Good evening, it is 7-11.
We are reconvening the open session of tonight's meeting.
And I want to let board members know this is being recorded in Google Meets.
So when you speak, please turn on your Google Meets microphone, but then remember to shut
it off.
People have a lot of feedback.
So sorry about the clunkiness of it, but we can handle this.
And we are on action discussion items.
The only item we have on the agenda tonight is the report.
We've got Missy Beavers, executive director of pupil services with Eric Weir, director
of special education and student services.
The purpose of this is building a stronger special education system using external evaluation
to strengthen systems and student outcomes.
Missy Beavers.
Good evening.
We're here tonight to talk about an extension of the continuous improvement work that we
have been doing within pupil services department, specifically in regards to an outside evaluation
that we did to look at the system's work we have been doing.
I'm here with Eric Weir to introduce him.
So the first thing we wanted to discuss was why we initiated an outside programming evaluation.
We really were focusing on elementary education because that's where we were hearing the most
noise and seeing the most disruption in the system.
We've been doing continuous improvement work with DPI and CSUN, we've been doing that
in the last five years in hopes of or.
We've been doing continuous improvement work with DPI and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN
and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN
and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN.
We've been doing continuous improvement work with DPI and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN
and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN.
We've been doing continuous improvement work with DPI and CSUN and CSUN.
We've been doing continuous improvement work with DPI and CSUN and CSUN and CSUN.
Looked at, you'll see on the left hand side leadership service delivery instruction, the role of the program manager,
collaboration, professional learning and staffing. Specifically, there was a thorough data review,
there were case load studies and what I mean by that is how many students assigned to case loads, also looking at the minutes.
So is the workload comparable to the case load?
They specifically did IEP reviews, random IEP reviews.
They looked at our special resources and they did individual interviews with our managers.
Any board member questions?
I've got a question about what CSUN evaluated.
Who decided what needed to be evaluated?
Is this just something standard?
Sorry, who decided what needed to be evaluated?
Is this something like you say, okay CSUN or whoever we want to review of our department.
Do they have a standard?
Okay, we're going to come in and look at this and you've given this slide with the multiple things.
Do they do this for all of their evaluations or did you hand get used?
Okay, cool.
And when they talk to the staff, do they just special ed staff or to all staff?
Okay.
And for the administrators.
Any questions?
Thank you.
This next slide is specific findings for these areas, these seven areas that I just spoke of in the slide previous.
So these when we got the report back, we took it to our team and we went through an exercise called what so what now what.
Everyone read through the report twice and we it took us two or three days to meet meeting dates.
We looked through and the first activity was what what standing up to you, what resonates with you.
And we put those all on post it notes and put it on, you know, once one piece of paper and then we talked about what what kind of themes we were seeing there.
Then we went to the next phase of the activity and we did so what and really when you do the so what you're looking at the room closet is what do you think is the cause of these things.
And then the last activity was now what and that's how we develop our action steps.
So the findings on this page were really an outcome of those activity that we did with our team.
So the common themes.
Again, this includes pieces that are not related to the focus groups. This is just the review of the data that I said in the previous slide.
The common themes were to strengthen consistency, clarify roles and systems, build educator capacity, increase collaboration and improve instructional systems.
For strength and consistency, I'll just read it out loud for people who are going to watch this at home. So more consistent implementation of special education practices across schools.
Last year we had 10 schools, we were getting feedback that the systems in place at schools were not consistent. So that was very common theme clarify roles and systems clear expectations decision making structure needs to be clarified and support for staff will
provide and special and building educated capacity. There was a request for ongoing coaching and professional learning for both special and general education staff, increased collaboration.
There was a request for stronger partnerships between special education general education and school leadership.
There's a gap there and then improving instructional systems. So better alignment between IEPs instruction interventions and progress.
Any questions? Thank you.
This next slide is speaking specifically to the common themes from the focus groups that we held.
These groups were each school had a day or at least a half a day to have focus groups.
Staff were assigned by their principals. It was asked to assign special education staff, related service providers, student services staff and regular ed staff, as well as administrators.
The majority of the principals assigned their grade level PLCs. So the interviewer met with the fifth grade team. The interviewer met with the fourth grade team.
There was a student services and we did not participate in that. So staff would speak freely.
The kind of themes from staff were clear expectations, more collaboration, better onboarding, more coaching and consistent systems.
And you'll see there's crossover, which we would expect and we would hope for so that we can focus on the findings from both pieces of the report.
Any questions?
All right.
So this next section then kind of just expands upon that some of those themes that Missy just went over and really taking what's in there specifically in the focus groups and working to look beyond just the perceptions of what individual staff may have.
Going on to their buildings, that makes specifically from perceptions that maybe students aren't always getting what they need as often as they're needing to get it.
And when we take a look at the data by individual buildings, you can see that students with disabilities and demonstrated growth equal to or greater than their peers and they had out of 10 of our schools last year.
Students with disabilities outperformed their peers in both English and mathematics to grow at multiple schools.
Students are making meaningful progress even while many continue working toward grade level proficiency and growth data and program evaluation findings are both important.
Together they help to guide our improvement efforts.
We kind of have discussions about that last week.
I'm not sure that that's conclusive data based.
It's minimal.
It's old.
It goes back to things that are a year old.
It's a growth data.
That's a three year average.
I totally believe that you need to look beyond perceptions and I totally believe that student growth data tells a story, but I don't think this is doing it for you.
And you need to have better, better data and better ways to determine what the data is.
We need to go back to district data and look at what our kids are actually doing.
You should have access to a lot of district data.
And I think that needs to be studied and researched thoroughly because I don't.
I don't think this tells a good picture.
We do just district.
I mean, you pay attention to that.
You're not reporting it to this.
Well, because the way we evaluate it.
You can get growth and proficiency data from district data and you should because.
Like I said, this is from the district report card.
The state goes through all kinds of crazy machinations to come up with that.
It's a three year average.
Some of those years would have concluded the information that was before we reconfigured.
So I think you need better data.
To look beyond your perceptions.
I totally agree that that's important.
Totally believe you need to be looking at growth data.
I think you need to look at internal district data.
If you're going to be doing this.
Lauren, I'm on because Missy's microphone is not on.
So the audio, they can't hear Missy.
That's why I logged in.
Okay.
Any other questions?
I'm just wondering that the use.
I see like a person to the regular growth that I don't.
Just as a layman, not educator.
You comparing regular that is to special and growth.
I just I can't understand that because I know there are apples and oranges and I had my son, especially to the whole way and he was had a completely different system.
I think I think it's unfair to me.
Explain why you would put this in there that it's progressing better than regular at growth.
I mean, I just I don't understand that.
I think they're two different sections of students different.
Maybe the same thing, but then the slower pace.
So I think it's fair to even put that in there.
It's based off of the same assessment.
That's why we include it.
So students without disabilities and students with disabilities are taking the same standardized assessment.
So that is the other.
They're the same test.
Forward exam.
Forward exam.
With accommodations and also the state does special things for special ed students with specialized testing that could be included in there.
Yeah.
There's this.
This is there was an alternative testing that is counted in there.
1% of the student population is allowed to take the alternative test.
Okay, I still tell you that that is not not.
I don't believe that that's a good measure and I think you can find other measures that would give us better data about when our kids are doing currently.
Not not a year or more ago or 3 years ago, because it's averaged.
It's 3. It's a 3 year average to get that score as well as lots of other mechanisms that they go through to figure that out.
So I just I think you can come up with much better data.
Okay.
Any other questions?
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Based on some of the comments, I don't know how much I don't want to spend on this slide, but I included it.
I mean, it was just curious on the difference.
Really the first position.
You wanted to send out.
Well, we have.
First,
and all of the questions you may experience
as a student can amount of wealth
to themselves personally about their working words
that still may not be placed to a provision mark
on the standard estimates,
but both of those are important to grow
just as the program is occurring over time.
Any questions?
Thank you.
So from all of that then,
synthesizing what was in the reports,
looking at the data,
we came up and identified some of the primaries
to do priorities in the first place you can work.
And that is, you work just to make an instructional
consistency and bring clarity to goals,
increase capacity, improve adoration
in case the standard has existing systems.
And this is based on the access that's on there.
And so these are the ones that we call it,
the most common ones.
So a question I have on the next slide,
we have themes and themes aligned
with these priorities,
kind of slightly different from, okay.
I think one of the questions on
prepared, identified, trading,
that's the question you should try to work with.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
So this slide takes most themes
and works to articulate reactions
that we have started to do a second.
Like I said, we have the results
of our innovation at the beginning of May,
so a lot of the months left with our team for summer.
And this is where we're at, we're at the time that we've had.
We had, we should have a team of members of our team
and Friday, no other members of our team today,
so we have a team of members of our team tomorrow.
So I think it's important to learn
and to have a team that's building all the actions
that's happening, just like the consistency.
It's, we're gonna have two program managers
in the past, one of those kinds of scientific buildings
we're going to necessarily assign them to a school.
Again, I'm more school, and we have building managers
and one of those ex-engineer all right,
he's how can we better use them.
So thinking of how we can,
but one of the reasons that we're going to do
is to provide more comprehensive work to all of our own
schools have an expectation being one person
for one person to start reviewing
and creating just communication rules
that are essentially, we have two, one, three,
five, seven, and one piece of different heads
and arguments, so in fact, they're making sure
that most of our data, any of the areas
we may be presenting or can confuse the effects
of where we need to come from,
ensure that we bring clear to those documents
so that they have this user from the A&S
that are being established, right?
That's the biggest thing here.
Thanks, we've had it, it works,
but at this point in time, we may be talking curious
about how we need to get some
because they're only useful if people find them useful.
For clear controls and systems,
again, we're talking about the defining program
for our future, and we have a relationship
around if we've had our own history of expectations
on the professional learning,
making sure that we're doing very hard
and explicit, professional learning
for special education and general education staff
around topics related to special education
and student services for building a computer.
And absolutely, it's leading up to being
a head of the thing from our managers,
and hopefully so that they can be viewed more
as coaches and consultants to the staff
and set up to be that they're more compliant,
which is possibly better to think about in math.
And anti-special education,
specific professional learning, like I mentioned,
increased professional learning.
These are also related to the planet
and actually the future leaders.
In computer collaboration,
generationized for coaches, for managers,
for sites that are less us, and in colleges,
and making sure that they can be distributed
through the mandatory special education team meetings
so that all elementary, specialized staff
can get updates and learning
and collaborate with each other.
All of our middle school staff can,
instead of a pocket of staff here,
a spot pocket of staff there,
to try to bring that consistency in
and make sure that it's not one people think
they're hearing this,
and then other group of people
are here thinking they're hearing something else.
And then the improved instructional systems
come back to professional learning
around specially designed instruction.
So what is specially designed instruction
and really what can they be using?
I know, like, you know, we have,
the district is fortunate to have quite a few resources,
curricular resources that our educators have access to.
It's clear to us now that our job is to help them
better see how they can leverage those tools
that they have to meet the students' needs
instead of thinking they need something extra in addition
to what they already have access to.
Coaching and programming support to meet student needs
align to their IEP and making sure
that when we're building the IEP that it is individualized
and that the specially designed instruction is individualized
and that we're not catching ourselves
just assigning a number of minutes
because that's what a master schedule in a school
seems to allow and know that you may have an intervention block
that runs for 40 minutes every day,
but if a student does that be 40 minutes every day,
we don't have to use 40 minutes for that student.
And if a student needs more than 40 minutes,
then we need to come together to figure out
where are all their times that we can provide
some additional support for that student.
Any more questions?
These are pretty general and I don't, you know,
what does strength and consistency mean?
There's no definitions of some of these things.
These are pretty broad and I don't see the, you know,
we asked the, all our other teams to do smart goals
and we're, you know, there's no detail in terms
of what this, what should this look like?
Any other questions or comments?
I've got a couple of questions for you.
We're, so it, it says,
phase one, how many phases are you anticipating
and how long, I mean, how long is phase two?
There is a minimum would be a year.
So going off of the progress of this,
can you think of this improvement in systems
or the change that you work with, do you have any questions?
Okay.
But again, this is definitely, this is one of the things
that we have, that I've come up with for you now
and God, that's the last thing we want to solve
on our team is improvement efforts
and to necessarily like, that's the plan
for a few more programs, this is just a way
that I don't know, so that's not that much more.
So it's not, you know, we're starting on,
and in fact, three areas of policy and as well,
change the part of something, place in that order.
And we just noticed through that,
that phase one, as successful as we had hoped
and held in two levels to sit in a week,
but across this process.
Okay.
So will we receive some information
about more details specifics
and like when you'll be reporting back
to either the superintendent or the board
or the TLE people's services committee
so that we know what to expect moving forward?
Yeah, we bring the teaching improvement, I brought it,
one for sure, and we are a couple of years,
two times a year, so the more that we brought it to the game.
And like, we have the findings, it doesn't hang.
So we really just started to stretch the purpose
with the summer of the day and around the building.
So this is the beginning because, you know,
we have some of the details for our plan.
I know what we're gonna make.
Thank you.
Anyone have any other ones?
Thank you.
This next item just tries to bring a visual
to clarifying that continuum of services,
which is an obligation as part of IDEA.
Within the feedback that we got from this report,
right, there is recommendation
on strengthening that continuum of services
and not just adopting one particular model.
And so really making sure that we work with our teams
to remember that as they have meetings,
as students and families, that they're basing
their decisions truly often,
what that student needs in order to be successful.
We've identified the need to do some training
for all of our staff, or what is least restrictive
environment, and what does that mean?
Looking at staff capacity,
and then what our strong instructional supports,
when we're talking about that special design
instruction.
And so the visual just gives you kind of an idea
of what some of the most intensive,
so on the left side are the most intensive types
of services that a district could look at
providing for a student with an IEP,
and the far right side,
nope, I'm sorry, the light threw you out there.
I got that mixed up.
The left side is the most inclusive,
and the right side is the most restrictive,
or the most specialized.
So it goes everywhere from being fully included
with non-disabled peers,
or maybe just a few supplementary aids and services,
to having more maybe accommodations,
and modifications in the general and environment,
to then maybe having an extra adult present
with them in general, that environment,
to then moving along the continuum,
more restricted to not as much time with general,
but a non-disabled case of gen ed,
more time with just special education,
all the way through sloring alternate placements,
or both the most severe or extreme cases.
Any more member questions?
So you mentioned the more inclusive,
like in the general ed setting,
students receive,
I forget who you are.
Can you give us an example of what that is,
and do we have that in every general ed setting,
where there are special ed students?
Yes, so I mean, I guess I can't say for certain
that every section in every building has a student with
an IEP in it, but there definitely are sections
of all grades across the district,
but I have students with an IEP to talk about
supplementary aids and services.
Those are technically strategies or things
that a student needs to just help them
be successful in that environment.
So it could be that they're able to have a text read
to them so they can put some headphones on,
they'll have the auditory text,
while the other students are expected
to sign the blue key reading of what it could be
if a calculator, maybe a teacher's work
can face it, that fact,
that typically a calculator is not allowed
during that time from the history of accommodation
could be made with a student's IEP if that is appropriate
to use a calculator to have them navigate those
and that problem works.
We see fidgets and use of sensory toys
and supplementary aids and services.
We have a lot of alternate seating in our district.
Teachers, you may have seen them in even other classrooms,
they play lasting bands on the basis of the chairs
that kids can kind of box their feet against the bottom
of their chair and give someone that movement.
We have pedal, like stationary bike seating,
we have model schools, we have cute chairs,
we have all sorts of things and those put all the examples
of supplementary aids and services that a student may need
to just help keep them regulated and grounded
in the general environment.
We just want to add to that is each student
has their own list of supplementary aids and services.
So when you ask does every classroom have it,
depending on what a student needs,
we would provide that to ensure that at same place
in the classroom.
Okay, I think that's maybe a better question would be,
are the general ed classroom teachers all aware
of what these couple of new aids or services are
in, are they instructed on how to implement them
and provide them to the students?
Thank you, yes.
So all of the special ed staff provide IEP at a glance
is what it's called to all staff that that student
interacts with and that really pulls the students' goals
that they're working on and then it pulls all
of their supplementary aids and services
and especially design construction that they get.
So it's kind of like a snapshot of the really important
things without all the filler narrative that goes
into a pretty comprehensive idea.
And so those are provided to all staff at the beginning
of the school year or after an annual or review revise
occurs and maybe change to those.
I think through some of the data that we've seen
when we talk about needing to provide
some professional learning, a question that you ask about,
do they all understand?
That's a piece that is apparent that we need to provide
more learning opportunities to our general ed staff
around what does this need?
What does this look like?
Where are the two sources located?
Who can they go to those types of things?
Thank you.
Mr. Hinkins?
Yes, Eric or Missy?
Do you allocate how many special ed kids are in a classroom?
I mean, so I mean, if a general ed, you know,
mainstreaming with them with the mainstream,
you don't do you specify how many are in a classroom?
We don't directly.
That's typically not at the very level of perception.
Okay.
However, in our level, when we talk along
about the rule of natural proportions,
it seems that any educational environment
should not exceed what the typical percentages are
for our students.
Although it has 15% students with IEPs,
a classroom should be more than 15%.
Okay.
That would be a nice practice, I guess.
But it doesn't always work that way,
especially in our month's session schools, unfortunately.
Because there's no other features in the IEP students.
So the building principle,
besides where those IEP students go,
or special ed, to get input,
from our manager to head in, but I don't know.
It's a little off topic.
IEP teams, we have to really work with them
for when my son was there.
It's, I mean, I know that there's trouble
to get everyone together and the parent there,
together and the student.
How do you draw?
I mean, who's out in IEP teams?
Usually the,
It's required, it's required for students
to have an LEA, which is that you use your representative
district and you can allocate resources.
Okay.
You have to have a special education teacher
and have to have a regular education teacher
and a regular education teacher
has to have that knowledge of that student.
Okay.
And then, of course, the parents and the student
and the parent and then related service providers.
So that would be your occupational therapist,
your physical therapist,
your deputy hearing teacher, speech therapist, required.
And then, you can certainly invite more.
So you have a light meeting and the parent and student
that nobody chose, you can still have the IEP meeting
and modify it.
No?
No.
No.
Okay.
You should.
You have to.
You have to.
You have to get out required numbers
and unless you have sign consulptious use somebody
from the team.
And maybe you can do that.
But it should be higher.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
I know it's a big, I know it's a big chore.
And I would just add, specifically to when the parent
doesn't show up, we have to be able to document three
but they consider doing faith attempts to engage the family
in coming to an IEP meeting and participating before
it would be okay in the state's eyes
to move forward with an IEP meeting of parents.
So good faith being like, if I call your phone
and I get your voicemail, but it just says,
this is 608, well, that would not be considered good faith
because it's not voice identifying that it's your orders.
A written order, usually the written order won't call
and perhaps an email or another, you know,
a home visit or something.
And you don't really do two a year?
You're required by law to have one meeting
annually per year.
But I'll speak to them in a minute.
I had lots of review for us.
Okay.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Oh, thanks for your answer.
Is it a parent or any guardian that would be their
the parent or legal guardian?
So yeah, yeah.
I mean, we do have some cases where a parent is like,
I really can't, I'm going to send my,
my parent or the child parent parent.
And if that's what they're choosing to do,
we've typically allowed that to go forward.
I'm just thinking of like the times
that I've been involved in those meetings too.
We always then circle back around though
with the actual parent to make sure that they fully
and are comfortable with by every, you know,
I was talking about it.
Okay.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
So this year's we started to then try to map out.
If we were going to start to measure success
and the impact on some of the changes
in work that we're trying that we're going to put forward
here and what would some of that look like?
So when we talk about stronger instructional system,
maybe we're going to look for greater consistency
across schools.
So the feedback that we get is inconsistent,
specifically from our staff that support multiple buildings,
you know, come to me and say, is that this meeting?
And I was told that I needed to do this,
but now, now today I'm at this building and we had a meeting,
but I was told I needed to do it this way.
Okay.
How am I supposed to actually do it?
And so to eliminate the number of staff I come in
and just say, like I'm getting mixed lessons
for increased staff capacity, right?
Having higher staff confidence and retention,
improved collaboration, more effective problem solving
and shared ownership of students.
So leveraging our professional learning communities,
really supporting our gen ed and special ed staff,
really it's for providers to have that time to come together,
to talk about the students, to problem solve,
to engage in work around advancing the outcomes
for the students.
And then that improves student outcomes,
just continuing to look at student growth,
looking at our data, making sure that we are seeing
that we'll do better than that.
We don't slide backwards or are in a standstill.
And one of the things we've talked about
in terms of the top portion,
sends a lot of the feedback that has been kind of pulled
together in this report, was through focus group
and direct staff feedback, a real solid way
of us working to kind of gather
whether or not staff's perceptions from what they gave
when we originally engaged in this evaluation,
to how things are now that we made some changes
would be to come back around mid-year
and ask the same questions
and see if the responses have changed
from when they initially gave them this last school year
to this mid-year.
And then again, at the end of the school year,
so that we would have kind of two pulse checks
on the staff perception on these areas
that I'm possibly able to see,
are things getting better in their eyes?
Do they feel more supported?
Do they feel less confused in those instances?
Any board member questions?
Yes.
Yeah, we'll take you back to the smart goals
and the definitions.
Those aren't really clear
and those are not really pleasurable things
that the way you've set it up.
Yeah, you could probably do some staff surveys
or some going back,
but I think you need to have more specific goals
that can, that have better accountability metrics
that you really need to work on those measurements
and how we can measure what's going on.
Any other thoughts?
Yeah, I'm looking forward to it almost feels like there's
column missing from, we'll look for,
I'm sorry, we'll look for the definitions
to evidence of success
and I'm looking for that meet
in one of that middle column.
We look for specifically what we're looking for,
what our coverings are,
and then we'll look for the new
information that I'll look to help.
Anyone else?
Excuse me.
This last slide, during a meeting,
I was asked what can the board do to support the work
that we'll be moving forward as a result
of the program evaluation,
and we came up with four things,
and the first one is to support a long-term commitment
to continuous improvement.
Like Eric said, this work takes time to see improvements.
We've been doing continuous improvement work for five years,
and it was probably two years ago
that we started seeing things actually change.
There's adaptive change and technical change,
and some things we can do right away,
but some things we're gonna take time
to see movement done,
so we're requesting support in there.
Supporting investments in safety development and retention,
monitoring progress through measurable outcomes
rather than individual anecdotes
and recognizing that meaningful systems change
occurs over time.
So that's what we're asking in response
to the Western Health and the Board support.
And in closing, we just,
you know, we're kind of grounded in that
our systems are gonna improve
by learning from this evaluation that we requested,
and that's kind of where we're at,
and that's it, we'll take any questions you have.
Thank you, Ms. Beavers, and Mr. Weir
for putting this presentation together.
Are there more questions from board members?
Ms. Grishov.
Thank you, lots of buttons to address.
Take my hand down, turn on the room,
like turn on the Google meet mic.
Missy and Eric, thank you so much for this.
I really like the answers to the questions
because I'm learning a lot when you spend the other day
at the TLE committee that I sat in on
and I learned a lot very well.
So that way my comment is that I'm looking forward
to learning more throughout the year,
really applaud you for seeking a program evaluation.
I just came from 15 years at the college
where those extra evaluations are the way
that the programs get better.
And so I got to learn that process.
So I'm really excited about learning
how this process helps you.
So thank you for requesting it.
And thank you for already getting forward
and getting into it and working at it.
And we'll all support it for hearing progress.
As it comes out of this and all the other work you're doing.
So that's my comment.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Fox.
I'm sure you know that I want to see
a much more specific action plan.
I want you to see a written plan
that has specific goals, implementation strategies
and accountability metrics.
When you write a really good IAEA,
you look for evidence, you look for strategies,
you progress monitor, and you evaluate, right?
This is very, and I guess that you've been
just beginning to build this out,
but you need to build it out a little further.
It's not, and I think that the superintendent
needs to make sure that there's that comprehensive action
plan that's written, and that it has
all these accountability measures in it.
It covers things like leadership, staff capacity,
instruction and services, all of those areas
that you have on your special ed thing.
I think there needs to be a plan for all of those.
It also, you know, like I said with the IP,
it goes back to the idea of smart goals.
You have to have really good goals.
You have to have strategies.
You have to know who's going to do it.
You have to have timelines.
You have to have evaluation.
You have to have all of those things.
And I would like to see a written action plan very soon
by getting a couple of months,
and then we can evaluate it on a regular basis
throughout the year.
Any other board members?
Dr. Gordon, if you want to add anything?
Sure, I'm clicking my button.
I'm just not stating notes on that.
I think a plan is a good idea.
I do believe that the pupil services special ed
and curriculum and instruction team
can work together to collaborate that plan.
As you know, the district has been working collaboratively
with partnerships from our state and represent our people,
our as a plan, and working on that
to create our sit plans for our buildings.
And that is a three year plan that we have rolled out.
And we are working with our buildings to work on
and roll out as well.
Of course, we're still in that phase
of working on that plan.
But this falls in line nicely with that.
As we're looking for an entire systems improvement,
it does fall within that.
We are capable of doing good things.
And I know we will do good things.
Again, this was a preliminary baseline for where we are.
And so using the information that we have
from this report to make systems and structures
improvement is really important to,
I know, missing area and to the rest of us
and to our kids and families.
So absolutely, we're up for the task
and we will make sure we are able to give full report.
Thank you.
I have appreciated that.
Tom Hinkins?
Oh, yes.
I really want to applaud, take my head off to Eric
and Missy for asking you for this.
I think it takes a big step to say
that it wasn't a crap for help.
But at least come back and, like Missy said,
look at us, help us improve.
So I really want to lean into this evaluation.
I think it's a great tool for you to,
and I know you're presenting these things.
But I think it's a good thing.
We all need to self-evaluate ourselves.
Sorry, it's hard to look in the mirror sometimes.
But I think it was a wonderful outreach that you guys made.
And I think we really have to embrace it
and understand it and it will be a better district for it.
We're a better team.
So I'm not really happy that you reached out to
your partner in this evaluation and present it this way.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Can we move?
Thank you for giving us all this information.
And I applaud your courage in reaching out
and asking for our evaluation.
We can choose to grow and that's what your purpose was on this.
And so I appreciate you being that.
My question is, in wanting to have specifics
and having your smart goals,
is that something you plan on doing
with the special ed teachers and your team is bad in August?
Is that part of the plan?
And why not at six?
Yeah, I think the population changes every year too, right?
Yeah, I think that.
So we will go back with Dr. Martin
and the curriculum instruction team and ed conversations.
But the context of this evaluation was under that broader work
within continuous improvement.
And so really that work is guided by those goals.
So the smart goals that we have set
and we have three of them that are set on our district
improvement plan, those would be the smart goals.
Those are rooted in student outcomes,
which is what this is all focused on, right?
Is improving student outcomes.
And so what detail can come for sure
would be a more enhanced action plan, right?
Just like we have more detailed action plans
within that continuous improvement,
that district plan for different areas.
We've talked about our hope in regards to art,
your math, our SEL curriculums in the district
and how things are going with those tools,
the other ones.
We have a whole list of them out there, right?
Special ed specific would live within the context
of that broader plan.
So in my view, I would not be developing specific
smart goals to this material because the smart goals
live in our district plan.
This is a subset of that.
So there would be action sets.
Anyone else?
Executive Director Beavers and Director Weir,
thank you.
We appreciate your time and effort
in putting this together and coming out
on such a hot night.
And Dr. Corden, I know that I've mentioned
the curriculum and instruction department
and people's services, it's hard hard.
But I encourage this is a good, wide issue.
So, using research in HR argues
research in business operations,
use the board order to do whatever you need to use
because all of these things are specific to this.
It's going to include throughout the district
and throughout all of our students.
And I'm really looking forward
to seeing what the board is.
I don't know.
It became perfect.
I'm so busy.
And if there are any other questions
from us, I will move to address them.
Second, I will move on.
Yeah, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do.
And then the session, I do not want to do it.
I have, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do.
I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do.
I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do.