Document 6574995

School Board Executive Summary Topic: Nutrition Services Contract Date: October 27, 2014 Prepared by: Bob Zagozda Recommended Action: Information Only Presentation/Discussion Discussion/Action by Board of Education Presentation/Action Next Meeting Recommendation(s): To approve the Nutrition Services Negotiated Agreement for FY 15 through FY16 (two-­‐year contract). Background: The Nutrition Services bargaining unit approved this agreement on Saturday, October 18, 2014. Main points of the agreement are: an increase of 2.5% for both years; it harmonizes the language for Personal Leave with the Teachers’ contract; and in FY16, it allows the District to look at insurance “similar to” available BCBS coverage with a deductible closest to $950. Attachment: Redline and Final versions of the Negotiated Agreement. School Board Executive Summary Topic: Building Services Contract Date: October 27, 2014 Prepared by: Bob Zagozda Recommended Action: Information Only Presentation/Discussion Discussion/Action by Board of Education Presentation/Action Next Meeting Recommendation(s): To approve the Building Services Negotiated Agreement for FY 15 through FY16 (two-­‐year contract). Background: The Building Services bargaining unit approved this agreement on Saturday, October 18, 2014. Main points of the agreement are: an increase of 2.75% for both years; it harmonizes the language for Personal Leave with the Teachers’ contract; and in FY16, it allows the District to look at insurance “similar to” available BCBS coverage with a deductible closest to $950. Attachment: Redline and Final versions of the Negotiated Agreement. School Board Executive Summary Topic: Learning Community Superintendent’s Report Date: October 27, 2014 Prepared by: Blane McCann Recommended Action: Information Only Presentation/Discussion Discussion/Action by Board of Education Presentation/Action Next Meeting Recommendation(s): None at this time Purpose: The purpose of this report is to inform the Board of Education of the Superintendent’s learning community report being prepared for the Nebraska Legislature’s Education Committee. Background: During the spring of 2014, Metro area Superintendents met with the NE Legislature Education Committee. At this meeting, the Superintendent’s offered to write a report reflecting on the Learning Community and its operation since its implementation in 2009. We spoke about how the Learning Community treats the 11 school districts in Sarpy and Douglas County differently than other school districts in the state of Nebraska. The Metro Superintendents are committed to collaborating together and reaching consensus around creating the best educational opportunities for all students in our region. We recognize the importance of meeting the needs of all children, but especially those residing in poverty. One of the main purposes of the Learning Community, according to Senator Ron Raikes, was: “What we are trying to do here is establish a regional tax base and common levy to direct more 1 funds for the education of high poverty students.” As a group of Superintendents, we continue to support the idea that students living in poverty are more expensive to educate and that a quality education is the gateway to escaping poverty. The document is our attempt to improve upon the initial legislation by outlining a set of findings gleaned from the data of the Learning Community and the 11 participating school districts. The document includes the history of the Learning Community. After an analysis of the data, the report includes a set of findings related to the implementation of the legislation. We identified ten areas of the Learning Community to analyze and study for this report. From this discussion, each area was described from an historical context, current implementation of the legislation and recommendations for the future of the Learning Community. The recommendations are currently being revised for the final time. I will share the final recommendations and ask the BOE to act on the recommendations at the November 3, 2014 BOE meeting. The identified areas are as follows: Learning Community Finances: The financial formula of the Learning Community benefits Westside Community Schools. Since the common levy was implemented, Westside Community Schools has received approximately $8.5 million dollars that we would not have received if aid were calculated as an individual district, including $2.5 million this year. The State of Nebraska also benefited by $13.5 million dollars since the common levy was implemented. These are funds that would have come to the metro area in state aid if funding were calculated by individual districts. As a group, we believe the state should increase funding to students living in poverty and ELL students. It is our belief that these students need additional financial support to reach their full potential. The increase in transportation costs is shifting money from teaching and learning opportunities to the transportation of students. In Westside, our transportation costs have increased from $350,000 to $1.2 million 2 dollars in just three years. Within the entire Learning Community, transportation costs have risen from $1.85 million to $5.4 million. This funding does nothing to improve the achievement of students. We believe that transportation costs should be addressed so that educational funds are not directed to transportation. Boundaries: The major issue with district boundaries is due to the development occurring in Sarpy County that impacts school districts in those areas. There is little support for any boundary changes to district boundaries unless districts agree to shift their boundaries. Open Enrollment: The data indicates that the concept of balancing socio-­‐economic status across the metro area is not occurring through the Learning Community. We asked ourselves: can this goal be achieved solely through school choice, or must other social policies be implemented to achieve this worthy goal? Open Enrollment Achievement: Once again, the data (be careful, due to multiple variables impacting student achievement) appears to state that student achievement is not impacted through the Learning Community. Transportation: It is clear that funding for instruction is being lost due to increased costs for transportation. We feel that seeking efficiencies in transportation to maintain or decrease costs is preferable to losing instructional dollars to this area. Focus Schools: Focus schools could be a great way to increase diversity and create choices, but they are not currently funded at a level that makes them viable. Westside implemented a focus school with OPS and Elkhorn, but it was closed due to a lack of funding. The only focus school currently operates at Wilson School in OPS. Early Childhood Education: This is an area of agreement among all Superintendents. We are currently collaborating with the Buffet Early Childhood Institute and the Learning Community Coordinating Council to implement the Superintendents’ Early Childhood Plan required in LB 585 passed by the Unicameral. 3 Elementary Learning Centers (ELCs): ELCs do not impact Westside. They are located in and serve the Omaha Public School District. They are an incubator of ideas to serve families living in poverty through extended learning opportunities, reducing language barriers, parenting skills and readiness for school programming. It is believed that these centers are good ways to pilot programs and then replicate across the metro area where needed. Governance Structure: The Learning Community Coordinating Council (LCCC) does create some redundancy due to multiple reporting requirements for districts. However, the LCCC does provide services and coordination with the GOALS program, early childhood, and developing programming for students living in poverty. Superintendent’s Advisory Council: The sense of the group is that this advisory council is not needed due to other opportunities for superintendents to meet and to collaborate. The importance is found in collaborating with specific programming such as GOALS and early childhood, which may benefit from the group meeting to discuss the future of such programs. For example, superintendents recently met to complete a strategic planning process for the future of the GOALS program. Summary The Westside BOE will be asked at the November 3, 2014, meeting to act on the final recommendations that are currently being finalized. I will provide you with recommendations at that meeting. The final report will be presented to the NE Legislative Education Committee in December of 2014. Attachment: LC Superintendent Report 4 School Board Executive Summary Topic: Middle School Grade Configuration Date: October 27, 2014 Prepared by: Blane McCann, Superintendent Recommended Action: Information Only Presentation/Discussion Discussion/Action by Board of Education Presentation/Action Next Meeting Recommendation(s): None at this time. Purpose: Discussion of Middle School grade configuration. Background: During the 2013-­‐2014 school year, District administration decided to analyze and audit the existing facilities in the Westside Community School District. Since that time, many conversations have taken place involving board members, students, parents, community members, teachers, administrators, and outside architectural and engineering firms. Last spring, with the help of DLR, we examined our demographic student data, neighborhood trends and the structural needs of each building. Next, teachers and administrators looked at the space in each building to discuss considerations for the future. In the fall of 2014, the District established a Facilities Task Force Committee to develop specific recommendations for the Board of Education and the Superintendent. The middle school grade configuration was the first question the Task Force needed to address. Specifically, the team posed the question about whether the District would be better served having one 7-­‐8 middle school, two 7-­‐8 middle schools, or two 6-­‐7-­‐8 middle schools. To address this question, the Task Force learned about the history of the middle school. In 1952, when 1,000 students attended Westside Community Schools, the original high school opened and served 7th – 12th grades. With tremendous student growth in the 1960’s, the District grew to three junior high schools that served 7th – 9th grades. The three junior highs helped to serve the needs of a District that had grown to 10,000 by 1970. By 1987, when the population declined to 5,034 students, the District consolidated to one middle school, serving 7-­‐8 graders, the model presently in place today. When looking at the current middle school configuration, with close to 1,000 students, the administration questioned whether a smaller setting would be more beneficial for students when they are entering an awkward time in their development. The Task Force Committee analyzed the benefits and challenges of each configuration, which is attached to this summary. The team analyzed various studies and research regarding grade configurations. No seminal studies exist favoring one configuration over another. The authors of the studies, however, stated that successful middle schools focus on philosophies that pay special attention to the unique needs of students who are 11-­‐14 years old. This fall, the Task Force members also learned about results from focus groups and surveys, toured numerous buildings within and outside of the District, and helped with listening sessions at a community town hall meeting in early October. In September, the chairs and co-­‐chairs of each sub-­‐committee participated in a Tregoe “Decision Analysis” exercise. When looking at the middle school question from an educational standpoint, the team clearly favored the 6-­‐7-­‐8 grade configuration. However, the team shared concerns about the potential risks associated with this, including operational costs, community support, support for bond issues across the metro, levy override needs, the needs of the elementary schools, and concerns about placing 6th graders with 8th graders. At tonight’s board meeting, I am asking for an open dialogue about the options before us. Option A is to move forward with a 6-­‐7-­‐8 middle school configuration, add an additional middle school, and understand that planning will need to take place to address the approximated $1.6 million yearly operating costs. Option B is to continue with our one 7-­‐8 middle school. With this option, renovations of between $15 to $20 million and additional operating costs of approximately $280,000 would be needed in order to efficiently and effectively maintain an environment necessary for 11-­‐14 year olds. Regardless of the configuration, Westside teachers are committed to providing the strongest middle school experience possible for our students. Attachment: Benefits & Challenges worksheet