Good evening. Good evening. So thank you for being here tonight. Today is Wednesday, May 3, and this is a special study session as it relates to budget conversations. We will go ahead and call the meeting to order. Madam Secretary, can we please have a roll call? Angelique Peterson Mayberry. I'm present Misha Stallworth. Sonia Mays. Dr. Iris Taylor sharegate Agnetha Latrice, McClendon, Bishop Colette Avan. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you can you also know do a conference special meeting,
I venue more hereby certify that each board member was given notice of this special meeting on April 11 2023, according to his applicable statute,
thank you, we will now have the meeting norms. We respect the right of all persons to participate in this public meeting of the board and kindly request that everyone engages in behavior that supports the same in the event that anyone engages in behavior that is not in support of the good request that you refrain from that behavior at this time. During our moment of silence, we will be lifting up young Mr. Giovanni Williams, who was a kindergartener at Marcus Garvey school, who passed away suddenly. funeral was on Friday viewing was today. So board members were represented to support and put their arms around the family. So please remember during this moment of silence, young Mr. Williams from Marcus Garvey School.
Thank you. The Chair will now entertain a motion to approve the agenda.
Madam Chair, I'd like to move to amend the agenda. And I can proceed with my suggestion when you're ready. Okay. I would like to move to action items, our policies and the notices of consideration of non renewal to from their current location on the agenda up to follow the close of public comment registration, which is item number four. And I would also like to remove items 6.03 from the agenda to be addressed at a later time.
Thank you. So the motion on the floor is to amend the agenda to move items 6.01 and 6.02. After public comment Registration closes and to postpone the conversation of item 6.03. To our May 16. Board meeting. Is that correct? Is there a support for the revision of the agenda support? All those in favor of the revisions signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried thank you for chair remarks. So I just want to thank everybody for coming out today. For our study session. I want to be real clear that this is a study session. And it is really about the budget proposal. This is not a meeting to vote on the budget. So it's not a meeting to vote on the budget per state law. We have to hold a public hearing in advance of any vote. And that will be done in June, not today. So to be clear, again, we are not voting on the budget today. At tonight's study session. We will do three things one, we will be presented with the superintendents proposal for next year's budget. Two we will ask questions and get answers. Three, we will get an understanding of the proposed budget that will enable us to vote at the June meeting. So we're conducting a study session so that you can hear the exchange of conversation. This means that you will know what we know in real time. tonight's agenda solely focuses on the budget a study session of the budget and a few items carried over from last year's I'm sorry, last regular board meeting held on April the 18th. No other items are on the agenda nor will be discussed today other than the two action items. And to that end, we asked that public comments not related to the budget be held for our next board meeting. One more thing. cell phone towers are not on the agenda tonight. However, please know that the board and the district are in active pursuit of obtaining all necessary content and material from subject matter experts so that we can make a decision in the next upcoming meeting. At this time that will close the chairs remarks, and the time is 556. Public comment registration has just closed. Again the time is 556. And public comment registration has just closed. Item 6.01. With the revision, we're moving to 6.01 approval of the superintendents 602602 approval of notices of consideration for non renewals per MCL, three, eight 0.12 to nine. So again, this action item is one that carried over from Tabeling it from our regular board meeting. And this is only about process, so only about process of non renewables. So if there's no discussion, a chair entertain a motion. Support. It's been properly moved by Dr. Taylor properly supported by Vice President Stallworth West. Any discussion? Yes.
Yes. I just want for a point of clarity, that approval of this allows us to initiate the process for which there is a 30 day period for which any one individual that happens to be on the list has an opportunity to address the board. And then there's a final decision during that 30 day period, people can be either added or subtracted or stay on. And then at the following board meeting is when you actually vote on the non renewal so that people are clear about the process.
Thank you. Thank you. Yes.
Through the Chair, just to clarify it, it's 30 days before the end of the contract year. So the board would have to take action on a non renewal 30 days before the contract terminates, which is June 30. But the process of negotiation to to an actual board vote does not require 30 days. I just want to clarify that.
Thank you. No, thank you. Any more discussion? Not all those in favor of the motion on the floor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried as 6.0 to item 6.03. We have moved to our main board meeting. So are we now did you move policies and policies? Okay, so policies were more were moved up as well. So these are all second reads. And these were at the previous board meeting. We have 014 1.1 youth involvement in District governance. We have 2340 field and other district sponsored trips 3440 job related expenses 5711 due process rights, 7250 commemoration, naming and renaming of school facilities 80 to 10 school calendar. And then we had a new policy TBN 38 election campaign activities. So this is a second read. Is there,
Madam Chair Move to approve the post adoption review bylaw 014 1.1. youth involvement in District dope governance.
So there was a motion on the floor to approve 014 1.1 youth involvement in District governance, any discussion?
Clarity. I didn't see any changes to this. Is this a new or? I apologize. I wasn't speaking into the microphone. I was unclear if this was I wasn't clear if this is a new policy or if it's updated. I don't see any changes.
So through the Vice Chair, is there any changes to this policy?
Madam Chair? I'm not. I'm not sure about the markup for today's materials. However, the changes that were reviewed and first read had to do with what is the stipend versus incentive some language that would allow us to compensate our youth effectively. So that was the primary change.
Any more discussion on 0141?
Just not to belabor it if someone just speaking, they can't hear you can someone point me to that section?
Okay, so we are looking for that specific language around stipends. as that being the only edit to that policy 014 1.1.
Section B section
will receive an incentive. So where you see, Okay,
where is it? Section B? Incentive unsatisfied? And that's really for accounting purposes. Am I correct? Okay. Okay.
We know what they've been I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Do we know what the amount of the incentive is?
We we do for this term? We're not codifying it in policy so that as we as things change, or the number of meetings change, things like that we're able to have flexibility, each term with our, with our youth.
So is there a specific amount that we need to be made aware of? It's 50. It's $100 per meeting.
Okay, any more discussion on 014 1.1? And the we know that this is a policy for the youth ambassadors on the board, just for clarity. It says youth involvement with our youth ambassadors on the board, any more discussion? If not all those in favor of approving policies or one four 1.1 signify by saying Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried Thank you. 2340. Any discussion around feel? In other district sponsored trips,
Madam Chair moved to tie bar the post adoption review policies to 340344056117250 and a 210.
There's a motion on the floor to Thai bar. The post adoption review policies is their support. It's been properly moved by Vice President Stallworth West has been properly supported by member gay diagnostico. Any discussion? The only thing that I had I had a question on 2340 around volunteers who actually go on field trips, what level of clearance they are to receive and if that is spelled out clearly for volunteers, chaperones on field trips. I didn't see it in a policy, but I didn't know if there was some administrative guidelines that spoke directly to
it. Madam Chair, would you like me to pull that from my motion to tie bar, please? Happy with that friendly amendment. So my Thai bar is now 43440561172508210.
So there's a friendly amendment for the Thai baht of 3440 through 8210 of the post adoption review, is there support? It's been properly moved by Vice President Stallworth was properly supported by member gay diagnostico. Any discussion? All those in favor?
I'm sorry. 72577250. My recollection is that this was going to be taken back to make some modifications to the underlying policy, I only see one small edit in here. So I just wanted to clarify, if this had, if this had gone through a deeper review and conversation, are we really just cleaning up the designee language?
What I'm seeing here is similar to the other two, the last policy discussed where the markup doesn't reflect the discussion, however, that substantive changes to this policy have to do with
the substantive changes to this policy have to do with
section.
So he's looking at the section for where this change is noted in policy 7250.
It's a section around the weight of the stakeholder group, prioritizing students who are actively attending the school. Whereas
we also added that,
yeah, can you point it out? Please start to really the lack of Mark. Yeah,
no problem. We also added clarification on the demographic on what we mean by demographic earlier
in the past. Yeah. So. So under naming or renaming of schools, letter C. There's clarification in terms of you know, the current name does not reflect the current student population. Our original policy that item C ended right there. The added phrasing to that letter provides It's clarification. And I'm trying to I'm trying to quickly identify the other line and just
fine. Would it be possible to bring this one back and in later in May in our board meeting with that with actual markup on it,
okay. So so we need another.
Alright, so that can be pulled from my time bar as well. I'm now Thai bar 344056118210. Support. Thank you, okay.
It's been properly moved and supported by Vice President stalwart West and supported by member gay diagnostico. So in the tie bar, 2340 and 7250 are not in the tie bar. So these are second reads. So typically, we know that there's been conversation with policy committee members thus far. So that's bringing it to this point. Any more discussion? If not, all those in favor of the tie bar on the floor signify by saying aye? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. So now I go back to 2340.
If Madam Chair I move to approve the timecard policies.
Thank you. The motion on the floor is now to approve the tie bar the first motion was to tie bar now the motion is to approve the tie bars been properly moved by Vice President Stallworth was properly supported by member Mays, any discussion? All those in favor of the tie bar signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Now 2340, I'm back to the clearance for chaperones on field trips. So is that language, I would like to see that language in the policy just because just because you're a volunteer, going on a shot, you know, as a chaperone on a field trip, I think there is still a level of clearance that you need. Because you still have young people with you
through the chair. So it's just it's level one, level one level one. So because you're because on a field trip, you have employees there that are an eye distance of the of the students, it doesn't require additional screenings. It's only when students, for example, are staying overnight, where you have to do additional screening.
Okay, so can we put level one in the policy, just so that there's no confusion or gray space?
Sure. Thank you. And just to remind the board when we anytime we've done second read, we don't include the edit the edits are there for the first read, but not the second read if we want to change that we can. So moving forward, if the board would prefer, we can include all the edits for the second read. So you see them for the first and a second, but typically, well, not typically always. We've never had the edits for the second read.
Okay, any more discussion on 2340? The field and other district sponsored trips,
Madam Chair Move to approve that policy with the noted changes.
Is there support? It's been properly moved by Vice President Stallworth was properly supported by member gay dad, no go to approve policy 2340. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried now the final policy TV in 38 election campaign activities. Is there any discussion or clarity needed on that policy? If not, the chair entertain a motion to approve TB n 38.
It's been properly moved by Vice President Stallworth was properly supported by Dr. Taylor. Any discussion? All those in favor of approving the policy TBN 38 signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We will now move into the discussion. So item 6.01 is approval of the superintendents personnel restructuring plan. So the chair entertain a motion so we can begin discussion. Is there a support? It's been properly moved by Dr. Taylor properly supported by member Mays. Dr. Vitti. I know before you get ready, I will just say to the board, thank you so much. After the last board meeting, there was a lot of engagement back and forth, not only with the board and communities but also with the superintendent. So all questions, comments, inquiries were sent to Dr. Vt prior to today's meeting. So a lot of what we will see will be at the request of the board.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. There's lots of slides lots of information, but I've hit the high points more for the audience and just orientation for the board. I don't know this can be activated.
Thank you. So our budget priorities which are directly linked to our strategic plan is to preserve the momentum on student achievement, attendance, staffing, climate and culture addressed a unique needs in this budget of neighborhood schools and large schools with a more equitable allocation model. So previously, we were focused more on giving all schools the same, but knowing that we have to refine the budget. It is more about keeping positions in schools of greater need. Rather than just simply allocating the same positions based on the number of students obviously remain fiscally responsible with the budget. So that we can preserve DPS CDs independence, and operational stability, make difficult but strategic budget decisions, while providing meaningful and thoughtful employment alternatives for as many employees as possible, especially hourly employees. What this budget does is stay true to our priorities, but ensures that our outcomes can still be made. So when we talk about our outcomes we're talking about at an above grade level performance, from the M step to PSAT to nape to showing one or more years of growth and literacy and math, making sure that we're improving graduation rate, that we can meet higher staffing levels meaningful the staff status in all of our employee groups, continue to improve enrollment after the pandemic. And more importantly, make sure students feel loved challenged and prepared at greater numbers.
So we've talked a lot about slide nine and slide nine really captures what were the challenges that we have going into this budget year. With the pandemic, we saw a loss of enrollment of 3000 students. Since the pandemic hit we have recaptured 1000 students. But when we go into next year, we're looking at a 2000 FTE revenue loss, which equates to about $20 million. We did not have to deal with this from a staffing or budget point of view to last three years because we had COVID relief money filling that gap. We have rising costs of health care. Those have already been seen or experienced by the budget. But we've we've absorbed that at the district level and not put that on employees over the last two years. And next year, health care costs are expected to increase again, we're dealing with inflation, you see that impact more than anywhere else in operations. So the our custodians, gas, transportation, bus drivers have all increased in costs. That is not new for next year that has already occurred over the last three years. But those higher costs were absorbed by the COVID relief funding. The cost of utility utilities is also increased. That is due to just natural gas going up, but just energy costs and schools having just more technology. And then lastly, we want to ensure that we're continuing to be competitive with our teacher salaries, but really district wide salaries. So we have to budget for that going into next year. That doesn't account for the salaries that have already been increased. That's already in the budget that's already been addressed in a reoccurring way. This is about increasing salaries in a reoccurring way again next year. So although we are anticipating a $50 million increase in state and federal revenue, there's still a gap of about 37 430 to about $37 million that we need to fill going into next year.
So in order to address that, we have created a budget again with the priorities in mind. But a series of personnel changes at Central Office and that individual schools
So the action item for today is reflected on slide 32, which summarizes the personnel changes that require board action. And the board's action is required. Because we cannot implement this when the board adopts the regular budget. Slide 24 If you just want to move there faster than I can,
yeah, slide 24. And then I'll go back to the other slide, the flowchart.
Slide 24. Oh, you're right. 32. It was 24 are mindless. So that's the difference. Thank you. So this represents the action item, and the recommendations that I'm making regarding a personnel restructuring in order to balance the budget and allow for salary increases next year. The only individuals on this list that may not be offered a position next year would be central office administrators and school based administrators that do not have a teaching certification, or have his teaching certification and are not willing to teach. All the other positions that are identified here have alternative options to stay employed in the district through other funding sources. So the list of personnel changes include reducing assistant principals and schools less than 300, excluding high schools, reducing the Dean allocation by 24 positions. This as of today would have no additional staff impact, because we've already reduced to that amount through the severance process Dean's voluntarily taking teacher positions. So that work is done. Shifting master teachers to a full teaching schedule, we will still have master teachers, they'll still receive $5,000. But they will work with staff before school, during staff meetings after school or on PD days or on days with PD sessions after school. Principals will also use subs to have teachers master teachers released so they can work with students or teachers. In other classrooms, there may be schools based on the teacher allocation or schedule where master teachers can be released. But that will be at an individual school level. This isn't a reduction of teachers, it's just a shift and then teaching the full day rather than half of the day. We would discontinue central office funding of college transition advisors. There are five schools that will be funding to the CTAs. But the the option here for the CTA is to go into a pathway program to become a counselor. Their salaries could stay the same based on negotiation, or they could become academic interventionists, we would discontinue central office funding of school culture facilitators. Although some schools are picking them up, there are currently about 30 schools 30 positions that are being funded at the school level. And I'll revisit that with the flowchart. We would discontinue funding at the school level for kindergarten parents, all of those parents would have the option of becoming pre K parents, we are expanding pre K enrollment across the district in order to increase enrollment. So pre K parent or kindergarten parents could go from kindergarten parents to being pre K parents, and their wages and benefits would stay the same. Or they could also move into cafeteria or ESC para para aide positions are substitute positions. That's the same for school culture facilitators, and then reducing central office staff and eliminating COVID funded positions at central office and at individual schools. And that equates to about 130 positions. If you could just go back to the flow chart, and then I'll explain the options. That's about three or four slides. It's recommended personnel changes and it'll be the last slide that I'll go over. This demonstrates the options that the school based staff has, if we do not fund their position at Central Office. So school culture facilitators currently make $17.55 There are about there are 95 employees in that position. With school based funding 34 of those positions had been funded at the school level. So the remaining 61 individuals could go into an ESC para role, a cafeteria worker role, a security guard role or a day to day sub role. As you can see, funding for those are in funding categories that are what we call categorical. So they are unique and not linked to the general fund. With the exception of day to day subs, which we are in great need up. So we do fund day to day substitute general fund, but we have quite a few vacancies in great need. In fact, many school culture facilitators serve as subs on a day to day basis already. The para educator is a kindergarten peer educator, there are 91 employees in this group 16 had been purchased at the school level through next year's budget. So that leaves 75 of the 75 Eight have already indicated that they'll be willing to go into pre K or a day to day several. And you can see the options there on the slide. There options are ESC para or aid cafeteria worker, pre K parents, probably most relevant for them, or the day to day sub. And then lastly, the college transition advisor. There are 24 schools are funding, five schools are funding that position that leaves 19. Those 19 individuals can go into a pathway counselor role, where we would work with them to gain their certification, they would have to work on their own to obtain their master's degree. They don't have it already. But we would likely be able to keep their salary the same or negotiate the specifics of that with EFT or they could become academic interventionist. So at a high level, again, the only employees that would be laid off without an alternative employment opportunity would be central office administrators, principals, assistant principals that will do not have teachers certification, or Western education are not willing to teach. Everyone else has an alternative option to stay employed in the district if they voluntarily do so. And we can fund that because those alternative positions either have vacancies and or they're funded out of sources outside of the general fund, where our greatest needs and challenges are. Madam Chair, I'll stop there and just entertain any questions that the board has.
Thank you, Dr. Vitti. And thank you for getting this package tightly, we wanted to be able to look at one document and be able to see what the impact is behind this recommendation. So just so I'm clear, we know that you've said that positions are available for here for what's on the screen. So for example, our PK are parent educators who have an opportunity to go to peros for pre K. How does that work with the you just can't move them into those positions? Can you just talk about that process?
Yes. So you're correct. So if we just focus on this slide that's on the screen and on your laptop. The the administration cannot involuntarily move, let's say a pair a kindergarten para educator into a pre K para role. I can't just simply move an individual in that position. We've already engaged pre K or kindergarten parents about these options. Some have moved in that direction, some have not moved yet. So if the board approves the recommendation, they would receive another letter of layoff saying that their position is not funded next year. But would lay out these four alternatives in the letter and HR would continue to engage those individuals about voluntarily selecting one of these positions. The only way that I would be able to involuntarily move on individual a para que para educator and one to these roles is if the union and the administration agrees to a memo of understanding where we would, for example, move all K para educators into the pre K parallel roll. We are willing to do that. But DFP in this situation. Troy Federation of para educators would have to agree to that. But at this point they have not.
Okay, thank you.
I'll open up to the floor to the board first,
Madam Chair. Thank you Dr. Vitti for this document. This has been my request because I'm a visual learner and I want to see it clearly. Let me just ask a couple of questions based on your report. The people that are affected directly to the possibility of losing their jobs, those that those two groups are central office and principals or vice principals.
So there is a, there is a central office administrators union and non union, some principals and some assistant principals. Now, if any of those individuals have teaching certification, and they want to teach that as an option, probably most relevant for principals and assistant principals, there are few central office administrators that have a teaching certification. So those would be the only individuals that would not have an opportunity next year to stay in the district.
So for principals that have teaching certificates, and assistant principals that have teaching certificates, they can go into the classroom, is that correct? That's correct. And there is room for them? Yes. And about how many principals does this impact? And how many assistant principals does this impact?
This could, as potentially tonight, potentially, about 30. If you combine principals and assistant principals about 30, my sense is that by the May board meeting, that number will be less, because we would engage individuals about severances. But as of tonight, I would say about 30.
And so from from from a long game perspective, what if those principals are no longer with the district in that position? What happens to those particular schools? Will there be another leader placed there? How does that work?
Yeah, so that number sounds high. Most of those individuals are assistant principals, not principals. And I understand I'm grouping the two. So based on based on the non renew list, by memory, there would only be one or two schools, let's say by the end of the year, that would not have a principal, as of the end of this school year, one or two, and it may be zero by the end of the school year. Most of the 30 are assistant principals who do not have positions because they were in schools with less than 300 students, or they would be at schools with a principal wants to move in a different direction.
All right, Madam Chair. So for the for the list that we see here at school culture facilitators, I just want to make sure that I'm understanding that the people who are in the position of the school culture facilitators, para educators, and referring to those areas in dark blue, and college transition advisors, have the options of going into these several positions in order to stay employed in the district. Is that correct? Is that what this says?
It does, they're there. For these three groups on this slide, there is no reason why any individual within those three groups would not be employed next year, unless there was some kind of discipline issue that happened between now and the end of the year. But outside of that, from an employment perspective, from a budgeting perspective, every individual representing these three employee groups can be employed by dpscd, with next year's budget and next year staffing model.
So within the budgetary allocations, the primary reason that these changes have to be made is the source of funding, and not necessarily the funding itself.
I would say that when you go back to our priorities, and you know, of the budget constraints that we have, what we've tried to do is identify staff or employee groups that are not directly impacting our metrics and our priorities. It does. I want to clarify, because I've said this many times, indirectly, they do. But we have tried to protect those employee groups that directly impact our metrics, and trying to make decisions to free general fund, which is the greatest challenge in our budget, so that we can keep everything moving, and increase salaries and minimize health care costs increase. Now, some of these positions are currently funded, let's say for title one, so this is a misunderstanding. So we had to move things out of general fund Back to Title One. But to move things from general fund to Title One, we had to move other things out of Title One. And so these are things that we're we're currently funded out of Title One, but we're moving out of Title One to free space for other things that were in general fund. And if there's there's a really nice slide that shows the amount of that our budget is heavily relying on federal funds is as compared to other large urban school districts, because our state is not adequately contributing to the funding of public education, especially in an equal and equitable way. So a lot of our budget is being operated through federal funds. Our need is general fund. So I heard that in a public comment a couple of weeks ago, which is, why aren't we already funded through title one or, you know, I my position was not funded out of COVID. So why are you having this conversation? The conversation or the recommendation is based on freeing things from title one to move into title one from general fund to free general fund dollars, and they can stay employed, because the position that they're going in has vacancies or is not funded out of general fund with the exception of day to day sounds, which were in great need of.
Okay. And my last question, Madam Chair, I'm sorry. Procedurally, as, as they began to agree to those that say we want to stay employed with the district. Procedurally, how does that work? And I know that we are not a procedure board, I know that we are a policy board. But just so that we will be able to have clarity when we get the feedback from the community, what does that look like? So I'm a I'm a school culture facilitator, I choose to be a day to day sub, because I have the credits to do that. What happens to me next,
to clarify all school culture facilitators go to day to day subs, it's not a credit issue. It's tradition to become a long term sub, which is not here, it's a day to day sub, they are all eligible to become day to day subs. And so that that is a strategy, by the way for school culture facilitator to stay in the building that they're in, they can go into the day to day sub role and be a day to day so basically, at that school, so that that is a frequently asked question. But to answer your question, the next steps would be to use your example the school culture facilitator, they would receive another layoff letter to reminding them that their position is not funded next year, that letter will outline the options they have. And HR will send that letter along with another survey to pick another position. And also contact that individual about picking another position. Once they tell HR that they want to go into that other position, then they're moved Not, not until next year, they'll stay in a position they're in and at the school that they're at until the end of the year. And then they would move into this position next year. We'll also ask principals to engage the individuals in these groups on an individual level to complete the survey and follow up with HR and pick another position. It's also to the benefit of the principal to do that, because some of them can stay in the building that they're currently at, but in a different role.
Right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. I know there's a couple of questions. Remember, McClendon let me Doctor VT before you do that. I know one of the things that the board consistently asked is that for the scope of work, and so regardless of what the title was for the person who had it, what's the scope of work, who is absorbing the scope of work so that there is no disruption to the services that have been provided?
So just for clarity, do you want me to go over that for these three groups?
What's your question?
That was exactly my question. My first question I have another one but okay.
Would you like me to go through each of the three so my numbers are off but if you could go to the slide that says que para educator allocation adjustment
is 2021 here Yeah. I don't know what it is.
So it's number two slide 21.
Yep. The top it says que para educator allocation adjustment. Thank you. Okay. So for the K para educator again, these individuals specifically can basically do the same job they're doing. But at the pre K level rather than the kindergarten level, they can also go into an ESC para role and ESC aide role or be a day to day sub. But as far as the way of work, how does the way of work continue or adjust with them moving out of the K space is one we're increasing the academic interventionist allocation, including kindergarten. So the academic interventionists who are individuals with a college degree, they will work with students in kindergarten, that are two or more grade levels below where they should be, which really in kindergarten means they're just not at kindergarten. And so they wouldn't be included in the, in the intervention that happens in literacy and math. So that's how the students who are falling behind or are behind really in kindergarten, get additional support. The other reality is, is right now throughout the district, only 50% of kindergarten classrooms even have a para. So it's not as if we are doing something radically different, because right now can guard most kindergarten class or half do not have a parallel right now. The other reality is, is that many que para educators right now are being pulled to be substitutes. So when a teacher is absent, and the sub does not report to the building, the principal is using the Para to cover, let's say, a third grade classroom or fourth grade classroom. So when you really look at the day to day work right now, there is an consistency with even supporting kindergarten students across the district in kindergarten. And so that is the real workaround, if you will, around this recommendation is to expand the academic interventionist role, hire more academic interventionist, and include those kindergarten students in their interventions. If I could go to adjust College Transition advisor allocation, the next slide, thank you. So the college transition advisors at high schools mainly focus on working with students to fill out the FAFSA and apply for college scholarships. They can that that is their main responsibility. And so we have maintained our guidance counselor allocation in this next year's budget, which is very competitive with what the national standard should be with counselors. And currently, we only have about 10 Counselor vacancies throughout the district. So we're well staffed in the counselor role. And we allocate just to almost at the national average, that has been recommended. We're outpacing the Michigan average and fairly close to the Great City Schools average, which is the large urban school districts. So with that said, we have a number of counselors in the field at the high school level, they will take on more of the work with having students fill out the FAFSA, and to apply for scholarships, but we don't want to put that burden just on counselors because they are already doing a lot. So the Detroit promise has made a commitment to providing more coaches to our high schools to directly work with our students and our families, especially seniors, on filling out the FAFSA and applying for scholarships. central office staff will also create more just turnkey documents to work with help counselors better serve students. And we will also use hourly funding to try to bring back retired counselors at individual high schools to specifically focus on filling out the FAFSA and applying for colleges. So those other work arounds if we do not fund a CTA is across the district. And then lastly, the school culture trend the school culture facilitator. Thank you. So in this one, I've included the Deans because it's a similar concern. But one, we've heard now for at least three years, maybe four, that there has been a request by principals, assistant principals and Dean's to empower them more to make disciplinary decisions at schools. So to move away from just in school suspension, and allowing them more for out of school suspension. So that is one thing that would change in the code of conduct is school culture facilitators were originally funded and provided to schools to operate In school suspension, that was not consistently done across 100 schools. It happened at some schools, not others. school culture facilitators were used for a variety of different ways. One as a sub one, sometimes its security guards and hallways, and not consistently applied. So this is another reason why we're recommending not funding them at Central Office, we are going to provide more hourly funding for schools so that teachers if they choose, they can lose their prep time to run an in school suspension room, or possibly detention for an in school consequence, not out of school, we'll continue to do our professional development over classroom management with teachers and staff in general deescalation will still do restorative practices. Remember, we're combining a legacy, West Side and lions into one campus. And that'll be a stronger, better funded campus to do outreach for students that continually are disruptive, and just not making the right decisions at the schools that they're at. So in other words, a strong alternative program. Obviously, we'll continue to do school wide restore practices PBIS. But when we see challenges at individual schools, for example, that relied on school culture facilitators, and we're seeing an increase in incidents than we would increase the security guard allocation. So let's say a school does not have a dean this year. And let's say they don't have a school culture facilitator. And we're seeing an increase in fights and they, and they believe they don't have enough people at the school to manage these disruptive behaviors, then we would find a security guard, which is an individual that is in the hallways, monitors classes when they change students in the hallways in the cafeterias. Because really what schools need are our adults to supervise children. And unfortunately, at times, break up fights. So that that can be the intervention if we're seeing something not right with the current allocation model. And then, lastly, our greatest needs are high school, we're basically protecting the allocations at high schools, minus the school culture facilitator. Many high schools are paying for the school culture facilitator on their own. But we will be using grants to fund more so social workers at neighborhood high schools to just provide additional intervention strategies for students. So at a high level, that's the alternative to the existing model. That covers the alternative for the three positions on the original slide.
Remember, McClendon.
Just my second question. Thank you for answering that. Could you just want a high level discuss our alternative school board personnel funding options? I think it's important for us to have an understanding what if we don't go for this? What are what are some other options?
Sure. So there's a slide that says, Board Options. Thank you. So being consistent with positions that I have raised as an alternative to further reduction? Well, I've heard from individual board members, it represents those options here. So this is not all inclusive of anything we could do. I just tried to stay consistent with what I've heard from the board or what I have recommended. So at this point, when we think about next year's budget, all attendance agents are funded. And so one alternative, let's say the board said, Well, I want to see the APS and all schools less than 300, that would cost us 3.6 million. And then you can go down that chart for each of the different positions. The cost of bring all of those back funded at the central office level is the cost in that column. And so the budgetary options could mean reducing attendance agents, so then they would be added to the restructuring. And so their alternative employment options are not as great as others, but the main one would be academic interventionist, because most of them do have college degrees or day to day subs, or those parallel roles, but they their salaries are higher than a lot of those positions. But that would be one option. The other option is to reduce what we're expecting in reoccurring salary increases for next year. So for example, if the board said, let's find all the APs in the schools lower than 300, and you don't want to reduce attendance agents, then we would drop the percent that we have funded right now and next year's budget for salaries. increases next year. So the more money that we're putting into one of these positions, the less money than we have allocated for negotiations and salary increases next year. So think about every percent that we go down is about $6 million. So that's an option or if if really the reducing assists, attendance agents, or reducing the reoccurring district salary is not an option for the board, then you could use the unrestricted general fund, which is one time money, and you could pay for all the positions or some of the positions through one time money in the unrestricted general fund, which is at about $60 million. And eventually, that obviously, that money would run out and we back where we are now, but that is an option. And that really reviews the summary of what I think are the options.
Miss McClinton good. Okay. Any other questions? Member gate? Oh, God, I remember getting that number. Yes,
thank you. So So from I think the slide 18 The diagram and I too appreciate the diagram because it was this is a lot to kind of maintain with the cadence that we have a meeting just talking about it in hearsay, and so on. Having it on paper helps us solidify it. So looking at the three categories for one school culture facilitators. I think it was in this room that I watched the documentary that Shalonda Buckman and her team put together and one of the key focal points that was lifted up quite a bit was the deeds and the school culture facilitators in the work that they were doing. And I have to say, seeing the presence of all those African American men. And that documentary really, you know, was heartening. Knowing across the country that we're dealing with increased behavioral challenges. Knowing that we even need to rework our code of conduct, thinking about being preventative, versus using the terms adding more guards. Because if we get the culture right in the schools, then it minimizes the need for guards on the inside versus protecting from the elements that are outside. Um, so when we talked about kind of like shifting these positions, it wasn't just about saving an opportunity for them to transition into another job. It was about making sure that the work is still done. And so if we're moving away from school culture facilitators, which is to me proactive, with the PBIS, and restorative practice practices, etc. I think the one thing that I did hear possibly, is maybe being a day to day substitute. But if they're doing it at the scale in which it was shown in the video, or the documentary, I think having an increasing their presence, make makes more sense than making it a security guard. So make the state categorical is that the can we be preventative? I don't know if it's a state funding because it's called a security guard, versus a school culture facilitator. But I would like to see more emphasis put on. I mean, this is still public safety. But it's preventative. And so seeing them put in that category to still do some of the restorative practices, and PBIS and having the relationships with the students. So that's, that's the one thing for the deans, or school culture facilitators that I'd like to see. And I am grateful, very grateful to see that all the deans were extended an opportunity to complete this school year as we were the vice principals, because that was to me one of the biggest challenges. We know we have to make some concessions. It's a reorganization. But disturbing the school year was a big problem. So I'm glad and I appreciate that Dr. VD I do understand and a lot of the conversations that I've had with Dean's talking about the those that were hired as recent as December, that there are no steps that pretty much the people that have been in those roles from the onset and those who've come newly to that role, have are basically receiving the same skill. pay. So I don't know if that will differ when it comes to them transitioning to security guard and I just don't like that term, or day to day substitutes, but again, protecting the work of the PBIS and restorative practices. I know the one thing we talked about as a board wanting the AIS to be increased with additional funding, and I it escapes me with the additional funding source that was that part of one of our grants that was received that we all were in agreement with increasing the AIS. But just wanting to make sure that the paras, especially those in special education classes, where, you know, hands on is needed even more so that we're we're not just saying, well, they got a job in early childhood, but we still create that gap. So who's going to actually do the work in those classrooms? Where they depend on an extra set of hands? And will they automatically like so what do they do to apply to become an AI? Is that why No, it's not automatic. But is there something that they're they have to do the personnel something that their union has to do? You know, maybe I might be redundant in my questions, but I want to make sure that we're streamlining how to get to where they're supposed to go. I'll stop there. I had a couple of other questions. But those those two, I think, dealing with the school culture facilitators, and the AI first, I think makes the most sense.
Sure, so I completely agree with you that the PBIS restorative practices, progressive discipline, training and emphasis is not abandoned. So I that that will definitely continue I, I feel confident that it is something that it is a culture of commitment that is in all of our schools, especially led by our principals, and completely agree with you that the individuals that would move into the security guard position, or the current security guards have to be more involved in that training. And that is something that we will definitely emphasize, and promote. I don't love the security guard title myself, I use that because it just people often wonder, well, where's the security, you often hear that, so I name it that but completely open. I don't have a great idea right here. But we can always think about a different name. I do want to make it known to the board that the main calls for the school culture facilitator are exactly the same as a security guard. And so it's not like we're talking about college degree, a master's degree. So the description of the job is different. Mainly the school culture facilitator was about Manning managing the school called the in school suspension room. So we don't and this is an important point, I don't think we necessarily, I think we can that the number of people in the building focused on supervising students intervening in fights, and then for an even making relationships and problem solving prevention can can stay out a lot the same, just in a different position. And I completely agree what we have to own in central offices, the training and the emphasis around prevention and relationship developing PBIS. And that's something certainly that that we will do. As far as the academic interventions, the average para, the average kindergarten paraprofessional would not be able to go into current academic intervention role because most do not have a college degree. So that that's the that's the obstacle. There has been conversation with the Detroit Federation of paraprofessionals DFP to have a different kind of position. And we're open to that. But we do have a sharp need for pre K para, because with that expansion, that's not optional. That's required is that if we're going to Africa, you have to have a para and or noon our age. So we are in a staffing need to have individuals and we can't and we're having problems hiring pre K parents. So there's a there's a there's an operational state funding requirement to basically have the kindergarten parents be pre K parents. So the additional academic intervention is are being paid through out of title one but mainly the MacKenzie Scott grant. That's where the dollars are coming from that. And I believe I've answered your questions.
There was one and we can deal with it later. But the pay skill difference as it relates to the culture, school culture facilitators,
yeah. So, internally, we have been discussing, obviously, this cafeteria worker role is at 1755. But admittedly, the school culture facilitators are not thrilled about working in the cafeteria. So there could be an option of increasing the security guard pay. So that is something that we have been discussing internally for retention and recruitment. And they could also help us recruit the school culture facilitator. So that could happen as we move into the the end of the spring summer.
Thank you, Madam Chair, if I may say, so two things, I will if if it needs still come out of the appropriate budget, and I know, you know, potato patata. But instead of security guard, I would love to see those that are currently serving more in that role as public safety officer. In some settings, we know their SRO, statewide school resource officers, for those that we want to pay out of that bucket, but would expand their duty somewhat culture safety officers perhaps, to minimize just shifting them to security guard. It's the mindset for me behind security guard, that doesn't help achieve that partnership, for setting school culture, and protecting that and doing more than just staying at the door with a one. I'd like to also ask about the attendance agents. Now, when we talked about this in our meetings, and my understanding was there were some or a large percentage, and I don't know what the numbers are, that weren't willing to actually go to homes. And so I don't have a problem saying that anybody that is not acting in that capacity or willing to go to homes, then they don't need to be in that role, or the role wouldn't exist. Because if the role is to go out and find out why the children aren't coming to school, it needs to serve in that capacity. I don't see that on the chart, per se. And so did we move from not transitioning this category? Was that it?
Yeah. So back in February, when we first started talking about personnel changes, there was a consideration of reducing the number of attendance agents and also envisioning a new position that might blend the attendance Agent with the social worker, that's going to require a lot of bargaining to create a new position, and we just haven't been able to get that off the ground. So. So the next year's budget does not call for any reduction of current attendance agents. And as we go into next year, and just negotiating on next year's contract, I think there is an opportunity to try to negotiate a new position, maybe under DFT, that would blend the attendance agent social worker role. But I think with the timeline that we have, it'll be hard to do that between now and next year, and even budget for it. So it's an aspiration for next year. And I would say, we have to strengthen accountability, and be very clear with the evaluation with individuals that are tenants agents who are not visiting homes.
Right. So I mean, so if I may, from my perspective, again, setting the culture, the culture is we come to school around here. And so what I heard during some of the testimonies is that some of these cultural facilitators are making sure that neighborhood children do come to school. So if they're working in that capacity, and that's part of their, you know, culture and agenda, then I mean, I could see how broadening the role of even what we call attendance agents to be a part of culture safety officers. So that being part of you know, so when we get that bridge, I guess we'll cross it, but I just that I mean, that's where I am on that. The last thing I think, is the nurse, I think on 28. Was it the savings are having nurses? It's not on that chart, but I know we talked about having a nurse in all schools, the partnerships that existed with our local hospitals. I know we pay for having a nurse at every school during COVID Even more so right, but Just at the scale of what we see on a daily basis, do can we make the argument that a partnership with our local hospitals, a model that I think was used previously would be a greater savings and we meet the needs of what we might have now.
So the partnerships are providing some support the support through the health homes. So when we envision the health hubs, again, about 12 feeder patterns throughout the city, every one of those feeder patterns will have a health hub. And hospitals are contributing to providing support through the health hubs. But that's through 12 locations, not every individual school. If the legislature passes, the provides us with the literacy Lawsuit Funding, which is in the governor's budget, everything that I'm hearing is that it'll be approved by the House and the Senate, then that will mean about 94 $94.4 million for dpscd. One time money. So I've one recommendation that I would have it's on slide 30 For me, literacy lawsuit proposed funding strategy slide is that we would go back to fully funding the contract and nurses across the district if we had that. Dollars.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that's it for me for now. Okay.
Thank you. Any more questions or concerns? The small?
I just had a clarifying question. On one of the slides, there was a graph that shows the breakdown of federal state and local funding. So I was just wondering if you could like kind of define what local entails like is at the mayor's office and the city council. And then maybe if you have any insight on why, proportionally DPS has like less local funding, then please share that as well.
Hi, yes, thank you, it actually goes back to the question that you asked at the last board meeting. And so I think this is a great slide to represent how reliant our budget is on federal funding. So the orange portion is federal funding, mainly Title One, title two, Title Three title for Ida Ida is for special needs, how to one concentration and poverty, how to professional development how to three English language learners. So all of these districts are large urban school districts. So it's not as if they're allocated, different amount of money than we are. And they have very similar poverty rates that we have maybe not as concentrated, but fairly similar. What what you see is the major difference is that when looking at state and local funding, they're getting much more of a proportion of their overall budget, which really means they're getting more state and local funding. And so for us, we, like every other district in Michigan, we tax that 18 Mills, that tax attempt to generate the minimum amount, which next year will be 9600. When it doesn't get to that amount per student than the state makes up the difference. We don't generate 9600, we generate much less than that, but the state kicks in the rest. So this is why we have inequity among districts in Michigan is that the local dollars are higher than 9600. And they keep that in general fund is our greatest challenge. General fund operations, teacher salaries, facility upgrades. So it's really not a function of city. It's not the city of Detroit issue. It's the model that the state of Michigan uses to fund schools. And so the solution is make the ceiling higher to be at the highest level, the wealthiest district per pupil, which is about $13,000 per student, and then add a weighted student formula so that we would even go above that with equitable funding. So this is a slide that once we get through our internal budget process, this is something that I will be using more to talk to the greater community and throughout Michigan about why we have the challenges that we have and how we move to a more equal equitable model. So that's one of our focuses on the on our legislative agenda, if you will, but that's what I plan on spending more my time this summer, and going into next year is advocating for equal and equitable funding. Thank you,
Dr. Taylor.
To the chair, Dr. Vitti Are you confident that your proposed structure will have the processes to ensure accountability that the priorities regarding reform will be accomplished doing next year?
Through the Chair? I do. I believe that although there are difficult decisions included in the budget, and ideally we wouldn't have to make these personnel changes, I'm comfortable with continuing to be held accountable to our metrics at the end of the 2324. school year.
I need more questions or comments as it relates to the proposal. So we know that what we have in front of us is an attempt to address the priorities that were laid out by the board at the study session. We talked about attendance, we talked about academic achievement, we talked about college graduation rates. And so I think those are what we see in front of us is an attempt to make sure that those things are not compromised. I do have a question, Dr. Vidya, as it relates to I know, right before COVID, we have been authorized to bind. And so are we talking about going forward? Any discussions around that? Because I know we were in a place before we couldn't do
it. Right now, I would not recommend that we go for a bond, yes, we are authorized, or we have legal permission authority through dpscd to bond. But right now what I would say with the $700 million that we have, and facility upgrades that we execute that plan. We show good faith in implementing that facility master plan, which means delivering on the projects, we said we're going to do in budget on time, obviously dealing with inflation, but still contending and being transparent with challenges that exists with that. But I would say once we get through the majority of those projects, and we we show the community that we can be trusted to do facility work, then I would say we talk about a bond. But right now, we have funding that set aside for facility upgrades, I think it would be premature to go out and think about and talk about or advocate for a bond, because we have one time money right now for facility projects. And it wouldn't make much sense to ask for more if we haven't fully utilized the money that we have now for those projects. Okay.
Any more? Any more questions or comments? I think we should call the question. Okay. There there is a motion on the floor to approve the recommendation that is being submitted. I think we have a motion on the floor already. We were in discussion. Mo Yeah. So we were we so common for the question. So 111 final thing before we call for that? If this is approved, what are next steps? I want to be really clear, because that was a gray area that some people were uncertain of an activity heavy guns. So what are next steps should this be approved tonight,
I'm sure if you could just move the slide next steps with personnel restructuring plan. I think this slide attempts based on the board chairs request to outline this in the in the briefing booklet which is just PowerPoint. So the if the recommendation of the restructuring is approved, we would send updated layoff letters to the kindergarten pair educators school culture facilitators and transition. College Transition advisors saying that their position is not funded for next year, it would outline their options, we would continue to engage them individually at their schools and through HR about picking one of those other positions. We would also initiate the non renewal process which means that the central office union non union and school based principals assistant principals would receive a initiation of non renewal letter that would be sent tomorrow, which says that you have been recommended for non renewal. Those individuals would then have the opportunity in the next two weeks to meet with a representation of the board so it could be one to three individuals that would sit in a 30 minute meeting and the employee would I'll make the argument why they shouldn't be non renewed. And Mr. janiece, Mr. Ford will be there as well. And then the board hears that feedback, and that the next meeting, which is in two weeks, then the board would vote on actual non renewable. Again, these are central office, non union union in school based some school based principals and assistant principals.
legal counsel said at least four people have to be in the meeting. I know, yeah, that's why we'll talk about I don't know, you might be right. So, or you might be right, or you are right. So that's, that's one part of the process. And so, we will continue to negotiate with DFT and DFP, if they want to offer school culture facilitated College Transition advisors, and K pair K pair of professionals, a severance, we cannot unilaterally do that. So if DFP dF T says you can offer the severance, they would define the parameters of that. And we could offer that to the three employee groups. If they're not interested in moving into one of those other positions, we would also engage union and non union central office, basically everyone on the non renewal list will engage about the non renewal process, but also an opportunity for a severance. We have not done any severances from the last board meeting, because the board asked to stop that process until the meeting today will continue to work between now and even next school year about placing those three employee groups in alternative positions that we've outlined. I believe that really covers everything we've talked and I cannot automatically move the three employee groups in positions, they have to either voluntarily move individually, or that or their respective union has to agree to unilaterally or involuntarily moving them all into one of those positions. I cannot do that unilaterally. And that general, just to clarify, if a que para position, a school culture facilitator position, or college transition advisor position is funded at the school level, that employee has a position in that position up until the principal decides not to fund that position any longer, at least for the next fiscal year. So the individuals that are in a funded position of those three employee groups have a position for next year based on the school based budget, but at the end of next year, if that principal decides not to fund that position, then that individual is in the same situation as most of their peers right now, they would have the option of going into one of those positions, assuming that there would be a vacancy the following year. And so that summarizes the next steps. And unless you have questions about it, I think covers it, anticipating what would be the questions about the next steps.
Okay, Madam Chair,
yes. So so if I may, I didn't get to the college transition adviser. But but in this whole thing, this process, I think process matters more than anything. And I know that we've had some new leadership or leadership to change even within labor, and I'm so looking forward to strengthening our communications with labor to get through through these efforts. One thing that I was specifically like to see, I think it made sense that you talked about having proportional leadership or staff, having a vice principal, and at a school with less than 300, and then a vice principal at a school with 2000. I think in fairness, talking about the workload, but I am sensitive to schools that have reached out that have, or is potentially losing a dean and assistant principal, and parents as well. And so if I could, I will feel more comfortable or more informed to look at it based on some of those schools, or those schools that's under 300 that are impacted by Lee losing two or more positions. And I know that we're going to have some reorganization in District period and I want to make sure that as the new school year commences that are begins that we do look at ways for Mr. HR department to allow people to kind of be placed even with the acceptance of the school leader, the principal where they desire to be, and not where just where we want to put them anywhere. That's one. That's true. I'm more comfortable with transition letters, the whole layoff since this expect since this, this this kind of stressful environment as opposed to showing people how, what the criteria is for them to transition into another position. For the parents that have an associate's degree, is there an opportunity for them to transition or be put on the path for academic? interventionist? That's, that's another thing. And our college transition advisors. I liked a pathway for counselor, but could you expound on? Where do they fit in that? I mean, I hate to see the loss of all the money that we celebrate every graduation year, being the shifting the responsibility are saying the counselors are doing too much. But how do we protect that? And is that? Are we are we doing apples to apples? What they are? I know there's some education, maybe additional education with the pathway program. But is that automatic? Would everybody automatically be able to transition from the college transition advisors to the pathway counselors, program and or academic? And then the last thing elaborate on how principals can keep their position when the position is eliminated?
Through the Chair? The vice chair that didn't even know if so the Yes, I do believe that there's an opportunity for the pair of professionals that have the associates to move into some type of academic interventionist role that that has to be negotiated. And we can work out the detail, but generally, I would say that there is a difference between a pair of professional with an Associates and one without, right, do you think that that could that's fair an opportunity, so that's an option. And we would have to negotiate that with either DFP or DFT, because the AIs are under the DFT. But that's something we can discuss. If they're gonna go to the I'm open to that. And early labor team would be open to that. I cannot currently, as of tonight, or even tomorrow morning, automatically moved to college transition advisors to the pathway counselor role. They the the college transition advisors would have to voluntarily do that on their own individually, unless we gain an MOU with DFT. That would say, you know, they would be written every all the CTA A's that are not funded at individual schools would automatically be placed in the pathway DLT could do that. Yes. Okay. Yeah, that can be that there's, there's already been a proposal to do that. We have not had a counter on that. So we can go back to the table and continue to work out the details of that. Now, it can be done now, because we have a pathway. It's really a teacher pathway that we can basically use without any kind of agreement moving forward. But we can be tailor, we can tailor a new pathway pathway for counselors with with DFTs approval.
And I like that, I think the I think the biggest thing or challenge with all of this is just people hearing the word layoff without clarity on how to get from point A to point B. And I think if that's clarified, using the right terminology, that, you know, minimizes all the concerns and that are ongoing.
Well, I think I think we move into the language of the layoff, because technically, based on even on the collective bargaining agreement, legally, you have to say that because if someone doesn't move into another position, then they're not funded. So no one is excited about talking about layoff. It's just the language and the collective bargaining agreement. If we don't use that, and we don't send official letters, then someone could say I was not notified that I didn't have a position but we've done engagement sessions. We'll do more engagement sessions. I think, bishops recommendation on the flowchart with a really good one. That representative side shows the breakdown of where you can go. We'll pass that along as well. But I think also people are waiting for a final decision about whether positions are funded or not. And I think once people know that there aren't funded at Central Office, it will start to motivate different conversations about options.
So lastly, I'll just say those two things for me are still pressing the list of of schools that are under 300. Because I know one is definitely in my district. Well, I'm thinking of my own house just once my district always my district. So So I want to see that. And I know I've heard people speak at our meetings about that. So I just know that it may not be intentional, but it's happening. And the how, somehow those listening sessions, they're great. But people learn differently. And so hearing something they the call still in, and then they start calling you saying, Well, you know, nobody's clear on how to get to the next job, or the next opportunity. So I have to strongly urge that whatever the term is used, that we also use the transition opportunity, and clarify the path to how to get there.
And I did answer your question about the schools less than 300. So they're included at the back in the appendix. You can see the school that okay. But to your question. So let's say is a small school is not have a school culture facilitator funded to answer your question, that same individual, if they're willing to go back to our earlier conversation, could go into the day to day sub role, actually make more money and be at that individual school. So they do wouldn't have to leave? There's a there's a way to do that. The other option would be to security guard or the new title position that
will figure it out. But to my titles? Oh, yeah, I
think it's a good idea. I'm not very good at titles. So I need help with titles. But I think that that's an option for the small schools as well, to keep there. And then the other issue that that you brought up, which is one that I do think we need to be more thoughtful of, is, you know, diversity, often we talked about diversity as far as, you know, race and gender. But I think when we look at some of our small schools, if we have a black female, then we should try to have a black male as the assistant principal. And so there's ways now that we're more settled with staffing to be more thoughtful, even I'm specifically gender representation. And I would say a very much focused on black male representation outside of the classroom. And I think we have, we've done a better job of that. But as we go into next year, we'll be looking specifically at that and possibly shifting some people that ensure that that presence is there.
I don't think we the principle question of how the principals can keep their position,
the best way to do that is through the day to day sub. The principal, meaning how can the principal be empowered to keep who they want in their building?
Was that okay, through that? Okay, so through the other transition? Yeah,
outside of that, I mean, I think outside of funding positions, I've given principals a lot of autonomy, about picking their own assistant principal. Even when we have had a lot of problems with climate and culture between certain teachers and principals, I think on average, principals will say, I've tried to empower them on personnel decisions as much as I can. Now they would say, Well, I want more positions. It's a different conversation. But as far as picking their people, I rarely tell them who to pick. Now their supervisor may have a conversation about that with them to say, Are you sure you want to hire so and so for this position? I think your your gap is more instructional. And you should hire someone who's more instructional as an assistant principal, as operational, those conversations happen, but we try as much as possible to empower the principal because ultimately he or she is responsible for what happens in the building. And if you're told who to hire, you have less ownership in that.
Okay, so we know that the question has been called for the recommendation. So all those in favor of approving item which actually would be 6.01 signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We'll now move into public comment. There are eight people for public comment and they are all in partisan. Members of the public are welcome to address the board during public comment. Individuals wishing to address the board must register in person or raise their hand prior to the chair announcing the closing public comment registration. For in Person public comment, which is all we have tonight, the Chair will call the names of the individuals to address the board in order we see. Please remain seated until your name is called. The meeting administrator will select the individuals in order to receive please remain mute. Oh, those for public comment online. So everybody has three minutes the superintendent will reply to questions or concerns raised today that do not violate ethical or legal standards, confidentiality, privacy of others or require additional information to respond. If you would like a direct response to your question and or concern, please forward an email to the secretary of the board. Ms. Virginia more at Vanja dot more at Detroit K twelve.org.
Okay, let
me get to the form
how many
mics do we have tonight? To Okay, So Tara Brown at one mic, please. And Daniel butts at the other mic.
Good evening board, I came here tonight to support a friend of mine, or that's what I thought I was doing. And I definitely want to support them. They are a substitute that is at risk of apparently losing their job. What I didn't know when I came to this meeting is my son goes to one I'm a parent and my son goes to one of those schools that has less than 300 students, and has what you call a culture facilitator. Those culture facilitators are important. They save a lot of lives. Sometimes those culture facilitators, those black men are the only black men that these children encounter all day, there is no father in their home, they are suffering from abject poverty. And they are coming to school where they are being encouraged. And I think what I heard was made sure to feel loved, challenged and prepared. Yeah, those culture facilitators, and those college transition advisors are doing that those roles are important. And as a black, primarily black board, you all make the decisions, not the other way around. Some of you are sitting up here. And it sounds like these questions were given to you because you can barely read them. Dr. Vt reports to you all, not the other way around. So if this doesn't work, you need to tell him that this doesn't work and put and put a stop to it. Because I'm going to tell you, as just a person out here working if I was a culture facilitator, and somebody came in and told me, they would take me out of my white shirt and tack to put on a blue and gray uniform shirt and be a security guard after I've been a cultural facilitator. I'd be cultural facilitating in another district, this isn't going to do anything to help save our district, what it is going to do, what is continued to do make people go to other districts where they can be treated with respect and pay it accordingly. Because not only are you changing the title of these people's jobs, you are cutting their pay. In some instances, there is no incentive to stay with dpscd. A lot of these people are doing it because they believe in the work they are doing not because of the pay. And I think that needs to be revisited. And again, you all are elected officials. If you want to continue to be elected, you better start making the right decisions. Because when you are begging for these positions, you all weren't rehearsing questions and trying to silence us and speak in the silence. These individuals were told they couldn't bring signs in, I bring the sign to every meeting. Don't try to make us be quiet. And don't try to tell us what we need to discuss when we come up to this microphone because again, all of you work for us. This room should be full of people. The people here are dedicated and we serious about this. Again, I understand there's a need to cut budgets, but you all have a Worchester funds on the back end that can cover this. Don't do this. Don't do this to these people.
Thank you Miss Brown.
So we have Daniel butts at one mic and Alia more to the other mic please.
Good evening everyone. My name is Daniel but I'm a proud culture facilitator at Nichols elementary, middle school. And I just wanted to just express how much I love my job and how much I love what I do at Nichols Elementary. For many, I don't call myself this, but many of the staff, parents, students call me the glue that helps keep our school together. As a black man, as a black man, to our young, African American boys, they leave me there, their presence, not as a security guard, not as someone wiping tables, but someone that will sit in a circle with them, and tell them despite of your mistake, try again, go to class, do your work, see me in the hallway, seeing my smiling face welcoming those young men look for me every day, every morning, eighth graders 14 year old Psalm over, they're older than the grade that they're supposed to come straight to me to give me a hug, and are disappointed when I call off. So I just want you to reconsider, not make a school security guards not make us white tables, but let us be the man that they need to see. And those school buildings doing what we do now. Doing what we do now, I am an advocate for in school suspension. Some of these in school suspension circles of me talking to students, they made the decision to not get in trouble anymore. They make the decision when they make wrong decisions. They come to me and they say Mr. Butts, I'm sorry, I apologize. I'm gonna do better next time. There are some situations in our building where they don't want to listen to anyone else. But me. They don't want to be with anyone else but me. So I want you all to rethink about culture facilitators, we might be just in school suspension or a small person, but I'm the person that stands out outside of dismissal, waiting for late students to be picked up, and they feel safe to be with me, me. And I just really, I really urge you all to rethink what you are deciding to do. Even at the beginning of our school year, we had 45 students in one kindergarten class because we needed another teacher. It was the culture facilitator and the Para educator that supported that teacher that stayed in that classroom with that teacher, and she felt support until a solution was resolved for that situation. So I asked I urge and let you know that when students rise. We all rise.
Thank you, Mr. Buggs. We have a Lea more at one mic and mother more to the other mic, please.
Good evening board. Thank you for taking my public comment. I do have several questions that are budget related. One you didn't mention the custodial staff. I did hear about that in a previous meeting. But for example, if a school has 400 Like Paul Robeson, Malcolm X, we currently have three custodians. So what are we looking at moving forward with the next question as far as the cell phone tower revenue? Why won't those 29 schools at least receiving some of that revenue and put in their budget instead of feeding y'all and just frivolously throwing away that money? Because he did say feeding y'all so it ain't? No, it ain't a surprise. Second, as far as I participated in the superheroes event, I have yet to get a my stipend for my workshop. I was wondering when was that going to come? That event was in March. As far as the inflation that's being said, with the $700 million in the sky, when inflation constantly being in the conversation, are we on task? Well, we need additional funding. Okay, don't pop it out at the last minute that we need more funding concerning the 700 million as far as teachers having over class sizes, is that still on the table? The more kids they get, the more money they receive? Is that still on the table? And then, um, I believe that's it as far as my questions, but I would just like to say Vice President, Mr. Stallworth, you are not a volunteer, nobody up there as a volunteer, your automated response to email says that you are a volunteer, you aren't an elected official in a public servant. So that statement needs to be removed from your automated email, ma'am. And then as far as just the transparency with everything going on. I know about the outside my extra comments about the cell phone towers, but you all need to be a little bit proactive when dealing with this issue. The FDA does not have anything to do with towers specifically. So as far as meeting with you, as the parent stated, We are your bosses. You hired VD but we hired you with our boats. So the fact that I emailed Our President, Vice President and Dr. Nikolai Vitti to have a meeting not just with me, but with your constituents and stakeholders. You ignored the request, you're talking about towers, I specifically asked for a meeting with citizens to discuss the financial direction as well as the overall direction and leadership. So I expect and I'm going to resubmit. Tonight, I am still requesting a meeting at the Fisher building with parents and community included. And it don't even have to be the bank board. But I mean, the main players and Dr. Vitti Thank you. Thank you, Miss Moore.
We have mother more at one mic. And President Luquillo Wilson Lumpkins at the other mine.
Today, I feel like the chickens have come home to roost. And y'all know where that came from. You know, I don't think you are actually get it while you're there. Because if you did get it, we wouldn't have to be going through all this and explaining to you how we feel, you should know that these things that we're discussing now have been discussed 3040 years ago, if you do your homework, you will find out that everything that's happened has already happened before. So we just keep going around in the same circle, doing the same thing and getting nothing done. I went through my files and I found some paperwork that made me almost cry. facility master plan, on May the 10th 2020, to the dpscd School Board unanimously approved the plan. And that plan included the $700 million that we all talking about. And if my information is correct, we ain't got no $700 million. Everything has decreased. From the time the money was put in the bank. The more days we take to take care of business, the less money we have for our children and what we're supposed to have case in point. I tutor at Barton school principal puts in for curtain and all that front at the beginning of the semester, guess when the curtains came this week, something is wrong with the budget. Something is wrong with what whoever is hitting all of this is doing with the budget and the money. And the longer we wait to do what we're supposed to do for the children and all these tasks that we're supposed to have done that you voted on. Look, it's been out after it's been a year. Since everything's been approved. What are we waiting for? Why aren't we spending this money? Did you board members ever asked that question? Something a right. And it doesn't take a person like me that's always in the house business because it's more my business because these are our children. And it is our money that we waited a whole year before we see anything. And people that put in for equipment and everything. wait a whole year to semester it's over. Something is not going on, right? Somebody is not running this system, the way it should be run, the longer we wait, the spin their money, the less money we're gonna have check it out and think it's common sense. We don't have the money that we've been talking about the $700 million to do.
So separate questions that just go along with the program. And you just sit there and you don't ask the right questions. And I'll tell you something. We go on for a while.
Thank you, mother more. So is President Lumpkins Okay, Jason Nope. So vice president Palsy and Han Langsdorf. Please pardon? Correct the pronunciation of your last name when you speak. Vice President policy.
Good evening, everyone. You hear me? Yes. How about now? All right. President wasn't lucky to have another meeting to attend. So I want to say a few things in our stead not speaking for her but speaking with DFT at this point. This whole process has been messy. And I'm reiterating things I've said had in the past, but I feel the need to say them again. These conversations should have been had with labor months ago, because this was the plan months ago, and it would have made folks feel a tad less stressed out. If the conversation had been had with labor, we could have discussed how things were going to work for our members. Second, I am glad to hear the attendance ages of fully funded for next year. That's a good thing. There's the lawsuit. Labor and community fully expect to be part of the labor lawsuit funding decisions, particularly because those funds are supposed to be spent on improving literacy.
Next, we stand in support of our sister local DFP. So now said to Mike, what's going on? Removing our support, including our own CTAs means the heavy lifting falls back on us. We can't do much more than we're already doing. It'd be effective in the classroom, and also effective at home with our own families. We can't do much more you removing our support. Regarding placement, because that was mentioned tonight. That is what we're hearing subject of bargaining for the Detroit Federation of Teachers. But that prohibition has led to some of the negative culture and climate issues in this district. Folks are being are stuck places they want to leave and are being removed from places they want to stay because of principal and district discretion. So I'm not bargaining because I'm prohibited from bargaining there. But I wanted to lift that up because it was mentioned on that stage tonight. And lastly, with all due respect, please start discussing what teachers are going to do outside of their job duties without negotiating with the DFT because what they just said in public on the microphone, the key of Wilson Lumpkins, Jason Posey, get the phone calls. We got the answer for things sitting in public that have not been negotiated. So with all due respect, Please cease and desist. Thank you.
Thank you Vice President policy. So we have hand lanced off and the last public comments or is Gavin Buckley? So if Gavin Buckley can make his way to one mic, and hand What's your how you pronounce your last name?
You got it? Right. It's Lane store.
Oh, hands last off. Okay, go ahead.
Hello, my name is Han lengstorf. I'm a substitute teacher. I've been subbing here in the district for the past year. I've served at quite a few different schools. But the one constant I see is that para pros and other support staff are essential. As a day to day sub, when I enter a school for the first time, para pros are there to show me to the office in the classroom, as a young teacher is still learning. It is the pair pros who have given me guidance and showed me the way forward when no one else was there. They're the ones who popped their heads in to check on me and the kids who smile at me and ask how the day went. They know every child and their grandma, they are trusted, beloved, the kids run to them. They are experts in the classroom. They are teachers, nurses, counselors, second parents and whatever else they need to be. They are everything because they do everything. And I specifically want to address the comment said that para pros are not directly impacting your metrics. When you showed the image on the board, slide 18 of recommended personnel changes I thought to myself, I have seen in my brief time here only a year. I have seen para pros perform every single one of those rolls up on the board. They do everything. And so saying that they're not qualified either to be academic interventionist is ridiculous because I see them teach the kids how to read how to do math when no one else is there. I find your statement that para pros don't directly impact your metrics to be blatantly false based on what I've seen in my brief time here. You say pair pros are not qualified to be a eyes but they already are a eyes. They teach kids to read and write math whatever they need. Pair pros. Already our academic intervention is the personal change options you've laid out are completely inadequate transition para pros into AIs. There should be no layoffs during an educators shortage. And one question for you guys because I heard it floating around what is the status of building subs for the next year's budget?
So we answer at the very end so after Mr. Buckley, we will answer that thank you so much. You start Stand up.
Okay. These layoffs are ridiculous. You really all need to. I haven't been here long. It's only been a year. But from what I've seen laying off para pros just makes no sense. Everyone in this room knows that makes no sense. They perform, they do so much. They are so loyal to their communities. I look up to them so much. And they've taught me so much as a young teacher. And I don't know what we're going to do without them next year. I really don't. So you all need to think long and hard. And you did you need to listen to the community. Because the community speaks with one voice, and it is very loud. And y'all just need to please listen and reconsider. Thank you.
Thank you. It is good. Okay, Gavin Buckley?
Yeah, hi. I would like to make I spoke at the last board meeting, and I said something incorrect. I said that Dr. Vt had claimed that we had a $20 million deficit. And I said, That's not true. We don't. And I was appreciative tonight, for you showing that we have a suppose a $37 million deficit. And then four slides later saying that we actually have 60 million in unrestricted surplus funds sitting in the bank right now today. So I'm a little confused. And maybe you can help me out. You're telling us that there's a $37 million deficit, while there's $60 million in the bank. So it sounds like there's not a $37 million deficit. There's a $23 million surplus. That's what I'm hearing. And I'm not a math teacher. I teach economics, but I'm not a math teacher. So that's one thing. So we do have the money. I just want to make that clear to everyone in the room. They showed a slide tonight that says one of the options, option two at the bottom of the slide said we could use unrestricted one time funds to pay for all these positions, they would run out by 2020 5am. I correct. I see Dr. VD nodding with me, I was paying attention. Cool. Um, just gonna go ahead and go back to a previous presentation you made about where attendance is going. So at the last meeting, it was stated that we've lost 2000 students, that's where the $20 million came from, then that was corrected to say, well, we lost 2000 students at the start of the pandemic, we gain or we lost 3000, we gained 1200 back this past year. And we're gaining more back as we speak. So if the trend continues, which it likely will, because I'm sure you might agree that we lost most of those students, while we were virtual right? Now, we're not students have come back are continuing to come back, which means the funding will go up, which means the one time funds will be used one time, so you don't have to fire people, you don't have to lay people off, you don't have to take somebody out of a building where they're succeeding. And put them in a new school, it makes it makes zero sense. I mean, to pretend that telling a college transition advisor, for instance, that they can become an AI, but that doesn't guarantee they stay in the building they're in, they could be aI anywhere, and they're gonna get an $8,000 pay cut for doing that in a contract year. Yeah, whoever said it is right, they're gonna leave, they're gonna leave. People that are gonna get transferred into positions that are significantly worse will leave this district will leave my students blacking in my school. And we're already short staffed. And I know you know this because you one of you came to my school just last week, saw an incident happen, ambulances called staff rush, we didn't have enough people in the building to handle that situation. And I see you nodding along. So I know you know, I'm right. And now we're sitting up here talking like we're playing a game of cards about who gets to lose their job.
Thank you, Mr. Buckley. So Dr. VD I know there were a couple of questions. And I think we need to clarify some things that were said, as well. So provide some factual data behind some of the things that we're seeing today, as well.
So as far as the custodian allocation, it'll be the same as it is now. So the custodian allocation has not changed. There were additional custodians added during the last three years, but most in order to do deep cleaning, anticipate turnover with custodians, but that's basically leveled off by the end of this year. So for the most part, the number of custodians at individual schools will stay the same. Next year. We're not reducing the number of custodians, again, they were pre pre pandemic to now are going into next year, it'll be the same. Most schools who had more custodians, at this point have seen a reduction already Based on redeploying those custodians to other schools with, with vacancies, the cell tower funding is at the central office level. It has been used over the years for events, meetings for parents, staff, in addition to student incentives for individual students during the pandemic to improve attendance. And for families to improve attendance, we could talk about the cell cell tower revenue at a specific school staying at that school. I'm not opposed to that. There's some different categories of funding that we would have to create and more monitoring. But there's possibly a path in that direction and something that we can explore the stipend and being paid for the workshop. I'll follow up on that with staff and I'll email this more by the end of the week, the $700 million when we budgeted the $700 billion with the facility master plan, we were budgeting already in the pandemic. So when me take a take you back, so a lot of the city projects that were about construction and improvement in the city, those budgets are higher, because those costs were done and analyzed before the pandemic hit. So when you're reading newspaper articles about city projects being way underfunded because of inflation. That was because those budgets were created before the pandemic hit. When we created our budget, we were already in the pandemic, and prices were already higher for labor, and construction. So we actually built the facility master plan budget, in the middle of higher inflation, if you will, for construction labor costs. Now, it doesn't mean that every project that we budgeted for will keep up with additional inflation. But the advantage of our budget was we did it during the pandemic. So the caught the cost had already gone up. So at this point, we're not looking at higher costs as of today. But public commenter is right as we get into year 1234, year five, the costs could go up in those years. And then we would have to revisit our plan and our projects, and either infuse more money into the 700 million, or cut back on the projects that were outlined. But as of today, there isn't a need to do that, because we already accounted for higher costs for construction. Please remember that we had $80 million set aside by the board before the pandemic for capital projects. And that's the capital projects we've been working on this year, which will be completed at the end of the year, the $80 million in projects. So those were from H fac systems to new roofs, pavement fencing, and all of that we did all we that was the precursor for the $700 million. So it was our way to if you will pile it and understand what kind of contracting means we would have on construction management and procurement. And so that those projects are just about done. And now we're already moving in to the $700 million. So one, if the community ever wants to see where the money is, there's a separate line item now in the budget that specifically is for the $700 million. So when there's calls for where's the money, you're gonna see it in the ledger separately, so that everyone can transparently see the money and it can't be used for other purposes unless it's approved by the board to do so. Sure. And so that's one, the board has already approved expenditures linked to the $700 million you linked to construction management, procurement. And so those projects are now underway. And that will start the summer. And we'll also be doing the engagement for schools that will have new schools or may mean major renovations later part of this spring, the summer going into the fall. The oversized classroom supplement is in the budget for next year for teachers that might have higher class sizes. Any comments that I made around teachers not using their prep? I think the slides specifically said voluntarily, if I didn't emphasize that, and let me reiterate or clarify. That's all voluntary. So if a teacher is going to voluntarily give up a prompt and we pay them to do detention or extra cafeteria duty, that's what we did during the return after COVID It was popular in schools, many of our teachers wanted to do that. We'll do that again next year. And that will help with some of the reduction in in school suspension personnel. But again, voluntary. We have been negotiating aspects of tonight's plan since March, there have been specific proposals offered to our unions, that we will continue to bargain moving forward and how to manage some of the personnel changes that were approved today. We're always open to different proposals and ways of implementing the personnel changes. Through COVID relief funding, we did find a building sub that buildings up was permanently at that school and reported that school every day anticipating that there would be a teacher that was out that day. So there wouldn't have to be a new sub called into the building that is not funded in next year's budget that was funded out of COVID. But what we will try to do is maximize day to day subs at $20 An hour and move into a version of the building sub at every school, but it won't be the long term server building sub, there's a higher level of credits and degrees linked to the long term sub as opposed to the day to day sub. And just to clarify, there is always a difference between reoccurring revenue and one time revenue. So yes, as that slide indicated, we could use our surplus plug the budget gap, but it is still a gap after that one time money is spent. And what we've done as a board superintendent team, which has led to a stronger financial status, it's led to greater stability financially, we moved away from state oversight is that we don't find reoccurring calls with one time money. That is a perfect, perfect recipe for falling off the cliff and moving back into state oversight. Because when people look at our budget, and we're funding reoccurring costs, so people are operating costs with one time money, eventually that one time money, one time, money will run out. It gives people that analyzed budgets, the insecurity that the budget is unsustainable. And when a budget becomes unsustainable, meaning we're spending more than we have, that's when the state will take over the district again. So it's very easy to avoid difficult decisions by using one time money, but all you're doing is punting and you're creating financial concern from outsiders who review Ledger's in our financial statement. It's just simply not sustainable. We are anticipating of maybe a slight enrollment increase. We're not budgeting for that. But through pre K, I think over time, we can increase enrollment. You also don't want to fund reoccurring calls with one time money on anticipation that enrollment will increase because if enrollment doesn't increase, then you're burning in spending your one time money is just simply not sustainable. You can avoid difficult decisions. But eventually you have to come to the reality that you have to have reoccurring costs match reoccurring revenue.
And just the lawsuit to the literacy lawsuit, I know you have a slide about what we know where the funds can and can't be used. And I think AI is or where they were being used. But Can you just elaborate?
Yes. So the literacy loss who agreement outlines how the dollars can be spent. And all the dollars, for the most part are directly linked to literacy. So we don't have the flexibility to use a literacy lawsuit. Outside of things specific to literacy, with the exception of capital improvement, the literacy lawsuit did allow for those dollars to be used for facility upgrades. Now, transparently. And I mentioned this earlier, that maybe we can use the literacy lawsuit to fund contracted nurses. So this goes back to how we use COVID money. So for example, we can move the budget around and fun things out of different sources, which technically, you're using literacy lawsuit money to fund for example, academic interventionist, which is allowable, so the funding that was used for academic intervention is then can be used for something else. And so you meet the letter of the law. And when the financials are done, and the audits are done, you meet the expectation of the audits, but it does free money for other things. To the question, we will certainly engage the community about how we propose a user literacy lawsuit money, always open to feedback and suggestions. But I think the board has been very clear with its priorities and what it wants to fund if it had the money to fund and at this point, it's been contracted nurses. And what I've heard is reinstating after school programming, reinstating expansion of summer school are three very specific areas that I've heard the board say that they want funding for. So literally lawsuit would be one way to do that, or increase revenue moving forward, that's not going to salary increases.
And one last thing around the facilities plan, where can people I know it's on our website, and I know that there's been engagement sessions at the school level and feeder patterns. So if you could just elaborate because I know I've attended.
So I don't know the website, dress by heart. But if you go to the main website, and there's a search engine, and you type in facility master plan, it will take you there, it breaks down all of the $700 billion of projects, by school and by feeder pattern with a date on which we anticipate the completion. There's been engagement sessions at individual schools, about upgrades to their buildings, and then more of new buildings and major renovations will come with engagement sessions to define for example, the architecture of a new building, what it should look like that will be done with students with staff and community and parents that those individual schools in the next couple of months once those days are set I'll I'll share with the board and we'll put it on our website and obviously schools will do robo calls inviting staff and family to attend those sessions.
Thank you anything else before the chair entertain a motion to adjourn?
No, it's not a chair will entertain a motion to adjourn.
So moved.
No objection someone thank you so much. The time is able to thank you so much everyone.