Summary of 10/13/2022 SB Meeting
Opening/Consent Items
The School Board started in Closed Session.
For the open session, the meeting began with a presentation of the colors by the Arlington Career Center Space Force JROTC Cadet Corps.
Superintendent Durán and Cristina Diaz-Torres recognized outstanding Hispanic and Latino student and staff contributions as part of Hispanic Heritage month. Each comprehensive high school and high school program nominated one student and their efforts were honored.
The School Board then unanimously adopted the consent agenda. Consent items included approval of the minutes; personnel actions; assignments of school board members as civic association liaisons; appointments to the School Board advisory committees; approval of $50,000 for the Richmond Teacher Residency program to help recruit elementary teachers into Title I schools (residents must commit to teaching in APS for 3 years); and amendments to School Board policies G-2.4 Human Relation- Employee-Employer Communications and G-3.2.1 Salary to align with statute.
Announcements
The School Board thereafter moved to the following announcements:
Policy subcommittee meeting on October 14th at 10 am.
The School Board will have a closed meeting on October 18 at 5:30 pm, followed by work session on Early Childhood at 6:30.
Policy subcommittee on October 26th at 4 pm.
School board meeting on October 27th at 7 pm.
Afterwards, Board Members made the following announcements:
Cristina Diaz-Torres shared that she attended, along with the Superintendent and other staff, the Conference for Latino Superintendents and Administrators. APS presented on its telenovela to assist Spanish-speaking caregivers of students with disabilities, along with a presentation on APS’s dual-language immersion program.
Mary Kadera shared that she attended the Communities in Schools kick-off reception that helps support academic achievement and social-emotional learning at Barcroft, Gunston, Wakefield and Arlington Community High School
· Reid Goldstein made announcements regarding certain of his liaison schools (Dr. Charles R. Drew, Glebe and Abingdon Elementary Schools, Dorothy R. Hamm Middle School, and Washington-Liberty High School)
Thereafter, Superintendent Durán gave his announcements (slides here):
Every Student Counts: Support for students with disabilities noted examples of supports, noting the special education process for families. The Superintendent highlighted the 5-part telenovela to support families navigating the special education process. and shared a video focusing on the county-wide deaf and hard of hearing program.
October is Learning Disabilities Awareness Month, with a focus on Dyslexia and ADHD. It is also Augmentative and Alternative Communications Awareness Month, as well as Down Syndrome Awareness Month. The APS Parent Resource Center
As of September 30, APS’s official enrollment is 27,455 students, which is only 131 fewer students than projected and an increase of 544 students compared to last year’s official count. Additional details provided.
Dr. Durán thanked our principals in recognition of National Principals Appreciation Month.
Dr. Durán visited and thanked staff at Syphax and the Trades Center.
October is National Bullying Prevention Month. Unity Day is October 19th and all are encouraged to wear orange
Red Ribbon Week is October 23-31 are part of National Substance Abuse and Prevention Month
School Lunch Week was October 10-14. APS serves 19.960 meals per day on average.
Highlighted upcoming APS Events and Dates through mid-November.
Dr. Durán’s “Bright Spot”: All APS schools fully accredited and earned top rankings in 2023 Best Schools Reports.
Mary Kadera noted the Arlington Special Education Advisory Committee (ASEAC), highlighting their monthly meeting and opportunity for public comment, along with the Special Education Parent Teacher Association (SEPTA) for families seeking supports in the special education process. She also asked how APS supports students who both have disabilities but may also be, for example, gifted and/or English Learners. Dr. Mann explained how gifted and/or EL resource staff support students and the IEP process in those instances.
Reid Goldstein thanked APS staff for the video and mentioned the Parent Resource Center, available on the APS website and at Syphax. He also congratulated Ms. Diaz-Torres on her recent marriage. Congratulations!
Public Comment
The public comment portion of the meeting featured 14 speakers:
Reginald Goeke spoke on behalf of APE in support of academic excellence and closing achievement gaps.
Speaker concerned that APS’s COVID policies (particularly return to school after COVID isolation) are unsafe.
Three speakers in opposition to Governor Youngkin’s proposed model policy on non-binary and trans students.
Four speakers regarding the collective bargaining resolution and concerns about lack of communication with APS and school board members.
Two speakers regarding a compensation fix for Speech Language Pathologists.
A speaker asking APS to pause Career Center project
A speaker regarding hub stops and transportation safety
A speaker on respecting viewpoint diversity with regard to the Governor Youngkin’s Proposed Model Policy.
Monitoring Item: Student Climate and Culture Report
Gradis White, Director of School Climate & Culture gave the Office of School Climate and Culture Monitoring Report. Those slides are available here.
Notable items in this report are as follows:
The last School Climate and Culture Monitoring Report. Monitoring Report was in October 2021.
APS’s Performance Objective is as follows: Disproportionality in suspension rates by race/ethnicity, students identified with a disability, and English Learners will be annually reduced, and overall suspensions will not increase.
Data was shared indicating that subgroups, notably Black, Hispanic, English Language Learners and Student with Disabilities, are suspended disproportionate to their share of the APS student body.
· OSCC had several recommendations including:
Integrate culturally relevant concepts and practices into all levels of school interactions
2. Establish systematic, proactive, and positive strategies, interventions, and Restorative Justice practices that support student learning and well-being in all areas involving student conduct
· Calls for progress monitoring based on several data sources, including suspension data, discipline incident referrals,
· Noted multiple county and community partnerships as bright spots
· Additional resources for FY24 would include $50,000 for professional learning; $200,000 for two new FTEs within the Office of School Support; and $100,000 for one new FTE for a Trauma Informed Care specialist also within the Office of School Support.
All School Board members had follow up comments/questions, including:
· Ms. Kadera noted the work session on October 11 and highly recommended that interested individuals watch that session. She asked about the explanations for the disproportionality in suspension data of some subgroups and how that impacts APS responses to that data. Mr. White responded that staff need additional training around implicit bias and cultural competencies. And he intends to look more closely that infractions are given without bias.
· Mr. Priddy also noted the previous work session, commenting that this is good plan and thanked the staff.
· Dr. Kanninen echoed comments regarding the work session and asked about performance objective if there is also an objective of reducing suspensions, as well as reducing disproportionality. She asked why suspensions are the primary data that APS considers rather than other data. Dr. Durán noted that APS suspension data is particularly reliable and that suspensions are particularly impactful on student’s experience., but that other data should also be collected (e.g., referral to principal’s office, etc.). He notes that other data is not as well collected and APS should develop that. Mr. White indicated that APS is working to improve other preventative interventions to help reduce suspensions. He provided an example of one student who had 8 suspensions, noting that preventative measures including parent conferences, calls home, and other relationship building with students might have helped prevent those suspensions.
· Ms. Diaz-Torres noted that “we do not have achievement and opportunity gaps” but that “they are gaps in our children being able to be present in our schools” due to disproportionate suspensions. She noted this is the first full school year in which the student code of conduct has been in place. She asked about the school-based point of contact and whether APS has that point of contact in every school. Mr. White noted that many staff did not originally understand what restorative practices were. Half of APS schools now have point of contact and that staff are signing up as training is delivered. She further asked about risk ratios (a measurement of disproportionality) and if we have past year risk ratios and if that can be added to the equity dashboard to enable year-to-year comparisons. That data is available and will be provided.
· Dr. Kanninen asked about the additional requests for FY24 and how the proposed FTEs would be utilized and how much time those positions would spend with students. Currently the Office of School Support has 4 FTEs covering all of the schools, 3 of whom are doing site visits at 41 schools. The proposed FTEs would help with school-based work on restorative and preventative practices, reentry meetings, etc. with students.
· Reid Goldstein asked about the $50,000 budget request for professional learning. Mr. White would like to have more than one point of contact in each school and these additional resources would support those efforts. Mr. Goldstein further asked if this would be included in the Superintendent’s Budget Request. Dr. Durán suggested it would be and recognized Ms. Graves’ efforts in moving this work forward.
Action Item: 1. School Board Budget Direction.
Previously presented at most recent School Board meeting as an information item. That prior presentation is available here. There was minor change in the wording of third bullet of the budget direction regarding planning factors for students with disabilities.
Ms. Kadera indicated that the language was clarified to explicitly include “school supplies” and other supplies, which are part of the planning factors.
Dr. Kanninen reflected on the inclusion of “sustainability” in this budget direction, stemming from decisions earlier in the pandemic to keep the school system whole. She addressed concerns that APS has not been bolder about learning loss because the “core model is strong” and they are concerned about the sustainability of the APS budget.
The item was adopted by a vote of 5-0.
Action Item: 2. Deed of Temporary Easement and Construction Agreement at Wakefield High School
Previously presented at most recent School Board meeting as information items. That prior presentation is available here. There are no updates to this item.
The item was adopted by a vote of 5-0.
Information and Action Item: 1. APS Card Access Replacement
Dr. Mayo provided a presentation to replace the current “one-card” access system. That presentation is available here. There are current system challenges including that the manufacturer will no longer be able to provide direct support for the 20-year-old system and that the hardware is beginning to degrade with replacement parts difficult to source. This project was not included in the CIP but it is essential at this time. Replacement will cost nearly $798 thousand, offset by other anticipated savings. APS proposed funding this project with $358 thousand from the Capital Reserve fund. If projected savings were not realized, the additional funds would be taken from the Capital Reserve fund and if projected savings were in excess, less would be taken from the Capital Reserve fund
Ms. Diaz-Torres asked how the upgrade process would be managed with regard to the existing cards. Dr. Mayo indicated that the current cards will work until the system is replaced by the end of the school year. He noted that the new system would be cloud-based and staff would no longer have to take their ID photos at the Trades Center.
Mr. Priddy asked if APS would have to pay a subscription fee for the new cloud-based system. Dr. Mayo indicated that was correct.
Dr. Kanninen asked if the budget request was up to the full cost of the project ($797,853) or if staff would come back for a differential if savings were not realized. Mr. Priddy indicated that the motion allows for the flexibility in what is used from the Capital Reserve fund.
Mr. Goldstein asked why new cards would be needed if the old cards would work with the new system. Dr. Mayo will follow up on that answer. Mr. Goldstein asked why this was not included in the CIP. Dr. Mayo indicated that given the age of the system, he was not sure why it was not included in the past or most recent CIPs. Mr. Goldstein further asked about the subscription cost for the new system and how that would be funded. Dr. Mayo indicated he would follow up on that question but indicated it would come out of the budget for the Department of Safety, Security Risk and Emergency Management.
Ms. Diaz-Torres indicated this is a responsible and essential use of reserves, which Dr. Kanninen echoed.
The item was adopted by a vote of 5-0.
Information and Action Item: 1. Deed of Easement at Kenmore Middle School
Cathy Lin provided a presentation regarding a county request for a permanent easement. That presentation is available here.
The County requested a permanent easement for the construction, maintenance, and repair of a traffic signal at South Carlin Springs Road. This is being requested as an information and action item because the County Board would like to present as an action item in November given the recent accidents at that intersection. This easement grants the County 2,819 square feet at that intersection.
Mr. Priddy asked if the permanent easement indicates that the County will have permanent responsibility for maintaining this parcel. Cathy Lin indicated that the County will have that responsibility.
Mr. Goldstein asked why this was brought forward as information and action where the APS will have another school board meeting before November. Ms. Lin indicated that they may have a submission deadline and would have to follow up on that deadline.
Further discussion ensued to clarify the location of the easement.
The item was adopted by a vote of 5-0.
Information Item: 1. Arlington Career Center Project Proposed Schematic Design
Presentation by Reneé Harber and Jeffrey Chambers regarding a proposed update to the Arlington Career Center Project. The slides and other supporting materials are available here.
The concept design was previously approved by the School Board in April 2022.
Ms. Harber reminded the board why this project is needed and reviewed the schedule. She noted that the CIP provided $174.62 million of project funding, with $1.24 million from Operating and Other Sources and $173.37 from bond funding.
Mr. Chambers detailed the updates to the educational specifications (ed. specs.) resulting from the schematic design for both Base option and the Alternative option. Previous specifications were based on the concept design. Key takeaways:
· The schematic designs shift space requirements from a traditional middle school to more flexible use for any secondary grade level for both the Base and Alternative options.
· The Base ed. specs. capacity decreased while the Alternative ed. specs. capacity increased. For the Base ed. specs., there is no change in planned enrollment, but calculated capacity decreases by 176, where calculated capacity is related to “capacity generating space”. For the Alternative ed. specs., planned enrollment in Arlington Tech would increase by 200, but the calculated capacity increases by only 67.
· The Base option slightly decreased in size by 4,100 square feet while the alternative option would increase by 17,900 square feet.
· A cost estimate was presented based on average of two independent estimates that differed by about $5 million. The cost estimate for both the Base option and the Alterative option increased. The Base option increased due to higher construction costs, while the alternative option is higher due to both larger size and higher construction costs. As a result, the estimated cost per square foot has increased by 9.5%
· The estimate includes a $14.5 million reserve for future cost escalation before project bidding. Previously the approved CIP provided $174.62 million for this project. The new total project cost for the Base option is now $182.42 million and the Alternative option is $173.53 million. Additional funding is proposed to come from the Capital Reserve Fund, which has approximately $15 million.
· Staff recommends the following:
Approve the revised Base and Alternative ed. specs.
Direct staff to proceed to the Use Permit phase, developing a Use Permit Amendment application using the base option
Direct staff to pursue cost sharing discussions with Arlington County for project scope that provides mutually beneficial public improvements.
· Additional information was provided by respective chairs of the Public Facilities Review Committee (PFRC) and the ACC Building Level Planning Committee (BLPC).
All School Board members had follow-up questions:
· Mr. Goldstein made clear that APS is doing the Career Center Project and that the questions are about the details of the project.
· Ms. Kadera asked about the capacity and enrollment numbers. She clarified that the schematic design allows for increase of 200 in planned enrollment in Arlington Tech.
· Ms. Kadera asked about the reasons for the growth in square footage of the Alternative ed. specs.. Staff indicted that the larger building size of the Alternative option is related to the inclusion of a construction lab and common areas, while increased enrollment is related to the shifting space requirements from a dedicated to middle school to more a flexible secondary school use.
· Ms. Kadera also asked about confidence around an assumed inflation rate of 8.4%. Staff responded there were differences in the two independent estimates regarding inflation.
· Mr. Priddy noted his role as a liaison and expressed his appreciation to the staff for all their work to engage the public and develop a schematic design reflecting that engagement. He asked about the capacity in the 3 existing high schools. He confirmed that each high school was built to a capacity of about 1600 (W&L annex expanded that capacity) but Wakefield enrollment currently at about 2300. He notes the overcrowding that exists now and questioning whether the Base Ed. Spec. or Alternative Ed. Spec. better serves future needs in APS.
· Dr. Kanninen clarified that the estimate brought before the board accounts for all of the known cost increases identified in the presentation. She followed up to ask if this project ensures good universal design to serve all students. Staff responded that they have learned from past projects, particularly around plans for elevators.
· Dr. Kanninen also asked how Arlington Tech might evolve given the planned increase in either design relative to the existing program (increase to either about 1050 in the Base design and 800 in the Alternative design). Staff responded about the use of the Career Center for students enrolled in other high schools and how those CTE classes free up space in neighborhood high schools and elaborated that the larger space will allow APS to reconsider what is offered at the Career Center. Staff further commented on the growth and changed in the Arlington Tech program from a program that opened with 40 students, noting how evolving fields and student interest have driven the changes in Arlington Tech.
· Ms. Diaz-Torres asked about the flexibility of the space and asked for clarification on how it can be adapted to future uses. Staff note the flexibility due to modular spaces, plans for connection to water, gas and ventilation needs in these spaces. Further, staff are considering current workforce trends regarding the needs of these spaces.
· Ms. Diaz-Torres asked PFRC about the concerns regarding parking and whether cost was factored into discussions regarding underground versus above-ground parking. The PFRC chair noted that underground parking is the standard but that there was confusion around the cost of underground parking. Ms. Diaz-Torres noted that earlier information from a May 2020 School Board meeting indicated that underground parking was about $98,000 per parking space versus above two above ground options at $46,000 and $45,000 per parking space. She asked if there would be any capacity to consider underground parking now. Staff responded that underground parking might add about $27-$36 million to the cost of the project.
· Dr. Kanninen followed up on the status of capital reserves. Staff noted that we had $33.7 million in May 2022 but are now at about $15 million in reserves. Dr. Kanninen noted that capital reserves can only be used for capital projects but that other reserves can be used more flexibly, including for capital projects. Dr. Mayo confirmed that total reserves stand at $63.4 million. She further asked for APS to provide a recommendation and thoughts regarding the use an unallocated $2 mn of previous bond funds.
· Dr. Kanninen asked about the feasibility of a project labor agreement and whether the motion should include more specific language regarding the board’s intent. The superintended indicated that was for board to decide but that previous direction of the Board was sufficient for APS.
· Ms. Kadera asked for accurate information about permanent capacity at the high school sites for the next school board meeting.
· Mr. Goldstein asked for clarification regarding project funding and bond funding. The concept cost was estimated at $174.62 million with bond funding of $173.37million, but the bond referendum is for approximately $165 million. That amount also includes needs other than the ACC project. Staff note that the “bond funding” of $173.37 indicated in the presentation million includes funding from past bond referenda.
· Mr. Goldstein further asked about the reduction in base ed. specs and increase in Alternative ed. specs. Staff responded that the middle school spaces were subtracted, that the schematic designs for both the base and alternative have identical common areas to allow for additional seats to be added in the future. The appendix also provides additional detail on the differences.
· Mr. Goldstein also asked about the additional $14.5 million to account for cost escalation and how that changed from concept design. Staff indicated that the contingency was much lower in the concept design.
· Mr. Goldstein confirmed that both the base and alternative designs meet both the needs of those in the full-time programs and those students attending the countywide CTE courses. He also asked if both designs meet projected needs and staff confirmed that it would.
· Mr. Goldstein asked about the difference between planned enrollment and calculated capacity. Staff clarified that planned enrollment is necessarily lower than calculated capacity and directed attention to further detail in the appendix of the presentation.
· Mr. Goldstein confirmed that the teen parenting program is included in the enrollment numbers. Staff confirmed that program is represented within the 200 for planned enrollment for the Academic Academy, EL and PEP.
· Mr. Goldstein confirmed that all of the comprehensive high schools have had capacity expansions. Staff indicated that they have not all had expansions, but that space has been repurposed/reconfigured to allow for more capacity.
· Mr. Goldstein followed up on a staff comment that the labs ”have not been designed yet” and asked if that would add to the cost of the project. Staff indicated that funds have been budgeted for labs and that those details and numbers will be refined during the design development stage. Staff indicated that the numbers will be refined, but that there should not be any budget surprises with regards to the labs in the design development stage.
· Mr. Goldstein asked about the decision process for planned enrollment for Arlington Tech. For the additional capacity, how did staff decide that the additional capacity would be for Arlington Tech versus county-wide students taking CTE courses? Staff confirmed that the planned capacity could be used for any of the programs at the Career Center. Mr. Goldstein followed up to understand the decision process for enrollment at Arlington Tech and understanding who has responsibility for those decisions (e.g., Syphax, board members, etc). Staff indicated that both staff and the board may have roles in determining the enrollment for Arlington Tech. They further noted that information about the expanded Arlington Tech program would need to be available by Fall 2024 to help inform families considering that option.
· Ms. Diaz-Torres noted that there will be another CIP between now and when this building is opened which can accommodate further “bites at the apple” before additional students enroll.
· Ms. Kadera clarified if Mr. Goldstein was asking “who makes the determination about what size our option programs are and what we want the enrollment in option programs to be.” Mr. Goldstein confirmed that is what he was asking where this project will accommodate several different programs. Dr. Duran clarified that those decisions are part of the annual program evaluation process including conversations about programs of study, conversations with principals, etc..
· Dr. Kanninen noted that the current size of the Base option is about the size of the Career Center project discussed by the school board in 2018, but the cost estimate for this project now is about $2 million less than what was approved in 2018. How is that possible given all of the cost escalations otherwise detailed in the presentation? Staff indicated that this project is more efficient with regard to square footage and that they are trying to realistically work to a budget rather than “puff up” estimates.
See the Scorecard for this meeting.
