C. Wright expressed appreciation for the work of NS teachers and staff.

There were no public comments.

K. Sved highlighted inclusion of the CEO Update document in the meeting packet. A. Ortiz defined PENSEC for board members (Pupil Estimates for New or Significantly Expanding Charters).  J. Montgomery requested that items relating to to staff evaluation be included in the next HR report, and M. Alnas Alatorre confirmed that information would be included. 

J. Dent presented a review of 2018 SBAC scores and the board provided feedback and asked clarifying questions.  J. Montgomery expressed interest in expanded year-to-year data, at grade level and also from teacher-to-teacher. Board members were interested in connections between recent SBAC performance and LCAP.  K. Sved noted that, in terms of the LCAP, we speak in terms of distance-from-met (or DF3) rather than proficiency rates.  He mentioned that more information regarding DF3 and LCAP alignment will be provided at the next board meeting, pending release of CA Schools Dashboard data. 

J. Dent explained a key point relating to cohort performance and the impact of RFEP rates. The board asked questions about the performance of specific grades (current and over previous years).  J. Dent summarized key takeaways from this year's data as prompted by C. Wright.  His observations included several key topics, including strength of ELA scores, increasing capacity for predictive data, and professional development for new teachers.  C. Wright inquired as to how we are using analytics to inform practice and continuous improvement.  J. Glover asked related questions about the capacity of NS to predict SBAC outcomes for subgroups. 

Staff and board members considered high-impact strategies to effectively engage the board in terms of the annual analysis of SBAC scores and related data. Potential roles of the board were discussed. Connections to annual planning and the allotment of resources were also considered.  C. Wright shared an interest in the increased review of achievement results at committee level.



 

K. Carr reviewed NS staff attendance at a recent CA State Board of Education meeting and subsequent conversations with CCSA and legal advisors.  She summarized the latest planning and engagement activities of R. Castaneda, our Community Engagement Facilitator.  At the request of C. Wright, K. Carr provided an overview of the charter approval process, including an explanation of the upcoming presentation at the Advisory Commission on Charter Schools (ACCS). 

K. Sved listed potential speakers who would support NS at the petition hearings.  J. Flaherty emphasized the importance of developing an overall strategy for identifying and confirming speakers, including the concretizing of a conceptual framework for choosing types of speakers based on background, expertise, role, and sector, for example.  J. Glover also asked about efforts at a strategic level, and K. Sved provided further information on the state board meeting, including number of speakers and allotted times.  

C. Wright expressed thanks to staff for keeping WPS parents hopeful.  K. Sved thanked K. Carr for her successful effort to deliver the petition binder to the state.

K. Sved introduced Elizabeth Sanborn, and she summarized her long history of advising charter schools on the development and funding of facilities. She explained numerous key issues and strategies to attendees via PowerPoint.  The board asked questions relating to real estate, funding strategies, site control, timelines, and community relationships.  K. Sved described legal and organizational risks involved with certain development strategies.  The board discussed facility development issues related to Proposition 39, numbers of students in classes and grades, and technology. 

A. Ortiz detailed favorable and unfavorable variances, and she reviewed revenue goals, the balance sheet, and related tables.  J. Montgomery review the finance committee's thoughts on the variances and thanked A. Ortiz for her presentation.

C. Wright described the committee's interest in and efforts toward furthering a continuing shift of board role (relating to NS goals) from management to consultation.  She considered committee goals and board goals and wondered what more the board should be doing to deliver organizational priorities.  J. Flaherty asked about future board retreats, and C. Wright described the efforts of the committee to plan such a meeting, including a new consideration of the season for such an event.  The board also discussed board expansion, committee expansion, and the potential role of future members or non-board members on committees.  C. Wright described the expansion process, in part, as a confluence of competencies and geographies. The board also discussed the potential role of parents as board members, especially relating to NS growth and issues relating to charter petitions.

F. Ohmann shared her experiences as a new board member, including her attendance at petition-related events in Watsonville and Santa Cruz.  C. Wright thanked her for sharing, and the board discussed strategies and structures for the onboarding of additional members, including provisional members.

The board discussed the roles of committees, and how they might review data with more frequency and in a more in-depth fashion than the entire board.

S. Martin presented a list of potential dashboard elements. He shared examples of data visualizations. The board provided insights and observations for the development of a data dashboard.  J. Glover introduced concepts of altitude and recurrence (update frequency). Board members explored the definition of dashboard.  C. Wright suggested that the governance committee might be able to consider these issues further, especially in terms of outlining basic principles and determining frequency of updates for specific components.

K. Sved led a discussion of NS priorities.  J. Montgomery inquired as to whether or not the list included LCAP goals, and K. Sved explained that the LCAP was incorporated into the final NS priority.  J. Montgomery also suggested that the topics of HPS facilities and WPS facilities should not be separated; rather, they should be combined into a single topic.  C. Wright was interested in knowing more about the levels at which staff discusses the priorities, and K. Sved provided a thorough explanation, referring to different types and levels of meetings.  He also suggested that in the future certain committees could monitor specific priorities.  C. Wright highlighted the importance of tracking progress related to the priorities, and J. Glover shared his experience at another organization with such a process.  C. Wright noted the board's appreciation of K. Sved's efforts to provide regular updates on priorities to the board.