J. Scalice reviewed the ELA and Math IBAs - small SBAC related assessment used and pre and post assessments going into units.

• Given by teachers; used in our data team weekly meetings to monitor effectiveness of curriculum and instruction; also feeds into our tier support structure during flex time or tradition tier 1 instruction with high dosage tutoring/tier 1 assistance with additional support in the classroom
• 6th grade (informational text)- 47% at/or approaching standards at ELA (last year we were at 24-27%)
• 7th grade (informational text) - 36% at/or approaching standards at ELA (about the same as last year)
• 8th grade (informational text) - 56% at/or approaching  (biggest improvement, up over 20%)

At/Approaching is used to designate Tier 1 & Tier 1 Intervention

• 6th grade Math (number systems) - 40% at/or approaching
• 7th grade math (number systems)- 31% at/or approaching
• 8th grade math (number systems)- 72% at/or approaching

True testament to change in math curriculum; students are getting accustomed to the launch, explore, direct teaching and project based learning they are doing; student engagement level is significantly higher than at the start of the year scenarios

e.g. problem solving using math and real-life scenarios that are relevant 

Impact on instruction

Students not "at or approaching" are recommended for additional intervention during Flex periods in smaller groups or additional assistant during flex times before, after and after-after school with parent coordination

This is all documents on the IAB data that feeds into the state website. Our MTSS/SRBI structure are in our handbook. All referrals happen through google docs so there is a full documentation of referrals, tiers referred/put into, etc. and teachers check back in during 2/4/8 weeks cycle and all the documentation is update.

Our Tier II coordinator is Courtney Patrick is responsible for preparing evaluations and recommendations for intervention - hand in hand with Tier I instructions and teacher/fellow performance.

Foundation Update

J. Scalice will also discuss updates regarding school and foundation separation. We will be still be engaging with them around fellows and the engagement of fellows, but this will have an impact on central office in terms of back office Human Resources support, financial oversight support and IT. 

At this point what we've been doing since our last meeting: we have gone through a line-item details of our CMO to review functions within the agreement to piece out who is responsible for what functions around payroll, Human Resources, healthcare, IT, finance, financial reporting, bill pay, all of those finite granular details, so we have a map of everything that needs to be accomplished.

We have reviewed responsibilities, including naming and reviewing of procedures, providers (internal or 3rd party, 3rd party to GOF), and assignment of responsibilities during the process (who is responsible for documentation, training, off boarding, what is it looking like in terms of process, not necessarily map and timeline).

What we are discussing today is the possibility of a project coordinator. We want to identify a consultant to serve as a project coordinator to reduce time consumed by Executive Director and Director of Operations provided approval.

J. Scalice shared that this will include a request for proposal process (RFP):

1) identify a need - process and separation details and timeline

2) create a description - management of project and research of needed operations and support personnel

3) details of role - define, in specific terms, what the consultant will be responsible for and how they will be measured

4) request permission - discussion on need, requirements, and input from Board for permission to post RFP

Board asked to review RFP in BoardOnTrack. J. Garrett reviewed the document line by line (summary where necessary) including project overview, project goals, scope of the work, current road blocks/challenges for success, evaluation for metrics & criteria, and submission requirements.

RFP Request for Board Consideration

In an effort to maintain the focus of the ED and DO on the improvement of and corrective action plans of the school, we request approval from the Board to engage in the RFP process to find a consultant to coordinate, manage, and implement a timeline and plan for the separation of the school from the foundation. Candidates will be brought forward to the board for final approval.

Certification Update

L. Hubbard gave an update on certification: we are now at 70% certified, with 18% pending certification (means a thorough review has been done of applications and these certification candidates will be certified), and 12% are pending review and/or missing credentials. 

Facilities Update

L. Hubbard gave an update on facilities, including the 2nd floor remediation and new boiler installation, both of which are still on track to be completed by the end of the holiday break and before students return to the building in January. 

• Steel company was on site this week to take measurements - we are still on track for completing the work the week of 12/26
• Boiler and compression installation - parts have been ordered through Grodsky, work is still scheduled to be completed during week of 12/26

Child Nutrition Program Update

L. Hubbard gave an update on the Child Nutrition Program, noting that after a recent submission of our CNP Financial Report which showed an excess operating balance in the amount of $3934.00, CSDE determined that we should submit a corrective action plan to reduce excess overpaying balances in the future. 

L. Hubbard laid out a list of processes planned to implement to if trending towards being in excess in the future and writing into the school's corrective action plan. 

These steps include: 

1) Weekly review of food items ordered and placing orders for items more favorable to students

2) Making notes of food consumption trends and adjusting orders according

3) Looking into ways we can purchase specific items at a lower cost or supplemental food items 

4) Working closely with CSDE for suggestions if we are trending towards an excess.

The reason this excess took place, is coming back from the pandemic/being back in the building a full capacity, it took a while to track trends of students, what they prefer to eat, etc. and/or at times, we needed to over-order in anticipation of these needs.

The state wants to see this number at 0, despite it being small (less than $4,000).

C. Sneed asked about state limited to exceeding the budget - if there is a particular amount that's reasonable over budget. L. Hubbard shared it's at $0 or under budget. C. Sneed felt like it should not just be at their discretion because spending in excess could be related to unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances. C. Sneed is hoping to ask about reasonable expectations outside of $0.00 so we have a reasonable budget/goal we are working towards that does not require a corrective action. L. Hubbard plans to look into this question about spending in excess limits/guidelines with the state. 

C. Sneed reviewed the November Dashboard

School is in stable financial condition in terms of our cash burn and cash burn rate (not in the negative)

The dollars we are spending down before per pupil hits and once per pupil rate, and once that per pupil rate hits, our cash burn rate will improve and be at a higher positive. 

C. Sneed noted the pluses here when reviewing the dashboard, include our reserve account, which continues to move back in an upward direction; we've also paid the foundation back (tremendous!) and our BlueHub Tennant improvement loan (debt free). We are building reserves in addition to being debt free, which are sound financial principals.

C. Sneed noted that there are no loans outstanding, everyone is paid; in the fundraising effort for operating support so far we've received 166,500 with a remaining target difference of about 100,000 to raise; there are other opportunities pending that will trim down that number

C. Sneed then reviewed our funding sources and our grant/state funding is looking good from a budget/actual standpoint. What may stick out to others, is the red in the difference column, $653,945 in ESSER funding and school lunch program; with ESSER funding, we haven't drawn down yet, so what we used versus budgeted, we are not facing a deficit, it's just a reflection of what has been drawn so far.

C. Sneed reviewed personnel salaries, we still have room there - the numbers that'll come up a bit because of additional hiring but we are still seeing our actual trend lower than approved budget for FY23; that'll coincide with payroll taxes and benefits, if we don't have the staff we will certainly come under budget; 

Contracted services we are under budget.

C. Sneed discussed School Ops, reminding the board that in previous meetings we discussed a much larger deficit there and we had all the confidence the numbers would adjust accordingly and they have; we are slightly over budget due to unforeseen costs due to the boiler and other contractual needs; in addition to that, the digital platforms put in place for programming;

Now going forward, our investment in technology for the school for programming, we will take this into consideration for FY24 budget so we do not have a forecasted shortfall in the future; school ops we will see the difference/variance change but will monitor it over time.

B. Carlson asked if money for the boiler is reflected in this budget yet and L. Hubbard noted no, that once the parts are ordered and work is done, we will be invoiced.

C. Sneed noted he is not worried because this has been budgeted and accounted for - as long as we confirm shipment, delivery and the work.

C. Sneed reported no red flags when it comes to financial management or any issues that could present themselves within out budget, or anything that can be of concern. Happy to report the school is in a strong financial position an dit continues to maintain.

C. Sneed brought up the SPED Funding Process to be added to fiscal policy; proposed in the future, putting forth a consent agenda to provide information ahead of time for review, to present as a slate - and each board member would have an opportunity to postpone any vote on the slate agenda if they had concerns.

C. Sneed brought forward a vote to add the SPED Funding Process to fiscal policy; fiscal policy for being reimbursed by Bridgeport Public Schools for their special education teachers right now there is not a written process; this is a written process to be added to fiscal process so in the future, there is a straightforward and clear process that doesn't have to be amended with any changes to funding amounts.

L. Hubbard reviewed the following vendors for approval: 

• Sign Up Genius- Report Card Conference Parent Sign Up Tool. $1299.00 

One Time Annual Fee. We also looked into Calendly and SignUp.com, but neither programs had all the features we were looking for 

• DJ Billy Bush $500.00- hired based on availability on date of staff holiday party; we had hoped to use other DJs we've used in the past that are already approved vendors, but they were unavailable. He is charging what other DJs have charged the school historically, which is $500.00 

• Vicky Brand's Gather Tap & Tavern- $5750.00 holiday party venue, costs inclusive of food, drinks and space. Wealso contacted Noltan (cost was way too expensive, they came in at close to $8,000; we also reached out to Testos, we were concerned about the size, because of the number of RSVPs, but they also weren't available on our selected date). 

• Globe Equipment Company- no quote, Selected as additional vendor option to purchase kitchen items at competitive pricing.

Foundation not in attendance; no updates at this time