Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tipp City board discusses $30,000 MOU with workforce partner to expand student internships
Summary
Board members discussed a memorandum of understanding with CCESS to build employer relationships and expand internship and workforce-development programming for students; the proposal references roughly $30,000 in contracted services and aims to serve up to about 25 students with on-site time several days per week. (Discussion; no vote recorded on the MOU.)
The Tipp City Exempted Village School Board discussed a proposed memorandum of understanding with a workforce partner identified in the public content as CCESS that would fund employer partnerships and student internships.
Speaker 3, a district staff member, said the district has been ‘‘in conversations with this group since April’’ and described the organization’s prior work in southern Ohio and Cincinnati. Speaker 3 said the MOU is intended to ‘‘enhance our workforce development, internship partnerships with businesses’’ and help students ‘‘know what opportunities are out there in this area.’’
Board members pressed staff for specifics. Speaker 2 asked which other districts the partner is working with and whether services would be delivered on-site or as a satellite; Speaker 3 responded that the partner worked with some public and private schools in Cincinnati and said the plan called for the partner to be on-site ‘‘3 days a week’’ in the district. Speaker 3 said the program would be ‘‘for all’’ students and that the initial goal was to recruit about 25 students.
The discussion also covered staffing and local liaisons. Speaker 3 identified people named in the contract as team members and liaisons (‘‘Kate Weaver, Rachel Bishop’’) and referenced Stephanie Dunn as a person with relevant experience, saying the group ‘‘meet monthly to make sure they move in the right direction.’’
Questions about cost and grants surfaced. Speaker 2 noted the proposal lists roughly "$30,000 for services rendered’’ and asked whether the company would pursue outside grant funding to offset local costs; Speaker 3 said the company was looking for grants to help offset the expense.
No formal motion to approve the MOU appears in the transcript. Speaker 3 closed the discussion by urging a follow-up plan: ‘‘So I guess I'm hearing come with a plan,’’ indicating staff will return with additional details.
Next steps: staff were asked to provide more specifics on partner districts, on-site days and hours, program enrollment, liaison roles and grant plans before any formal approval.
