Insight
Snapshots of Success Vol. 1, Issue 1: September 8, 2017
all students—100%—reaching success. My definition that I propose the Board adopt is “A Successful Student is a High School Graduate.” That is it? Well, not quite. I think we need to account for students and their families’ further defining success to include things such as “College Ready”, “Career Ready,” “Life Long Learner,” “Happy” or ? I think we need to acknowledge the definition of success needs to be individualized for Each and Every Student.
Intro to Insight: Successful Students In January of 2017, the Board of Education heard from Steve Lamb, Consultant with California School Boards Association, that effective Boards focus on Student Achievement. Further, Mr. Lamb opined that our Board needed to come to a consensus on a definition of a successful student. So, I propose a simple definition and a complex system of evaluating our success in supporting
Insight Publication Dates (Titles Subject to Change) September 21 November 2 November 30 December January 4 February 1 March 1 March 15 April 5 April 26 May 29 May 31
So, as a Board and as a District how do we track, evaluate, support, encourage 24,000+ individual definitions of “A Successful Student?” We focus on our system and we hold ourselves accountable for providing an environment that promotes success for Each and Every Student Daily. This monthly report is designed to provide Insight into our system of accountability and how as a District we are promoting Each and Every Student being successful. We currently enjoy a graduation rate in excess of 95%. We are at the highest level of achievement in this area in California. We should be proud and we can do better. We can reach Each and Every Student. This makes me Proud to be MUSD!
Everyone on Board Board Involvement / Oversight Community Support: It Takes a Village Special Edition Insert: Focus on Community Athletic Fields as a Priority Suspensions/Expulsions: Impact on Student Connectedness Connecting Federal / State / Local Achievement Data The Mark: Annual Report Attaching tools, RESOURCES $, support Getting it Done: Opportunities for Fully Staffing Sites 18/19 The Mark: Graduation Edition Summary Report
Regional Meeting Dates: (Lunch 12:00-1:30 PM, Room 300) August 29, 2017 September 26, 2017 October 25, 2017 November 28, 2017 February 20, 2018 March 20, 2018 April 17, 2018
Vol. 1, Issue 1 - Page 1
Contents
MUSD School Board President Stephen J. Schluer, Area 6
Regional Site Visits 2017-2018
2
MUSD at a Glance
3
iResults Student Achievement Snapshot
4
iResults Staffing Snapshot
7
Michael Seelye, Area 3
Monthly Budget Report
8
Nancy Teicheira, Area 4
Growth Steering Committee Timeline
9
MUSD Field Condition Assessments
10
2017 First Day of School
16
Vice President Bob Wallace, Area 7 Board Clerk Evelyn Moore, Area 5 Eric Duncan, Area 1 Kathy Howe, Area 2
MUSD Superintendents Superintendent Jason Messer Deputy Superintendents Dr. Clark Burke Roger Goatcher
Regional Site Visits 2017-2018 Visit #1 (Aug – Dec)
Time
Region
Lead
August 30, 2017
Region 3
Steve Anderson
September 19, 2017
Region 2
Susan Sanders
September 27, 2017
Region 6
David O’Leary
October 24, 2017
Region 5
Francine Baird
November 29, 2017
Region 4
Debbie Ruger
December 6, 2017
Region 1
Dale Borgeson
Visit #2 (Jan – Apr)
Visit #3 (Apr - May) Optional
January 10, 2018
Apr 27, 2018
February 7, 2018
May 16, 2018
February 21, 2018
May 18, 2018
March 14, 2018 April 6, 2018 April 20, 2018
Vision Statement:
Manteca Unified School District will ensure every school day is relevant, rigorous, and leads students to become productive and engaged members of a global society while residing in the central valley.
Making a positive difference to each and every student daily. Mission Statement:
Manteca Unified School District is committed to providing a safe environment where all students will thrive with the tools, resources and support needed to achieve their academic and personal potentials. Page 2 - MUSD Insight: Snapshots of Success
2
MUSD at a Glance
Vol. 1, Issue 1 - Page 3
Student Achievement Snapshot
Manteca Unified School District
Local Indicators Based on LCFF State Priorities
iResults Student Achievement Snapshot
GRADUATION 93%
92%
92%
93%
92%
90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Graduation Rate Year-over-year comparison
SCHOOL CLIMATE
94%
96%
(LCFF Snapshot = 93%)
1
SCHOOL CLIMATE
Suspended last school year
(LCFF Snapshot = 10%)
46 students
Suspended last school year
SC
Students with expulsions 2016-2017
<1%
<1%
(LCFF Snapshot = 0.17%
96%
(LCFF Snapshot = 93%)
Expelled last school year
1,644 students 2016-2017
1,644 students
7%
Year-over-year comparison
Graduation Rate
Manteca Unified School District
2016-2017
Students with expulsions
Students with suspensions
(LCFF Snapshot = 0.17%
Student Achievement Snapshot
1
Manteca Unified School District
40% 30% 80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
0%
92%
10%
94%
20%
42%
(LCFF Snapshot = 55% K-12)
2016-2017
50%
67%
Students with suspensions
60%
92%
70%
2012/13
73%
80%
SCHOOL CLIMATE
93%
2013/14
92%
2014/15
Using SRI Assessments with specific cut-off points per grade
25%
60%
40% 30%
1st Grade
36% 28%
10% 0%
% Proficient EL Students 4th Grade
5th Grade
6th Grade
7th Grade
STUD
8th Grade
SCHO
% of K-3rd grade EL students making progress towards English proficiency Using OARS Assessments
66%
17%
2nd Grade
52%
20%
% Proficient EL Students Kindergarten
49%
45%
50%
Expelled last school year
2015/16
93%
% of 4-8th grade EL students making progress towards English proficiency
46 students
7%
(LCFF Snapshot = 10%)
ENGLISH LEARNER ACHIEVEMENT
GRADUATION
Local Indicators Based on LCFF State Priorities
Student Achievement Snapshot
Local Indicators Based on LCFF State Priorities
(LCFF Snapshot = 55% K-12)
3rd Grade
100%
% of 9-12th grade EL students making progress towards English proficiency
88%
80%
62%
64%
60%
EL students with B- or higher in English courses
40%
57%
35%
20% 0%
(LCFF Snapshot = 55% K-12)
% Proficient EL Students 9th Grade
10th Grade
11th Grade
12th Grade
2
Page 4 - MUSD Insight: Snapshots of Success
4
Student Achievement Snapshot
Manteca Unified School District
Local Indicators Based on LCFF State Priorities
ENGLISH LEARNER ACHIEVEMENT (continued) 814
% of EL students reclassified
Reclassified
As of the last term
14%
Total # of EL Students 5,666
ENGLIS
(LCFF Snapshot = 10%)
ENROLLMENT
Enrollment by race / ethnicity
20%
African-American
8%
2%
8% African-American
Asian
15%
15% Asian
Latino/Hispanic
55% Latino or Hispanic
Other
20% White 2% Other
70% 60%
55%
59%
SC
Enrollment by program eligibility
50%
59% Socio-economically disadvantaged
40% 30%
19% English learner
19%
20%
12% SPED
12%
10% 0%
White
SED
ELD
SPED
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
Migrant Youth
Foster Youth
Homeless
SARB
DRB
1% Foster Youth
Student Achievement Snapshot
Manteca Unified School District
Based on LCFF State Priorities
3
COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS
% of students on-track to complete A-G requirements Students with C- or higher in A-G courses
70%
50%
38%
20% 10% 0% 9th Grade
62%
37%
40% 30% 10% 0% 9th Grade
10th Grade
11th Grade
12th Grade
% of students likely to pass an AP exam with a 3 or higher Students getting at least a B- in an AP course
74%
(LCFF Snapshot = 49%)
11th Grade
12th Grade
STU
Students with C- or higher in CTE courses in
49%
20%
10th Grade
% of students on-track to complete at least 1 CTE Path
49%
49%
50%
40%
(LCFF Snapshot = 31%)
60%
51%
50% 30%
50%
70%
59%
60%
one pathway
(LCFF Snapshot = 39%)
120% 100%
100% 71%
80%
73%
76%
60% 40% 20% 0% 9th Grade
10th Grade
11th Grade
12th Grade
4
Vol. 1, Issue 1 - Page 5
Student Achievement Snapshot
Manteca Unified School District
Based on LCFF State Priorities
COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS (continued) 14%
12%
12%
Measuring college readiness in ELA
11%
10%
10% 8%
5%
6% 2% 0% 9th Grade
10th Grade
Students with an A- or better in A-G English
10%
4%
11th Grade
courses
(LCFF Snapshot = 14% in EAP)
12th Grade
13%
14%
Measuring college readiness in math
12%
10%
10%
Students with an A- or better in A-G
6%
10%
Math courses
8%
7%
8% 4% 2% 0%
(LCFF Snapshot = 5% in EAP)
9th Grade
10th Grade
11th Grade
12th Grade
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 100%
77%
80%
77%
K-8 ELA Formative Assessments
77% 54%
60%
37%
40%
37%
32%
30%
29%
Students meeting or exceeding standards
61%
20% 0% Kindergarten
1st Grade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
5th Grade
6th Grade
7th Grade
8th Grade
4th Grade
in OARS assessments
(LCFF Snapshot = 39% in 3 rd - 8th grade SBAC)
Student Achievement Snapshot
5
Manteca Unified School District
Based on LCFF State Priorities
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT (continued)
Measuring ELA academic achievement for 9-12th grade students
14%
8% 4% 2% 0%
(LCFF Snapshot = 51% in 11 th Grade CAASP)
89%
5%
6%
10%
94%
9th Grade
91%
43%
40%
46%
51% 34%
37%
38%
1st Grade
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
6th Grade
7th Grade
8th Grade
12th Grade
STUD
SCHO
in OARS assessments
57%
0%
5th Grade
11th Grade
Students meeting or exceeding standards
20%
Kindergarten
10th Grade
K-8 Math Formative Assessments
80% 60%
11%
10%
10%
Students with an A- or better in A-G English courses
100%
12%
12%
4th Grade
(LCFF Snapshot = 25% in 3 rd - 8th grade SBAC)
12% 10%
7%
8%
6%
10%
(LCFF Snapshot = 19% in
10%
8%
Students with an A- or better in A-G Math courses
11 th
13%
14%
Measuring math academic achievement for 9-12th grade students
4% 2% 0%
Grade CAASP)
9th Grade
10th Grade
11th Grade
12th Grade
6
Page 6 - MUSD Insight: Snapshots of Success
6
iResults Staffing Snapshot
Staffing Snapshot
Manteca Unified School District
CERTIFICATED STAFFING UPDATE 24 50
Elementary
Total Number of New Hires
Secondary
2017 - 2018
SpecEd
118
44
New Hires
3
Total Number of Positions
230
Elementary Secondary
2017-2018
557
Staffing Snapshot
SpecEd Vacancies
1,116
326
Total Positions
Manteca Unified School District
CLASSIFIED STAFFING UPDATE 155
Total Number of Positions
Staffed Positions
2017 - 2018
Vacancies
1,450
1,295
1
Positions
9
8
Total Number of Hires As of July 2017
Custodial/Grounds/Maintenance
29
Positions Filled
Library Media Technician/Digital Support Technician Nutrition Education
3 1
4
4
Paraprofessional (SDC, RSP, Regular Ed., Bilingual)
Hiring Update
Continuous Hiring Process Resignations Received Positions Posted Applications Received & Screened Interview Sessions Held
Bus Operator/Delivery Driver/Mechanic/Warehouseman Clerical
12 17 260 22
July 2017 Only
20 5
Reassignments
New Hires
2
Vol. 1, Issue 1 - Page 7
Monthly Budget Report Books for 2016-2017 have closed. Revenue and expenses are rolled into the 2017-2018 budget.
Page 8 - MUSD Insight: Snapshots of Success
8
Vinne Torres gets a touchdown for East Union High School.
MUSD Field Condition Assessments The following field condition assessment reports provide ratings identified by the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fields current condition (exemplary, Good, Fair, or Poor). Each rating is justified in the comment section by noting issues found during the assessment. Each site assessment is rated on a 1-100 scale. The following is a summary of the current field conditions per site:
Site Name Overall Field Condition Rating East Union High School
84 = Good
Lathrop High School
84 = Good
Manteca High School
94 = Exemplary
Sierra High School
85 = Good
Weston Ranch High School
81 = Good
Vol. 1, Issue 1 - Page 9
MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FIELD CONDITION ASSESSMENT
EAST UNION
9/1/17
Soccer & Football Field
FIELD LOCATION:
Name John Lopez
COMPLETED BY:
Measurable Metrics: The Condition of the field shall be assessed by reviewing the following measures:
Title Grounds Supervisor
OVERALL FIELD CONDITION:
84= Good
The following questions are intended to identify the current condition of the field at the time of the assessment. Each category should be rated by identifying the current condition (Exemplary, Good, Fair or Poor). Place an “rating” as identified in each column that best reflects the condition. Each rating should then also be justified in the comment section by noting the issues found during the assessment.
Exemplary =
90-100
Good =
points
70-89 points
Fair = EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Turf Condition
50-69 points GOOD (7-8 points)
Poor = FAIR (5-6 points)
0-49 points POOR (1-4 points)
1. Turf Condtion 2. Pest Activity / Weed Control 3. Irrigation Operation 4. Hazards
NOTES / COMMENTS
Is the Turf Green and Healthy?
9
yes
Are there areas that are bare / worn?
9
very little
Is the root section established and healthy?
10
yes
Pest Activity / Weed control: Are there visible signs of gophers?
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
10
Are there weeds present within turf area?
Is the adequate irrigation coverage?
GOOD (7-8 points)
Very little
FAIR (5-6 points)
very soggy on sidelines 6
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
GOOD (7-8 points)
Are there tripping hazards within the field?
8
Is the field consistently level?
7
47
NOTES / COMMENTS regular irrigatin schedule
8
Are there signs of standing water or drainage issues?
Hazards
POOR (1-4 points)
9
Is the irrigation system operating effectively & efficiently?
NOTES / COMMENTS No gopher activity
8
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Irrigation Operation
ACTION ITEMS
POOR (1-4 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
31 ESTIMATE
very soggy sidelines
POOR (1-4 points)
NOTES / COMMENTS
Crown in field
6
0
84 RESPONSIBILITY
field looks good
try and keep from practicing on game field
no gophers
keep trapping
irrigation
adjust springler clock
areate/seed/fertalize
field maintenance
Page 10 - MUSD Insight: Snapshots of Success
10
MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FIELD CONDITION ASSESSMENT
LATHROP HIGH
9/1/17
Soccer & Football Field
FIELD LOCATION:
Name John Lopez
COMPLETED BY:
Measurable Metrics: The Condition of the field shall be assessed by reviewing the following measures:
Title Grounds Supervisor
OVERALL FIELD CONDITION:
84= Good
The following questions are intended to identify the current condition of the field at the time of the assessment. Each category should be rated by identifying the current condition (Exemplary, Good, Fair or Poor). Place an “rating” as identified in each column that best reflects the condition. Each rating should then also be justified in the comment section by noting the issues found during the assessment.
Exemplary =
90-100
Good =
points
70-89 points
Fair = EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Turf Condition
50-69 points GOOD (7-8 points)
Poor = FAIR (5-6 points)
0-49 points POOR (1-4 points)
1. Turf Condtion 2. Pest Activity / Weed Control 3. Irrigation Operation 4. Hazards
NOTES / COMMENTS
Is the Turf Green and Healthy?
7
Yes
Are there areas that are bare / worn?
8
Very little
Is the root section established and healthy?
8
some dry spots
Pest Activity / Weed control: Are there visible signs of gophers?
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
10
Are there weeds present within turf area?
NOTES / COMMENTS No gopher activity
8
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Irrigation Operation
GOOD (7-8 points)
GOOD (7-8 points)
Very little
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
NOTES / COMMENTS
Is the adequate irrigation coverage?
8
dry spots
Is the irrigation system operating effectively & efficiently?
7
check irrigation heads
Are there signs of standing water or drainage issues?
10
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Hazards Are there tripping hazards within the field? Is the field consistently level?
none
GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
8
very little
10
30
ACTION ITEMS
NOTES / COMMENTS
Yes
54 ESTIMATE
0
0
84 RESPONSIBILITY
keep turf use to minimune use
Do not practice on field
no gophers
trap daily or as needed
irrigation repairs
repair heads/ up watering to green up field
areate/seed/fertalize
field maintenance
Vol. 1, Issue 1 - Page 11
MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FIELD CONDITION ASSESSMENT
MANTECA HIGH
9/1/17
Soccer & Football Field
FIELD LOCATION:
Name John Lopez
COMPLETED BY:
Measurable Metrics: The Condition of the field shall be assessed by reviewing the following measures:
Title Grounds Supervisor
OVERALL FIELD CONDITION:
94= Exemplary
The following questions are intended to identify the current condition of the field at the time of the assessment. Each category should be rated by identifying the current condition (Exemplary, Good, Fair or Poor). Place an “rating” as identified in each column that best reflects the condition. Each rating should then also be justified in the comment section by noting the issues found during the assessment.
Exemplary =
90-100
Good =
points
70-89 points
Fair = EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Turf Condition
50-69 points GOOD (7-8 points)
Poor = FAIR (5-6 points)
0-49 points POOR (1-4 points)
1. Turf Condtion 2. Pest Activity / Weed Control 3. Irrigation Operation 4. Hazards
NOTES / COMMENTS
Is the turf green and healthy?
10
Yes
Are there areas that are bare / worn?
9
sidelines/very little
Is the root section established and healthy?
10
yes
Pest Activity / Weed control:
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
NOTES / COMMENTS
Are there visible signs of gophers?
10
no gopher activity
Are there weeds present within turf area?
9
Very little
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Irrigation Operation
GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
NOTES / COMMENTS
Is the adequate irrigation coverage?
9
regular irrigation shedule
Is the irrigation system operating effectively & efficiently?
9
regular irrigation schedule
Are there signs of standing water or drainage issues?
9
none
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Hazards
GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
NOTES / COMMENTS
Are there tripping hazards within the field?
9
very little
Is the field consistently level?
10
Yes
94
ACTION ITEMS
0 ESTIMATE
0
0
94 RESPONSIBILITY
fields look good
looked a little dry
no gophers
trap daily or as needed
irrigation
check water time/ repair broken water line
aerate/seed/fertalize
field maintenance
Page 12 - MUSD Insight: Snapshots of Success
12
MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FIELD CONDITION ASSESSMENT
SIERRA HIGH
9/1./2017
Soccer & Football Field
FIELD LOCATION:
Name John Lopez
COMPLETED BY:
Measurable Metrics: The Condition of the field shall be assessed by reviewing the following measures:
Title Grounds Supervisor
OVERALL FIELD CONDITION:
85= Good
1. Turf Condtion 2. Pest Activity / Weed Control 3. Irrigation Operation 4. Hazards
The following questions are intended to identify the current condition of the field at the time of the assessment. Each category should be rated by identifying the current condition (Exemplary, Good, Fair or Poor). Place an “rating” as identified in each column that best reflects the condition. Each rating should then also be justified in the comment section by noting the issues found during the assessment.
Exemplary =
90-100
Good =
points
70-89 points
Fair = EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Turf Condition Is the turf green and healthy?
50-69 points GOOD (7-8 points)
Poor = FAIR (5-6 points)
0-49 points POOR (1-4 points)
9
Are there areas that are bare / worn? Is the root section established and healthy?
Pest Activity / Weed control:
Yes 8
filling in good
10 EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
NOTES / COMMENTS
Yes GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
NOTES / COMMENTS
Are there visible signs of gophers?
8
very little
Are there weeds present within turf area?
8
Very little
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Irrigation Operation
GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
NOTES / COMMENTS
Is the adequate irrigation coverage?
9
regular irrigation schedule (wind issue)
Is the irrigation system operating effectively & efficiently?
8
add time to irrigation clocks ( heat wave)
Are there signs of standing water or drainage issues?
10
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Hazards
no
GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
NOTES / COMMENTS
Are there tripping hazards within the field?
8
very little ( filling with seed )
Is the field consistently level?
7
high crown
29
ACTION ITEMS
56 ESTIMATE
0
0
85 RESPONSIBILITY
field use
try and practice less on stadium field
gophers
trap daily or as needed
grass
check coverage on irrigation
aerate/seed/fertalize
field maintenance
Vol. 1, Issue 1 - Page 13
MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FIELD CONDITION ASSESSMENT
WESTON RANCH HIGH
9/1/207
Soccer & Football Field
FIELD LOCATION:
Name John Lopez
COMPLETED BY:
Measurable Metrics: The Condition of the field shall be assessed by reviewing the following measures:
Title Grounds Supervisor
OVERALL FIELD CONDITION:
81= Good
The following questions are intended to identify the current condition of the field at the time of the assessment. Each category should be rated by identifying the current condition (Exemplary, Good, Fair or Poor). Place an “rating” as identified in each column that best reflects the condition. Each rating should then also be justified in the comment section by noting the issues found during the assessment.
Exemplary =
90-100
Good =
points
70-89 points
Fair = EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Turf Condition Is the Turf Green and Healthy?
50-69 points GOOD (7-8 points)
Poor = FAIR (5-6 points)
0-49 points POOR (1-4 points)
8 6
yes, re-seeding is being placed
9 EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Pest Activity / Weed control:
NOTES / COMMENTS turf looks good
Are there areas that are bare / worn? Is the root section established and healthy?
1. Turf Condtion 2. Pest Activity / Weed Control 3. Irrigation Operation 4. Hazards
yes GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
NOTES / COMMENTS
Are there visible signs of gophers?
8
areas filling in good
Are there weeds present within turf area?
8
popping up with warm weather and rain
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Irrigation Operation
GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
POOR (1-4 points)
10
Is the adequate irrigation coverage? Is the irrigation system operating effectively & efficiently? Are there signs of standing water or drainage issues?
regular watering schedule 8
yes, up watering time
9
EXEMPLARY (9-10 points)
Hazards
very little
GOOD (7-8 points)
FAIR (5-6 points)
Are there tripping hazards within the field? Is the field consistently level?
POOR (1-4 points)
6
ACTION ITEMS
NOTES / COMMENTS field should be checked for holes regulary.
9
37
NOTES / COMMENTS
Yes
32
12
ESTIMATE
0
81 RESPONSIBILITY
try and not practice on stadium field
field maintenance
no gophers
keep trapping
field
check for gopher tunnels and holes
aerate/seed/fertalize
field maintenace
Page 14 - MUSD Insight: Snapshots of Success
14
Measure M closed 1-13-17
Facilities Planning Supervisor hired
JAN
2017
FEB
APR
Progress report on growth options 7-18-17
JUL
Board Budget / LCAP presented 6-6-17 and adopted 6-13-17
JUN
SEP
OCT
DEC
Measure G Implementation Plan: Phase 2 – Increment 1
NOV
September 12 Board Report: Measure G Implementation Phase 2 – Increment 1: Project Proposal: Review scope of proposed projects for Measure G Implementation plan. Includes: MHS, EUHS, Nile Garden and Neil Hafley.
AUG
EUHS Community Forum Nights (9-26 and 9-28) and begin “Thought Exchange” survey process.
Begin Project Identification and Approval Process 9-12-17
CBO provides Financing / Funding Plan / CFDs / G.O. for growth projects 8-22-17
Programmatic Descriptions (Ed. Spec.) and “Thought Exchange” Summary Input Report reviewed
June 6 Board Report: Division of the State Architect- Project Certification Status report: Itemize all DSA close-out, non-conforming structures, and application status concerns for every campus in MUSD.
Growth committee reviews Davis Demographic Growth Study presented to board 4-18-17
MAY
Senior Leadership reviews Growth Steering Committee time lines and goals
Online Community “Thought Exchange” begins
Update Level I Developer fees in an effort to provide additional growth funding
July 18 Board Report: Measure G Program Implementation plan – realignment report: The plan will present the realignment of the remaining phases of the measure G program.
Growth Steering Committee provides board update 3-7-17
MAR
EUHS Community Roundtables: 9-26 from 6 - 8 pm and 9-28 from 3:15 to 5:15 pm
Growth Community Survey ends 1-31-17
9-12 Board Meeting - Measure G Implementation Phase 2 - Increment 1: Project Proposal: Review scope of proposed projects for Measure G Implementation plan. Includes: MHS, EUHS, Nile Garden and Neil Hafley.
MHS Roundtables 2-7-17 and 2-9-17
Begin Project Identification and Approval Process
Capacity studies begin
We are currently focused on:
Growth Steering Committee Time Line - 2017
Growth Steering Committee Timeline
Vol. 1, Issue 1 - Page 15
2017 First Day of School
Page 16 - MUSD Insight: Snapshots of Success
16