The Presiding Officer will call the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. before the Board Recesses to Closed Session.  The Regular Meeting will convene by 7:30 p.m. 

Persons wishing to address the Board should fill out a green speaker card.  Cards turned in by 5:45 p.m. will be given priority. Speakers will be randomly selected based on topic and position, with BUSD students generally given priority. Public Testimony is limited to 15 minutes with a 3-minute limit per speaker per topic although the time allotted per speaker may be reduced to 2 minutes at the discretion of the President. 

The Board may recess into Closed Session before or after the public meeting under the authority of the Brown Act (including but not limited to Government Code section 54954.5, 54956.8, 54956.9, 54957, 54957.6, as well as Education Code section 35146).  Under Government Code section 54954.3, members of the public may address the board on an item on the Closed Session agenda, before Closed Session.

Persons wishing to address the Board should fill out a green speaker card.  Cards turned in by 7:15 p.m. will be given priority.        

Speakers will be randomly selected based on topic and position, with BUSD students generally given priority.  Public Testimony is limited to 30 minutes with a 3-minute limit per speaker per topic although the time allotted per speaker may be reduced to 2 minutes at the discretion of the President. 

Board members and the Superintendent are given the opportunity to address any issue.  

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

TO:          Donald Evans, Ed.D., Superintendent
FROM:     Evelyn Tamondong-Bradley, Assistant Superintendent, HR
DATE:       September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:      Approval of Human Resources Reports

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On a regular basis, staff presents Human Resources Reports listing employment actions for the Board to approve officially. Please refer to attached reports for details.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:            Donald Evans, Ed.D., Superintendent
FROM:            Evelyn Tamondong-Bradley, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources  
DATE:             September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:      Elimination of Specified Classified Position

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This position is currently vacant and will be eliminated. The vacant position will be replaced by a certificated counselor. 

In light of Education Code requirements, it is necessary for the Governing Board to set forth and act on the elimination/reduction so that each employee affected can be notified in a timely manner as prescribed by law and collective bargaining agreements.  

POLICY/CODE:
Education Code Sections 45101, 45114, 45117, 45298, 45308

FISCAL IMPACT:
None.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:               Donald Evans, Ed.D, Superintendent
FROM:         Evelyn Tamondong-Bradley, Assistant Superintendent
DATE:          September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:   Restorative Justice Coordinator

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As part of the District's ongoing efforts to develop systems of restorative justice, and to widen the use of restorative practices as alternatives to traditional methods of school discipline and behavior management, we are seeking Board approval of a new job classification.

This position, Restorative Justice Coordinator, detailed in the attached job description, develops and facilitates the delivery of school-based restorative interventions and services to students, staff, and parents and supports programs that serve as alternatives to both traditional school-based discipline and traditional school climate efforts.

For the past few semesters, professionals in this area have been contracted with for services at our schools and staff is now moving toward more permanent staffing and internal infrastructure to support a reimagined approach to school climate and student discipline.

The Merit Commission reviewed this position and classification in August. With Board approval tonight, the Commission can then issue final approval of the position and begin the posting and recruiting process.

FISCAL IMPACT:
$70,000.00

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Board approve the position of the Restorative Justice Coordinator.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

TO:             Donald Evans, Ed.D., Superintendent
FROM:        Pasquale Scuderi, Associate Superintendent
DATE:         September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:  Out-of-State Travel Request

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The following out of state travel request is being request:

National Association For The Education of Homeless Children and Youth, October 28 to October 31, 2017 in Chicago Il
Approval for Sophina Jones, McKinney-Vento Counselor to attend this four day, three night conference in Chicago, Il. The National Association For The Education of Homeless Children and Youth will provide informative and engaging conference sessions and workshops expanding Sophina’s understanding of new and changing laws regarding homeless students attending schools and as they make their transition to college.  It will also allow her to engage with other attendees to gain information on the best ways to support Berkeley’s homeless students.  Requested by: Pat Saddler, Director of Programs and Special Projects.  Travel and conference cost is approximately $2,100.00 and will be paid by the California Department of Education, Education for Homeless Children and Youth grant.

POLICY/CODE:
Education code 35330
Board Policy 6153

FISCAL IMPACT:
As indicated above.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve out of state travel consistent with District policies and instructional programs.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

TO:             Donald Evans, Ed.D., Superintendent
FROM:        Pasquale Scuderi, Associate Superintendent
DATE:         September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:  Overnight Field Trip Request

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The following overnight field trip is being requested:

Maritime National Historical Park/SS Balclutha, San Francisco, CA September 20-21, 2017
Approve participation of twenty-eight (28) fifth grade students, one (1) teacher, and five (5) other adults on a two-day, one night field trip to San Francisco Maritime Historical Park located at the Hyde Street Pier.  The group will depart Cragmont Elementary at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 20th, and will return at 10:00 am on Thursday, September 21, 2017.  This field trip supports the Age of Exploration Social Studies curriculum for 5^th Grade.  Students will also build social skills and self-reliance.  Students sleep in gender specific areas on the ship Balclutha.  District buses provide transportation.  The cost per student is $100.00 and will be paid for by donations, scholarships and fundraising.  No student is denied access based on ability to pay. Requested by: Michelle Sinclair, Cragmont Principal.

POLICY/CODE:
Education Code 35330
Board Policy 6153

FISCAL IMPACT:
$2,800 to be paid from donations. 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the overnight field trips consistent with the District Policies and instructional programs.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:        Dr. Donald Evans, Superintendent
FROM:          Pasquale Scuderi, Associate Superintendent
DATE:         September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:      Approval of New Career Technical Education (CTE) Course: Introduction to Robotics Engineering

Berkeley High School and the Career Technical Education Program are requesting approval of a new course, Introduction to Robotics Engineering. This will be the first course in the Engineering and Technology Pathway under development.  

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This is an introductory course designed to give students an overview of many aspects of engineering and design relevant to robotics applications.  The emphasis of this course is to provide students with an engaging, hands-on experience.  This course uses the VEX Cortex curriculum developed by Carnegie Mellon to introduce students to robotics and the engineering process. Students will learn how to design, prototype, build, and program VEX EDR robots to complete multiple challenges during the fall semester.  During the design and fabrication process, students will test and evaluate their robots, all the while learning important life skills and engineering concepts. Topics will include workspace safety, teamwork and organization, engineering process, mechanical design/CAD, mechanical fabrication, electronics, programming, pneumatics, media, and competition strategy.

In the second semester students will use the skills they developed in the fall to build a robot to compete in the VEX Robotics Competition.  Students will form into teams of 2 and will be tasked with designing, building and programming a robot to meet competition specifications. This will allow students to apply all that they learned first semester using "The Engineering Process".

Teams will be required to develop a schedule, build prototypes of various mechanisms, integrate those mechanisms, test the whole system and then program the final robot to be able to compete. They will also be required to publish a monthly newsletter, produce a "reveal" video of their robot, and publish a comprehensive Engineering Report which documents the entire process of the design and construction of their robot.

This course has been submitted to the UC Office of the President (UCOP), College-Preparatory Elective ("g") Laboratory Science – Physical Sciences approval pending.

POLICY/CODE:
Ed Code 5104
BP 6141

FISCAL IMPACT:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a new Career Technical Education (CTE) Course: Introduction to Robotics Engineering.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:             Donald Evans, Ed. D., Superintendent
FROM:       Pasquale Scuderi, Associate Superintendent
Patricia Saddler, Ed. D., Director of Programs and Special Projects
DATE:        September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:  Approval of Title I Alternative Support Services Memorandum of Understanding

 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 

Socioeconomically disadvantaged students attending a Title I school that is in Program Improvement (PI) Year 2 and beyond are eligible to receive alternative supports for the 2017–18 school year.

LEAs who have schools in PI Year 2 and beyond must set aside a reasonable amount of Title I, Part A funds for alternative supports. If an LEA does not have sufficient funds to serve all eligible students, the LEA may give priority to the lowest-achieving PI schools or the lowest-achieving students attending a PI school.

An LEA may use assessment scores, grades, teacher evaluations, or another locally defined measure to identify the lowest-achieving eligible students.

Alternative supports are supplemental activities designed to increase the academic achievement of socioeconomically disadvantaged students attending schools in PI Year 2 and beyond.

Alternative supports shall be locally defined and administered by the LEA to provide a well-rounded program of instruction to meet the academic needs of students.

It is recommended that LEAs implement alternative supports consistent with the following guiding principles:

1. Ensure eligible students have access to research-based curriculum, supplemental materials, grade-level content, or supplemental enrichment services.
2. Align alternative supports to core instruction.
3. Ensure certificated staff members employed by each LEA administer or monitor alternative supports.
4. Design alternative supports that are based on state or local assessments and are tailored to the needs of eligible students.
5. Modify alternative supports based on each LEA’s monitoring and/or data results.
6. Enable all eligible students to participate regardless if the school is a targeted assisted program or a schoolwide program.
7. Leverage existing programs that currently provide successful expanded learning opportunities for students, such as the After School Education and Safety Program. 

Alternative supports shall supplement, not supplant, the core instructional program. Expenditures of Title I, Part A funds for alternative supports must be reasonable and consistent with Title I, Part A of ESEA.

Alternative supports include, but are not limited to, any of the following:

1. Academic support offered during school hours, before school, after school, intercession, and/or during summer learning programs
2. Small group instruction and/or pull out interventions offered during the regular school day
3. Interventions offered during After School Education and Safety
4. High quality academic tutoring
5. Purchasing supplemental materials to support alternative support services
6. Personnel costs of a crisis, intervention, and/or academic counselor to meet with eligible students
7. Services and programs that remove barriers to promote academic achievement of eligible students

For LEAs choosing to contract with outside entities or community partners to provide alternative supports to eligible students, the following provisions apply: 

1. No electronic device or other items of value shall be given, retained, or used as an incentive or achievement award
2. Funds must only be expended on direct services to eligible students.

Staff is now requesting Board approval of the Memorandum of Understanding for two outside providers that are qualified to serve students in the designated Title One Schools.

These outside providers are Sylvan and Professional Tutors of America Inc. The District must set aside up to 20% of its Title I allocation to pay for these tutoring services. These services will be offered to students at the seven identified schools (BAM, Cragmont, Emerson, LeConte, Longfellow, TO and Willard).

The following table identifies the provider, provider hourly rate, maximum number of tutor hours, and the maximum contract amount. 

POLICY/CODE: 
NCLB 2001, Section 1116

FISCAL IMPACT:
Up to $80,000 from Title I funds

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Title I – Intervention Services Memorandums of Understanding

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

TO:            Donald Evans, Ed. D., Superintendent
FROM:        Pauline Follansbee, Interim Asst. Superintendent of Business Services
DATE:        September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:   Approval of Contracts/Purchase Orders for Services Contracts

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The District contracts with consultants or independent contractors who can provide valuable and necessary specialized services not normally required on a continuing basis. The following contract services are requested. Expenditures are within budget.

1. Downtown Berkeley YMCA to provide physical educational activities for Emerson Elementary School for the period from 8/29/17 – 6/15/18. The cost will not exceed $26,145. To be paid from Restricted Donations and BSEP Fund. Requested by Susan Hodge.
2. Bay Area Peacekeepers to provide weekly support groups for BUSD students in need of behavioral support for the period from 9/6/17 – 6/30/18. The cost will not exceed $30,000. To be paid from LCAP Supplemental Grant. Requested by Patricia Saddler.
3. Cash Leasing & Copier Sales to provide lease of 3 copiers for Berkeley Adult School for the period from 7/1/17 – 6/30/18. The cost will not exceed $19,020. To be paid from Adult Education Fund. Requested by Thomas Reid.
4. Jose Eduardo Estrada III to provide Restorative Justice Practices at Berkeley High School for the period from 8/28/17 – 6/15/18. The cost will not exceed $70,000. To be paid from LCAP Supplemental Grant. Requested by Patricia Saddler.
5. Child Therapy Institute to provide counseling and mental health services for Washington Elementary School for the period from 8/29/17 – 6/15/18. The cost will not exceed $12,000. To be paid from General Fund. Requested by Katia Hazen.
6. Child Therapy Institute to provide counseling and mental health services for Berkeley Arts Magnet Elementary School for the period from 8/29/17 – 6/15/18. The cost will not exceed $12,000. To be paid from General Fund. Requested by Rene Molina.
7. Bay Area Community Resources to provide counseling services for Oxford Elementary School for the period from 8/29/17 – 6/15/18. The cost will not exceed $12,000. To be paid from General Fund. Requested by Beth Rhine.
8. Bay Area Community Resources to provide counseling  services for Thousand Oaks Elementary School for the period from 8/29/17 – 6/15/18. The cost will not exceed $12,000. To be paid from General Fund. Requested by Jennifer Corn.

9. SEEDS Community Resolution Center to provide site based training and support in restorative practices and restorative justice for the District for the period from 8/29/17 – 6/30/18. The cost will not exceed $25,000. To be paid from LCAP Supplemental Grant and General Fund. Requested by Patricia Saddler.

10. Lea Baechler-Bravo to manage projects in support of public information and engagement, and community outreach on behalf of the Berkeley Unified School District for the period from 8/1/17 – 6/30/18. The cost will not exceed $48,500. To be paid from BSEP and General Fund. Requested by Natasha Beery.
11. UC Regents Career Academy Support Network to provide consultation and Alumni coaching services for the period from 9/20/17 - 6/30/18. The cost will not exceed $23,000. To be paid from General Fund. Requested by Patricia Saddler.
12. New Bridge Foundation to provide prevention education, intervention and treatment services related to alcohol, tobacco and other substance uses for the District for the period from 8/29/17 – 6/30/18. The cost will not exceed $70,000. To be paid from General Fund. Requested by Patricia Saddler.
13. Elena Aguilar Consulting to provide consulting and coaching for Professional Development Services for the period from 9/20/17 – 4/18/18. The cost will not exceed $55,500. To be paid from General Fund. Requested by Patricia Saddler.
14. Kalen Meyer to provide after school enrichment classes at Jefferson Elementary School for the period from 9/5/17 – 6/1/18. The cost will not exceed $10,188. To be paid from PTA Donations. Requested by Aaron Jorgensen.
15. Myers-Stevens and Toohey & Co. to provide student accident insurance as requested by the Risk Management Department for the period from 7/1/17 – 6/30/18. The cost will not exceed $56,568.57. To be paid from Self Insurance Fund. Requested by Kimberle Sanders.
16. Play-Well TEKnologies to provide after school enrichment classes at Jefferson Elementary School for the period from 9/5/17 - 6/1/18. The cost will not exceed $15,096. To be paid from PTA Donations. Requested by Aaron Jorgensen.
17. Cooking Round the World to provide after school enrichment classes at Jefferson Elementary School for the period from 9/5/17 – 6/1/18. The cost will not exceed $11,520. To be paid from PTA Donations. Requested by Aaron Jorgensen.
18. Bay Area Community Resources to provide counseling services for Jefferson Elementary School for the period from 8/29/17 - 6/30/18.  The cost will not exceed $12,000. To be paid from LCAP Supplemental Fund. Requested by Pat Saddler.
19. Bay Area Community Resources to provide counseling services for Cragmont Elementary School for the period from 8/29/17 - 6/30/18.  The cost will not exceed $12,000. To be paid from LCAP Supplemental Fund. Requested by Pat Saddler.

POLICY/CODE:
Public Contract Code: 20111
Board Policy 3310 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the contracts with Consultants or Independent Contractors as submitted.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:              Donald Evans, Ed.D., Superintendent
FROM:          Lisa Graham, Director, Special Education
DATE:           September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:      Approval of Contract/Purchase Order for Services Contract for the 2017-18 School Year

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The District contracts with consultants or independent contractors who can provide valuable and necessary specialized services not normally required on a continuing basis. The following contract services are requested. Expenditures are within budget

POLICY/CODE:
Education Code 39800
Board Policy 3310         

FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of these services is estimated not to exceed $16,500.00 funded from the Special Education Budget.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Master Contracts for the consultant listed above.

BERKELEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Official Minutes

President Alper called the meeting to order at 7:30. He reported that the Board convened to Closed Session at 6:00 pm.

Roll Call
Board of Education:
Ty Alper, President – Present
Josh Daniels,  Vice President – Present
Beatriz Leyva-Cutler, Director/Clerk – Present
Karen Hemphill, Director – Present
Judy Appel, Director – Present by phone
Uma Nagarajan-Swenson, Student Director, BHS – Present
Kimora Ashby, Student Director, BTA – Absent 

Administration:
Donald E. Evans, Ed. D, Superintendent
Javetta Cleveland, Deputy Superintendent
Pasquale Scuderi, Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services
Evelyn Tamondong-Bradley, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources
Lyz Chairez, Recorder 

Swearing in of new student director
Uma Nagarajan- Swenson was sworn in as to represent BHS on the School Board. 

REPORT CLOSED SESSION
President Alper reported out on closed session: 

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government)
Claim No. 16-087970
The Board will address this matter after open session. 

Claim No. 2006045891
The Board will address this matter after open session. 

Claim No. PER1603439
The Board heard an update and gave direction. No action was taken.

Claim No. EMP1501604
The Board will address this matter after open session.

Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release (Government Code Section 54947) 

Employee #7442
Motion to approve staff recommendation to terminate employee:
Alper/Daniels and approved 3-1:
Ty Alper, President – Yes
Josh Daniels,  Vice President – Yes
Beatriz Leyva-Cutler, Director/Clerk – Yes
Karen Hemphill, Director – No
Judy Appel, Director – Abstained

Employee #8895
Motion to approve staff recommendation to terminate employee:
Daniels/Hemphill and approved unanimously 5-0.

Collective Bargaining: Lead Negotiator: Evelyn Tamondong-Bradley—UBA Negotiations (Government Code Section 54957.6)
The Board heard an update and gave direction. No action taken. 

Video: A Recap of 2016-2017 

Javetta Cleveland was recognized by the Board.

OPEN SESSION

APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Motion to approve agenda:
Leyva-Cutler/Hemphill and unanimously approved 6-0. 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY
One person commented on parking shortage at BHS.

UNION COMMENTS

Stephen Collins thanked the Superintendent for reconvening the budget advisory committee. He also acknowledged the groundskeepers for their amazing gardening work.

Paula Phillips appreciated Javetta Cleveland. She addressed the need of additional classified to support the influx of incoming ninth graders.

Cathy Campbell thanked all of the staff who contributed to getting schools ready for this new school year. She thanked Javetta Cleveland for her leadership.

BOARD MEMBER AND SUPERINTENDENT COMMENTS

Director Leyva-Cutler welcomed staff, students and families to the new school year.

Director Hemphill welcomed all to the new school year. She will resume her office hours this Saturday at 10:30am at Café Leila. Starting in September, she will move them the second Saturday of the month. 

Superintendent Evans announced the passing of Calvin Fong and expressed the District's condolences to his family, as well as the District's appreciation for Mr. Fong's dedication to the City of Berkeley and the Berkeley Unified School District. 

President Alper congratulated District Administrators on the renewal of their contracts.  

CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion to approve the Consent Calendar:
Alper/Hemphill and unanimously approved 6-0.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

Daniels explained that the last time this item came before Board, staff was directed to explore the various options to support employee housing.

Director of Facilities Tim White added that after the passing of SB1413 school districts are able to allot a portion of their property for employee housing. His analysis involved taking inventory of BUSD owned property. West campus, Oregon St., Franklin Preschool, and BHS tennis courts were identified as potential places to build. He also presented some preliminary estimates based solely on affordable units. The goal is to come back in December with some options based on tonight’s direction. Questions and discussion followed. 

ACTION ITEMS

Approval of Budget Cut Target for 2018-2019

Deputy Superintendent Javetta Cleveland reported that based on the Governor’s budget there is also an increase in special education costs. We are faced with a deficit spending of $2.4 million if we do not make cuts. The recommendation is an ongoing reduction of 1.8 million in 18-19 Additional cuts of $600,000 should be considered in 19-20 Questions and discussion followed.

Motion to direct the Superintendent to identify an ongoing reduction of $1.8 million, with an additional identification of $300,000 of ongoing cuts, and to come back to the Board no later than December with those recommendations:
Daniels/Alper and unanimously approved 6-0. 

Annual Declaration of Need for Fully Qualified Educators
Motion to approve staff recommendation:
Alper/Daniels and unanimously approved 6-0.  

Approval of Public Disclosure of Collective Bargaining Agreements (AB1200)
Motion to approve staff recommendation:
Daniels/Alper and unanimously approved 6-0.

Approval of Tentative Agreement with Union of Berkeley Administrators
Motion to approve staff recommendation:
Daniels/Alper and unanimously approved 6-0.

ADJOURNMENT
The Board recessed to closed session at 9:46pm.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:         Donald Evans, Ed.D, Superintendent
FROM:     Pasquale Scuderi, Associate Superintendent
David Stevens, Evaluation and Assessment
DATE:     September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:      Update on Use of Academic Support Index (ASI) in BUSD

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
All of our students do not enter school on an equal footing. They enter with a combination of "headwinds" and "tailwinds". Tailwinds are the things that make school easier for students: Parents with high education levels, cultural capital, stable homes, good attendance, and past academic success are examples of tailwinds. Headwinds are things that might make success in school more difficult: Having a learning difference, being an English Learner, a history of academic struggles, or being socioeconomically disadvantaged. Our District, like many others, has students with a lot of headwinds and others with a lot of tailwinds and every combination in between.

The Academic Support Index (ASI) is a method for providing each student with a quantitative measure of the headwinds that may impact their academic success. It can also be thought of as a measure of the amount of support that we owe each student.

There is a strong correlation between the ASI and student academic outcomes ranging from Kindergarten screeners, Smarter Balanced Assessment scores, cumulative grade point average, social emotional learning scores, college/career readiness indicators, and post-secondary degree attainment.  These strong relationships have been demonstrated over multiple years and in a variety of school districts. Approximately 250,000 students have been scored using the ASI.

The ASI has been effectively used for data analysis, program and intervention design and evaluation, educational research, and in the early identification of students who will benefit from additional academic and community support. Multiple papers have been presented on the ASI at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the California Educational Research Association (CERA) annual meetings. In 2014 a paper on the ASI earned the Outstanding Paper Award at CERA.

Theoretical Framework

The ASI is based on the theoretical framework of the ACE study (Adverse Childhood Experience Study) conducted by Fellitti in 1998. In this paper they saw a strong relationship between greater levels of childhood trauma and increasingly negative health outcomes.  A second framework is that of Response to Intervention (RTI). In the RTI model we provide increasing levels of support along with increasing need. A third contributor to the ASI framework is the concept of Educational Debt by Dr. Ladson-Billings. Educational debt, as it relates to the ASI, is a measure of our obligation to support each student. The ASI provides a quantitative measure of this level of debt.

Background

The Academic Support Index was developed to address a number of questions that we were facing at Berkeley High School (BHS) during the 2011-12 school year.  The school had yet to recover from an article in the East Bay Express in the spring of 2009 that had caused deep fractures in the school community. There was a significant amount of internal conflict regarding the comparison of academic outcomes by small learning community (SLC).  There were accusations of grade inflation and debates about which SLC had the most challenging students, which SLCs were being effective, and how the school should allocate resources.  There was significant reliance on anecdotal stories about both success and failure rather than a data informed method for evaluating the efficacy of our overall school design, our SLCs, and our interventions.  

The development of the ASI was developed to try to address these needs. We needed to be able to answer the following questions in a manner that was both valid and reliable in order to determine if we were moving in the right direction:

• How can we tell if our programs or interventions are actually making a difference in student outcomes?

• Is it possible to predict which students might struggle academically so we can provide them with appropriate support in advance?

• How can we target our limited resources to the students most in need?

• How can we talk about the achievement gap without contributing to stereotype threat?

• Overall, how can we become more effective with our outcomes and more efficient with our resources?

Critical to being able to answer those questions was the ability to be able to make “apples to apples” comparisons.  None of our learning communities or interventions could be said to have similar compositions of students. On the other hand, all of them had similar types of students, just in different proportions. The ability to see how similar students performed in different programs would be critical to identifying areas of success.

The general practice in education has been to look at academic outcomes by demographic “buckets” such as race/ethnicity, gender, disability or English learner status, etc. This practice is based on three significant fallacies. The first is that it assumes a level of homogeneity that just does not exist.  For example, within the Hispanic/Latino population 44% of the families have college degrees and 34% have a high school diploma or less.  Misleading conclusions will be made if you do not control for those differences when analyzing student data.

A second flaw is disproportionality.  Many of the factors that we know interfere with students academic performance are not equally distributed across all groups and are highly concentrated among students of color. For example, being socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) has a significant impact on academic performance, but in Berkeley, only 8% of White students are SED compared to 55% of Black or African American students and 54% of Hispanic/Latino students (2016).  Similarly, students who are still learning English are concentrated in the Hispanic/Latino population and students with disabilities are highly concentrated amongst Black and African American students.  Presenting academic data without controlling for these significant contributors to academic difficulties implies a causal relationship between race and outcomes and presents a narrative that is harmful to students and not particularly useful to teachers.

A third flaw in looking at outcomes by buckets, is that students do not exist in singular buckets, but in the intersection of many different buckets.  These buckets include disability status, household education level, gender, race/ethnicity, your housing situation, primary language, etc.  Some of these buckets can act as tailwinds and strongly correlate to higher academic performance (high parent education level, native English speaker or bilingual upon entering school) and some correlate to greater challenges, or headwinds.

The ASI was designed to address the additive nature of the factors that make academic success more difficult. For example, a student with a disability who is a member of the cultural majority and whose parents are college graduates is not the same as a student with a disability who is a cultural minority whose parents only graduated from high school.  While they may have a disability in common, their access to resources and support at home is very likely significantly different.  The ASI doesn’t just identify students who may benefit from additional support, it also tells us the degree of support that he or she may need.

Methodology

In order to better understand the relationship between students’ characteristics and academic outcomes I analyzed the relationship between cumulative grade point averages (GPA) and demographic subcategories. We established rules for quantifying the headwinds in advance of the analysis.  The rules were that if the 95% confidence interval (CI) overlapped with a GPA of 2.50 for a demographic subcategory (ie male vs. female) then that subcategory would earn 2 ASI points. A GPA of 2.50 was chosen because it is the midpoint for Cal State University eligibility. (A 95% Confidence Interval tells us that the true average is somewhere within that range.) If the CI did not overlap with a 2.50 GPA but was significantly below that of other(s) then it would earn 1 ASI point. A student’s ASI is the sum of all of the headwinds that he or she faces.

In the example below, the subcategories of “High School Graduate” and “Not a High School Graduate” both have confidence intervals that overlap the 2.50 GPA target (lower limits (LCL) below 2.50 GPA and higher confidence intervals (HCL) above 2.50 GPA).  The “Some College” subcategory earns 1 ASI point as it does not cross the 2.50 threshold but is still below that of lower level of “College Graduate”, “Graduate School/Post Graduate”, and “Decline to State.   A table summarizing the analysis of each of the available demographic fields can be found at the end of this document.

Scoring Students on the ASI and Analysis

Once the ASI scoring system was developed, all BUSD students K-12 were scored and the relationship between their ASI and academic outcomes was analyzed.  The scoring itself is very simple and it takes less than 1 hour to score all ten-thousand plus BUSD students. The scoring is done approximately five times a year.

The analysis of the ASI and student outcomes is generally done in three different ways. Initially I calculate the correlation coefficient using linear regression.  This looks at the overall relationship between students’ performance and their ASI.  A high correlation coefficient (greater than 0.90) suggests that there is a strong relationship between the ASI and the outcome being analyzed. The table below includes some examples.

Strong correlations between the ASI and outcomes have been found over multiple years and across a variety of schools and districts. A paper on this topic was recently submitted to the American Educational Research Association.  This paper demonstrated the strength of the relationship between the ASI and outcomes over several years of data and across three different districts including BUSD, a small rural district in Vermont, and a large urban district of over 40,000 students.

The second method used for analyzing the ASI looks to see if student performance is differentiated by their ASI scores (see chart below).  Where the confidence intervals (95% CI) represented by the bars on the graph below do not overlap we can say the at the ASI was able to differentiate student outcomes.   This is valuable in that it helps us use a student’s ASI to predict academic performance with a greater level of confidence.

A third method of analysis is to look to see if particular ASI clusters perform similarly in regards to meeting outcomes such as Proficiency on the Smarter Balanced Assessments.  In the table below you can see a very specific pattern where students with an ASI of 0 to 2 tend to meet or exceed proficiency on the SBA ELA whereas students with an ASI of 3 or higher tend to score below proficiency.  On the chart the horizontal bar represents proficiency with ASI 0-2 and ASI 3+ next to it for each grade level.  There are a number of benefits to analyzing data through clusters. One is that it simplifies the long-term monitoring of district performance. Another is that given the historical consistency of these performance patterns, schools can identify students for support as early as the first day of school. While not all students with an ASI of three or higher fail to meet standards, way too many do.  By providing additional resources and monitoring early on, we can begin to interrupt this predictability.

Papers and Presentations

The Academic Support Index and its applications have been presented at a number of competitive educational research venues including the American Educational Research Association and the California Educational Research Association.  Titles and brief descriptions of these papers can be found at the end of this section.  A paper on the ASI won the “Outstanding Paper Award” in 2014.

A chapter for the upcoming Cambridge Handbook of Applied School Psychology was submitted this past summer and a number of papers are currently being prepared for submission to peer reviewed journals on the ASI.

The ASI has been presented at a variety of other conferences including the California State Community College Academic Academy and Illuminate Users Conferences.  Locally, I have presented to a number of school Site Councils, parents organizations, the Berkeley City College Black Student Union, and annually to classes at Berkeley High.

Papers presented at peer reviewed conferences:

• Building and Utilizing an Academic Support Index, AERA 2015 and CERA 2014

• An introduction to the ASI and its theoretical framework

• Identifying Students for Transition Support, CERA, 2015

• An evaluation of our protocol for identifying students for support during the transition from middle to high school. The protocol was able to identify 88% of the non-special education students who had 3 or Ds or Fs at the first marking period up to 4 months prior to the first day of school.

• Boosting Test Performance for At-Risk Students, CERA, 2015

• An evaluation of how we used the ASI to increase the passing rate for ASI 3+ on the CAHSEE.  While the intervention used ASI to identify students, the benefits accrued to disproportionately to students of color. After multiple years of 1% gains in the passing rate for African American students, we had a 13% gain in one year.  The intervention group had a 98% passing rate. The historical average passing rate for ASI 3+ was 63%.

• A Comparison of the Local Control Funding Formula and the Academic Support Index in Predicting Academically Underperforming Students, CERA 2016

• This paper demonstrated that the ASI 3+ was up to 50% better than “Unduplicated” at predicting which students would underperform. The ASI 3+ method identified up to 90% of underperforming students while at the same time having fewer false positives, and most importantly, significantly fewer false negatives. A false negative can result in a student not receiving support. The Unduplicated method missed up to 3 times more students than ASI 3+.

• Using the STARS Protocol for Identifying Students At-Risk During the Transition to High School, AERA 2017

• A  multiyear evaluation of the method for identifying struggling students both during the transition from middle to high school as well as from elementary to middle school.  

• Revisiting the Academic Support Index: A Validation Study Using Data from  Rural, Semi-urban, and Urban School Districts, AREA 2018 (pending)

• An analysis of the ASI over three very different districts demonstrated that the ASI is a valid and reliable tool for analyzing student data both within and across schools and over multiple years of data.

Current and Potential ASI Applications

While the ASI was initially developed for Berkeley High School, we have been scoring all BUSD students since the 2013-14 school year.  Because we calculate a student’s ASI as soon as he or she enters school, we can immediately identify students who may benefit from early monitoring and/or intervention. For example, we know that a kindergartner with an ASI of three or higher is seven times less likely to meet the reading target on TCRWP and twelve times less likely to meet standards on SBA reading at the end of third grade.  Knowing that, we can begin offering a variety of supports (extra time with text for example) as early as the first day of kindergarten. The full potential of this application of the ASI has yet to be exploited.

At the district and school level, the ASI is used to analyze data in a way that allows us to make apples to apples comparisons. Without this ability, analysis by site and grade level is confounded by variance in student populations making it difficult to rigorously identify areas of success.  

All assessments in Illuminate can be be disaggregated by the ASI clusters of 0 to 2 and 3+ to help teachers monitor both overall achievement as well equity goals.  Last year the middle school math teachers used the historical performance by ASI 3+ students to identify standards where the students had struggled. They then used this information to modify their instruction going forward to improve the overall performance of these students. The results were a significant improvement for ASI 3+ students on all assessments with an increase of 22% of ASI 3+ students achieving mastery on one 8th grade assessment.

Berkeley High School has been the leader in using the ASI.  The BHS Single Plan for Student Achievement monitors student performance both overall and through the equity lens of ASI 3+.   A multi-year focus during professional development on the improvement of writing for ASI 3+ students has payed off with an average of 30% increase in the number of ASI 3+ students writing at mastery by the end of 10th grade over the past four years.  The ASI is also being used to track the enrollment of ASI 3+ students in higher level math classes with gains seen last year over the previous year.  The intervention team at BHS has been using the ASI along with a transition rubric to identify students for support through the LCAP funds.  Several papers on this have been presented on conferences and the protocol is being replicated at a number of other schools in southern California. This same protocol is now being used for students transitioning from elementary to middle school.  

The ASI has several benefits over other methods for identifying potentially struggling students. One is that, unlike Unduplicated (students who are either English Learners, served by foster care, or receive free or reduced lunch), the ASI is on a continuum and is able to both identify students and provide a measure of the degree of support a student may need. Another benefit of the ASI is the ability to identify students with significantly greater precision resulting in fewer false positives and fewer false negatives making more efficient use of district resources.  Middle and high school staff have been using the ASI to help identify students for support over the past several years.

Summary

There is still significant untapped potential for using the ASI in BUSD in evaluation, data analysis, and intervention design.  Because students within ASI bands perform very similarly year over year it is possible to make greater use of the ASI to predict how students will do in the future. This gives us lead time to interrupt that predictability.  Additionally, the ASI is significantly more precise than Unduplicated in predicting academic performance helping the district to be more efficient and effective with its resources. Because academic headwinds are disproportionately experienced by students of color, the benefits of using the ASI can directly impact our efforts to reduce the achievement gap.

Please feel free to email me with any questions: davestevens@berkeley.net

You can read more about the Academic Support Index at: https://academicsupportindex.blogspot.com

For those that are interested, this table contains the confidence intervals for determining the points assigned to the demographic subcategories.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:     Donald Evans Ed. D., Superintendent
FROM:          Pauline Follansbee, Interim Assistant Superintendent of Business Services
DATE:             September 13, 2017 
SUBJECT:      Approval of 2016-17 Unaudited Actuals

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The 2016-17 Unaudited Actuals is a term that refers to the “closed” financial books of the District prior to the independent audit of the financial records. Closing the books means that all known expenditures and revenues for the Fiscal Year 2016-17 have been posted to the financial ledgers of the District.  

Staff will present information on Unaudited Actuals for Fiscal Year 2016-17.

FISCAL IMPACT:
The District’s ending fund balance is less than the amount budgeted (estimated actuals). The summary of the District’s financial status for the year-end closing for Fiscal Year 2016-17 is included under separate cover as part of the Unaudited Actual Report.              

POLICY CODE:
California Education Sections 42122-42129

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the 2016-17 Unaudited Actuals (under separate cover).

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:                  Donald Evans, Superintendent
FROM:            Timothy E. White, Executive Director of Facilities 
DATE: September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:     Creation of a Facilities Sub-Committee

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On November 2, 2010, the voters of Berkeley approved Measure I, a General Obligation Bond of $210 million for school facilities upgrades and modernization. Approximately $100 million have been spent to date on much needed facilities improvement to our schools since the passage of the bond. 

On January 11, 2017 the Board approved the reallocation plan for all remaining funds in Measure I. The purpose of the reallocation was to expedite projects, reduce potential escalating professional services and construction costs, and increase efficiency in the delivery of construction services to our school sites. Also, this strategy was reinforced by recently adopted Education Specifications, to more clearly quantify a school site's needs, both technically and academically. Our goal is to shift from an original systems replacement approach to one that provides a focused, comprehensive larger set of improvements to each site at one time. 

Approximately $116 million in Measure I funds were reallocated for projects including  Berkeley High School Community Theater, West Campus School Renovations, Oxford Modernization and  the new Maintenance Yard. While our current board process is effective for projects with a smaller scope, these larger projects will require a new process for making decisions around how best to approach each project.

Boards and communities have different approaches to the development of project lists and potential cost to address their capital needs.  Some districts tend to hold all discussions and debates at Board Meetings, while other districts create new committees to consider their facilities needs.  Some districts use a hybrid approach by using a committee to hear all facilities items and then submit those items for Board approval.  We are proposing a hybrid approach.

A Subcommittee could potentially meet the second and fourth week of the month on Tuesday in advance of the formal board meeting. The meetings would be Brown Act noticed meetings. The Superintendent and Facilities Director would convene the meetings. 

We are proposing the board consider and discuss the formation of a Facilities Subcommittee to create a space where complex school facilities can be discussed without adversely impacting the board agenda or the Facilities construction timelines. Two board members will serve on the sub-committee to hear and review all facilities division actions. Items approved by the Sub-Committee will be forwarded to board for formal approval.

POLICY/CODE:
N/A

FICAL IMPACT:
No impact to an advisory process.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a process for further discussion on whether to create a subcommittee for future capital and maintenance needs. 

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:                Donald Evans, Ed.D., Superintendent   
FROM:          Pauline Follansbee, Interim Assistant Superintendent of Business Services
DATE:          September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:     Release Balance of Committed Funds

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) implemented GASB Statement 54 to enhance the usefulness of fund balance information by providing clearer fund balance classifications that can be more consistently applied and by clarifying the existing governmental fund type definitions. This Statement establishes fund balance classifications that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which a government is bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the resources reported in governmental funds.

Once the commitment on such funds is imposed, the funds may only be spent for the specific purposes established herein unless the commitment is modified or removed by a similar resolution of the school board;

The Board adopted resolution 15-079 on June 24, 2015, to commit $2,000,000 to support the Berkeley School Excellence Program (BSEP) Class Size Reduction Measure A Program which ended in 2016-17.  Staff is requesting that the Board un-commit the current un-spent balance of $416,168, which will be included in the undesignated fund balance.

POLICY CODE:
Education Code Section: 33127
Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54

FISCAL IMPACT:
Release $416,168 from committed funds to undesignated fund balance.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution #18-003 to release $416,168 of committed funds to undesignated fund balance.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:             Donald Evans, Ed.D. Superintendent 
FROM:        Pauline Follansbee, Interim Assistant Superintendent of Business Services
DATE:          September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:    Gann Limit - Resolution No. 18-001

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Education Code Sections 1629 and 14132 specify that by September 30, county office and district governing boards shall adopt a resolution identifying their estimated appropriations limits for the current year and their actual appropriations limit for the preceding year. The documentation supporting the adopted resolution shall be made available to the public.

The Gann Limit Calculation for FY 2016-17 and 2017-18 does not have any direct effect on the funding of the District.

The attached Resolution and Calculations (included in the 2016-17 Unaudited Actuals under separate cover) will be submitted to the Alameda County Office of Education for transmittal to the California Department of Education.

POLICY/CODE:
Education Code Sections 1629 and 14132
Government code Section 7906(f).

FISCAL IMPACT:
None

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Gann Limit – Resolution 18-001

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:             Donald Evans, Ed.D., Superintendent
FROM:        Pasquale Scuderi, Associate Superintendent

Dr. Patricia Saddler, Ed.D.

DATE:         September 13, 2017

SUBJECT:   2016-17 Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) Goals 1 thru 3 Annual  Evaluation

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)

The Local Control and Accountability Plan is mandated by the state as the standardized vehicle for addressing state priorities and local goals, identifying the most effective actions and services to meet those goals, as well as accounting for the Local Control Funding Formula supplemental expenditures and the indicators for monitoring progress. The plan includes a description of annual goals for all pupils and for each subgroup of pupils as stipulated in Education Code sections 52060 and 52061. On June 28, 2017, the school board approved a new three-year Local Control & Accountability Plan (LCAP) for 2017-2020.

BUSD’s Local Control and Accountability Plan consolidates the eight state priorities and district strategic goals into the following three LCAP goals:

LCAP Goal 1: Provide high quality classroom instruction and curriculum that promote college and career readiness with academic interventions in place to eliminate barriers to student success.

LCAP Goal 2: End the racial predictability of academic achievement by ensuring that all systems are culturally and linguistically responsive to the needs of our students.

LCAP Goal 3: Ensure all school sites have safe, welcoming and inclusive climates for all students and their families, so that all students are in their classes ready to learn.

These “big” goals serve as a framework for the targeted goals, actions, services, and expenditures focused on improving outcomes for all students and subgroups of students by special circumstance and by ethnicity (African-American, Latino); those special circumstances include students in the “unduplicated” count of pupils who (1) are English learners, (2) meet income or categorical eligibility requirements for free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, or (3) are foster youth.

“Unduplicated count” means that each pupil is counted only once even if the pupil meets more than one of these criteria (EC sections 2574(b)(2) and 42238.02(b)(1)).

Goals and actions delineated in the plan are intended to improve and expand programs and services that have been correlated with positive outcomes for our most at-risk students, as well as to disrupt patterns and practices that continue to perpetuate the underperformance of these specific subgroups of students.

LCAP Evaluation

The approved plan includes an “Annual Update” which serves as a comprehensive review of the targeted goals, annual measurable outcomes, actions, services, and expenditures.  The attached snapshot focuses on the Annual Measurable Outcomes (AMOs) which is a progress comparison of 2015-16 to 2016-17.  

This update generally differs from the June report sent to the county by including SBA and other end-of-year data that are not generally available at the time of that submission.

Please note that the Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE) has informed us that we cannot share preliminary SBA data publicly (CAASPP is investigating potential errors in the statewide data), so it cannot be part of a Board information item this week. Updated SBA information will be shared publicly as soon as the State Department makes necessary adjustments and correction to the statewide data.

Additionally, in the Data attached some items are still forthcoming, most notably in the areas of CTE Pathway Completion and Chronic Absenteeism. 

POLICY/CODE:
NA

FISCAL IMPACT:
As noted in the LCAP

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the LCAP Goals 1 thru 3 Annual Measure Outcomes Snapshot provided under separate cover. Review the 2017-18 Local Control and Accountability Plan in relation to the evaluation findings.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:       Board of Education
FROM:         Policy Subcommitte
Dana Clark, Compliance Officer and Title IX Coordinator
DATE:           September 13, 2017
SUBJECT:     Revision to Administrative Regulation Regarding Complaints

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On June 14, 2017, the Board approved BP 1311, which overhauls the District’s complaint structure.  As a reminder, the District’s existing complaint structure is well-intentioned but extremely complicated.  It can be confusing for both complainants and district staff to navigate.  The Policy Subcommittee, working with Dana Clark and with extensive input from staff and members of the community, has been working for almost a year on an overhaul of our complaint structure.  The goal is to simplify the process for complainants, provide realistic timelines for staff to respond to complaints, and improve the outcomes of the process for everyone involved. 

BP 1311 takes effect as soon as the Superintendent approves the corresponding  administrative regulations (AR), which are presented tonight for information.  Our hope is that the Superintendent will approve the regulations soon after tonight’s meeting, so the new and improved BP 1311 can go into effect.

The Policy Subcommittee discussed the attached AR at two meetings: August 17 and August 25, 2017.

Persons wishing to address the Board should fill out a green speaker card.  Cards turned in for the earlier open session public testimony will be given priority.  Speakers will be randomly selected based on topic and position, with BUSD students generally given priority.  Public Testimony is limited to 15 minutes with a 3-minute limit per speaker per topic although the time allotted per speaker may be reduced to 2 minutes at the discretion of the President.