Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Teaching Learning Equity topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

TLE update: band participation climbs, district interim ELA shows 77% at/near/above standard; online school feasibility presented

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District teaching, learning and equity staff reported growth in music participation, early interim-English results showing 77% of students at or near standard, and presented a feasibility analysis for scaling a multi‑district online high school with projected staffing needs and a budget shortfall.

District Teaching, Learning and Equity staff presented program updates Jan. 28 that summarized band participation, interim English language arts assessment results and a feasibility study for a multi‑district online high school.

Band and enrollment: Dr. Bridal Fox reported music participation across the district includes 712 high school band students across five high schools, more than 1,000 middle school band students across six schools, and 450 fifth‑grade band students at the elementary level — approximately 2,100 total band participants districtwide. Union High School alone has about 450 students enrolled in music classes; its percussion program includes student‑led ensembles that rehearse outside class for regional competitions.

Springboard academic results: The district presented participation and early results from the focused interim ELA assessment block administered last fall. Of 11,140 students who completed the district-directed ELA interim, 24% were reported as “proficient/above standard” and 53% as “at or near standard” on the vocabulary and comprehension components; combined, 77% were at or near/above standard on those measures in November. District staff described the findings as “a beginning-of-year snapshot” and said continued instruction and parent support are expected to influence later results.

Multi‑district online school feasibility: Assistant/Dr. Heather Fowler (presenting the feasibility analysis) told the board the impetus was data showing nearly 600 district students attend out‑of‑district online programs. Key assumptions for scaling: a conservative daily caseload of 150 students per full‑time teacher (derived from current collective bargaining working conditions rather than previous MOU caseloads), an attrition rate of 15–20%, and first‑year enrollment projection of about 250 high‑school students (grades 9–12); legacy online currently serves about 130 students. The presenter assumed roughly 20% of online enrollees would require special education services.

Staffing and costs: Using those assumptions, staff estimated roughly 13.5 certificated FTE for instruction (estimated annual cost $1,944,000) plus about 4.0 classified FTE and one administrator (estimated $480,000), with additional recurring costs for a learning platform subscription, technology and an indirect cost factor of 9%. The presenter said the projected basic education apportionment (about $10,037 per student) would leave a budget shortfall; staff estimated an overall deficit of roughly $239,000 under the presented assumptions. The district noted there could be offsets — higher special‑education apportionment for some students and negotiated platform discounts — but that the staffing model was the primary cost driver.

Timeline and approvals: Staff said an expanded multi‑district online school could not open before the 2026–27 school year under the described timeline. Key steps include preparing OSPI application materials, submitting intent to apply in November, submitting the application beginning Jan. 1, and awaiting OSPI review (staff noted the approval window may take up to six months). The presentation identified the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and state application requirements as essential upstream approvals.

Board discussion: Directors asked for clarification on the 9% indirect cost assumption and on whether federal funds would be available; staff said indirects were modeled on the district’s comprehensive school indirect rate and that they were not aware of federal funds to cover recurring costs. A board member who serves on the OSPI online learning advisory committee offered to assist with the application process and appeals if needed.

The district provided a three‑page drilldown document for board members with further details referenced in the presentation and staff said they will return with more detailed budget scenarios if the board wishes to pursue the expansion further.