notes from Tuesday's meeting

[Lisa]

Hi Everyone,

Here are the notes from the April meeting and workshop! Best, Lisa

Notes from the CSISD School Board Workshop and Meeting, April 21, 2009

I was able to attend the entire workshop and the first hour and a half
of the board meeting. Most of the board meeting was given over to
presentation of awards and reports by teachers and the business office
staff; I missed any unscheduled citizen input and the approvals of
costs for ongoing projects like remodeling the school board meeting
room.

Superintendent Eddie Coulson and Deputy Superintendent Mike Ball made
presentations and answered questions from the Board regarding the
budget, the legislative session, the federal stimulus package, growth,
and the 2007 and 2009 bond issues. They offered their best guesses
about most things, but things seem in flux for the most part, and Mike
spent a lot of time talking about what his office was in the middle of
analyzing, rather than presenting results. They are assuming a 3%
rise in staffing costs for next year, but they are not sure yet. 80%
of district costs are staffing; growth will come in teaching positions
but they also mentioned a curriculum director and support staff,
mostly in connection with the new Creek View elementary school.

Responding to questions about the stimulus, Eddie and Mike said that
applications became available last week, and that the regulations are
still not set in stone, but that the federal stimulus money will be
distributed through two existing programs (Title I and IDEA). The
state has received some stimulus funding already, but is using it to
“plug holes in the budget.” In response to board worries about using
temporary funds for things like hires that will have added costs down
the road, Eddie responded that for a district growing as quickly as
ours, this is less of a problem. Some of the new money may also be
able to be spent on existing programs, freeing up general funds.
Eddie and Mike emphasized that the stimulus funds cannot be used to
fund an endowment, but must be spent.

There was some discussion of district policies for teacher stipends.
Eddie and Mike said that our stipends are equal or higher than most
comparable districts, except for a stipend for bilingual certification
(which is higher in two districts than ours) and that we have no
stipend for “national board certification.” A number of Austin-area
districts and Conroe have stipends for this certification, which is a
professionalization certification involving peer-review and a
portfolio. Eddie expressed the view that we don’t need such
certification, and Board President Charlotte Slack asked them to
continue considering it, since the benefits of teacher
professionalization accrue not just to the individual teacher, but to
the whole school around them. Only one district teacher currently has
such certification, and she arrived at the district with it.

Response to the question about the quality of the applicant pool for
math and science teachers, and particularly about whether any
experienced candidates were available, was vague. It was agreed to
keep thinking about this and about stipends.

Regarding the 2007 bond issue, projects are all moving along, with
College Hills slower than Creek View because that project was started
later. They are negotiating with the City about Creek View’s soccer
fields, with no outcome yet.

The legislative update was generally characterized by uncertainty.
Bills on accountability and school finance are in the works, and there
is some talk of a special session on some of this, but nothing was
known with any certainty. The “hold harmless” provision in the
current school finance law, together with funding formulae that
generate numbers below the old funding for every district, mean that
there is practically speaking no formula-driven funding in the state.
Everyone hopes for a return to formula-driven funding, but it is
expensive and gets more expensive, and from the district’s
perspective, the benefits of it would likely go to more needy
districts, with our district netting probably about $800,000 at best.
Current funding is $5609 per student. [editorial note from Lisa: in
New Jersey in 2006, it was over $14,000. Whatever.]

One interesting detail in the state finance discussion was that Ogden
and Shapiro’s bill proposed to allow districts to raise taxes by 6
cents without an election (the current limit is 4).

Next accountability legislation was discussed. There are new “college
readiness” standards in the works, negotiated by the commissioners of
higher ed and ed, which will exempt students who pass them from taking
remedial courses in college. Many details of measurement for
accreditation were discussed; these included a number of new
exceptions, rolling averages, completion rates, promotion standards,
and trajectories that, taken together, seemed to signal a relaxation
of measurement norms if passed (most proposals offered new alternative
paths to achieving various certifications). A very interesting
possibility was that the legislature is considering moving some of the
State Board of Education’s powers to the commissioner’s office,
including setting the TAKS standards. A joke was made about
disbanding the SBOE, but Eddie said no, only that some of its
authority would be taken away.

Next the 2009 bond election was discussed. Though the new high school
seems like to most people, it was emphasized that people still need to
get out and vote. Eddie said that the most common questions he gets
these days are: when do we get a new high school? and where will it
be? It is too early to say, he said, but noted that the only
appropriate parcel owned by the district is on Victoria. It was
agreed that our district is in much better shape than many other
districts in the state. The district has added 2400 students in the
last seven years. The last workshop item was discussion of advocacy
agenda items, the deadline for which is this July. Board members
agreed to read the brochure and think of additions to this year’s
advocacy items.

After a five-minute break, everyone left the library and headed to the
(already packed) lecture hall. Lots of excellent students and
teachers were recognized, including a 4th grader who got recognized by
the Duke Talent identification program (which normally happens to 7th
graders). One especially nice moment was the surprise recognition of
board member Mary Broussard, who has been nominated for the Jefferson
Award for public service. There was also a short concert by the
nationals-winning high school a capella group. Another cool thing is
the district’s participation with TAMU in an NSF-funded “partnership
for environmental education,” which places science grad students in
middle-school classrooms.

The board meeting proceeded out of the agenda order. As best as I can
tell, I missed the following items: hearing of citizens;
recommendations for new principals at College Hills elementary and AMC
middle schools; approval of budget amendments and purchasing.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Ellis

[Katherine Kelly]

Dear Lisa:

Many thanks for such a thorough and candid report on the April
meeting and workshop. Very informative!

Kate