Speaker 2: Mad president, Speaker 1: Trustee Luco.
Speaker 2: Okay, so this one, while it was technically a smart goal, I, I thought in terms of substance, it, again, it's this same issue that we had with this last one we were talking about it measures task completion rather than impact. So whether it leads to real improvement depends on the quality and measurability of the year three goals. So I'm just suggesting adding an explicit written expectation that the goals include clear outcomes so that they're not just timelines or completed steps. I'm concerned less with the percentage completed
and more that the goals are quality goals that allow us to better evaluate. Speaker 1: Okay. Any other discussion on this amendment, trustee Al? Speaker 3: Well, I definitely support measurable goals and the quality of goals. I definitely think that's an important concern. The range of things that happen within the strategic strategic plan. I'd be concerned that some of them are not going to fit into this and therefore might be thrown out because they don't meet this one criteria. Speaker 1: That's okay. Trustee Blake? Speaker 11: Yeah, I, I had similar thoughts.
The, the, the purpose of this goal was to get the strategic plan goals earlier in the year so that the board would have a, a ability to look at them sooner. And there's a whole bunch of, of things that are part of that process, but this is to get it earlier, but if you want all the goals to have a clear, measurable student achievement outcome, they're not going to, because some of these goals are not related directly to student achievement. Last year, one of the, one of the things was putting out a new communication parent square. That's something that we needed as a district.
You cannot tie that to a student achievement outcome on a test. And there's gonna be a lot of things that aren't gonna try. So that's why I don't think that matches up with all of the possible things that are going to be in the strategic plan. Speaker 2: Point of clarification real quick. It was not just student achievement, it was an operational outcomes too, or what? Speaker 1: So you wanted, or Speaker 2: Operational? No, it said, and like, so that the goals would include clear, measurable student achievement and operational outcomes. So it covers a mix of whether it's student achievement
or operationally focused Speaker 1: Trustee Lauzen. Speaker 13: So maybe it's a and or so is type change. Speaker 2: I, I, if, if that would please the board that pleases me. Speaker 1: It are, are you offering an amendment to the amendment? Speaker 2: I, I think Trustee Loon just did. How about you could say I, I move to amend the amendment. You have vote on the, Speaker 11: Yeah, you have to vote in the, Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we have to vote on the, Speaker 2: No, she can amend my amendment and then we can vote on that and then we would vote on my amendment. So if she votes to amend the amendment to change and to and slash or I'll second your motion.
Speaker 14: Can I see what she said? Speaker 1: Okay. So, so Trustee Loon is, has a motion on the floor to amend the amendment to, to say and or say and or instead of a, and that has been seconded by Trustee Kui. Can we go ahead and take a vote on that? All in favor of the amendment? To the amendment. Say aye. Speaker 13: Aye. Aye. Speaker 1: Anybody opposed? Okay, so we've got the amended motion on the floor, which is, oh, okay. So that was a 6 1 0, sorry,
Speaker 15: Six one. Speaker 1: So no, 5 1 1. Speaker 14: Oh, Speaker 1: No, I thought somebody was a no. Speaker 14: Six one. I thought it was six one. Speaker 1: Okay, sorry about that. And we're back. So the motion to amend the amendment amend president with the, is there a point of order? Speaker 2: No, I had a Speaker 1: Question. Sure. Speaker 2: I was just curious to ask Mr. Russo what his thoughts were with an or in there. I know we have talked over the last several years about
making, you know, trying to make them more measurable, more specific to student achievement, but as we know, there are certain things that don't apply to that, which is why the O'S in there. So I guess I'm just curious your thoughts on this. Speaker 11: I guess it would depend on how we word each of the deliverables, right? Because some of them will be related to implementation of a new literacy program. And what would that look like in terms of an outcome? These are things in my, in my thoughts right now, it's not necessarily, 'cause it, this is fairly new information related to student achievement. It's kind of easy, right?
We have outcomes, percentages of students will be proficient or percentages of what, what, what is the student growth and what is your, your, your aim there or your target in terms of scratch cooking, things like that, that we did this year. Examples that are organizational, what we're gonna do with tuition based programming, things like that. It might be more, more of a challenge to, to hone in on what the outcome will be based on things that are organizational by nature. Speaker 1: Wouldn't that fit into that operational piece? Speaker 11: It would, yeah. I just, I'm thinking about when I guess the, the words trustee the Cooley used was less
concerned about the percentages. So I, I'm, I'm just trying to wrap my head around what Speaker 2: Oh no, I i I just mean that what I'm, what I'm trying to avoid is, I remember when, when the goals came to us last time, the 19 year two goals that we had, there was concern about goals not being necessarily measurable or clear. Being more like check the box items. And I don't want, I I I just wanna set clear expectations upfront so that instead of just saying we want these goals by May 15th, we give the administration some direction on
what the board is actually looking for personally. You know, I'm not speaking for on behalf of the board, but on behalf of myself, I'd rather have fewer goals that are truly measurable than 19. Check the box type of items that are more like task completion. Speaker 1: Trustee Blake, Speaker 11: I understand the concern. I, I still think not only do you have the clear measurable student achievement and or operational outcomes, you're also asking the defined metrics. You're asking for the evidence. This is only the time in which we're setting the goals and then there's the process why,
which you set the artifacts and all of the other things. And so I guess for me, I'm probably gonna vote no on this, not because I think these are bad things. I think these are good things, but putting too much right at the beginning before you've even rolled anything out, I just think makes it harder for them. But I think we will keep all these things in mind as we go through. Well, I, Speaker 2: Madam president, may I ask him a question? Speaker 1: Just a moment. I'm gonna go to Mr. Ruso first. Speaker 11: Yeah, and it's the, the, it's important for the board to understand too, and, and community, right? To understand kind of where we are as a district.
We have strategic plan goals that are, that, that are written this year we have 19 plans. Last year we had 23 plans. So each one of those is a goal. We have principals who have goals, we have teachers who have goals. We have my KIPP as part of the state of Michigan. We have, we have a lot of things at, at some point we have to hone in and focus in on where we want to be good because otherwise we won't be good. We'll just be doing things like this and we won't be doing things with fidelity. So the purpose of some of this was to align from K 12
to me, excuse me, pre-K to 26. To me. And that's where this is coming from. And that, and again, I'm, I'm, I'm open to all revisions, et cetera. I just wanna be really clear that, that that's where we're living right now. We're trying tofu funnel into where do we wanna be good and how are we gonna get there? Let me back that up. Where do we wanna be? Excellent. And how are we gonna get there? And, and I I I will say, I think this leads into a great conversation for our retreat on Saturday because we're talking about strategic planning and what the roles and responsibilities
of board members are, what the roles and responsibilities for me, et cetera. So I, I think it leads into a greater grander conversation that that is about time we've had. Now that I've been here for a year and a half and change. Speaker 2: Madam President, trustee Leco. My question was for Trustee Blake, because you said you were gonna vote no because you think there's too much crammed in here. I guess I'm just wondering which part you think is not doable. It's just clear, measurable outcomes with defined metrics and evidence for board evaluation. I, I honestly, and maybe it's me, but I thought that's what a smart goal is supposed to be. So which part do you take issue with?
The defined metrics It's, or evidence? I don't know. Speaker 11: I think it's the culmination. It's, it's all of this. There's a lot that goes into this process already setting the goals and there are all of the, what are the, the deliverables? I can't remember. There are five or six things that go under each goal. And it's a, it's a very long process. Last year it took a very long time for all to do it. And now adding these additional things on the front end, I think to me is too much. But you know, you, you can feel different. People can vote how they look. Speaker 2: I just don't know what additional things you're Speaker 11: Talking about. I think it's a lot. 'cause you're, you're gonna wanna know
on each one of these things, you know, how exactly, how do you measure the operational Exactly how do you define the metric? And, and that is stuff that I don't think everybody's gonna know the day that they're setting up these goals. If we go by what we happened last year, what happened before these things evolved over time and the day that they set the goals, they didn't have all that information. Speaker 2: Trustee Beel, I have, I guess I, I, I like the new wording, but I have concerns about it tying the hands of the administration with some of the pieces. On the other hand, I do wanna set clear expectations
that I think the board is very much looking for when the strategic plan comes out. You know, smart goals where we can, that are tied to, as Trustee lacoe said, the end result where we're looking for how is this going to impact our students? And so I guess I don't wanna tie your hands for all of it, but at the same time, I, I want be clear that I am very much looking for those specifics. So I'm hopeful that when we get the strategic plan before the 15th, that many of those will have very specific
outcomes tied to them. That that's what we're working towards. Speaker 11: Thank you madam President. I, I think also we're, you know, it's, there's, we have to remember there's processes involved, right? The point of this was to get it to you. That doesn't mean that I give it to you. Just like these goals, we've had a month of discussion we've had back and forth on email, et cetera. I'm not gonna hand 'em to you and say, please stamp this. That's not how this board operates. It's not how I operate, quite frankly. And so I I I, I I see there's the kind of a disconnect that if it's given by May 15th, you think I have
to adopt these and move on and we're gonna, this is what we're gonna do. If it pleases the board, it might be a good idea to have these by May 15th. Maybe have them functional and working through our steering, our strategic plan steering committee and or our superintendent steering committee to see where we might wanna make changes. Where three or four of these, yeah, we might want to add, you know, I'm giving you arbitrary examples. We might wanna make this. I don't think this is a, this is not outcome driven enough. I, I wanted to have a, a different metric here and that conversation, I'm always open to have half. Speaker 1: Okay, so currently
what we would be voting on first here is still the amendment. And so let's go ahead and take a vote. That is the amendment to point of order. Change the order. Men and president, could you please read the, reread the amendment. Thank you. Yep. I'm going there. So, so the amendment is to the original motion, which was to approve original motion was to approve the goals as included in the packet. The amendment was to change Goal number three from, to provide the board of education, a culminating list
of year three goals to be built into year three of the strategic plan by May 15th, 2026, to, to provide the board of education, a culminating list of year three goals that include clear, measurable student achievement and or operational outcomes with defined metrics and evidence for board evaluation by May 15th, 2026. Everybody got that? Clear on that? All right, so let's go ahead and take a vote on that amendment. All in favor say aye. Speaker 2: Aye. Aye. A
Speaker 1: All opposed? No, no. So that is a two five vote and it does not, the amendment does not pass. So we'll move on to voting on the original motion included in the packet, the goals included in the packet. All in favor? State madam President. Aye Madam president, sorry, we're in the middle of a vote. So Speaker 2: To wait. No, I, one more before we end discussion, I'm gonna, this is gonna be very quick. I'm not gonna put a lot of discussion into it, but for goal two, i I was gonna make a motion to amend that trustee, Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but according to Robert's rules,
once the voting starts, you don't go back to make her Speaker 2: Motion. She No, no, no, you can't. We, we. Speaker 1: No, no you don't. I just read that today so I can send you my source later if you'd like. But give a Speaker 2: Moment Speaker 1: Right now we're in the middle of a vote. So the vote is for the motion point of order that I've already trustee le I I'm not gonna, the point of order is not well taken where I would ask members to refrain from discussion during voting. And so, all in favor of the original motion, please say, aye. Aye. Speaker 2: Point of order. Speaker 1: All opposed, please say no Speaker 2: Madam President, you're supposed to accept point
Speaker 1: Of i I do not have to accept a point of order during voting. I've already acknowledged it. So that is, is that a five two vote? I didn't hear your vote Trustee Ku. Speaker 2: I said point of order because, Speaker 1: And we're voting Speaker 2: If a member wants to you during discussion, you can't rush to, you Speaker 1: Are out of order. You've called a point of order. I've heard your point of order. I've as the chair, I ruled on the point of order and now we're moving on. I'll Speaker 2: Follow up afterwards. Speaker 1: So are you a what, what is your vote on this motion? Speaker 2: I abstain. Speaker 1: Okay, so this is a 5 1 1 and the motion passes.
Okay, moving on to 6.2, which is the strategic plan update. Mr. Russo? Speaker 11: Yes. Thank you. Vianna President. So as part of, just to step back for a couple feet here for the community, we will be giving monthly strategic plan updates very specific to specific plans. One of the, well, sometimes three and four of the 19 we have for this year. We, I have presented a cadence to that for that, that has been vetted through our sup, our strategic plan steering committee and presented to the board While that cadence is subject
to change based on many things that could happen, like legislative changes at the, at the state level, which impacts our progress or impedes our progress or makes it move, move faster, we, we do have a cadence set up from now until the end of the year. And as part of that we, I'm here to present four plans to actually, that that's, lemme back up. We're here to present one plan today and give you an update on three others verbally. So before I do my three updates on the three other plans, I'll turn it over to Mr. McDaniel to update us on his plan. Plan 15.
Speaker 6: Thank you Mr. Ruso. So strategic plan 15, just to remind the board and our community, it was to conduct an audit of tuition based programs to include recommendations for increased profit margins and community needs. The incentive was financial support for district operations. Deliverable was provide recommendations regarding tuition based programs. And the success criteria was by June 30th, 2026, had programming designed that will not need to be subsidized by journal fund. We looked at three different tuition based programs, enrichment, school aged care, and preschool. All three are, are uniquely different. So in trying to summarize what happened
during this strategic plan, the actual results, I wanna talk a little bit about the, the nuances and differences. So enrichment is, is unlike preschool and school aged care, you can make some comparisons to preschool and, and school aged care because you know, they all have staff that's tuition based, depends on what sessions parents and students participate in the enrichment programs. There's three different brochures throughout the course of a year. Various classes, various, many different programs. So what we did
with enrichment was we reviewed historical enrollment and contracts for each of the offerings. The recommendations that we came up with after that review was to increase tuition, but that varied by program, right? We have swim programs, you know, we may have yoga, pottery, different things. So it wasn't consistent across the board as to what increased tuition we might need. We didn't increase all of them. For example, some of them we renegotiated our vendor contracts to get a better share of the pie for the district. Some of that was driven by, you know, a additional cost that the district had to bear, whether that was supplies,
staffing, the workload that came with questions with enrollments, things like that into the enrichment programs. And then the one thing that we continued was depending on sort of that financial measurement along with the popularity of the class, that if it didn't make financial sense, we would cancel classes that had low enrollment. Preschool and school aged care, they're a little bit more similar. They follow the school calendar. School aged care is of course, before and after care preschool is during the day. The difference between school aged care
and preschool is that we have A-G-S-R-P program and that is free to students. So that GSRP program will likely continue to pull kids from our tuition based pre-K program. So we had to make some changes to the, the pre-K, but essentially follow the same kind of practice, right? We looked at historical enrollment as well as staffing tuition rates, things like that. And in talking to the two people that oversee those programs decided to increase tuition rates. One other piece that that played a, a factor in determining these tuition rates was minimum wage.
So minimum wage goes up to $15 an hour next year. There is one position in pre-K. So that was a minimal impact. I think there was three or four different steps that were impacted at the school aged care level. In general, our pre-K teachers are paid much higher than minimum wage, but there are some lower level positions as far as education degree experience that are paid at lower rates. So sort of the results, you know, being that enrichment is unique. There's the different brochures linked there. All of those implementations will occur by the summer.
We started this work in the fall and started making updates kind of as we went the preschool program. There was some changes here so that you'll see an increase for two day, three hour programming, $2,130 up, $80 from 25, 26. You'll see that there was a three day, three hour program. This is a new addition based on feedback from families in need. So there was no rate for that last year, $3,200 for that three day Monday, Wednesday, Friday program.
And then we eliminated that three day five hour program that used to be $4,980. The four day programming at the three hours a day continued up $160 from $4,100 to $4,260. And then some differences with our school age care plan. You can see that rates went up $2 for the first child if they participated in before and after school care. And then the additional child was up $1 again if they participated in, in both the before and
after school portion of those, you know, with each of these brochures, some of this is already implemented in enrichment. pre-K, I think that information is going out soon if it hasn't already. Registration's beginning school aged care, there was a push or a need to get this implemented as well. I'm not sure exactly when this information will go out to the public for registration, but the, the wage scale does take effect for summer programs, which typically start in June. So Mr. Cardman certainly wanted to get those postings out,
excuse me, those postings out and start filling those positions. So there, there was a need to settle on those wage rates. That is my report on strategic plan 15. What questions does the board have on this Trustee Blake? Speaker 11: This is a little off topic, but the, the program that I'm most familiar with, obviously sac, I use SAC every day and we know district-wide that we have shortages, we've had that for a while. It's really hard to get your kid into sac and if you're not on that computer, the minute that it opens and even then you're not guaranteed.
And in addition to being difficult to get your kid in, it's actually really cheap. It's up to fif, it's $15 a day for the afternoon SAC up to three hours. I mean that. And before I was able to get into SAC and I was using a private service, it was $45 for that same period of time that I was paying. So I can't help but wonder is there you, you don't wanna price people out, but is, if you were to increase the price somewhat, would you be able to afford to hire more people and more people could get in it because it's a problem? Speaker 6: Yeah, I, I can't necessarily answer that question,
but you know, Mr. Cardiman did share that we have about 750 students and or about 600 families currently enrolled. That's up from 550 students in September. There is a wait list, 163 students on that wait list. They do give priority to students and families that need full-time care. So he reported that there's only nine of those 1 63 on that waiting list. Were registered for full-time care. Speaker 5: Can I, can I add to that? Sure. In speaking with Mr. Cardman as well, he talked a bit about how bon, there were bonus structures during the pandemic
and they had essentially very little impact on staffing levels. He attributes it more to the, the lack of available staff rather than a couple more dollars in pay. Also, he notes that this is both good and bad. A lot of times a position in school aged care in our district is a bit of a gateway to a para a position or a position that has benefits or maybe even higher pay. So while of course if you pay a CA certain amount, you're gonna attract more people. I don't think it's that simple in his case either.
It's just, it's a nationwide shortage of childcare workers since the pandemic. And we're seeing that in the school aged care probably even more so because of the part-time nature, the hours that are pretty specialized and so on. So, Speaker 13: Thank you Trustee Anne, I just wanna add a comment to Jason's for the sac. I had a parent tell me that one of their children got in and the other did not. So that doesn't work for family. So is there a way to kind of like fix it so if they have multiple children, they'll have to log back in and try to get the other child in? I've heard that's a problem. In regards
to the preschool though, is that over a nine month span or a 10 month span? Do you know what the, is, does preschool go as far as tuition? Like what is the Yeah, the tuition Speaker 6: There, there's 10 Speaker 13: Payments. 10 payments, okay. That's actually a really good price compared to local private preschools. I was paying 550 a month and that was on a nine month scale. So that's a good price. I think we could have a little stretch on that if you needed to do that as well to make up some sub cost is cost issues there, but if we could look at the sac, that would be awesome. Trustee
Speaker 1: Osba, Speaker 3: I have two questions. First of all, these employees and wages we're talking about, these are direct hires, correct? Speaker 6: Yes. Okay. Speaker 3: And then my other question is, you know, we've heard our governor talk about free pre-K for all. How would that impact this whole plan? Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean I, I think there are currently, and actually let me back up and make, I, I took your, your first question as specifically regards to school age care and pre-K, we do have some enrichment staff that are contracted, you know, some vendors that are contracted as well.
Yes. To answer your question about GSRP and, and free pre-K for all, I think there's currently 11 sections in the budget or in the planning for next year with hope to continue to grow that. So I'm not sure exactly what stage we were in, if we've been able to request two or three additional sections or more of GSRP. Mrs Hemp isn't here to answer that question, but I know that was definitely being, oh, Mr. Russo, Speaker 11: I could talk to that a a bit. I had a conversation with Ms. Hempton and I'm,
I'm not sure exactly if this answer your question directly, but the, the GSRP some, some folks still want a different schedule, a half day schedule, et cetera, than what, what the free for all offers. So that's why we're keeping the tuition based program if that's, I I think I'm trying to get to where, yeah, that's, that's Speaker 3: Good information. Thank you. As a follow up to that, the GSRP, are we doing the four day or the five day Speaker 11: That I can't answer with a hundred percent certainty, so I'll have to get back with you. It's four day, we have four day options with a five day for staff is what I believe.
But you can, I'll have Ms. Hemp respond to you. Speaker 3: I just, I just know that there was, they've been piloting five day programs and there is an opportunity for five days. So I was just wondering which one of those we're doing. Thank you. Speaker 6: Yeah, and just to, to add to that, going back to tuition based, I think the majority of the offerings planned for next year, our 3-year-old pre-K tuition base, you know, certainly the 4-year-old in the GSRP has, has tooken some of that market away for us Speaker 1: Trustee ku. Speaker 2: Okay. My question was, since the success criteria is that these programs no longer require subsidizing from the
general fund, my question is how much do we subsidize now and will this plan cover that deficit? Speaker 6: Yeah, so historically school aged care and pre-K have not been subsidized by the general fund. There were some years directly after CO where there was some grants that we've allowed them to sort of go into the red for operations to offer those bonuses that Mr. Murphy mentioned earlier. Speaker 3: Wasn't that Speaker 2: The success criteria for this plan is that these programs won't require subsidizing from the general fund? Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 2: Okay.
So are are you saying that we're not, we don't subsidize these programs with the general fund Right now? Speaker 6: I would say in some years we have, historically these two programs have not, enrichment has been an area where we've had some, some subsidies from the general fund. Speaker 2: Okay. So how much do we subsidize now and then will this plan cover that deficit? Speaker 6: I mean the hope is I can pull the, the enrichment numbers. I right now, hang on one second, sorry. We need the, the Jeopardy music playing. Yeah, let me pull that right now. Speaker 8: I, Speaker 6: So last year it looks like our enrichment programs brought in $676,000 and we paid out 732,000 in expenses.
So that's what, 24,000 in 32? So about $56,000. I think the year before that it was less. Speaker 1: So Matt, is it, Speaker 2: Okay, so this plan, how does that address that Will, will it cover that deficit then? So that we will break even? Speaker 6: Yeah, so in 2324 we, we added $7,000. Roughly it was seven 10 in expenditures and Speaker 8: 7 24, 7 24 Speaker 6: In revenue. But that's not adding up. Why is that not adding
Speaker 1: Up? So Matt? Yes. And maybe Mr. Russo, when we, when the artifacts are produced for this plan later down the line for completion, will you provide those kind of numbers and some kind of report that shows improvement from where we had been subsidizing more for the general fund to less or eliminating if possible Speaker 6: Yeah, Speaker 1: In that, thank Speaker 6: You. Yeah, we can show, you know, af after the audit end of year results and how that varies once these prices are
implemented in 26, 27. Speaker 1: Thank you Trustee Blake? Speaker 11: I, I guess maybe I missed it, but I just wanna be clear on her question. I, is this now meaning that we're not gonna subsidize these programs any longer? Speaker 6: I mean that's the hope, right? School aged care and pre-K typically aren't, you know, it all depends on enrollment. So, you know, we had an, just like I mentioned, enrichment added, did not need a subsidy in 23, 24 based on, you know, popularity of certain programs. They did need a subsidy last year. So with these tuition based programs, it, it sort of depends on who participates, who doesn't.
Looking at enrichment, there are some other decisions that we've we're talking about or considering. For example, you guys get that paper brochure, right? That's probably about a $40,000 cost for those three brochures each year to send out paper with postage and printing fees and things like that. You know, could we achieve the same level of enrollment by moving that to a, a digital format instead or a, a postcard or, or some other way to get the information out. That's something that we're looking at and considering, but you know, that would, would take $40,000 in costs off
the top if you go fully digital. Is that the best decision? We're not sure yet. Speaker 11: I can, but is there another paper here where you, you said we anticipate these many students at this price comes to this with these amount of expenses and that equals each other out is Speaker 6: Yes. Yes. Speaker 2: Trustee Patel, and this may have been one of my questions may have been what you just answered 'cause I wasn't a hundred percent sure, but if next year we had the exact same number of people participating in the same activities, then it would be a break even and we wouldn't be subsidizing. Is that correct? Speaker 6: Correct. Speaker 2: Okay.
And then, I don't know if I missed it at the beginning when you were talking about how you determined how much to raise the sac and the preschool, did we look outside at other programs to see, or was that strictly like looking at what we think the hourly rate is going to increase and what we need to do to stay up with that? Speaker 6: Yeah, it was, it was a mix of both. You know, I personally didn't do any of that information, but Mr. Cardiman on, on the school aged care side, for example, had different data points that he shared with us.
The same for, for pre-K I think for us it was maybe more driven by what we needed to do to cover the cost of our program rather than, you know, leveling the market and raising it to make more money. Enrichment, I would say is, is a little bit different story just because of the numbers that I shared earlier. Right? There's, there was much more of a push to make sure that that program becomes break even and unsubsidized by the, the general fund sort of in perpetuity, right?
To try to guarantee that. So with that program, it used to be designed more to, or there was an option to, to support more of your athletic teams here. So for example, if I was the coach at let's say a coach basketball at Sny Creek High School and I wanted to run a a off season basketball enrichment program, then our split was more favored to the coach because if I said as the coach, I'm gonna put this back in our, my program, then we, we gave them more money.
So we were sort of, that's one of the reasons why enrichment has been subsidized in the past because it was more designed to not break even, but to support our programs. So if it was just Matt McDaniel, I wanna run a a basketball camp and it's just for me to, to make money, then that split was I think 50 50 or a little bit lower. If it was me supporting my, my team at Soy Creek, then I think it was a 70 30 split in my favor. Speaker 7: So Madam President, trustee Enni. So Matt, you brought up the issue of cost in terms
of printing the brochure, which leads me to wonder, have you ever tracked what the return is in terms of families that receive it, who actually sign up for any of the programming? That's the first question. And then in terms of the area where it it is distributed, does it just remain within the boundaries of our school district or does it go throughout all of Rochester Hills, which also ecap it encapsulates another school district, which would be Avondale? Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm honestly not a hundred percent sure on the first
question, I would say I can refer to Sarah Malitz, our enrichment supervisor to see if she tracks it or not. As far as the mailings of the brochure, I think I'd have to follow up with her to be sure as well. I think it's just district, but I would have to confirm that Speaker 7: Because I, I would think that you, it would be smart if we included all of the area of Rochester Hills, which would encapsulate a different school district, but I, I don't, I don't know if that that's kosher. Speaker 11: I was gonna say, if and when you do wide mailers like that, you have to go by zip code.
And so sometimes that incorporates, maybe I'll make something up 50 homes that are not in your, in your district. But I don't think we're making an intentional effort to send it to like Avondale students, if that's the question. Speaker 7: I just want to put it on public record. They certainly make an effort to try and pull away our public school district students into their GATE program. So, you know, we should be able to advertise for our programs as well. Speaker 6: And I would add that, you know, there's been a understanding with rah rah, the Rochester Avon Recreation Authority as to
what enrichment's role was versus rah RA's role. And I think the lines are becoming a little bit more blurred. So we may compete in different avenues with rah rah directly more than we have in the past. You know, rah Rahs certainly geared more towards recreation, you know, we've partnered in the past, but I think trying to meet the community's needs overall, we'll probably tiptoe into their, what they would perceive as their lane a little bit more as they're tiptoeing into our lane is we perceive it. So, you know, that'll be, you know, a factor as well, whether or not these enrichment programs and break even points and things like that are successful.
Speaker 1: Thanks, trustee. Oh, sorry, trustee s I'm sorry. Trustee Sspa. Speaker 3: Well, correct me if I'm wrong. The purpose of enrichment is for after school for our students. We're not kind of marketing, it's, we're not trying to bring in people from other places. This is for our students to have things to do after school in their own buildings, right? Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 3: Yep. And I know as you know, the liaison to, from this board to the RAH board, I, I know we have that crossing the streams and that type of thing. So we wanna make sure that, it sounds like the enrichment has creeped a little bit towards more afterschool activities for elementaries
and not so much from the high school basketball running a clinic. So, but this, the purpose of this is for our students after school not leaving the building Speaker 6: That yeah, that's been the intent. I mean, that could change if this board says, Hey, we, we want to serve as many students as we can and we we're gonna make money on it or, you know, but yeah, historically it has been to, to serve our students. Speaker 1: Trustee Butell, Speaker 2: I just had a follow up question on this. At this point, is Strategic Plan 15 completed or what work is still left to be done?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, I, I would say it, it's basically completed, you know, I guess you could say until the, those numbers are printed and shared with the public that there could still be some adjustments. I don't see that happening. I think unless there was a major change to say minimum wage in the state or something like that, that for all intents and purposes, strategic plan 15 is finished. Speaker 1: Thank you. So I think, oh, trust Anne, thanks. Speaker 13: In regards again to the mailer for the enrichment, I really think that sending out a postcard with a QR code you could track
and if you can save that amount of money, I mean, I look through them, but I wouldn't mind looking through them off my iPad or my phone. It'd be just the same because you kind of wanna look at it, you can dive into it a little bit more with links and stuff. And Julie, to your point, I believe there's also some weekend, it's not just after school, so there's weekends and there's, there's other activities and it's all ages. There's, it's not just elementary. Yeah, you're welcome. Speaker 1: All right, Speaker 2: Just one last question, just because Trustee Loza had just said, you know,
she would be thrilled with a QR code. I don't know if there's a way to utilize a survey to try and identify what people are interested in. I just know personally I'd much rather get the hard copy. I understand there's a cost to it, but that's my preference and I would probably register for more items if I could see 'em right at the time. Yeah. Versus having to follow a QR code to go see what's there. Yeah. So I just wanted to share that opinion as well. Speaker 6: No, I appreciate that. That was one of the, the considerations or one of the options that we discussed is continuing to print the next edition of the brochure, but also maybe put on the front,
this is the last brochure, unless you opt in to receive a hard copy or something like that. So we're discussing, you know, what could happen. I think there's no more questions, so I just wanna say thank you to the board for their interests in Strategic plan 15, as well as our enrichment programs, our pre-K programs in our school aged care program. So thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. McDaniel. Trustee Lacoy, just a really quick follow up. Would we be able to just follow up with, for the programs, what are our enrollments now? What are the enrollments that we're planning on in order to
remove subsidizing it? What do we subsidize now and what does this plan accomplish? Just just those very basic things, maybe in our superintendent cabinet notes. Speaker 11: I think that would be a great, that would be great to, when you say enrollments, right? If you're talking about enrichment, the, one of the reasons that I think, tell me if I'm wrong, please. That we have, we looked at what the tuition rates would be and what we're paying in wages and or, and what we're charging if it's vendors, is that there's break even points based on enrollment there. So there's not, like if we compared, help me out, Matt,
I'm gonna use an arbitrary example. You probably have a real example of if you have an enrichment class that has 30 kids and we're, we're break even right now, if we had 35 kids in that same class next year at these new rates or 25 kids, it's gonna look different, right? Right. Speaker 6: Yeah, it's easier with school aged care in pre-K, but when it comes to the, the various amount of different offerings and different types, right? I think Trustee Lanne mentioned our, our, some of our weekend programs, right? Our swim programs are different than the afterschool programs that are different than, you know, the, the adult yoga programs or basket weaving or painting
or some of those other ones. So could we get you maybe a total number easily? We could, but there's some nuance there because, you know, depending on, if that's a three day program, a one day program, just a drop in session, that could be, you know, anywhere from, you know, $10 a person to, you know, 50 or a hundred or, or whatever it might be. Speaker 11: If you're more interested in pre-K and sac, I think that's something a little more in a lane that we can, you can compare numbers to, you know, year to year. But to, to Matt's point earlier, we,
we took from the general fund one year and we added the year before. So it depends on enrollment, not just K 12 enrollment or pre-K to 26 enrollment, but enrollment in programs, right. Speaker 1: Trustee, Speaker 3: I just wanna bring us back to the strategic plan. Where is this pulling money outta the general fund or not? Although that does sound like interesting data. You know, it sounds like it'd be something we'd have to pull together. I think we need to structure a better question for why we're asking for the data and what we need to look at. So I appreciate your report on strategic plan and I wanted to just get us back on track to that.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. So Mr. Ruso, were there other strategic plan updates that you needed to share? Thank you. Speaker 11: So, Excuse me, sorry. As part of the board packet, we have strategic plan updates, and this is going to be a verbal to the, a verbal update on three of our plans for our, for our board members and for our community. Strategic plan four was to explore the feasibility of alternative scheduling. It's a pretty wide net when we talk about alternative scheduling. So as I read this, you'll see what you've, what the committee and the leads have honed in on.
The process began in October with a targeted outreach initiative designed to gauge personnel interests in the plans, pillars, foundational pillars. This initial phase utilized digital feedback model to align staff expertise with specific areas of focus, including the optimization of academic start and end times, the exploration of creative alternative scheduling models, the enhancement of special and elective offerings, and a thorough analysis of the long-term feasibility of hybrid scheduling structures. By identifying these areas of interest early,
each subcommittee member, each subcommittee members could be personally invested in the success of their respective mandates following the formation of these specialized teams. A meeting was held in early December to establish a clear framework for the upcoming committee work subcommittee work. During the session, subgroup leaders and their teams received detailed instructions regarding their research objectives and collaborative expectations required for this phase of the plan. Each subcommittee was charged with conducting independent work sessions prior to the January 16 timeline. A step designed to ensure that preliminary findings
and data-driven insights are prepared for the broader collaborative meeting scheduled for January 22nd. At present, these subgroups are actively engaged in the primary research phase, which involves synthesizing existing data and coordinating fact finding visits to neighboring school districts to observe diverse instructional models. In practice, the teams are currently drafting community survey questions if needed, to ensure that any ideas for change are informed by broader stakeholder feedback and local needs. The committee looks forward to the insights that will emerge from the upcoming assembly and assembly of the team on January 22nd. As a transition from the data collection phase into the
active brainstorming of in initiative options, innovative options for the district strategic plan seven, develop breakfast lunch menus that include made from scratch options. Plan seven was successfully implemented before the due date of October 31st, 2025. This plan required additional staff to implement this. This plan required additional staff to implement made from scratch and low sugar options. Chartwells began hiring these positions in the spring of 2025. These positions have been filled. Menus have reflected these new options for the start of the school year.
The district's food service team continues to pursue opportunities to expand options for RCS students and Strategic Plan 17 standardized communication tools using Parent Square. The success criteria indicates that by December 31st, 2025, 100% of designated content creators will have access to additional parent square features. This goal was met ahead of schedule and the project is now considered to be complete. Since initiating the Parent Square tool in 2025, the technology and communication teams have explored the advanced features of parents Square insured users have permissions provided specialized training for school admin,
staff and leaders. Activated student square at the secondary level informed the community and used all available resources to invite residents to sign up to receive updates. The district will continue to monitor activity and provide additional support as needed. The RCS website has has a dedicated page to educate the community about parents wear step-by-step guides, RCS video tutorials and responses to frequently asked questions have been tailored to support students, families, educators, site administrators, and extracurricular activities. Speaker 1: Any questions from anybody? Trustee Lacoy? Speaker 2: I guess I'm wondering, did, did we get
notified in our packet, which other strategic plans we were going to be notified on? The four seven? Speaker 1: There's a a, a schedule there that was provided in a previous packet, but I don't remember exactly which one right now. Okay. Speaker 11: It was not, I I could be mistaken. I thought it was included in the superintendent cabinet notes from January. I have to go back two weeks. January 16th. Was that a Friday? Speaker 2: I guess I'm, I'm wondering in, in the future if we're gonna do something like this where we have a verbal readout about the plans,
if we could have, like with Plan 15, we had something so we could look at something visually and get acquaint with it. So Speaker 1: Let me explain that a little bit for you because this, I think this is a little bit nuanced that it, it won't be like exactly like this moving forward. This was a little bit of a catching up of things to get aligned to the new system for reporting that was explained in the cabinet notes that we all received. So the steering strategic planning steering committee discussed that, how plans would be reported out
and identified that there are certain plans that are sort of call them more transformational or more big ticket items that require a lot more kind of delving into the work, more people involved, things like that. And then there are plans that don't require as much, right? So do they all warrant the same level of board meeting presentation with slides and, and that sort of thing? That's why we, this was explained in cabinet notes, but I'm just review, revise it, reviewing it. So we are getting the one pager updates
for every plan that has something new that's happened to it since the last time in our, the one one Speaker 2: Pager update is exactly what I mean. Speaker 1: Okay. Lemme finish and then I'll, I'll cut, I'll give you a chance so please don't interrupt. So we're gonna get through the one, we, we're gonna have the one pagers in the cabinet notes as you've seen in the past. And then there's also a calendar schedule that shows for every plan in our strategic plan, all 19 of them when we're gonna get reports in what kind. And that was, that was informed by a discussion about, you know, what is their the most interested,
interested in on the board, what are those big ticket items versus, you know, scratch meals is something that we felt warranted a verbal report by the superintendent in a meeting versus a slide deck. Speaker 2: Madam president. Yes, I, I suppose what my question is is I, I agree with you. We don't need, you know, full presentations on everything. Would you be opposed to including those one pagers in our agenda packets when we discuss those? Because I know that the public is, they don't get to see our superintendent cabinet notes and they also might be interested just in a one page
overview of what's going on with the plans. Would, would that be a problem to just include it in the agenda packet Speaker 1: Or? I I don't think it would be a problem to include them because quite frankly they are already public from people who have FOIA them. Speaker 2: Well great. Yeah, if we could include those in the agenda packet, I think that would be great. Speaker 1: Trustee Beel? Speaker 2: Yes. And if you could, I, I had asked if you could please resend out that listing so we would know which plans, because as Mr. Russo was speaking, I was kind of scrambling trying to follow which plans we were gonna cover.
'cause I didn't have that for this meeting. And I did have a couple questions for plan four. And I'll be honest, because I was scrambling, I didn't necessarily catch all of it, so it may have been addressed. But on plan four, which I believe is the, the one that's talking about schedules and that type of thing, did you answer, are there parents or students that are serving on this committee? Speaker 11: I believe students, I dunno if they're serving on the committee. I believe students were surveyed and I believe that we gave, I gave an offer of names from the survey that we gave to parents that said,
yes, I wanted to join or help whatever the, whatever the question read, I can't remember. And I believe that Mr. Wrinkle in the leads reached out. But Mr. Ano do you have, thank you. Speaker 16: There are, there are parents currently on, and there are also other parents interested that they're joining. So there are parents involved currently. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, other questions? Trustee Blake? Speaker 11: I, again, I also like president or former president. I guess Butell, I think I missed some of what you said too. Number four when you went through it. I, I just wanna make sure I heard right that
the alternative scheduling, which I think is probably one of our biggest issues that we are interested in, that there's been a committee set up that there have been initial meetings that there have are ideas that are being researched and that people are going out to other districts to learn more. Is that, is that where we are with that? Yes. I would say the focus is block schedule. Let me, let me say all different types of scheduling right at the middle school level. Should there be different courses looking at block scheduling, looking at, instead of just me going
and winging that, I can just read it. But, but taking a look through, through other districts and that, and once we say yes, this is an interest what, and summarizing what, what was written from the committee is that they'd say if we need to go to the community after to say is this something you're interested in? But first we wanna do a cost analysis and see what it would cost us to implement something like that. But they're right in the midst of that work I was provided just last week, Mr. Ano a list of other districts that they visited or will visit to say, for example, lake Orion still has black scheduling.
There's different models across Oakland County that are still being utilized and, and outside the county as well. And they're not limiting it to just open county. And is the bell time part of this or is this part of that? Yep. Healthy start times part of this analysis as well. I think they called it something different. I think they called it change in start times and change in end times, but it's healthy start times is what we're looking at. Speaker 1: And I I just wanted to clarify one thing that some of what was reported on today was kind of a, a just a mini update on a, a topic that we know is gonna warrant further discussion maybe in a slide deck in the future as well.
That's why there were so many verbal readouts all at once is 'cause we're trying to get aligned with this schedule that was created by the committee. So something like that, the alternative scheduling work that will come back to the board in a much more comprehensive way and, and, and presentation as they're hitting bigger milestones in their plan along the way. That just isn't where they were at on it. But I, we felt like it was important to give some sort of update because of the amount of interest in that in the community and on the board. Anybody else have anything? Oh, okay.
So moving on to agenda item seven, which is new business. We have 7.1 proposed policy update, which is a first reading of 4,003. Mr. Murphy. Speaker 5: Thank you President Gupta. Following is an update to policy 4,003 conditions of employment. This new policy is being recommended by legal counsel Miller Johnson, due to an increase in employees working for more than one educational entity, also known as moonlighting. Although this recommendation does not stem from any specific concern or incident at Rochester Community Schools,
it is designed to prevent operational disruptions and provide clear recourse should the policy be violated. Read the policy. And again, as a reminder, this is the first reading this evening will be brought back to the board at the next meeting for a second reading and possible vote for adoption. So anti moonlighting policy 4,003 reads as follows, school district employees are prohibited from simultaneously working for another entity when, when that work conflicts with their employment for the school district. Whether a conflict exists is within the
discretion of the school district. A conflict includes but is not limited to an overlap of timing and responsibilities. Worsening job performance, abusing school district resources or a leave of absence concurrent with employment for another entity moonlighting that conflicts with employment for the school district may result in discipline up to and including termination. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Speaker 1: Trustee Beel, Speaker 2: Just the policy language just says entity, but in your lead in it talked about an increase in employees working
for more than one educational entity. But just to be clear, it is any entity, it doesn't have to be educational. Correct? Speaker 5: Yeah. The, the first paragraph is sort of the narrative description of the why. Yeah. And that comes right from, I think this one came out of the, the package of updates that Miller Johnson sent in December. So I included that exact language so the board could help understand the why. I think the concern that Miller Johnson sees, and again, to be clear, they are the provider of policy
advice to many school districts, right? So what happens a lot of times is they get questions from multiple, and when they start seeing those questions, they start recommending some language to address issues that they're seeing in multiple school districts. This is not an issue that's been a problem in Rochester schools. They're trying to be proactive to adopt something that would prevent potentially a future problem. But I think what the, the questions they're getting are more related to educational entities because of the proliferation of online Michigan Virtual,
just the number of opportunities, which are good things to be clear that our educators can and should do if they want to just not in conflict with their time while they're working during district hours. So yes, the policy itself would be any entity. The description of the why comes from the proliferation of educational entities, I think. And the additional questions about those Speaker 1: Trustee Blake? Speaker 11: So the language in this policy is written extremely pro district.
I mean, we basically decide within our full discretion whether something is considered moonlighting and what we want to do about it. I just wonder if the RAA or any of the other bargaining units have made known their feeling about this. Speaker 5: Yeah, the, like anything disciplinary in nature that could come about from a bargaining group, that bargaining group's collective bargaining agreement spells out some very clear steps that that group can take should they feel any policy is being abused by the district or that it's arbitrarily being enforced.
Right? So those rights are for each group spelled out in their collective bargaining agreements, among other opportunities that an individual employee could take through the state of Michigan, essentially, if they feel like their employer is taking a policy like this and abusing it or, or instituting it in some unfair way. To be very clear, we have many educators, we have many support staff, we have many administrators who work multiple jobs. That's a, that's a fact. And there's nothing wrong with that if that's
what they choose to do or what is best for their family. This was very limited to work that conflicts with their, their job in this school district. And again, thankfully never been an issue that I've had to deal with as a person in charge of human resources. But if someone was working during the school day as a district employee and doing a second job during that time, that's wholly inappropriate and I, the district should reserve the right to deal with that directly. Speaker 1: Trustee. Speaker 13: I am not sure if it is relevant. Well, it's relevant. But does it also fall in the category
with what if say the teacher is going to taking college classes online and doing studies that doesn't, does that fall in that policy as well? Or is it just a, another job? Speaker 5: This policy is specific to other employment Speaker 1: Trustee also spell, Speaker 3: I guess I had some questions about what scenarios would get, would be considered violation of this. And I appreciate you kind of delineating that a little bit more. I know as teachers we have a lot of side hustles to make up some extra money. So things like tutoring after school, outside of the building, you know,
summer jobs, all of that is not a violation of this policy. Would you agree? Speaker 5: Yeah, that's correct. Even doing, we do have teachers that are sort of, sort of work for, for online entities as well and do that work at night and the weekends. The job itself is not an issue, it's the timing at which you're doing the work, Speaker 3: Right? So if I'm on my prep and I'm grading my Mitchell, Michigan versus classes, if you're on your, on my prep in the building, that's Speaker 5: The issue. I think that's a gray area. If you're on your prep, you're still working for the district, right? And we're paying you for that hour. So you're supposed to be prepping for your classes. You're supposed to be meeting with any number
of people within the district. I think what's very clear is after work hours, summertime, evenings, and I think again, there's new positions out there, there's new opportunities for people. This HR department makes it a habit to have those conversations first before anything is punitive to understand fully the issue. I don't envision this being an issue going forward 'cause it, it's pretty clear that it's only work that conflicts directly with the timing and the job duties of, of your employment.
But again, this is a recommendation from our advisor and it's, it's the will of the board at the next meeting on whether or not you'd wanna adopt it or not. Speaker 3: No, I appreciate you clarifying and kind of drafting out the edges of where this would be a problem and where it wouldn't be for staff. Speaker 1: Anybody else? Well, I, I'll just share that I do have some concerns just about the fact that we haven't discussed is, is what I'm hearing with the bargaining units at all. And when I read an entity
for another entity when that work conflicts with their employment for the school district, it sounds really clear cut in some ways and reasonable, but in other ways it could be interpreted. It just depends on the interpretation. And so I think that's where a conversation around tightening, tightening up that language perhaps a little bit firmly and building some trust in the process with the bargaining units could be really beneficial. Speaker 5: All right. As a matter of procedure, this policy like all were brought through the SPCC first, ahead of the first reading here.
So if the, you know, the superintendent directed me to push this back to that committee for further discussion and clarification and a majority of the board or however this board decided to do that between the first reading and second reading this evening or at the second reading, then that's the process we could take as well. Again, this policy falls under your direction, so it's the will of the board on whether to accept, reject, or change what's being recommended. Speaker 1: Trustee Lei, Speaker 2: I'll just say that I think that this moonlighting policy
seems very standard to me. I have no concerns about it. Speaker 1: All right, well I'll, I, I do, I, I guess I'll make a motion to send it back to SPCC to discuss with the bargaining units and clarify the language. Is there a second? I'll second. I think I've already explained my rationale on this. Is there any other discussion on that? Trustee Loon? Speaker 13: I'm just gonna add that I'm gonna vote no for it just because it was an SPCC and you were on the committee so we could have made the changes then. Speaker 1: Yep, I was, but you know,
it was the first time I was looking at it and since then I've had a chance to digest it and think about it more. And this is where I'm at now, trustee al. Speaker 3: So if the p if the policies in violation, it would be a disciplinary issue and that di discipline is covered under all of our bargaining agreements. So would you say that that would address the concern of it? Speaker 5: I I don't wanna speak for anyone that might have a concern on what may or may not address their concern. It is just a fact that whenever a bargaining unit member has an issue with the way a policy
or disciplinary action is, is utilized, they do have a mechanism through their CBA to address that. But I, I don't wanna put words in anyone's mouth about whether that makes it acceptable or not. Speaker 3: So they can grieve discipline, but they can't actually grieve policy. Speaker 5: Correct. There's some interesting legal opinions out there about whether CBAs trump policy or policy trumps CBAs and it kind of depends who you ask a lot of time. When it gets to a, an arbitration type level, the CBA actually does take precedent quite often over policy.
So if there's a conflict, that's not an ideal thing. So to Trustee Gupta's point, if, if a policy such as this was directly addressed in CBAs and it lined up, that's the clearest way to have a policy like this. The, in the, the absence of language regarding this topic in CBAs then leads the policy to essentially being what dictates what the organization or in this case, the school district does. I don't know if that makes sense, but Speaker 3: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that like
what would result if you violate the policy would be a discipline and that would be then the CBAs have some method to address that discipline. Speaker 5: Yeah. In the broadest sense that's correct. It's very hard to think about what levels of hypotheticals could lead to what, but in general, an issue with this could lead to any number of outcomes up to and including a punitive disciplinary measure. And, and there are ways to address that through CBAs. Correct. Speaker 1: Trustee Patel, Speaker 2: I guess this is a question for Mr. Murphy. This is, is this, I guess is what I should say,
is this the standard language from Miller Johnson and have they had any issues with it across the other districts that have implemented it? Have they made changes to it? Do you know Speaker 5: This is the standard language verbatim? I have not heard of any other issues, but I haven't asked that question directly either. Speaker 1: Trustee Kui, Speaker 2: I guess I would ask you Madam President, are there, is there a particular scenario that you're worried about? Speaker 1: Not, not particularly, but I just know I've been, you know, around long enough to know that when you have language that says when that work
conflicts with their employment, that that can be interpreted lots of different ways. So who's to say that it's not determined that someone's part-time job down the road, even though the intention is not for this to be the case right now, but maybe Dave Murphy goes on to do something more fun and we, it's somebody else and they're imple, they're implementing this policy and enforcing it, and they determine that a part-time job after school does conflict somehow. I mean, these are the kinds of things that can, I mean,
we've seen things like that happen, so I don't think it hurts anybody to have a conversation and, and to come to some agreement on language that still protects the district in the same way, but also protects our, our staff and our employees in ways that let them know they're, they're not going to be, have their additional work outside of our district be misinterpreted as in violation to this policy. And, and this is a concern that's being felt that I'm hearing about, so I'm not making this up.
All right. With that, we'll go to a vote. All in favor of the mo Oh, sorry. We, I'm about to tell you. Okay. The, the motion on the floor is to kick the policy proposal back to SPCC for further review and revisions of language, including discussion with the bargaining units. It, I moved it, it was seconded by Trustee Anis. And all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Speaker 11: Is Speaker 1: That four? 1, 2, 3? No. Four and all opposed?
Speaker 11: No, Speaker 1: No, I'm comfortable with it. Okay. So that's a 4, 2, 1 and the motion passes. Okay. We, we'll skip agenda item eight because we don't have additional public comment and we are on additional comment from members of the administration. Mr. Russo? Speaker 11: Thank you madam President. Dr. Luca. Speaker 17: Thank you Mr. Russo. Let's talk about snow. No, I don't wanna steal you with thunder, Mr. Russo. I'm sure you're gonna talk about snow days here in your, in your report, but I just wanna give a shout out to our facilities team.
You know, Rochester Community Schools covers 66, you know, square, square miles and over like 400 or 540 acres. That's a huge, you know, organization to cover and remove snow and the operational integrity of our schools to have school the next day. Or even if Mr. Rooster does call school, our teams are out there while we were all sleeping. The team is out there removing snow and they're doing a great job. I just wanted to give a shout out to them, but they don't have the hardest job that Mr. Russo has with calling the day. So, but though we do appreciate the early warnings. Thank you Mr. Russo.
Speaker 11: I thank you Dr. Luca. Mr. Taniel. Speaker 6: Thank you Mr. Russo. I just want to share some news. The board is aware, I think our, our cabinet team is aware, but we received an updated credit rating from s and p Global. It was affirmed at our AA rating. And just wanna share a couple comments from their report. The AA rating, there's only two ratings that are better. It's AA plus or aaa. There's seven school districts in the state of Michigan that have AA rating or better. Nobody has aaa but s and p global rights.
The rating reflects our view of the district's healthy financial position after 10 consecutive years of balance to positive operating performance, their affluent tax base and manageable debt and liabilities profile. We believe the district's strong management with a culture of long-term planning ability to outperform its budget and additional liquidity from a 2019 voter approved sinking fund millage limiting future debt issuance, lend additional credit support as it enters a period of intentional drawdowns over the next few years. So great that the, the ratings stayed the same. We would've loved for it to, to increase.
We heard off the record that there was more pressure to increase it than there was to decrease it. So we're in good financial shape. Thank you. Speaker 11: Alrighty. Well, Dr. DeLuca, thank you very much for talking that, that I will talk snow days. I'm not going to, we're gonna leave that for phone calls that in text you receive. But I just wanna say that I did attend the, the Crosstown Showdown at Oakland University and I think one of our, our community members, Mr. Metier, spoke to that today and it was a phenomenal turnout. The atmosphere was great, the game was incredible. But the unified sports piece is something that we're really proud of and we're proud that it's growing.
I, I turned to a group of parents who are from Rochester High School and she, one of the moms said, this is, this is so fantastic. And I, I said, I go, this is the best money we spend in the district. It was a, it was a phenomenal night and it's an example of a lot of things that are happening in our district in terms of inclusion in action and just very proud of it. It was an incredible night. Thank you. Mad president. Speaker 1: Thank you. And now we're on to agenda item 10, which is announcements on January 31st. We will hold a board of education retreat at 9:00 AM right here at the RCS Early
Childhood Education Center on February 6th. There's no school district wide for a professional development day. And on February 9th there'll be our next Board of Education regular meeting at 6:00 PM right here and see with, unless there is opposition, I will adjourn. Seeing none, we are adjourned at eight 16.