CSC

Date: 9/22/2021

Time: 4:15-5:30

Present: Matson, Aranda, Flohr, Marcus Harper (parent), Grossinger and Washington

Agenda: UIP goals, Enrollment, Staffing and Resolution

Meeting Notes:

The meeting began with KM giving an opening welcome and sharing the purpose of the CSC committee. KM shared the agenda items for the meeting and welcomed input and feedback from the committee. KM shared she wanted to give an immediate response to the staff in regards to October count #’s. Details were shared on numbers the school is down students per grade level (projections vs. enrollment at each grade level). Projection was 459 students and we are currently at 436. We have carry forward funds to support the prevention of cuts estimated around 167,840. The difference of usage will be 45,411.

The number of students in each classroom at each grade level was shared with CSC members.

It was noted with emphasis and recognition the work our office staff have been doing to get students enrolled. 

The suggestion from KM is to have NO reductions and to use carry forward funds to prevent reductions. The entire committee agreed with using the carry over funds to prevent reductions. Using 122,429 with 45,411 remaining. 

Questions were asked: how much is for substitutes, what can we do to keep staff buy in and funds used for substitutes. It was noted that we currently have not used funds for substitutes and that substitute funds are calculated in the school budget. A suggestion was made to share with staff the importance of commitment and buy in. The committee agreed to share messaging with staff concerning commitment. It costs $160 a day for a substitute plus benefits. 

We currently have 436 students in the building. Projections could reduce in the spring.

UIP Goals: 

1.) Early literacy with a dual focus on Foundational skills and acceleration for all 

• Increase percentage of overall students in grades 1-3 scoring Tier 1 to 70% by Spring 2022 (Fall 2021 = 58%)

2.) Black Excellence Plan

• 70% of Black students in grades 1-5 will score Tier 1 or higher on Istation (Fall 2021 = 63%)
• 10% or fewer of Black students in grades 1-3 will score SBGL on Istation (Fall 2021= 24%)

3.) Unit Internalization

• 43% 3-5th proficient on CMAS (based from 33% on target fall 2021)
• 43% 3-5th proficient on CMAS

KM, thanked the team for their time and shared she would send out notes and times for our next meeting.

In Attendance:

Michelle Aranda, Teacher, Aaron Feldmann, Teacher, Eduardo Hernandez, Teacher, Karen Matson, Assistant Principal, Yolanda Ortega, Principal. 

This meeting was held to discuss use of CARES funds for the 2021-2022 school year. The following was discussed: 

• We have $79,000 in CARES funds available for the upcoming school year.
• Funds must be used for tutoring, intervention, extended school day services, or instructional positions related to loss of learning. 
• If we use the CARES funds to pay for an additional interventionist/teacher, we must use it to fund a new position. It cannot be used towards an existing position. 
• The committee agreed to use this money to fund a new math interventionist for 3rd – 5th grades. Students entering our intermediate grades were in primary grades when the pandemic started and could benefit from support to catch up on standards they may not have mastered yet. Primary math intervention would be difficult logistically as many of our first and second grade students receive literacy intervention. Two pull outs per day will result in loss of core grade level instruction and could be counter-productive. 
• The math intervention position funded by CARES is a one year position.

Marcus, Michelle, Eduardo, AJ, Yolanda, KM (note taker)

AGENDA

*celebrations before agenda

1. Review Current Staffing
2. Outline UIP Goals
3. Review 2021-22 Projections
4. Discuss SBB
5. Discuss reduction scenarios

Current Staffing

• Reviewed all current positions across grade levels and teams

https://lucid.app/lucidspark/invitations/accept/4f3120b3-42fd-4a17-8f6b-d40080d20a38

UIP Goals

Student Projections

2020-2021

• Projected at 487 
• At Fall adjustment 458
• Difference of -29 students
• 463 became our projections

2021-2022

• 459 student
• Difference of -4 students 
• Really budgeting for a decrease of -28- from Fall adjustment 

2022-2023

• Planning department sees a decline for the 2022-23 SY as well

Grade Level Breakdown

• 1st grade- T87 (58E/29S)
• 2nd grade- T79 (58E/21S)
• 3rd grade- T89 (69E/20S)
• 4th grade- T106 (84E/22S)
• 5th grade- T98 (80E/18S)

Scenarios

• Scenario 1- reduce 3 teachers; 0.8 intervention, 1 1st-E, 1 2nd-E
• Scenario 2- reduce 2 teachers; 0.8 intervention, 1 1st-E 
• Any other discussion about other scenarios or alternate option to reduce -28 plus also plan to budget for tech backfill 

The following points were brought up by CSC members during the discussion after the power point:

• Biggest hit is over $108K from budget was absorbed by Teacher, Para, SSP and Secretary salary increase (this is equiv to 1 FTE or 3.5 paras)
• Salary increase + student decline- is a big hit over $250k
• $130k loss with tech

• We have one of highest trained intervention teams in the district- OG, LLI, GRP- this is going to be essential after a pandemic 
• -we will have to look at adding Lit and Math- not just a focus on Lit
• HGT proficiency in grades 2-5 carry our status. HGT magnet sets us apart from zone schools and is a major draw for families to come to our school. Having homogeneous HGT classrooms plus HGT certified staff at every grade level- support magnet needs and student recruitment for magnet eligible students
• Alternate option: RIB a 4S and a 5S and post a 4/5-S split.
  • Too many students over 35S
  • Most impact linguistic needs still in ⅘- would we jeopardize linguistic instruction and academic instruction- consensus- yes 
  • Could pull some students to ELA-E but that would take recruitment choice seats away from 4th/5th E students which can impact Fall numbers (biggest choice grades)
  • Don’t have para numbers to support that need of students in class 
• Computer cost- set up a computer lab instead of 1:1?  
  • Unsure of health restrictions for next year
  • We only have space for 1 lab- already set up
• Survey parents to determine which devices will still be in working order. Maybe we don’t need to use full $132K for computers.
• No set plans from DOTS on replacing any of the computers that archuleta has purchased
  • We know 6-12 will be prioritized for tech
• Scenario 1- if we pursue this scenario, do you foresee this causing us to have to change the programming model for HGT? – Very likely, yes- and it would have significant impacts on 3-5. Especially when 2nd is a screening year
  • Could we reduce 1-1stE and 1-2ndE and make a ½ split?
  • Concerns about academic planning for teacher with such instructional loss and the possibility of V/IP next year
  • Concerns of losing HGT program opportunities from District
  • EBA only has 90 student projected to them- we will see impact for another 3-5 years
  • Past 3-4 years Archuleta has seen lower incoming 1st grade students-which is impacting 1st and 2nd current class sizes. (high choice numbers in 3-5)
  • All 1st grade classes are under 20 students, with the exception of S classes
  • All second currently over 20s 
• Scenario 2- if we are conservation with spending next year, could sustain the HGT program (presumably) 
  • Losing magnet status would greatly impact future numbers, enrollment, assessment, programming availability – worth trying to sustain HGT track for one more year
  • This is not new- school has used up carry forward and reducing paras to try to keep 4 around at every grade level, 
  • class sizes don’t warrant this – as we only have a skeleton crew for paras- not enough to supervise- can’t reduce paras 
• Can we take $5-10K and do our own marketing campaign? This could help enrollment. Also, use some money to get a grant writer to go after some of these dollars. 
  • How do we recruit all year not just during choice- contract grant writer or someone to market outside of district marketing. Difficult to complete with charters 
• Looked at SPED- as mentioned last year (.5)
  • Too many students with IEPs
  • Lost several students with IEP in 5th last year, but increased this year in 1 and 2- including MTSS needs
• Parent wants to look at Big Tech Co grants and will look at what is out there (amazon, google- aerospace etc)
• Taxes- concerned about pandemic and how it will impact taxes- which impacts schools funding- pandemic effects to last 3-5 years
  • DPS is trending below their reserve
  • Archuleta should plan to keep at minimum 10-15 kids worth in reserve
• Discussed retirements-
  • 4/5HGT Lit
  • Intervention E/S
• Copy machines- when will we be out of district contract
• Unsure of cost for digital resources yet- how much will district still cover- unknown
• Plan next meeting- recruitment including identifying churches to have school info available to families 
• Plan next meeting for after school virtual clubs for kids- parents want to support/volunteer
• CSC consensus- favor scenario 2 – 
  • Principal did not vote- asked the team to determine consensus
  • Concern noted about Fall adjustment- too hard on a teacher to be reduced in Fall- will we have enough in reserve to help if Fall Adjustment numbers are low
    • Will keep $175 in reserve 
    • Cover teacher, possible tech and allows for some reserve
    • Next grade to reduce is 2nd- if numbers support 
    • We can not deplete reserve
  • Noted Scenario 2 has less impact at this time
  • Try to conserve HGT magnet status

Amy Grossinger, Michelle Aranda, Amy Golden, Marcus Harper, Claudia Hernandez, Yolanda Ortega, Karen Matson

1. In-person/virtual updates
2. Uniforms
3. Anticipated projections

Yolanda Ortega was on the planning committee as a FNE Principal to support the rollout/planning of return to school.

• YO shared various scenarios the district was working from Hybrid option seemed to be favored
• In-person learning looks likely – but virtual is not off the agenda
• Without ILT and SLT meeting yet – unsure what a specific schedule will look like

Uniforms – YO discussed that uniforms were voted on by the community prior to her arrival, and would like some feedback about uniform as a choice this year – not a requirement.

• Families may not have money to purchase uniforms as a result of pandemic
• Families may not have left house to go to the store
• Stress of finding the just right uniform colors
• Can we give families a choice – to wear uniforms
  • Some families buy extra uniforms when on sale for the next school year
• Consensus is that the FNE has been hit hard by COVID-19
  • Students can come as they are for one year – not a change in uniform policy, but one year choice as a result of pandemic
  • 2021-22 uniforms will return – unless circumstances are similar

Anticipated projections

• No students on 1st ELA-E waitlist; 8 waitlist for ELA-S
• Few students on waitlist 2nd ELA-E and ELA-S
  • 3rd, 4th and 5th – all have waitlists for E and S
    • 5 HGT 3rd
    • 2 HGT 4th

We will take in all waitlist 1st and 2nd grades – for ELA-E, and we will wait a bit to see what actually verifications look like for 3rd, 4th and 5th (and 1st S and 2nd S)

• Unsure if district will require fall adjustment