Board Meeting Thursday, Superintendent Succession

The Jeffco School Board meets this Thursday, March 9, beginning at 4:30 pm with a musical performance by students from Patterson Elementary.

Ray & Associates will provide an update on the Superintendent Search process during the study session at 5 pm. You can see the proposed timeline for the search process, and the application deadline is April 10.

Meanwhile, we learned last week that Superintendent Dan McMinimee will be stepping back into an advisory role, and current Chief School Effectiveness Officer Terry Elliott will become Acting Superintendent. Elliott also announced last week that he will be taking a new job with the Brighton/27J School District after this school year.

Note that succession plan was outlined months ago in the Jeffco School Board’s Superintendent Successor policy, and that Elliott is listed as the first leader (followed by Kevin Carroll and Amy Weber). Because Elliott has already submitted his resignation, it also means he won’t be a candidate in the Jeffco search, which we feel is a good thing.

Next, the board will recognize schools receiving the Governor’s Distinguished Improvement Awards and the John Irwin School of Excellence Awards, and Devinny Elementary, a National Blue Ribbon School. The board will also celebrate several State Wrestling Champions.

It’s a regular meeting, so remember that you can sign up online for public comment if you wish to address the board. Public comment part one is for issues regarding the agenda and part two is for issues not on this month’s agenda.

One note on the Board’s consent agenda: Collegiate Academy, a Jeffco charter school, is up for renewal. We note that enrollment at that school has dropped by about 200 students, or 36 percent in the last 10 years, from 554 in the 2006/2007 school year to just 355 this year. We also note the most recent ACT scores for Collegiate were below both the district and state averages. That renewal is currently part of the consent agenda, meaning it will likely be renewed without discussion. We simply would like to highlight the numbers for the record, especially as some in the community claim that Jeffco is clamoring for more charter schools. Enrollment at Collegiate, at least, suggests otherwise.

The renewal of another charter school, Mountain Phoenix Community School is on the discussion agenda. According to the presentation, the main concern appears to be academic proficiency on state tests, and district staff are recommending a conditional three-year renewal. It will be interesting to hear more details during the meeting.

Next, the Board will receive a legislative update on the current status of state education funding and on any proposed bills that would affect Jeffco.

Board members will also discuss proposed boundary changes for the Pleasant View Elementary students who will now attend either Shelton or Welchester.

The last agenda items are to review a few policies and work on the calendar.

If you can’t make the meeting, remember that you can stream it at this link: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310

JeffCo Proud!

Saving the Jeffco WRHS GT Center

16402626_1295186623885088_5424815077130559609_oIf you attended or watched the Feb. 9 Jeffco School Board meeting, you know that many, many students from the Wheat Ridge High School GT Center program spoke passionately in support of the program after Superintendent Dan McMinimee directed his staff to include the program on the list of recommended budget cuts introduced at the Jan. 26 meeting.

You also remember that after hours of parents, students, teachers, and community members pleading with the board to not close schools, cut programs or cut other resources that impact Jeffco classrooms, McMinimee did an about-face and told his staff to try a new approach that relies on retirement savings rather than classroom resource cuts and school closures.

The result?  Most of the originally proposed cuts are now “deferred,” unless estimated state funding drops considerably.

Board member Ali Lasell told staff that she would like to see the WRHS GT Center program taken off the cut list entirely so that cuts weren’t merely “deferred” but completely off the table.

After some discussion district staff told board members that their goal was to fund the program through $150,000 of money from the district from another year, but then to fund the program through student-based budgeting dollars–just like every other GT Center program in Jeffco’s elementary and middle schools currently is. The result, staff said, would be a budget savings and would be more sustainable in the long run.

A long discussion ensued with district staff — specifically, Terry Elliot, Chief School Effectiveness Officer, and Kevin Carroll, Chief Student Success Officer — assuring board members that the program could be funded through SBB dollars with money left to spare.

Our impression from listening to this conversation in the board room was that Lasell and the other board members were very clear in directing district staff to remove this from a budget cut list and make sure it never returned. In fact, Amanda Stevens brought the issue up again later in the discussion to emphasize to McMinimee and staff in no uncertain terms that they didn’t want to see the program proposed for cuts again, not this year and not any year.

That said, we also recognize that this conversation took place well after midnight. So we’d like to include this transcript of the discussion and then ask a question. First, the transcript, with the caveat that some items without quotation marks around them have been paraphrased for clarity (remember, it was well after midnight and everyone was exhausted):

Amanda Stevens: “We’ve had a request to take some things off the table. To not defer, but just say no to some things.”

Ali Lasell:  “There are some Ds [deferred items] I have a problem with. A “D” can come back, right?”

[staff confirm that deferred items could be considered for cuts later if the state funding picture changes]

Lasell: “Here is what I want to propose: out of respect for the Wheat Ridge GT program, I’d like to vote to take that off the table right now, to take that off the D, and take it off the list.”

Kevin Carroll (Student Success Officer): I’ve talked to WRHS principal, we agree it’s the right program. We propose using some one-time dollars to fund the GT program this coming year [2017-18] and then look together and work with community to look at the $583,000 that come with these students each year, which is enough to fund 8 teachers. I believe we can work in partnership with finance and the high school to see what the long-term sustainable possibilities are to make it work with SBB just like elementary and middle school GT programs currently do. …. When transitioned to SBB, the center programs were run through programs they received students. The program attracts 95 students who choice in, making it mutually attractive for the GT Center and WRHS.

Ron Mitchell: Is there pressure on anyone if program is funded through SBB?

Carroll: No, it should be doable.  “We can make it a sustainable program, which is what it should be.”

Lasell: “Sustainable how?”

Carroll: “Sustainable so that it is funded by the students who participate within the program so it does not become at risk through budget cutting at the district level from year to year, just like we do with every other GT center program, similar to how we do with any other unique program at high schools right now.”  (Mentions pathways program, etc, says no additional funds come in to fund those beyond SBB dollars.)

Carroll:  “The dollars that come as a result of them being there [the GT students] should be leveraged to support their needs.”

Terry Elliot (Chief School Effectiveness Officer) explains that IB programs are supplemented to cover administrative costs such as testing and other elements that are specific to IB, but that funding does not cover the teaching FTE needed for IB; SBB covers FTE costs for IB.

Lasell: “I feel like this is a program, not just a premiere program in the state. I feel like it’s a nationally-recognized program, it is a center program for high school, and it is attracting kids from all over the district. The great thing about having it at WR is WR is pretty centrally located so it provides more opportunity for more people…..I think it’s a great location. But I also know that in general, high schools costs a lot more to operate because you have all these other specialized classes. In general their class sizes are a lot smaller than our middle and elementaries. I want us to respect the gems we have right now.”

Elliot: “I think what Mr. Carroll is saying is that we have a lot of gems that self-fund. Why is this one uniquely receiving additional dollars? The reason it got it original is undisputed: it was a start-up process, that’s the way we allocated FTEs to schools in the past but as we rolled to the SBB process we took all the dollars that were being allocated from here and pushed them into the per-pupil factor so that schools could continue to run their programs. WR is essentially getting paid twice for that class because if students come with a full schedule of six classes as part of the funding the school receives and one of those six classes is the GT program class that they take, and nobody  has ever said it’s anything other than a great program, but those dollars are kind of inherently built into our budgeting process. However, we’re giving that school an additional $150,000 to offer that program, so in a sense, they’re getting two dollars for that class, they’re getting paid twice for that class.”

Stevens: “Which allows the principal to direct his other SBB dollars to the kinds of offerings and wraparound services”

Elliot (interjects): “very low class student ratios,”

Stevens: “Let me ask you this. That conversation that would proceed with the principal there, would it be about size, where the equation shifts and it’s a shared cost?”

Carroll: “What we’re proposing is to not have to share any costs this year, but that we would pay the whole $150,000, but that we would transition them for the year after. Right now, on top of the existing two teachers, he could afford to pay for those teachers plus five more, 5-1/2 more, almost 6 teachers that he could use in other ways across his building, where right now he’s able to use all 7.87 teachers outside of these current teachers that are being paid for with central dollars.”

Susan Harmon: “I understand what you’re saying and I assure you, it’s a fabulous program. Every kid who stood up, I could listen to them for hours. But we’re also trying to create equity, there’s a lot of other great programs across the board, there are some other amazing gems, out there, and in the name of equity, we’re not taking that away. We’re going to manage it…”

Carroll (interjects): “Absolutely And if we got to the point and I would never propose this, but if the local school that gets to control the SBB dollars through a community process, a collaborative process with SACS and shared leadership, if they determine that through the SBB dollars that they did not believe they were able to house this program at Wheat Ridge High School I would find another place for it within the county. This program needs to continue so that’s not in question. It will continue. And my greatest hope is that it will continue at Wheat Ridge High School because there’s such a beautiful partnership that is going on there, and a wonderful program. I don’t think there’s any question that this type of program is absolutely necessary for these students.”

Mitchell: “And the likelihood of being able to work out a long-term solution collaborative you would guess, Mr. Carroll, is very good?”

Carroll: “I believe is very high given the amount of resources that come with these students.”

[a some time later, after a few other budget items have been discussed]

Stevens: I’d like to revisit the GT issue and request that it be a shared cost model that isn’t requiring 100 percent school dollars or 100 percent district dollars. Says she wants to make sure that it doesn’t become a one or the other, where the program might get pulled out of WRHS and sent elsewhere if WRHS decides its SBB dollars aren’t sufficient to make it fully self-funding next year.

Lasell: “I think you’re hearing us that we want that program to stay and we want it to stay at Wheat Ridge.”

Elliot: “We’re all on the same page.”

Lasell: “I just want to be really clear so you have your direction from us. So let’s figure it out and not hear about this possibility again, ok?”

Mitchell: “Yes, we would like to not come back to this one.”

[Mitchell closes that agenda item and moves to the next item.]

https://livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310/videos/148985602

We’ve heard from from some community members that their impression is that the WRHS GT Center is only funded for one more year, and their future is uncertain after that. We’re not sure why, as the board members made it clear that they didn’t want to see the program on the chopping block again–and were assured repeatedly by staff that funding the program through SBB dollars like every other GT Center wouldn’t be a problem.

One objection the WRHS school accountability committee chair made at the meeting was that WRHS needs to direct more resources toward boosting student achievement scores among their very large free and reduced lunch population. However, WRHS is hardly alone in that respect. About half of Jeffco’s 16 GT Center schools that have considerable FRL populations, and four of those have much larger FRL populations than WRHS:

  • Kendrick Lakes – 29.3 percent
  • Hackberry – 31.1 percent
  • Sheridan Green – 32.1 percent
  • WRHS  46.2%

  • Creighton Middle School – 57.7 percent
  • North Arvada Middle School – 57.8 percent
  • Everitt Middle School – 66.5 percent
  • Stevens Elementary – 70 percent

CDE School Dashboard

http://www2.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/dish/schooldashboard.asp

WRHS is hardly alone in serving a diverse population of learners, both academically and socio-economically, so we don’t understand the WRHS SAC chair’s argument. Other GT Center schools have to balance those same issues, and continue to do so.

One other point: the board members asked about how other high school programs, such as IB, were funded. Elliot said that while IB programs do get some extra money, that money is reserved strictly for IB-specific administrative costs (related to testing requirements for IB students), but that the IB teachers are funded through SBB.

That said, we wonder if there’s a missing piece about the current WRHS GT Center that hasn’t been addressed in the budget discussion. JCSBW fully agrees that the WRHS GT Center is a valuable program that should not be a candidate for budget cuts, and wonder what more can be done to ensure a stable future for the program.

So we’d like to toss this question out to those in the WRHS GT community: what would you like to see the Jeffco School Board members do to ensure that the program is protected from budget cuts during the next decade?

Feel free to leave a comment below or to email us at MtEvans2015@gmail.com. As always, we’re happy to keep your responses anonymous, especially if there’s additional information we’d like to share with our readers to better understand this situation.

JeffCo Proud!

2.10.17 BOE Meeting Summary & Action Items

UpdateSo we’ve mostly recovered from the 8-hour marathon Jeffco School Board meeting, and wanted to quickly outline some of the decisions.

First, we’d like to commend our Board President Ron Mitchell and board members Susan Harmon, Ali Lasell, Brad Rupert, and Amanda Stevens for their work Thursday night. They listened to students, parents, teachers, and even state and local legislatures with respect and consideration.

The atmosphere was vastly different than it was two years ago. No one was cut off. No one was escorted out. Board members made it clear they wanted to hear all voices, and voted to move the agenda item about winter MAP results to a future meeting in order to fully focus on public comment and the budget.

The discussion about facilities and budget issues was articulate and responsive to both the issues at hand and to the many letters and comments they had heard from the community.

After hours of public comment, Superintendent Dan McMinimee opened the budget discussion by telling board members that he was backing away from his original recommendations, based on the outcry from the community. Instead, McMinimee said his staff was able to identify $11.8 million in cuts plus $9 million in retirement savings that could be used for compensation, without affecting the classroom.

While this was welcome news, JCSBW wonders why McMinimee couldn’t have figured this out earlier. Board members had directed him to find money in the budget that didn’t affect the classroom. Proposing to close five schools affects a lot of classrooms, and the many other proposed cuts caused two weeks of apparently needless stress to hundreds of families throughout Jeffco.

The original budget cut proposal was bad leadership by McMinimee, pure and simple. Blindsiding several school communities with unexpected closure news and even more by telling them their current fifth graders were not going to complete their sixth grade year in elementary school — only to say “never mind!” two weeks later is inexcusable.

We’d also like to commend the Jeffco community for advocating for students. About 150 people spoke to the board members on Thursday night, and about 500 packed into various rooms in the Education Building. There were three overflow rooms for those who couldn’t fit into the main board room. Thank you for making your voices heard.

Here’s a brief summary of the decisions made at the meeting.

School Closures Update

The board members discussed the proposed school closures in detail and voted to keep Peck, Stober, Swanson, and Pennington open.

The future of Stober and Pennington remain the most uncertain for following years, board members said, largely due to the condition of the facilities and small size, but they agreed that more time needs to be spent looking at the issue. Board members also expressed concern about closing a school that had no prior warning that it was on a potential closure list.

Pleasant View Elementary, on the other hand, will close at the end of this school year. Board members voted for the closure with the stipulation that one-time funds be provided for mental health services for those students. We urge the district to present plans for boundary changes, bussing options, opportunities for families to tour their new schools, classroom and staffing configurations and other key factors as soon as possible to avoid extended limbo for these impacted communities.

Arvada and Wheat Ridge 6th Grade Update

The board rejected a proposal to accelerate the timeline and instead voted to stick with the original plan to move sixth graders to middle school in Fall 2018. All five said they wanted the move for sixth graders to be a success, and they wanted school communities to have the time to do careful, thoughtful planning for the transition.

The Chatfield area will continue plans to move its sixth graders to middle school in Fall 2017, as previously decided.

Middle School Additions

This item was tabled, in part because school board members wanted to better understand how the schools on the list for additions (Drake, Dunstan, Ken Caryl, and Creighton) had been selected. They will revisit that issue at a later board meeting, and a final decision might be on hold until the board hears more about state funding.

Meanwhile, the facilities department plans to move forward with the design phase of the projects so that if the projects are approved, they can immediately begin work and have construction completed by Fall 2018.

Deferred Budget Cuts

McMinimee’s new budget proposal defers several of the proposed cuts. The “D” in the far right column indicates that the proposed cut is now deferred, which means that in most cases, it will only be revisited if the funding numbers from the state get ugly. For now, those items are safe.

This means that the current recommendations keep the following positions and programs as is:

  • The Wheat Ridge High School GT Center program (**This is the one item that board members said they wanted completely removed from the list, but there seems to be confusion about funding for the program. Lasell, Mitchell, and Stevens all told staff very clearly that they did not want to see the program on a cuts list ever again, and were assured by staff that it wouldn’t be an issue. Please watch for our next post about this item for more info.)
  • Custodial services
  • Literacy interventionists
  • Mastery Connect
  • optional MAP testing for K-2
  • Busing to option schools and Outdoor Lab

Superintendent Search Update

If you haven’t already, please take this quick online survey about characteristics you think Jeffco needs in a new superintendent:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JRH7N3T

It’s available through Thursday, Feb. 23.

And mark your calendars for one of the upcoming community forums hosted by the search firm to provide more input about what kind of leadership Jeffco needs:

  • Tuesday, February 21
    • Alameda Junior/Senior High School Auditorium, 7 – 8 pm
    • Dakota Ridge High School Library, 7 – 8 pm
  • Wednesday, February 22
    • Warren Tech Founders Room, 9:30 – 10:30 am
    • Arvada West High School Library, 7 – 8 pm
    • Evergreen High School Library,  7 – 8 pm

Ray and Associates told the board that they recommend advertising a base salary around $300k, based on what they’re seeing in current superintendent searches. This document goes into a little more detail about how they calculated that number.

Board members decided to advertise around $300k, but said they would negotiate that number based on experience and qualifications.

Please stay involved and engaged, not only at Jeffco but at the state level to encourage legislators to work harder to address school funding issues here in Colorado. And remember that we are

JeffCo Proud!

Guest Post: Jeffco Schools Budget Cut Recommendations

urgent
Today we feature a guest post by one our readers, Bob Greenawalt, a Jeffco parent, taxpayer, and community member, regarding some of the Jeffco Schools budget cuts recommended by the district. Our five Jeffco School Board members are preparing to vote on these recommendations on Thursday and need your input. Greenawalt highlights some of the potential cuts in his post.

On January 26, 2017 the Superintendent’s Cabinet, among other things, recommended:

  • Eliminating all (30) social and emotional learning specialists and a coordinator.
  • Eliminating all (20) literacy interventionists.
  • Eliminating four of 16 resource teachers who help support teachers of students determined to be gifted and talented.
  • Cut the 2 GT teachers who run the District’s only HS GT program at Wheat Ridge.

Let’s hope that the Board was as surprised by these recommendations as I was.

By all indications, these programs are successful and working to help our kids. Schools nationwide are investing in social emotional work, which helps students develop skills to manage their emotions, resolve conflicts and make responsible decisions. District research shows that the literacy interventionists are “closing the gap for our most highly impacted populations.” The targeted cut of the 2 GT teachers includes a 2017 Colorado Teacher of the Year Finalist.

All of these successful programs were designed to help students on the margins. It makes me wonder what message the Superintendent and his Cabinet is sending to teachers, students and the community with these recommendations?

The Board has an opportunity to show the community that it really does care about kids and their education by rejecting these recommendations and finding other ways to fund their desired compensation investment of $25M.

If the Board accepts these recommendations, we will be left questioning their priorities and reasoning, and an at-risk population will be deprived of vital resources.

The School Board needs to remember its responsibility to put the kids first!

We at JCSBW want add that the issues with compensation are real and that $25 million would go a long way toward making salaries in Jeffco Schools competitive with our neighboring districts. However, the board has not yet landed on a specific plan for compensation and the cuts district staff recommended surprised everyone at the Jan. 26 meeting.

District staff recommended the $25 million number. Given that District staff were then only able to present a little over $20 million in recommended cuts, we don’t expect to see anything close to $25 million go toward compensation this year. We also know board members were not a proponent of closing any schools for the 2017-18 school year, or accelerating any timelines regarding the move toward K-5, 6-8 configurations. 

Board members have placed a high priority on teacher compensation because of how important having a great teacher in every classroom is to student success. Jeffco risks losing some of its best educators.

We pointed out recently that in 2010, a Jeffco Schools teacher with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience earned $52,330. In 2017, that same Jeffco Schools teacher only earns $49,839 — compensation has gone DOWN. In neighboring districts, that teacher can earn $57,733. Are those teachers going to head to Boulder or Cherry Creek to earn nearly $8,000 more per year? Sure — especially if they have kids headed to college. It’s a real issue.

However, some of the recommended cuts, such as those mentioned above and the recommendation to close five schools, will have a major impact on our Jeffco students and communities.

The question for board members will be how to balance keeping good teachers in Jeffco while also continuing to invest in educational innovations that we know help Jeffco students achieve.

If you can’t make the meeting tomorrow, please watch the live stream at this link: https://livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310

Budget Proposal for Jeffco Schools (1.26.17 meeting summary)

UpdateAs you’ve undoubtedly heard on the news by now, the budget recommendations from Jeffco Schools staff caught a lot of people by surprise, including the board members who had only received the recommendations a day earlier. A lot took place at the Jan. 26 Jeffco School Board meeting, and we’ll summarize this information as efficiently as possible.

Budget Proposal — School Closings

After voters said “no” to 3A and 3B this fall, Jeffco School Board members asked district staff to find funds to invest in compensation, with a target number of $25 million. As we’ve mentioned many times, teachers make about 10 percent less in Jeffco than they could in neighboring districts, which means we’re not competitive in the labor market for teachers or other resources like speech pathologists and more.

Staff presented those recommendations tonight, including a number of far-ranging cuts to resources and staff, in addition to closing five schools, relocating one school, and reconfiguring some articulation areas to a K-5, 6-8 model a year earlier than planned.

The facilities presentation recommended closing these schools:

  • Peck Elementary
  • Pennington Elementary
  • Pleasant View Elementary
  • Stober Elementary
  • Swanson Elementary

In addition, Long View High School would be relocated from its current location, presumably to McClain High School.

In order to close the above schools, the Arvada and Wheat Ridge articulation areas would need to change to a K-5, 6-8 configuration for the 2017-18 school year rather than for the 2018-19 school year as planned. This means current 5th graders in those two articulation areas would be 6th graders in middle school this August, while the remaining areas wouldn’t reconfigure until 2018-19.

The Chatfield articulation area is also included for reconfiguration for 2017-18, but that reconfiguration has been planned for more than a year, and the community has been working through that process for some time now.

Staff also noted that school performance was not a criteria in the closure recommendations. The criteria used are detailed on the slides, and we’ll post more about the facilities recommendations in a few days.

Budget Proposal – Other Cuts

The budget presentation explained the state funding picture (bleak) and suggestions for various funding scenarios. It also discussed one-time funds.

A separate document details the budget cuts recommended by Superintendent McMinimee’s cabinet. These would be implemented in four phases, with some requiring BOE approval, and others falling under “staff action.” Here’s a summary, but we encourage you to read through the details at this link.

  • Phase 1A: Increase athletic fees and activity card fees, eliminate quarterly financial audit review (external quarterly audit would remain), reduce National School Board membership, increase community building use fees, and close five elementary schools. Total savings: $4,508,410.00
  • Phase 1B: Reduce utility, fuel, sick and personal payout and contingency budgets; reclassify educational research and design staff to other funds or grants; reduce achievement directors, support staff, educator effectiveness staff, and GT teachers; reduce security budget; cut superintendent, technology and human resources staff. Total savings: $7,987,008.00
  • Phase 2: Reduce custodial staff and clean only 60 percent of buildings nightly (vs. 80 percent currently); reduce literary interventionists, content specialists, support personnel and substitute expenses for professional development; reduce achievement directors; reduce central social emotional support; reduce GT resource teachers; eliminate superintendent community relations budget, including administrator welcome; eliminate student device home filtering and reduce technology supply budget; eliminate option school and Outdoor Lab busing. Total savings: $4,554,204.00
  • Phase 3: Eliminate literacy interventionists; eliminate MAP testing in K-2 and mastery content; eliminate social emotional learning specialists. Total savings: $1,815,030.00
  • Phase 4: Reduce assessment coordinator and technician, reduce library coordinator and secretarial support; eliminate 14 social emotional support staff funded to student-based budgeting. Total savings: $1,534,299.00

Total savings: $20,398,951.00

Board members would need to approve Phase 1A, which includes the school closures. The other steps could be taken by the district without needing further approval from the board.

Board Discussion about the Budget Proposal

Board members were surprised by some of the recommendations and immediately emphasized the importance of connecting with the community to do this work in collaboration, particularly regarding school closures. Three of the five schools on the closure list have not been discussed in recent facilities conversations, so this is brand-new information for those communities, board members cautioned.

They also asked staff, “Why the rush?” in regard to the proposed school closures and accelerated reconfiguration schedule for the Arvada and Wheat Ridge articulation areas.

“We have a little bit of an integrity issue here,” board President Ron Mitchell commented, noting that board members have spent months reassuring parents and the community that the K-5/6-8 reconfiguration would be a two-year process.

The closures and reconfiguration would save the district $3.5 million dollars, and Brad Rupert suggested that they could use $3.5 million in one-time dollars to fill the compensation hole and have extra time to plan.

Ali Lasell said she would rather respect and honor the timeline presented to the community with the reconfiguration taking place in Fall 2018 as planned. This would allow all schools and families adequate time to plan and allow communities could make that transition at the same time.

Rupert noted that one of the goals last spring was to create a deliberate process for moving sixth graders to middle school and for any school closures. “This is the opposite of that,” he pointed out.

School-family partnerships are our job, Lasell added.

“Our communities have great memories if we don’t keep our word,” Mitchell added.

Susan Harmon noted that there are costs everywhere, which makes this challenging. Not addressing the compensation issues will mean Jeffco continues to lose ground in attracting and retaining teachers, but the cuts and closed schools have a big cost as well.

Amanda Stevens pointed out that once a school is on a closure list, it impacts enrollment, even if the school stays open. Prolonging closures can also have a negative impact overall.

“We need to get this process right,” Mitchell said. “This is not the end but the beginning, so we need to do it well, do it right.” He also said that he thought the state budget picture would likely mean more school closures down the road, which makes it even more important to have a good process.

Lasell worries that the Wheat Ridge area seems to be taking the brunt of the cuts, and wants to make sure that the district talks with the city manager and mayor if they decide to head in that direction.

Staff is asking board members to be ready to vote on these issues at the Feb. 9 meeting.

Bottom line: Board members need your input, quickly. Please email them with your thoughts at board@jeffco.k12.co.us or feel free to contact individual board members using these links.

Other BOE Updates

Superintendent Search

Staff updated board members on the superintendent search. Jeffco Schools sent a request for proposals to five known superintendent search organizations and posted the proposal request online. Jeffco received three responses.

A committee consisting of Ron Mitchell, Amanda Stevens, Kathleen Askelson (Jeffco chief financial officer), Amy Weber (chief human resources officer), and Betty Standley (director of purchasing), evaluated the proposals on cost, approach, experience, and qualifications. They unanimously selected Ray and Associates, which yes, is the search firm that the Jeffco School Board used in 2014.

The next step is to hear from Ray and Associates about the search procedure, and that will most likely be on the agenda for the Feb. 9 meeting.

Jeffco 2020 Vision

The Jeffco 2020 presentation focused largely on a growing interest in implementing project-based learning (PBL) in schools to meet the goals of Jeffco 2020. About 20 percent of Jeffco’s schools are currently implementing PBL in some fashion. For some examples of what PBL looks like in action, check out this video and the other videos on the Jeffco 2020 page.

Performance-based assessments also provide an alternative to traditional testing and are better aligned with the PBL approach. The district is currently working to redesign curriculum to include the 2020 competencies in addition to the state standards. Staff and teachers are collaborating and expect that to be ready for Fall 2017.

Multiple pathways to graduation and college and career readiness are also in development. New this year: apprenticeship programs for students interested in that pathway.

Contract Negotiations

Jeffco met with the teachers association, JCEA, on Jan. 19 (that meeting can be viewed by clicking the link), and will meet with the classified staff association, JESPA, on Feb. 1.

JESPA has a contract with Jeffco through August 2019 and will negotiate salary and benefits, plus three items that can be brought to the table by each team.

JCEA has a contract through August 2021, and will negotiate salary and benefits, two items that can be brought by each team, and items of mutual interest.

Amy Weber noted in the presentation that compensation will be a major issue, not least because 3A failed. Issue 3A included $12.6 million for compensation that we won’t have, but mill levy overrides in neighboring districts like Boulder, Cherry Creek, and Denver all passed, meaning they’ll have more money available for raises for their staff.

Bottom line: we’re not competitive in the marketplace and we continue to lose ground. Consider this:

Comp

Cost of living has gone up 17.8 percent, but salary increases have only kept up with half of that. Two notable facts:

  1. In 2010, a Jeffco Schools teacher with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience earned $52,330. In 2017, that same Jeffco Schools teacher only earns $49,839. In neighboring districts, that teacher can earn $57,733.
  2. A Jeffco Schools entry-level assistant principal was paid $72,589 in 2010, is paid $73,540 now, but could earn $78,854 in a neighboring district.

Comp2Staff asked the board to commit to funding at least $12 million in compensation increases and proposes funding that through Phase I cuts, as detailed in the budget presentation.

Great Works Montessori charter school application

This was a recent addition to the agenda. As you’ll recall, the board denied the Great Works Montessori School charter school application in November due to concerns about the sustainability of their proposed enrollment numbers and budget figures. GWMS appealed to the state school board, who sent the application back to Jeffco with an order to reconsider it.

The school and staff worked together to address some of the issues, but at the January meeting there was still a lot of confusion about whether the budget would be sustainable. Board members didn’t feel comfortable with the funding model that substantially funded the K-8 students through preschool tuition and were concerned it would lead to immediate funding shortfalls. Enrollment numbers also continued to be an issue. Board members considered a conditional approval, but weren’t sure of the numbers needed. In the end, they voted to deny the application a second time.

GWMS could have appealed to the state board a second time, but their lawyers contacted the district, and they were able to work out a compromise. Amanda Stevens said they agreed to add another 45 letters of intent to the condition, which could make the budget more sustainable and less reliant on the preschool budget.

The conditional approval was unanimous, and GWMS has until April 1 to fulfill the conditions set forth in the approval in order to open for Fall 2017.

We’ve given you a lot of information to absorb, and encourage you to read through the presentations and make your voices heard. The school board members want to make decisions that benefit our entire Jeffco community and need your feedback to do that. Again, please email your thoughts to board@jeffco.k12.co.us.

Despite these challenges, we remain

JeffCo Proud!