• What protocols and practices do you have in place to help facilitate effective meetings?
• What is a specific example where the board disagreed and relied on practices and protocols to reach a decision and move forward?

Delegates shared protocols and practices to facilitate effective meetings, including using CSBA as a resource through trainings, particularly Masters in Governance^® and CSBA governance consultants, to support the creation of common expectations and approaches. Additionally, it is important to check for understanding on agenda topics before board meetings, including meeting with their superintendent to answer questions. Many boards also use governance calendars so that they know what information to discuss at the most relevant times. Strategies to work through disagreements included agreeing that once a vote is final, all members must support the decision, creating a culture of talking through disagreements, asking CSBA for mediation help, and using board evaluation to learn and grow.

Committee members addressed:

• What is the federal portion of your LEA budget?
• What specific programs and/or services in your LEA are funded by federal dollars?
• What is the impact of losing these dollars on your LEA?

The most significant challenge shared was that uncertainty about the federal budget, including potential cuts, is forcing LEAs to pre-emptively cut or suspend programs and services. Most LEA costs are fixed, and with federal funds from sources such as special education, school nutrition, Title I and Title III vulnerable, boards are protecting their general funds as much as possible. Combined with declining enrollment and the end of pandemic-related Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funds, the uncertainty led many LEAs to issue pink slips. Affected programs and services include professional development and interventions, class size, school safety, credit recovery, Migrant Education and services for English learners.

County offices emphasized concerns about impacts on Head Start. One county office issued 260 pink slips to employees at all levels, of which 168 were Head Start staff, affecting 1,200 students directly.

• What is the practice at your school sites for limiting cellphone use on campus?
• What successes and/or challenges are you facing with implementation?

Policies and practices varied across the LEAs represented in the committee. Some LEAs have rules without policies, while others have policies they are trying to enforce. Generally, elementary schools have a no cellphone use or no cellphones allowed policy. Middle and high schools limit use to specific times and may include phone use in designated areas, where use can be supervised. Many LEAs use cellphone pouches and restrict smart watches and ear buds. Some LEAs are researching cell-blocker systems to limit WiFi speeds.

Some Delegates reported more student engagement and better student mental health and behavior. Also noted was that schools are able to share correct and timely information during emergencies, preventing the spread of misinformation that might occur if students had their cellphones.

Reported barriers include family pushback because of a perceived need to be in regular contact with their children. Some students had a hard time adjusting to not having phones readily available. Students also found ingenious ways to work around the rules such as putting burner phones into locked pouches instead of their smartphone. Some Delegates noted lost instructional time due to enforcement of usage policies.

• What does the achievement gap look like in your LEA, i.e., which students are affected?
• What are actions or services in your Local Control and Accountability Plan that are intended to close the gap in your LEA?
• Which state policies, laws, requirements, etc. hinder your LEA’s efforts to close the achievement gap?

The committee reported they preferred “opportunity gap” in lieu of “achievement gap.” Delegates noted that students affected by opportunity gaps include multilingual learners; students with disabilities; socioeconomically disadvantaged students; homeless students; African American, Hispanic and Native American students; and newcomers, and emphasized the need to disaggregate Asian American and Pacific Islander populations.

Actions LEAs are taking to close the opportunity gap include using staff such as multilingual teachers, intake counselors and paraprofessionals. Hiring parent liaisons and providing professional development for teachers were also reported strategies. LEAs use instructional design, such as culturally responsive instruction, small group interventions and literacy programs. Delegates shared they focus on growth, and their LEAs use assessment data to drive instruction.

State policies, laws and requirements hindering efforts to close the gap were also shared. Delegates noted that the California School Dashboard does not currently address the true measure of student growth. Funding uncertainty, unfunded and underfunded mandates, restricted funding and one-time funding all hindered LEAs’ efforts to close the opportunity gap.

Committee members emphasize the need to shift to meaningful and non-repetitive reporting. Lack of internet access in rural communities also impeded progress. Ideas to close the gap included reforming credentialing requirements to make it easier to bring people into education and addressing funding issues.