09-29-20 SVUSD Special Board Meeting - Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan (LCAP) (at District Office)

1 SIMI VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 CALL TO ORDER OPEN SESSION The special meeting of the Board of Education was called to order by Trustee Smollen at 4:01 p.m. at the District Offices, 101 W. Cochran St., Simi Valley. Meeting was held via Zoom. PRESENT Board Members: Trustee Scott Blough, Trustee Kareem Jubran, Trustee Bob LaBelle, Trustee Dawn Smollen and Trustee Dan White Staff Members: Ron Todo, Associate Superintendent Dan Houghton, Assistant Superintendent Hani Youssef, Assistant Superintendent Sean Goldman, Assistant Superintendent FLAG SALUTE President Smollen led the flag salute. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Motion #35 Vote: MSCU, Blough/White, (5/0), the Board of Education approved the agenda. Ayes: Blough, LaBelle, White, Jubran and Smollen Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None MINUTES 9-22-2020 Motion #36 Vote: MSCU, Jubran/Blough, (4/0/1), the Board approved the Minutes of the Board Meeting on September 22, 2020 as presented Ayes: Blough, LaBelle, Jubran and Smollen Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: White PUBLIC COMMENTS: • Amanda Hogan, Simi Educators Association President, read her comments to the Board via telephone conference: “Good afternoon President Smollen, Clerk of the Board Jubran, Trustees, Dr. Peplinski, and district staff, I am Amanda Hogan, the President of the Simi Educators Association, also known as SEA. As an elected representative of our community’s public schools, you have been entrusted with providing leadership for Simi students, the school district and all of its employees. This is normally a tough task, and now, all of you are performing this service to our community during a pandemic. We recognize the tremendous responsibility that rests on your shoulders. SEA believes that there will be most likely two important, yet separate discussions that will take place this afternoon. First- Should SVUSD apply for an elementary waiver? • Elementary SEA Members are strongly against reopening elementary schools through the Waiver Process. If it is not safe to begin in-person instruction for ALL students, then we should not open to in-person instruction at the elementary level. Let us wait until it is safe for ALL! When our community is safer, our schools will be safer. Please vote “no” on applying for an Elementary Waiver! Secondly- What is the best timing of transitioning to in-person learning?

2 Virtual teaching has been a huge undertaking for our educators and the workload has been excruciating! Our educators have finally reached a point where they have a routine and the students/parents have instituted a system to coordinate their student’s learning and childcare. We should time the implementation of in-person learning to prevent the disruption of our students’ learning, to protect the inordinate amount of work that educators have invested into 100% virtual teaching, completing assessments, and getting to know their students. Currently our elementary teachers are preparing for first quarter parent conferences. Parent conferences are an integral time for teachers and parents to review student progress and design goals for the last push for the end of the semester. There will be roughly six weeks of instruction left in the semester when conferences are completed. As our county approaches the “red” zone”, our district is preparing for the possible transition to in-person instruction for ALL students. The timing for this could occur right about the time of elementary parent conferencing! We need to preserve the value and the work put into conferencing that benefit students for the semester end push. To summarize, SEA asks that in-person instruction be implemented when it is deemed safe for ALL students. And that once it is determined to be safe for ALL, that the transition to in-person learning be a well-coordinated effort that minimizes disruption to student learning and minimizes any additional workload placed on our educators! Thank you for your time and consideration.” The following comments were sent via email: 1. Mr. Jose Agredano - “Choosing to move forward with opening schools is a bad decision in the middle of a pandemic. This puts the school community and Greater Ventura County at risk for the spread of Covid-19. As of this week, nine Simi Valley schools have opened for small group in-person instruction. I believe this is also a mistake. Whether or not to open schools should not be considered until 2021, following the lead already set by the Los Angeles Unified School District. Any attempts to circumvent school closures should be stopped. Please, out of respect for the health of the community, vote against opening schools.” 2. Mr. Roger Coty - “Noted below are some questions and concerns that I have regarding the School District's reopening and distance learning plans: 1. Is the School District/School Board aware that the current distance learning plan is not working for students and teachers alike? For example, is the School District/School Board aware that: a. It's impossible to condense an entire semester's worth of work into just 6 weeks. Currently, high school students only have one class a day for a period of six weeks, resulting in half a school year's worth of work being condensed into approximately 13 two and a half hour long sessions. It is very difficult to retain all of the information you're supposed to learn if you only have the chance to cover it in one day (For example, in my current chemistry class, we will need to cover an entire chapter each day in order to cover what we would normally learn in a normal semester.) b. The current proposed hybrid learning plan puts students who continue with distance learning at a severe disadvantage as they only will have 1 hour of class instruction per day, as opposed to the 2 and a half hours that the people going to school in person will have, unfairly incentifying students to select in-person learning, even if they would have preferred continuing on with the distance learning plan as it is now. This disparity promotes

3 students to select the hybrid learning option regardless of whether or not they or their households are at a high risk for covid-19 in order to not jeopardize their education by choosing otherwise. For example, despite both my parents being in at risk groups for covid-19, we nearly chose the in person learning option due to the fact that we did not want our grades to suffer as a result of the 1 hour of instructional time offered under the new proposed distance learning plan. c. The current proposed hybrid learning plan also completely gets rid of office hours for teachers, which is a great resource for teachers to get grading done and students to get help from their teachers. Without this, students and teachers are going to suffer more than they are with the current distance learning plan. d. The hybrid learning plan creates new challenges for working parents who will need to drop off and pick up their children during the workday. For example, my sister and I go to the same school but have different cohorts. However, my mom, who is the only driver in our family, works from 8:30am to 5:00pm every day. Under the hybrid learning plan, my mom would need to take leave in order to drop me off at school at 9:00 am, pick me up and drive me home at 11:05 am, drop my sister off at 12:15 pm, and then pick her up and drive her home at 2:15 pm. Other parents may not have the ability to take leave from work at all. This is insane that they would expect this from any working parent. Carpooling is also, of course, not a current option due to covid-19. e. The google form that the School District sent out regarding whether people wanted to go back to school in person or continue with distance learning was done in a way that made it seem less like a survey and more like a way for you to make your binding decision on whether or not you wanted to continue with distance learning. This makes no sense given the current pandemic and the ever-changing covid numbers in our county. In addition, there is no where to leave any feedback or comments that you might have on the survey, so it is a very ineffective way of actually getting feedback from students and parents alike. It's less of an opinion survey on distance learning vs hybrid learning and more of a sign up form for "do you want to go back to school in person and continue learning the same amount as you are right now" or "do you want to continue with distance learning and only have 13 hours of class time for the entire rest of the school year?". It's not a fair survey because it's not just surveying parents on one topic, it's surveying people under the impression that the majority will pick the hybrid option, which, from my experience, most people that I know would rather continue with the online learning. However, due to the way that the survey was written, some have decided to select the hybrid option on the survey as they didn’t want their grades to suffer as a result. I believe that the school district should have sent out a survey in the first place asking parents if they wanted to continue with the current distance learning plan or go to a hybrid schedule, without adding on any additional factors that might sway each survey takers’ opinion in one way or another. 2. What steps will the School District/School Board take to ensure that all high school students are treated fairly and equally if a hybrid model is adopted? It is particularly disturbing that the current proposed hybrid learning plan puts students who continue with the distance learning at a severe disadvantage as they only will have 1 hour of class instruction per day, as opposed to the 2 and a half hours that the people going to school in person will have. In addition, the disparity between distance learning students and hybrid learning students is discriminatory, favoring one group over another, in fact, creating a scenario that violates the California Department of Education's anti-discrimination laws.

4 3. Will the School District/School Board seek to obtain more current and relevant feedback from the public before implementing future hybrid learning and class schedule plans at Simi Valley schools? To date, the school district has not done a good job of taking feedback from students, parents and teachers in regards to basically everything so far. The school district has seemingly based a lot of their plans off of a survey that they sent out in May, when the quarantine was still new and most people thought that it would be safe to go back to school by the beginning of August. Moreover, instead of collecting any further input from parents or teachers, the school district seemingly based their distance learning plan off of the sentiment of going back to school as soon as possible. The closest thing to surveying public sentiment since then was the hybrid learning google form that they sent out recently, the problems of which I previously highlighted above. 4. What steps will the School District/School Board take to ensure that students and staff are safe once they return to school? From what I've heard, at Santa Susana High School, due to its small size, a lot of the classrooms will not be able to accommodate a hybrid learning environment to the extent required by the state. Instead, the School District has been trying to meet the bare minimum at which they can re-open the schools and, in some cases, they can't even meet that, as I've heard that they have cut corners in some regards such as saying that "3 feet apart is good enough" among other things. 5. What steps will the School District/School Board take to ensure that students are provided with the required instructional time during distance learning as well as hybrid learning? The State of California requires that students have at least 6 hours of instructional time in class per day. The school district's current distance learning schedule only provides less than half of that with 2 and a half hours of class instruction per day, and their distance learning plan during hybrid schedule only provides 1 hour of class instruction a day. This is well below the required instructional time in class each day. Moreover, students with ADHD and similar disabilities need a structured learning environment, which is difficult to achieve if they are only limited to only 2 and a half hours or less of educational instruction each day, being forced to make up the other 3 ½ hours on their own time. In addition, while the current schedule is better than the proposed one hour a day, the 2 ½ hour, one class a day schedule still is not optimal for students, who must focus on one subject matter for such an extended period of time. 6. Has the School District/School Board considered the negative impact that their schedules are having on students and teachers alike? For example, it seems like the School District did not take AP students into account at all with their current distance learning plan, and as such, I feel that a lot of AP students, including myself, will be put at a significant disadvantage when compared to students from other school districts that have a better distance learning plan than us. Moreover, the teachers are already overworked and overwhelmed as it is with them trying to completely redo their lesson plans for the year as they are forced to find a way to cram it all into 6 weeks. On top of that, having school go back into hybrid learning and having to re-do their lesson plans once again to accommodate is just way too much to expect from them. I feel as though the school district has not taken into account the way that students learn and the demands that the School District has put on teachers when the School District was putting together any of their plans. 7. Why did the School District/School Board not implement a distance learning plan similar to those adopted by other neighboring school districts whereby students participate in six classes throughout the school year, having two or three classes a day, alternating between the classes throughout the week? The best case scenario, in my opinion, would be to continue fully with distance learning for most high/middle school students, with the exception of certain

5 groups like special needs or English learners. The School District/School Board should change the current distance learning schedule at the beginning of the new semester to have more that one class a day and shorten class times, so as to not continue overwhelming students with these 2 and a half hour blocks in which non-stop information is being crammed into our brains for less than half the time that we normally would have during a regular school year. In addition, if the School District/School Board still elects to implement a hybrid and distance learning plan at the same time, they should do so whereby students in cohort A attend classes in person and students in cohort B participate via the distance learning model or something similar. Even keeping the 2 ½ hour blocks would be good as long as we were able to take more than one class per day.” 3. Robert and Jennifer Herman (parents of a sixth grade middle schooler) - Noted In regards to ES Action#1, “Approval and Adoption of the Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan 2020-2021”, Continuity of Learning, In-Person Instructions Offerings, (page 9), We have two concerns for the Board of Education to read. Please consider modifying the plan before approval. • Concern #1 o In Phase 2 of the phased reopening plan, we understand that (page 11), “Students will be assigned specific and consistent days and times to be on campus.” For working parents, the logistics proposed at the middle schools are unworkable (i.e., students at school part of the day with nowhere to go in-between classes, or between their elective course(s) during periods 0, 7 and their assigned cohort scheduled classes. We request that in-person learning should not start unless there is a safe plan for students who must stay on campus for the entire school day. • Concern # 2 o In the phased reopening plan, for students choosing to stay in a virtual learning format, the current plan of 1 hour per day instruction is not as much time as the 2.5 hours for in-person learning. For families at high risk of COVID-19 complications, obligated to continue virtual learning, we request that virtual learning format be the same number of hours as in- person learning. Thank you for your consideration.” 4. Shantel J. Kuntuzos, mother of two SVUSD students – “Dear Trustees Smollen, Blough, Jubran, LaBelle, and White: I am writing to voice my concerns with SVUSD applying for a waiver for elementary students to return to school, and with the suggested plan for the re- opening of schools. As I’m sure you are aware, the “survey” that went out to all parents last week created quite a stir amongst your constituents. The first problematic area was calling the publication a “survey.” A survey is meant to solicit opinions or collect data, not to demand a concrete commitment to one scenario or another. Next, the “survey” was written in a way that really left families without a true choice. It was portrayed as “return your child to school or commit to an absolute unknown of an online teacher with no possibility to return until fall of 2021.” Furthermore, information upon which to attempt to make such a decision only trickled in, day by day, as parents demanded the same. An additional area of concern for everyone is the proposed schedule. Whether working from home or otherwise, parents are going to be forced to “play taxi” at very odd times of the day in their work schedule. Very few have that kind of flexibility with their employer. We also question what can be accomplished in two and a half hours that really justifies two cross-town trips a day. Settling children in for learning at the beginning of the day always takes time, then there are proposed

6 breaks in two and half hours, so another “re-settling” period after the break. Further, the proposed schedule has the cohorts crossing paths with one another for drop off and pick up, and forces teachers to play janitor in the few minutes between cohorts. Why not explore a schedule of an 8:10 – 12:10 in person, on a M/W, or T/Th and alternating Friday schedule? This would provide for a virtual session for the cohort that is home for the day in the afternoon. It may further ease working parents’ burdens for drop off and pick-up, (e.g. pick up on mom or dad’s lunch break) pick up lunches from the student lunch program at the same time, and allow for one thorough cleaning of the classroom daily in-between cohorts, easing teacher’s burdens. Next, many of you have made statements about the need to have children in school for consistent and better learning environments. We are weeks away from the beginning of flu season. Numerous media outlets are reporting polls showing vast numbers of parents planning to refuse flu vaccines this year. Is this really a wise time to re-introduce our students to the physical classroom, only to potentially have to pull them right back out? How does that assist anyone in providing consistent education? While the virtual system is not perfect, it is consistent, and for the most part, it is working. Returning to the survey results, it is my understanding that an unreturned survey creates a presumption that the student will return to school. As such, that is not a reflection of an actual choice made by the families that did not return the survey. (And really, even if parents returned the survey stating they would send their children physically back to school, that does not mean they are comfortable with that. They simply made an impossible choice between two less than optimal alternatives.) There must be transparency about how many surveys were unreturned. And again, for the ones that were returned, parents did so under the guises of a “respond or else” situation. For the aforementioned reasons, none of you should be able to step up to the podium tonight and state that survey results overwhelmingly support SVUSD applying for a waiver or for a return to school under the current proposals. It is my sincere hope that you will not rely on these “survey” results to guide your decision, but rather, the uproar, confusion and displeasure it generated. That uproar alone should guide your decision about applying for a waiver. It is obvious that neither the district nor the parents are ready to have students physically return to school without further thought and planning. Thank you for your time and earnest consideration.” ACTION CALENDAR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERATION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WAIVER (1.) MSCU, Blough/Smollen, (4/1/0), approved consideration of School Waiver for In- Person Instruction for elementary grades JK through 6 grade. The following discussion took place: • Dr. Peplinski sent an infographics to all Board members prior to the meeting where it shows that the County of Ventura is meeting all 6 criteria on the previous system and 2 of the criteria on the new system. Right now, the County is at 6.7 which is below the 7.0 goal. What this means is that the County met the criteria last week into moving to the red tier. Counties do not change color unless the criteria is met for two consecutive weeks, one way or the other. Whether you are progressing or regressing, it takes two consecutive weeks. Though the County met the criteria last week, we need to meet the criteria one more week, and then the County will turn red on the map. • Trustee Blough stated that at the last meeting everyone was passionate about the various positions. They discussed where they were on the waiver, and prior to that at the August meeting, they met and voted 3/2 against filing the waiver.

7 • Trustee Blough brought the following motion to the Board: o Move to instruct staff to prepare the waiver document for submission to the Ventura County Health by October 14, but the waiver would not be submitted if the County is continuing to meet the criteria for all schools to reopen on October 13. • Trustee Blough asked for a second motion for further discussion. • Trustees held conversations and asked for clarification on his motion regarding dates to submit the waiver and how long it takes. When a waiver is submitted, an estimated date of reopening needs to be included. Districts don’t have to act on that date if they feel it is not safe to start school. • Trustee Blough clarified that he chose the October 14 because he thinks by then the County would be on the red tier, and we will not have to submit the waiver. We could get to the point of opening K-12, not just elementary. • Trustee Jubran would like to visit schools to see the physical changes being made to reopen schools. He would also like to have all things in place, and order the supplies we need to be ready. Trustee Jubran would like to wait to open by the County criteria. • Trustee Jubran also mentioned the survey that was sent out last week and some of the comments he read where that more of the households were concerned about opening under a waiver scenario and more of the teachers were concerned about opening under a waiver scenario as well, than moving off the watch list scenario. He stated disagreement with 1 hour of virtual instruction; he things there should be equity. He stated that there were some issues that were brought out in the last week and half, and we will work through those issues. These are unprecedented times, and we will get through it. • Trustee Jubran stated that he understands Trustee Blough and Trustee White, but he is not in support of a waiver. He believes that a significant amount of our community and associations are scared to death and believes that being off the watch list allows for people to be more confident about opening schools. He would like to get to the point of open and stay open. • Dr. Peplinski clarified some of the concerns brought up but Trustees. He stated that a communication was sent out to parents notifying them that they would not commit to a whole year. The staff understood that it was problematic. Their input was received, and they corrected the course on that. Dr. Peplinski answered to President Smollen that masks, PPE and sanitizers were ordered, and they are on our hands. Until we get students in our campuses, we will then be able to decide if our plan is sufficient. Right now our plan is based on what we think is accomplishable because we don’t have kids on our campuses. The cohorts that started last week are a good model on what works, what is working, and what is problematic in terms of things we would want to correct. • Dr. Peplinski asked the Board for direction for our staff. He stated that we need to be particularly careful with elementary students and their families, because we don’t want them to switch under one condition and then potentially a few days later switch again because of the County. The opening plan with a waiver and an opening plan when getting off the watch list are two different sets of teachers and different sets of kids based on what they told us they would if open on one way or the other. Staff is not able to plan for both scenarios; we need to know what model to start with. • Trustee LaBelle stated that he thinks he understands the motion from Trustee Blough. He believes there is a big fear in the community about going back to schools on a waiver. • After a lengthy discussion between Trustees, the motion submitted by Trustee Blough was amended to state the following, and the amended motion was voted on:

8 Motion #37 Vote: “I move to instruct staff to prepare the waiver document for submission to the Ventura County Public Health by October 14, but the waiver would not be submitted if the County is continuing to meet the criteria for all schools to reopen on October 13. At that time, the Board of Education would meet to consider to enact the waiver and determine the start date of schools for in-person instruction under a waiver.” Ayes: Blough, LaBelle, White, and Smollen Noes: Jubran Absent: None Abstained: None EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LCAP (1.) Motion #38 Vote: MSCU, Blough/Smollen, (4/0/1), approved and adopted the Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan. Dr. Youssef stated the following: • Last week, at a Special Board Meeting we had an info item regarding the Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan. At that time, there was a presentation given. Board members had the opportunity to ask questions, there was a public hearing for the community. Our Parent Advisory Committee and the District Advisory Committee contributed to the plan. They all had an opportunity to ask questions and give feedback, as the Board of Education did as well. Tonight we are presenting to the Board and the community, the completed plan in relation to Senate Bill 98 which is required in lieu of a Local Control and Accountability Plan for this year, we are submitting to you for approval the Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan for 2020-2021 school year. • Trustee Blough stated that all his questions were answered last week and he was ready to vote. • Dr. Peplinski thanked Dr. Youssef and the whole Educational Services Staff for putting the document together. In a year of no LCAP, with a document with the same acronym, it can be confusing, but they did a great job getting our non- plan, plan submitted. You know that the LCAP was suspended for the year, and this is the document that was requested in its place. • President Smollen stated appreciation for the presentation of last week. Ayes: Blough, LaBelle, Jubran and Smollen Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: White ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. October 6, 2020 – 5:00 pm, Regular Board Meeting and Public Hearings – Sufficiency of Instructional Materials and Use of Pupil Textbook and Instructional Materials Funds, District Office, 101 W. Cochran Street, Simi Valley, Via Zoom ADJOURNMENT Motion #39 Vote: MSC, Blough/LaBelle, (5/0), President Smollen adjourned the meeting at 5:11 p.m. Ayes: Blough, LaBelle, White, Jubran and Smollen Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None Approved on October 6, 2020 MSCU=Motion, Seconded, Carried, Unanimous __________________________ ____________________________ Trustee Smollen, Board President Dr. Jason Peplinski, Superintendent

P L E A S E P O S T

SIMI VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF EDUCATION AGENDA

Date: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2020

Closed Session: None

Regular Session: 4:00 PM

Public Hearing: None

THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD VIA ZOOM WEBINAR. Follow this link: Zoom Meeting

NOTICE: Regular meetings of the Board of Education are held monthly in the City Hall Council Chambers during the months of August through June. The meetings are scheduled on Tuesday evenings, unless otherwise noted. The narrative agenda and the backup for Regular Board meetings is posted 72 hours prior to the meeting, 24 hours prior to a special Board meeting, and ten days prior to a public hearing on the web at http://www.simivalleyusd.org at the entrance to the District Office Educational Services Center and all school sites. Forty-eight hour advance notice is required to meet special needs for individuals with disabilities and, upon written request, materials in alternative formats will be provided for public meetings.

A.

OPENING ACTIVITIES

1.

Call to Order Special Meeting: (Approximate Time: 4:00 p.m.)

2.

Flag Salute

B.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (ACTION-roll call vote)

C.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES (ACTION-roll call vote)

1.

Approval of Minutes of the Special Board Meeting of September 22, 2020

09-22-20 BOE MIN

D.

COMMUNICATIONS (At this point in the meeting visitors and employee organizations may address items not on the agenda)

1.

Public Comments: (at this point in the meeting visitors and employee organizations may address only items that are on the agenda)

E.

ACTION CALENDAR

1.

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

1.1.

Consider Elementary School Waiver for In-Person Instruction

09-29-20 BA Action#1 Consider Elementary School Waiver for In-Person Instruction

2.

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

2.1.

Approval and Adoption of the Learning Continuity and Attendance Plan 2020-2021

ES Action #1 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE LEARNING CONTINUITY AND ATTENDANCE PLAN 2020-2021

F.

ANNOUNCEMENTS