C. Wright's opening remarks focused on aspiring to empathy and recognizing the value of teachers in society.

There were no public comments.

K. Sved acknowledged the efforts of staff and board members toward preparation for the meeting. He encouraged direct contact between board and staff regarding staff memos. 

C. Wright summarized recent and ongoing activities of the committee. She introduced V. Paredes-Colonia and summarized his background, interests, and expertise.  J. Anderson recounted meeting V. Parades-Colonia for the first time.

K. Carr thanked everyone for their contributions to the WPS effort.  She highlighted key updates presented in the related memo, including staffing numbers and progress toward verifying intent-to-enroll forms. The board asked several clarifying questions about intent-to-enroll forms; enrollment targets; enrollment attrition and retention; enrollment buffers; consequences of under- and over-enrollment; online enrollment procedures; and the lottery.  K.  Carr and K. Sved answered these questions.  The board also asked how it might help to build relationships in the Watsonville community, and K. Carr provided suggestions.

K. Sved reviewed the latest Proposition 39 offer from PVUSD. He presented photos and plans related to possible schools sites and configurations. 

J. Montgomery provided a review of the latest committee meeting, including relevant financial reports and plans for new procedures and accounting applications to be implemented next fiscal year.

A. Ortiz explained the purpose of the LCAP and summarized its contents.  She reviewed the history of our current LCAP goals, especially relating to NS Compass Points, organizational goals, and organizational priorities.  Board members discussed the role and importance of the LCAP in relation to different audiences and authorities. Members offered advice concerning the setting of goals.  C. Wright expressed appreciation for the proactive nature of the work completed thus far.

S. Martin provided a summary and samples of the latest iteration of the dashboard.  Board members provided feedback and suggestions for moving forward.  J. Montgomery suggested alignment between dashboard visuals and staff update memos.  J. Glover shared observations concerning weekly assessments and NWEA MAP.  S. Martin confirmed that the board dashboard is aligned to key measures included in the CA School Dashboard.  C. Wright highlighted the importance of combining detail, efficiency, and clarity in proper measure.  S. Martin will show a final draft version of the dashboard report collection at the next board meeting.

K. Sved shared comments regarding the scope and scale of net year's priorities.  He reviewed anticipated enrollment at local school districts and enrollment numbers at HPS.  C. Wright appreciated the level of detail provided in the reviews of each priority as included in the meeting packet, especially relating to math and year-over-year progress.  J. Glover expressed interest in incorporating priority-work into future board retreats, including expectations for board fundraising efforts.  

K. Sved provided an extensive presentation on strategic direction, focusing on growth and dissemination. He opened with a summary of Navigator's fundamental activities: operating great schools, growing great schools, and helping other schools to get better.  He explored the complex interplay between dissemination and growth and the value of dissemination for growth.  K. Sved also reviewed different types and levels of dissemination. 

C. Wright explained the consultancy protocol, and board members engaged in a multi-part discussion, adhering to the protocol.  M. Alatorre Alnas documented key elements of the discussion on chart paper, including a "parking lot" for items to which to return in the future.  K. Sved shared a reflection that summarized the key insights brought forward in the discussion.

Board members asked clarifying questions.  These questions covered funders and funding; recent and upcoming state legislation; allotment of time and division of expenses for dissemination personnel, resources, and activities; impact of dissemination and legislation on expansion; evidence and impact of past and current dissemination efforts; the mission of Navigator Schools and definitions of key terms therein; benchmarks for mission-driven success; board mission; and scope, scale, timeline, and roles of the board in relation to strategic planning and priorities. 

After the questioning stage, board members explored key issues at deeper levels. Topics discussed included: continued definition of mission terms, including connections to student outcomes; investment in, revenue from, and business cases for dissemination; assessing environments for growth and dissemination; clarifying the key elements of which dissemination is specifically composed; implications of disseminating to charter schools compared to traditional schools; partner selection criteria; impact of growth and dissemination on communities; and organizational vision.

C. Wright announced the reasons for the closed session (see items B and C, below).

C. Wright reported that no actions were taken during the closed session.