4.6.16 The AFP is at it again & quick 4/7 BOE meeting preview

This will be a brief update, as all of our writers are currently swamped with other things. We know we owe you a summary of the last couple of meetings and we will have that for you as soon as humanely possible.

However, we wanted to bring your attention to some news uncovered by our friends at Jeffco Citizens for Responsible Education. They noticed that a number of emails regarding the use of Certificates of Participation (COPs) had been sent to the board. The vast majority of those in opposition were one of two form letters. Jeffco CRE followed that trail a bit further, right to the door of Americans for Prosperity, who conveniently set up a webpage so that people could submit a form letter to the board through their website.

Screenshot 2016-04-03 15.33.08

We agree with Jeffco CRE when they write “Colorado is a local control state for a reason.  Outside special interest groups should stop sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong.” Indeed.

In addition, there’s a board meeting this Thursday, April 7.

Highlights

Can’t attend? Stream the meeting live at this link: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310.

JeffCo Proud!

 

2.19.16 Updates: The Summary Version Part 1

It’s been longer than we’d like since we’ve posted summary versions of the meetings, but we’d like to bring you up to date about what’s been happening with the Jeffco School Board in the past few months. The short version is that the vast majority of board members’ time has been spent immersing themselves in the intricate details of the district so that they’re familiar with the processes and facts of the various elements involved before they make decisions.

With that in mind, this post will be split into two main sections: first, 1) board actions, and then 2) other board work, as we summarize what they’ve been doing since their November elections.

Jeffco BOE Actions, Nov. 2015 – February 2016

Returned $15 million slotted for Candelas K-6 construction to the General Fund (1/14/16)

The decision by the previous board to pull $15 million from the general fund to construct a new school had been a major point of contention last year for a number of reasons all outlined in previous posts. This vote puts the money back into the general fund. Note that no plans have been made for those dollars yet. Board members stated they intend to hold that money and wait to see what happens with the 2016-17 budget before making any decisions on those dollars.

Approved Certificates of Participation (COPs) for Candelas K-8 and Sierra Phase II (1/14/16)

This required three votes: one to approve moving ahead with the Candelas site as a K-8 school (as previously had been recommended by the district) rather than as a smaller K-6 school with a planned addition at some point in the future; one to approve the use of COPs to finance construction at Candelas; and, one to approve the use of COPs to finance phase II of construction at Sierra Elementary. These three votes also required a great deal of discussion, both at previous study sessions and during the meeting, and featured the board’s first split vote.

The board heard a two-hour presentation during the 12/17/15 study session to learn about the facilities process and asked questions about specific issues throughout the county. Many board members had also heard the many facilities presentations that had been given since August 2014 on the issue, though all benefited from the updated information and opportunity to ask questions that previous board members had not.

The first vote to reconfigure the Candelas plan to a K-8 and use COPs to fund construction was unanimous, though it followed another intense round of discussion and questions about the benefits of a K-8 and the cost effectiveness involved. (Short answer: it’s more cost-effective for construction costs and for daily operating costs.) There was also a lot of discussion regarding how flexible COPs would be for meeting budget and construction needs. (Short answer: they can be paid off at any time. The board could, for example, take the $15 million they’d just moved back to the general fund and vote to use it to pay a large portion of the COP.)

The second vote to use COPs to finance Sierra Phase II construction was preceded by the same intense conversation and questioning. Several board members had visited Sierra to see the conditions first-hand and all were appalled. However, as board member Amanda Stevens pointed out, Sierra is not the only school with significant facilities issues. She, like the others, prefers to use a bond to finance school construction; Stevens was concerned about committing general fund dollars to paying a portion of COPs in tight financial times. In the end, the vote was 4/1 with Stevens voting against the motion. She said her vote was not at all a vote against the Sierra community (and we’ll note that it was clear the motion would pass by the time Stevens voted), but that she really wants the board to address facilities issues district-wide through a bond issue this November.

To keep this summary from being any longer, we invite you to read the news coverage here and here for more details about the discussions surrounding the three votes.

CASB Membership Renewal (2/4/16)

Jeffco had been a long-time member of the Colorado Association of School Boards, informally known as CASB, until last year when three former board members refused to renew that membership. The new board members took time to get to know CASB’s work, the training opportunities it offered, and other benefits, such as legal advice, plus the work CASB does to influence education policy on the state level, and voted unanimously to approve the board’s membership renewal.

Added Members to the District Accountability Committee (2/4/16)

Last fall, the former board approved changes to split the roles of the former Strategic Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC) between two committees: a District Accountability Committee (DAC) and a new SPAC that would limit its work to strategic planning and not to the accountability work required by state statute. However, our readers will also remember that the former board directed that the new DAC be a board committee, with membership subject to board approval. In the process, they also cut seats previously held by Jeffco PTA and by CSEA (Jeffco’s Classified School Employees Association), among others.

In February, board members added slots to include these and other stakeholder groups, so the new membership looks like this:

  • One parent representative from a school-level accountability team (SAC) from each articulation area (17)
  • Charter school SAC parent representatives (3)
  • Option school SAC parent representative (1)
  • Jeffco Schools teachers, with effort made to represent each grade band: K-5, 6-8, 9-12. JCEA may recommend individuals, and both members and non-members of JCEA are eligible (1-3)
  • Jeffco Schools building-level administrator (1-3)
  • Parent-at-large representatives (up to 10, with efforts made to represent the diversity of stakeholders)
  • Business community representative (at least 1)
  • Jeffco PTA member (1)
  • Jeffco Schools classified staff representative. Both CSEA members and non-members are eligible, and CSEA may recommend individuals (1)
  • Superintendent

Expansion of Two Roads Charter School Contract (2/4/16)

Jeffco Schools has offered a blended learning/online program for elementary school students as part of its Jefferson Virtual Academy (JVA). However, the K-5 program has not met its targeted enrollment and funding doesn’t support continuing the program. Two Roads Charter School expressed interest in taking over the program to continue it for participating and interested families, but was prevented from doing so by their current contract – the standard Jeffco Schools charter contract prohibits charters from offering online programs.

The board discussed amending the contract for Two Roads to take over the K-5 blended/online program during a study session on 1/28/16, and then voted to approve the move at the 2/4/16 meeting.

Expanded Bradford K-6 to a K-8 program (12/10/15)

This vote garnered some criticism, largely because it’s not entirely clear that the move had the support of all stakeholders. The Bradford community was highly supportive of the move to expand the program to include 7th and 8th grade programming, and the district supported the move because it was made with the requirement that the program be capped at 90 students per grade. That cap will avoid any need for building expansion in the future and limits the impact on the feeder schools in the Chatfield articulation area. District officials said the move had the support of principals at those feeder schools, though others noted that those principals did not attend the board meeting to speak to the issue one way or another. School Accountability Committees at feeder schools may not have been consulted either.

This issue was sprung on the board (and the at-large Jeffco community) out of the blue by district staff. Board members questioned district staff carefully about whether the administration at the feeder schools that would be affected supported the proposal. Staff told the board members that they did, so we can hardly fault the board members for doing their due diligence or for wanting to make the decision before the first round of choice-enrollment opened in January. That said, we’d also encourage board members to think about whether a board policy requiring the district to provide a certain amount of notice to the board before bringing an issue for a vote might be in their favor so that there is time to have more discussion before taking action. However, we’ll also note that when it came to expanding the online program at Two Roads (above), board members were quick to make sure there was a study session to discuss options before bringing it to a vote for the next meeting, so that’s a huge step toward respecting process and community engagement.

View our next post for specifics regarding negotiations with JCEA, and other Jeffco School Board actions.

Jeffco Proud!

BOE Agenda for 5/7/15 – Or should we say Hidden Agenda?

The school board will meet in regular session on Thursday 5/7/15. Here’s the link to the live stream: http://livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310

After public comment is complete and Julie Williams is properly chastised for her Day of Hate post, the meeting will discuss many issues.  Among the more interesting consent agenda items is a delay, after 90 days, for an additional 30 days to extend the charter for four charter schools:  Free Horizon Montessori, Lincoln Academy, Montessori Peaks Academy and Rocky Mountain Deaf School.  Why the delay until June?  We will only know in June!  Is this a classic attempt to move it out of the public spotlight?  Especially since the chief financial officer raises some Yellow Flags on some of these schools?

One of the main agenda items is a review of the fiscal third quarter. Thanks to so many people leaving the district and unfilled positions, there are actually savings being realized in the expenditures due to staffing holes.  Despite this, in  five places in the presentation, the chief financial officer may be asking for supplemental appropriations for COPs, Building Fund, Debt Service, Activity Fund, and Enterprise Funds (Food, Childcare, Property Management).

There is a discussion item on Ends goals.  But no supporting documents as of Sunday May 3rd.  Why?

There is a discussion of the tabled motion on Facilities.  The board has heard repeatedly from district staff that there needs to be building in the north part of the district.  Again there is to be a presentation to the board on this.  Will they listen this time?  Who knows.  Meanwhile, there is no presentation available again on the day the agenda is posted.  Meanwhile, read about a conflict of interest for Witt elsewhere around building schools.

One of the normally sleeper topics, review of board policy is interesting.  This document EL-02, covers Treatment of Parents, Guardians, and Community. Reference to another document posted here, is being removed and replaced with a generic statement about cooperation of the superintendent with the public.  Why the fear of having a well-defined process?  Afraid of accountability?  Who knows?

With this BOE, the mysteries just grow and never really get solved. Sure, they could argue that the policy should stand on its own and not reference another document. But what is left has no appeal process.  Yet another way to close the public out of the debate about what is best for kids.  Here are parts of a brochure describing the policy.  All of this will be rescinded with the change proposed by “district staff.”

How do you feel you have been treated so far?  Expect worse.

A couple of other housekeeping notes:

1. Have you written to the BOE and/or the district and received a dismissive, demeaning or otherwise unprofessional response? If so, we encourage you to reply and copy board@jeffco.k12.co.us. Note that your question was not addressed, even though someone clearly had the time to respond. This will ensure your response gets into BoardDocs and the public will be able to track the number of unprofessional or otherwise inappropriate responses to JeffCo parents and community members.

2. A number of people have been surprised by the public comment rules, which are definitely confusing. Here’s what you need to know if you want to speak to the board at Thursday’s meeting:

  • Signup time is limited! It opens at 10 am on Monday, and closes at 3:30 pm on Thursday. Don’t wait!
  • If you are speaking on an agenda item, sign up for Part 1 of public comment. If not, sign up for Part 2.
  • The amount of time you are allowed to speak varies, and you won’t know how long you have until you’re at the meeting. In general, there are enough people signed up for public comment that individual speakers are limited to 1 or 2 minutes while groups of receive 5 minutes. Play it safe: plan to speak no longer than 2 minutes, and have a 1-minute version you can use just in case. The way it works is based on the number of people who sign up:
    • 0-20 speakers = individuals 3 minutes, groups 10 minutes
    • 21-30 speakers = individuals 2 minutes, groups 5 minutes
    • 30 + speakers = individuals 1 minute, groups 3 minutes

 Keep watching, keep fighting JeffCo!