[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6280188,"mediaKeyId","2616639-1abfa48478244852ebe79fba33fb9401","parentId",2616639,"title","Board approves custodial/grounds contracts, community schoolyard and multiple policies on second read","audioSeconds",124,"startMs",2631000,"endMs",2755000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2616639-1abfa48478244852ebe79fba33fb9401&start=2631&end=2755","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2616639-1abfa48478244852ebe79fba33fb9401/thumbnail_2631000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6280188/Tennessee/Board-approves-custodialgrounds-contracts-community-schoolyard-and-multiple-policies-on-second-read","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280188-620779b4542a90fb8c0d5abfc033e3aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1770990826&Signature=ZL5bVmM3jR5U1qi15aBmhuhvA8P-1W0CtvYiZhfQ8IOyKfnxPU70NkDebmjdBAS02YX57PeL6GmaBykzZSFspTl98wF0wu4E-gyNmgfyjL2REVcXz~kJMj8TA572ntxYuVBivmTRcp9a9apXr0p8SsYj~87QtFbMMMLRnCHB6bcMTGmksq386t6nJluirdWn7UB5enRWQnl43hLIILJ3AIIsZ0OvgT9KFVbpZ45BbOW7z2Gpt2bPcFX5EPaZ2EQxhCtib65U1HuAqf-ofCW5G0wizWr7SLvkjmNk1eKllk-7IB6ABMAOR-0RcIXIaoRpDLLMxl7dby4J~cCOlUJfqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hamilton County School","date","2025-03-14T00:40:41Z","article","The Hamilton County Schools Board approved several administrative items by roll call, including a four‑year custodial and grounds services agreement, a one‑time use request for a community schoolyard project at Eastside Elementary, and multiple policies on second and final read.

Construction manager at‑risk (CMAR) and service contracts: The board approved custodial services with ABM and grounds services with City Green for the coming contract term; administrators said representatives from both firms were present. Deputy administrators said planning for transition and next steps would begin immediately.

Community Schoolyard: Trustees approved a one‑time request for a community schoolyard at Eastside Elementary.

Policies: The board voted to approve collectively the policies on second and final read. During discussion a board member asked about how legislative changes will be reviewed; legal counsel said the district reviews legislation and will present any needed policy adjustments at the quarterly session in June.

Votes at a glance:
- Custodial and grounds services agreement (ABM / City Green): motion to approve carried by roll‑call vote.
- Community Schoolyard at Eastside Elementary (one‑time request): approved by roll‑call vote.
- Policies on second and final read (multiple policies): approved collectively by roll‑call vote.

Why it matters: The custodial and grounds contracts shape how school facilities will be maintained during the contract term; the community schoolyard request authorizes a school‑level project; policy approvals finalize several district rules and delegate review of legislative changes to administration for the next quarterly session.

Board direction and next steps: Administrators said they will begin planning transitions with contracted vendors and will present any necessary policy updates resulting from new state legislation at the June quarterly session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","HCS Board Meeting 3/13/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Trustees approved a four‑year custodial and grounds services agreement, a one‑time request for a community schoolyard project and a set of policies on second and final read in consent fashion; ABM and City Green were named as contractors.","taxTitle","Hamilton County, School Districts, Tennessee","taxId",12943,"location","Tennessee","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6280195,"Board presses administration over exceptional‑education staffing model and potential position impacts",550,6090000,6640000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2616639-1abfa48478244852ebe79fba33fb9401&start=6090&end=6640","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2616639-1abfa48478244852ebe79fba33fb9401/thumbnail_6090000.jpg","/articles/6280195/Tennessee/Board-presses-administration-over-exceptionaleducation-staffing-model-and-potential-position-impacts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280195-617f1c2910a4fb192a035bc67ad34576/orig.mp4?Expires=1770990826&Signature=XCX3kH2kz2h45ChcGM3rkymIW8aF7z-c9kq5loBRjf3xd-4~BorI3GntuOQlU41AfqL06lYfatrF3WSycrsCeXLbTAzHil6j0bGFBc~sVHsJX4~Ff724P2S7wGQvpCabiqvkQbY8vHeJQeeJ1Sjc5POW1HnD7ZJitmJ77s3Ebu7RgT8-asShicW9tjVXCubdXhJ2el9zrilKyF4qomAlFPtQFZMX8YOhXqSVSLgl6bnzzzpP8YlkpcGp~KWAv8i9VG1vL6xZXWdpid7BS7NLx9CxWaV-1ir0EA5HMuEM54nVKcR3BugqAdxOx1qB4sQ9d6b-yEnmePadhWwaXrKuxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hamilton County Schools Board debated proposed changes to the district's exceptional‑education staffing model and potential impacts on staff and students, with trustees urging administrators to avoid reducing direct student services.

Superintendent Dr. Robertson and staff presented the staffing model that allocates assistants and support based on service hours and student eligibility; staff said the model reflects changing service volumes and that placement remains an IEP‑team and family decision. Dr. Robertson told the board the district will attempt to place affected staff early but noted staffing is a moving target as retirements and resignations alter needs; he said June 15 is the firm deadline by which teachers will know their next‑year assignments, and April 1 is the board policy target date administrators strive to meet.

Several trustees said the proposed model would result in fewer educational assistants in the exceptional‑education program and warned of service disruption. Board member Gowdy told administrators he would not support a budget that reduces exceptional‑education capacity, and other trustees described the emotional and logistical burden on families and staff if specialized programs are moved across campuses. “I will not be voting on a budget that has these impacts to exceptional ed,” Gowdy said.

Administrators said the staffing model is driven by projected service hours and student needs; the model could generate fewer positions (administrators and trustees cited a projected reduction figure of 28 assistant positions in one scenario), and the board discussed whether to protect those positions in the budget even if they cannot immediately be assigned to a school. The superintendent said if the board funds positions they can remain as placeholders, but that carries budgetary cost elsewhere.

The board asked administration to return with alternative budget scenarios that minimize cuts to student‑facing exceptional‑education staff and to clarify options for preserving continuity of placement for students. Administrators emphasized that students should not be moved without parental consent except in rare circumstances and that the IEP team must determine placement when program locations change.

Why it matters: exceptional‑education services are high‑need, and trustees said protecting these positions is a priority to avoid disrupting students' access to required supports. The board signaled it will prioritize preserving student‑facing roles while asking administration to identify other budget reductions if necessary.","Trustees raised alarms about a staffing model that administration says could reduce some positions tied to service hours; board members asked for alternatives and pledged to protect student‑facing services where possible.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6280198,"Hamilton County Board debates benchmark testing frequency, asks administration for options",2133,3246000,5379000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2616639-1abfa48478244852ebe79fba33fb9401&start=3246&end=5379","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2616639-1abfa48478244852ebe79fba33fb9401/thumbnail_3246000.jpg","/articles/6280198/Tennessee/Hamilton-County-Board-debates-benchmark-testing-frequency-asks-administration-for-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280198-1c41f64727165ca9ec6817d1fa7352a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770990826&Signature=jUBB2wDnb3vRRAZ9vadfbGIokKm0T0T1QIhBsUdmOqGYjshCbpNnq2bqjRXlWb2hq40lsIm07eDWAZibc~qrABNh3TPmLNJJUnoP-eriMbWrp3447Fdxjmkk~rY5wiOX7FTQjT83icKNKbFSRu3IxHoY-G58fa7n16fhAx2CeNjZALFZuF2DXqt-rllsxPfCkixpzPiw5yfT~Xk2r208d59KnkmB3jHBaR5Dqgbyq4Xc0aLdaX-ARCMzwPi7~Lho3p~gxLFBz7~mbWNIBBBDkHU-zrmE9R0deHH5QBChsShoyFnLzSgMltuOof8hLgeY5nZ0gMkwK6~bEm6fBfXDZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hamilton County Schools trustees spent a lengthy portion of their meeting debating the district's benchmark testing program, seeking reductions in testing time while administrators defended the role of interim assessments in guiding instruction.

Board member Mr. Daugherty opened the discussion by asking “at what cost are we pursuing this data?” and urged a collaborative review of testing frequency and burden on teachers and students. He read a letter from a fourth‑grader who described stress and multiple tests, and several board members said teachers have told them the current load is excessive.

Superintendent Dr. Robertson answered questions about the origin and purpose of the benchmarks. He said district benchmarks began in 2016 to reduce classroom variability and align instruction to standards, and that local use of benchmarks corresponded with measurable gains in some district metrics. “There’s something really valuable about . . . assessing kids against the standards so that we can adjust our instruction,” Robertson said.

Administrators provided the board with specifics and tradeoffs: benchmark testing alone accounts for roughly 1.6% of the school year (district materials cited benchmark time in hours), and the district’s contract and related costs for benchmark software and printing were reported at about $788,000 for the current year (the CASE platform and printing services were included in that figure). Staff also said some assessments (MAP and AIMSweb/AIMSweb‑style universal screeners) are state‑mandated and that the district is in its second year using MAP and AIMSweb; where overlap existed the district has already reduced redundancy, particularly in K–2.

Board member Daugherty moved to reduce benchmark testing to one administration per year for 2025–26; the motion was seconded but later withdrawn after members asked administration to draft options and consult vendors. Legal counsel and staff explained that existing board policy delegates testing procedure to the director of schools (policy 4.7) and that any change could be implemented through contract decisions or a policy amendment; the district’s CASE benchmarking contract is a one‑year agreement that can be reconsidered before renewal.

Several members cited pending state legislation that could affect public comment and testing policy; board members also referenced House bills (HB 675 and HB 91) under committee consideration. The board directed the administration to return at the next meeting with written options that include: (a) a reduction in benchmark frequency, (b) analysis of total testing time (benchmarks + state tests + screeners), (c) cost implications if the CASE contract line is changed, and (d) comparative research on best practices for assessment frequency.

Why it matters: Trustees and teachers said testing time reduces instructional time and creates stress for students; administrators said timely benchmark data supports targeted instruction. The board will decide whether to change assessment cadence, vendor arrangements, or policy before any contract renewals.","Board members criticized the volume of benchmark and state testing, heard research and parental testimony, and asked administration to return with options after administrators said some redundancies have already been reduced.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6280204,"Hamilton County Schools, City of Chattanooga approve interlocal agreement to support students experiencing homelessness",251,1885000,2136000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2616639-1abfa48478244852ebe79fba33fb9401&start=1885&end=2136","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2616639-1abfa48478244852ebe79fba33fb9401/thumbnail_1885000.jpg","/articles/6280204/Tennessee/Hamilton-County-Schools-City-of-Chattanooga-approve-interlocal-agreement-to-support-students-experiencing-homelessness","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280204-b6404abf363c0c104f8c08b60d0e64ac/orig.mp4?Expires=1770990826&Signature=DiZ8WOK4EH446BojJ9x4-37jpRc0zJsYYjav5q1ZDLIQIL8qZqcn2T5ovNUa84BbKmpmY2uTGMxRLZ42dHFAIQp6~UCujPtbRnanWIh5LUEjip1Ul1TxQWUhWXJpvskEMvJ9PvdgCIY8EnzEk1o1a4ieIOW-DCjAigZzGrJMETxoYS8akbIDSlt6GXhae0~NJJUlEyVd0R6Srex8Qbs3EjlIduVPsxjiXOa9L7RSV0TH0ugHrohbOOQsavB0irkWosCLdiNpgIzUcVfUG2zrwSZQSVyJhHSBLy1dme31mZOwb2ZVRlw~868HQbn5ibVaC1C5sW0AXjLfT72Cn59ZUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hamilton County Schools Board approved an interlocal agreement with the City of Chattanooga to participate in an 18‑month pilot aimed at placing school‑age students and their families into stable housing.

Dr. Stewart, deputy superintendent, told the board the district will use Title I set‑aside funds to support the initiative. “It’s being funded through our Title I set aside,” he said, and the district has earmarked $250,000 within a $15,000,000 Title I budget; the board was told $150,000 of that amount is allocated for the pilot. The initiative was described as a collaboration among the school district, the city of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, and the local homeless coalition.

Board members pressed administration for details about who will operate the program and where money will come from. Board member Stockton moved to approve the agreement and the motion was seconded; the board carried the item in a roll‑call vote. Several board members emphasized the human cost behind the numbers: “Many people don't know that . . . our students actually are considered homeless and they're living in motels scattered throughout the city,” board member Groan said during public discussion.

Administrators said the effort grew out of the county's Children's Cabinet and a previously paused state voucher program that could have prioritized local students. Dr. Stewart said staff are working with the city and county to use available resources, and county officials said the county has matched school system funding and will contribute opioid‑settlement money to the pilot. The city is expected to reassign some existing staff to the initiative.

Board members asked for performance and timeline details before broader expansion. Dr. Stewart and other administrators said they expect one‑on‑one family meetings to start after spring break and that staffing and placement conversations will take place at individual IEP or family meetings where applicable.

Why it matters: board members flagged chronic absenteeism and housing instability as drivers of lost classroom time; the district reported more than 1,100 students identified as experiencing homelessness (administrators cited figures “over 1,100,” with one internal count near 1,178). Supporters said the pilot aims to reduce absenteeism by moving families into more stable housing, while some board members urged the district and partners to match funding levels to the scale of need.

Board direction and next steps: the board approved the agreement and asked administration to provide follow‑up details on program staffing, how voucher or other housing resources will be deployed, and measures the pilot will track to determine success. Administrators said the program will be evaluated during the pilot period and that the Children's Cabinet partners will coordinate housing prioritization when state voucher programs resume.","The school board approved an interlocal agreement with the City of Chattanooga to pilot an 18‑month initiative that uses Title I set‑aside funds and partner resources to move students and families into housing; board members pressed for clearer funding and service details.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves custodial/grounds contracts, community schoolyard and multiple policies on second read

Board presses administration over exceptional‑education staffing model and potential position impacts

Hamilton County Board debates benchmark testing frequency, asks administration for options

Hamilton County Schools, City of Chattanooga approve interlocal agreement to support students experiencing homelessness