1. Superintendent Blocker reminds the board of the importance of working quickly on the building projects due to the window of opportunity closing. Apparently they are in a unique situation with the exemptions and their capital improvement plans that will expire on July 1, 2010. (PL)
2. Chairman Joie Cadle (District 1) (MC)
2.1. Calls to order meeting, introductions of scholar athlete to lead pledge to the flag and moment of silence (shows support for students and congratulates their achievements) Board member seems attached to students and goals rather than just some high power who dictates policy and mandates its conformity. (MC)
2.1.1. I really liked how she invited the student to walk around so that each board member could have the opportunity to shake the hand of an individual with such prestigious compliments. (JF)
2.1.1.1. Studet Athlete is Niassa Griffen. Chairman praised Niassa and her acomplishments: 3.71 GPA, Two time girls weight lifting champion, Track and Field 1st Palce - 100 meter dash, and long jump. (RN)
2.1.1.1.1. It is refreshing to know and confirm that school boards are really committed to the success of the students within the current world. Celebrating students' success stories must be part of our daily agenda as administrators. (FB)
3. Superintendent of Schools Ronald Blocker (MC)
3.1. introduces , Bob Proie (RN), Chief Facilities Officer brief for review of Castaldi Analysis through the Capital Projects Updates- discusses the quality classroom project. Made within budget, 30 new or additional school, 44 comprehensive rennovations 35 projects in the pipeline, which euals 1 billion in capital spending. Employes 900 construction workers within the community. (MC)
3.1.1. Bob Proie introduced Jonathan Chamberlyn, Facilities Director of Planning and Design. Mr. Chamberlyn presented a demo plan, and the district Building Demolition Approval Process. (RN)
3.1.1.1. Jonathan Chamderlin presented on the Improvement plan and the remaining 75 demolition projects on the list (PL)
3.1.1.1.1. Chamberlin reviews the exemption which allows the school board to implement an alternative practice, which, regardless of the results of the Castaldi Analysis calculation, would allow the district to relpace buildings if the replacement better served the districts needs. (PL)
3.1.1.1.2. Criteria fro exemption are: Life Cycle Cost, Life Safety, Total Project Cost and Site Conditions (PL)
3.1.1.1.3. Exemption Process was the result of Board of Ed.'s unhappiness with the current process of replacing buildings. (PL)
3.1.2. Bob Prole mentioned that certain projects were exempt from needing department of education approval as long as they met the requirements under the Castaldi Analysis. (PL)
3.2. Chairman Cadle made a point that one area the board needed to start working on is generating a search for a new Superintendent to replace Blocker. She made it clear that he has big shoes to fill and that they are sad about his decision to retire in 2012. (JF)
4. April 13, 2010
5. Educating the Homeless in Orange County - Public Hearing Topic
5.1. Currently there are over 3,000 homeless students enrolled in schools across Orange County. (JF)
5.1.1. That number is startling, yet interesting that as a district they are able to recognizethe homeless problem. My question is- if as educators they realize that they are serviceing homeless children, what role do they play in terms of reporting neglect? I believe that children should have basic needs met, how does communication to parents exist? What is the emergency plan in the event a child is sick or injured? how are the parents not assisted in some way shape of form once they have enrolled their child and notified the district that they are in fact homeless? (MC)
5.2. This amount of homeless youth has doubled since the 2007-08 school year. This is a good thing and a bad thing. It is a good thing because OC has been able to locate and enroll this many homeless youths. By federal regulations including NCLB, districts are bound to providing homless youths with a free and equal education. This also includes free lunch and transportation. Another positive is that OC has identified and reached out to this many children in need. The bad side to this is that there are over 3,000 students in OC that are homeless. That only cracks the surface to the actual amount there is in OC. Also, this is only one school district, in one state, in the entire country! (JF)
5.2.1. Homeless Education Policy- Ensures that homeless are provided free and fair education. This includes free lunch, immediate enrollment, student services, transportation, and Title I resources. (JF)
5.2.1.1. Homless students suffer from poor living conditions, little clothing, poor health, hunger, fatigue. (JF)
5.2.1.1.1. There are Homeless Liason contacts through out OC, including several shelters and coalitions that help connect the homeless youth to education. (JF)
5.2.1.1.2. Board Member Gordon expresses concern for the problem of identifying the homeless population and utilizing public resources, such as churches to assist in this process. (PL)
5.3. No person present from the public chose to comment on this topic. (JF)
5.3.1. My question to this is why wouldn't the public want to address this situation. It makes me wonder about the community as whole, as a prent as an educator I would be frantic knowing that my school district had that large of a number of homeless students. There didn't seem to be any mention from the program as to how they could rememdy this situation and help the students as w whole rather than just education. I am aware the church issue was brought up, but there seems like som many more legal issues thatwould be surrounding the concept of education homeless children and an entire school district who is aware of the problem and CAN identify these "at risk" (for lack of a better term) youth. (MC)
5.4. Superintendent Blocker calls Margaret Tilly, from the Curriculum department, to present the Homeless Education Policy to be approved at this meeting. (PL)
5.4.1. This is in compliance with the McKinny-Vento Homeless assistance Act. (PL)
5.4.2. Policy will define the purpose of the program to ensure that homeless and under privileged youth are given the same opportunities as everyone else and give guidance and practice as to how to serve these children (PL)
6. House version represents $39.90 per student reduction from current funding level in surrounding districts. They have been levied under the additional millage. Levy divided by the districts' total equalized assessed value= tax rate. (FB)
7. The Critical Needs Optional Millage of 0.25% is crucial to generate $22 million for FY2011. It will be used for Capital needs and operations. It requieres approval my the super majority and continuity will be upon Referendum.(FB)
8. OCPS Board recognizes with concern the impact current financial meltdown, not been selected in phase 1 RTT and decreasing property value may have on educational programs and operations in the district. node(FB)
9. The Board is responsible for mantaining fiscal integrity and at points it needs to make tough decisions to assure continuity of educational quality programs. OCPS Board is clearly concerned about the projected fiscal situation. The state of Florida unsuccessfully competed in RTT. OCPS does not believe Florida will run in the phase 2. The increase in property value represents funding coming in per student. Using critical needs may be a desperate move but the Board seems determined in safe guarding educational programs that benefit students. Critical needs optional millage will minimize impact on schools and will not eliminate staffing.(FB)
10. Even though, the OC BOE is a public event that affects the local district community, there are some matters that are kept confidential: Students' disciplinary issues and employees' matters. The public is invited to voice their opinion by submitting a request. He or she will be included in the agenda. (FB)
11. The OC school district was able to obtain exemption from the State Board of Education approval process for demolition of educational facilities. This waiver is saving OC millions of dollars in project costs. 44 Buildings out of 556 evaluated in the district qualify for demolition under this waiver due to inefficient materials such as leaky windows, roofs, and other materials beyond repair. Once demolished new facilities will be rebuilt on the same property. (JF)
11.1. Wavier Criteria included four categories, Life Cycle Cost, Life Safety (which the conditions in the previous idea fall under), Total Cost, and Site Condition (rebuild on the same site or demolish and rebuild on another site). (JF)
11.1.1. Waiver is set to expire on July 1, 2010. All demo projects need to be approved by then to be included in the waiver (RN)
11.2. In my interpretation of events, I did not hear anyone present the way that the building were going to be worked on. I am curious if there was criteria in the idea of choosing which building to start the rennovation project with. I was also concerened about where they were putting the students in the meantime and IF they would be moving them at all- and what the plan of action would be to limit the disruption of learning while the rennovations took place. (MC)
12. Board Member Rick Roach (District 3) (MC)
12.1. piggybacked FLYNN, and brings up valid part about the students and the considerations that may or may not come into play, for the school sytems to be fully supported and fully recognized for the students who are homeless. (MC)
12.1.1. When speacking about the building project and the excetion they recieved to work around a state policy, he said " The policies should work for the Americans, Americans should not work for the policies". He seemed to be saying that if a policy does not meet its intended goal, it should be changed. (RN)
12.1.1.1. I like the way Mr. Roach approached this situation. In contrast to his other board members, he seems to be able to convey his frustration in a professional, non-demeaning way. I think that it may be a part of his attitude, but he seems willing and open to new ideas and wants to see the "whole" have benefit, not just some. (MC)
12.1.2. Commends all of those involved in the building projects (PL)
12.2. Seems very sympathetic to the good intentions behind all of the proposals and is very complimentary of the people involved in them. (PL)
13. Board Member Nancy Robbinson (District 6) (MC)
14. Board Member Vicki Bell (District 4) (MC)
14.1. Critcal of error on paper- superficial, sort of inappropriate for a meeting to call someone out on a grammar error- mistakes do get made, her comments seemed petty regarding the laws- other board members tried to go around it and make it light hearted but i found it sort of mean spirited when speaking to the addressee. She was also very critical of reading the laws and proposal for having homeless children enter the schools. (MC)
14.1.1. Excellent questioning about who the liasons are and how will they perform their duties- I think this is a valid question because it is important to understand the accountability for locating these children who are in fact homeless and how they will be served. (MC)
14.2. Mrs. Bell seems quite proud of herself for pointing out slight gramatical errors and disputing language of the actual document. This bring the meeting to a grinding halt. (PL)
14.2.1. The legal team addresses the issues raised by Mrs. Bell and decides that the changes suggested by her are not substantive, therefore can be edited after approving the policy. (PL)
15. Vice Chairman Daryl Flynn (District 2) (MC)
15.1. Much more empathteic in response to the homeless issue about students, she seemed more concerend and respectful in questioning the proposal. (MC)
15.1.1. I appreciate her decision to vote on agenda regardless of the errors noted in the policy due to the fact that it would simply postpone the issue. Sometimes when we drone on insignificant matters it can be used as a technioque to push back information and hold off for more votes in the hopes that it will eventually die out or be forgotten. Sometimes, you can even add to it in terms of other issues and perhaps "sneak" in other motions. (MC)
15.1.1.1. I felt like she was spending a little too much meeting time pointing out errors that could have been discussed during a work session and get to the issue at hand. Maybe just make a general statement that there were some language errors and move on. (JF)
16. Board Member Kathleen Gordon (District 5 ) (MC)
16.1. Very intersting how she was very concerened about the community in terms of homeless and how reform will impact their lives. Dialouge continued from Superintendent Blocker about the dropout problem but more importantly the drop in, and that it is important the Board still has an outreach with the homeless, from the students and other parties involved with the school (MC)
16.1.1. Board Member Gordon wants to reach out to churches to reach unregistered homeless. Utilize Title I funds to make this happen. (JF)
16.1.1.1. Does the desire of the School Board to reach out to local churches to help suppotr the students violate any laws in terms of the separation between Church and State? I understand that the intenmtion to help is there I was just wondering what types of legal ramifications the board would face if in fact they referred a family to a local chiurch for help and the family felt as if their religious freedom was being challenged or imposed upon. (MC)
16.1.1.1.1. The involvement of the church should not be a problem unless the school is seen as pushing one religion or another. Giving a list of places to receive help would be al the school would need to do. It would be up to the parents to choose who they go assisstance from (RN)