D Bissonnette shares they got 99 responses from families, 24% would opt for d learning no matter what, 27% are ready to send kids back, and 50% say it  depends on how things look. Spring, close to 1/3 would opt for d learning.  Themes- disinfecting of spaces 2x day not enough, stricter zip code data desired.  Parents of younger children want their children back sooner.  Staff indicated mixed results.  A few willing to come back and a larger proportion no. Common themes included wanting testing.  H Thomas shared that EFC contracted a company to test kids every 2 weeks. Kids self test.  Concern re family protocols and ensuring there is safe behavior at home.  Questions about how we  do in person and d learning at same time.  Usual concerns about risk populations.  Hard to have this conversation with the current spikes.  J  Faraguna says regular testing would make sense.  Private schools and SF Unified include that in their plans.  D Bissonnette also said ventilation and HVAC was brought up.  NPBI being proposed.  The stand alone units might make sense?  $2K?  Proposal went to finance committee.  H Thomas wanted to know whether staff felt better once the proposal re HVAC was shared.  D Bissonnette not really as they are not yet installed.  H Thomas shares that phase 1 is bringing the most struggling students back, at most 50ish kids.  Next step could be asking those families whether they are interested in returning.  J Faraguna asked re younger grades.  Would those teachers be interested.  D Bissonnette shares there are primary and lower elem teachers that would be interested.  O Couch asks if we can use outdoor spaces.  D Bissonnette wonders about the approaching rainy season.  D Bissonnette shares that the NPBI technology actually kills the viruses on the surface.  Even HEPA filtration also filters the virus.  H Thomas next steps install HVAC improvements and find out whether targeted kids and teachers would be willing to return.

 

D Bissonnette asks committee for guidance re criteria for who to prioritize for in person learning.  What are the tiers?  O Couch asks whether teachers have discussed this.  D Bissonnette responds that teachers have discussed focal groups but not necessarily prioritization for in person learning.  O Couch wants to know whether this correlates.   D Bissonnette shares that kids who are focal learners who are not showing up need to be prioritized for in person.  J Faraguna says we should look at different lists and cross reference those lists - low attendance vs low performance vs more recent academic data vs families who want in person.  Don't wait for next round of testing.  H Thomas says prioritize performance and find out which kids are struggling with attendance and which kids are willing to attend.  D Bissonnette says they might need a 3rd data point.  J Faraguna suggests bringing the list to teachers to their input.  Who is missing from the list even though they didn't meet initial criteria, based on teacher observation?  H Thomas - Who does this work and what can we afford?

Bonnie, public comment - had trouble getting on the Zoom bc calendar Zoom link didn't work .  

Will need to give full board report on the larger plan, timeline, criteria for prioritization, staff and family feedback.  The board needs to approve the plan and criteria.

Curative is who EFC and SUSD is using.  O Couch asks whether we have medical personnel as go tos...  D Bissonnette asked re contact tracing.  H Thomas will do research.  J Faraguna offers assistance with data.  J Faraguna shares we need to be thoughtful if the kids we are targeting are coming from the target zip codes.  H Thomas shares that EFC has launched small group interventions pilot in person at Lazear and Achieve.

J Faraguna shares final NWEA MAP data from fall 2020.  NWEA MAP norms were changed.  Fairly similar % of kids meeting growth targets across subgroups.  Afam students highest in reading.  Hispanic and multiracial have lower % of kids meeting targets in reading.  About 45% across the  school across all subject areas.  H Thomas notes that more lower elem students hitting targets than upper and middle, even though they have lower attendance.  O Couch asks if the targets are automatically set.  J Faraguna shares yes.  J Faraguna shares that younger students might have gotten more help from their parents.  D Bissonnette shares that lower el has focused on reading, and they have bought more structured literacy curricula for the lower el and primary classrooms.  H Thomas shared that one EFC school has 1 additional tutor in every class who is only pulling small groups everyday using SIPPS reading interventions.  O Couch asks whether this is different from the small groups at UMCS.  D Bissonnette says the 2nd adult at  UMCS is not necessarily dedicated to small group intervention.

J Faraguna shares that final NWEA MAP proficiency data shows that more Asian, 2 or more races and White students are demonstrating proficiency than Black and Hispanic students.  O Couch wonders whether language proficiency score being so low for Afam and Hispanic kids impacts their reading and math performance.  She asks whether teachers explicitly talk about Black vernacular in their instruction.  D Bissonnette says it's classroom by classroom.   H Thomas wonders why we give the language usage test since it's not "tested" statewide and it feels a little random.  She wonders if it's useful internally.  J Faraguna says Rocketship did not administer that.

D Bissonnette asks re goals around NWEA and Dibbles and specifically around accelerated growth  for Afam and Hispanic students.  D Bissonnette proposing 50% of Afam, Hispanic, and ELL students who need intensive or strategic support moving out of that band in Dibbles.  H Thomas asks if that is ambitious/doable.  D Bissonnette  feels like they have focused on reading, so it's doable.  In MAP, 60% of Afam, Hispanic and ELL students making growth targets and a 5% increase in the percentage of students in average, high average, and high quintile.  Decrease chronic absenteeism of Afam, Hispanic, ELL students by 5%.  J Faraguna wonders whether 5% decrease in CA is doable.   H Thomas wonders whether a 5% increase is sufficient with respect to closing the achievement gap. J Faraguna wonders whether this should be a multiyear goal, especially in light of the challenges of this year.  O Couch wonders whether the County would appreciate progress towards a multiyear goal.  H Thomas worries that 5% might not be sufficient but also recognizes that aggressive goals in a remote learning year is really challenging.  H Thomas wonders whether we should be looking at student level data and thinking about whether 5% is doable, ambitious, not...  maybe a band movement goal.