Community Unit School District 200 Board of Education Met Dec. 15.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
A special meeting of the Board of Education of Community Unit School District 200, DuPage County, Illinois, was called to order at the Hubble Middle School, 3S600 Herrick Rd, Warrenville, IL by Board President Brad Paulsen at 7:01 PM. Due to the Tier 2 mitigation strategies for Region 8 (which includes DuPage County) that were put in place by the Governor, as well as the DuPage County Health Department sharing that those mitigation strategies do apply to our Board of Education Meetings and are considered a business meeting, the group size for this meeting was limited to ten people.
ROLL CALL
Upon the roll being called, the following were present:
Board Members: Mr. Brad Paulsen
Mrs. Chris Crabtree
Mr. Rob Hanlon
Mrs. Susan Booton
Mrs. Ginna Ericksen (attended by audio conference)
Mr. Dave Long
Mr. Jim Mathieson
Also in Attendance: Dr. Jeff Schuler, Superintendent
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Board Vice President Chris Crabtree led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA
None
COMMENTS FROM BOARD PRESIDENT
President Paulsen noted this meeting was called after last week’s regularly scheduled Board of Education meeting and both of the agenda items to be discussed are follow-ups to last week’s discussions. It was noted the primary objective was to bring students back to school in an environment that can be maintained through the end of the school year.
PUBLIC COMMENTS – Procedures for Public Comments for December 15, 2020 Due to the ongoing pandemic and Tier 3 mitigations that remain in place limiting the number of individuals in a space, the Board again temporarily amended their public comment procedures for this meeting to allow comments to be made in person or emailed to the Board and acknowledged in the meeting at Hubble Middle School on Tuesday, December 15 at 7:00 p.m.
In accordance with Board Policy 2.230, members of the public wishing to offer public comment in person had the opportunity to do so but were only allowed in the meeting room when they were called to provide their public comment. A sign-up sheet was made available at the entrance to the building until 7:00 p.m. Community members were advised to remain in the waiting area until called into the meeting by the Board President. While community members were not able to remain at the meeting in-person, the Board Meeting was available for viewing via live-stream on the District’s YouTube channel.
Per Board Policy, 30 minutes was allocated for public comments, and comments on any one subject was limited to 20 minutes. The Board may shorten the time allocation for each person to less than 3 minutes to allow the maximum number of people the opportunity to speak. To preserve confidentiality, the Board and its President request that items relating to either personnel or students be provided to the Board privately or in writing for consideration in a future closed session, if necessary.
| Speaker: | Kevin Nickell
Diane Galo Bryce Cann Melina Neves Cassie Capp |
| Topic | Reopening Feedback |
| Speaker: | Dr. Kelly Gross |
| Topic | Virtual Academy |
The Board had received public comment emails from the following individuals that were specifically noted for acknowledgment during the meeting.
| Emails Sent By: | Sharon Weeks
Heather Barilla Laura Ramey Leila Krzyzewski Brian Zeglin Melissa Nickell Elizabeth Kennedy Brooke Weston Mark Doherty Traci Kantowski Cheryl Koenig Haley Glavanovits Brad Vertrees |
| Topic: | Reopening Feedback/Surveillance Testing |
| Emails Sent By: | Angela |
| Topic: | WWEA/In-person Learning |
| Emails Sent By: | Jennifer Matos |
| Topic: | Middle School Virtual Academy |
ACTION ITEMS
It was noted the purpose of the meeting was two-fold, to set a return date for in-person learning for secondary students and to discuss mitigations that will be in place to support that return. Specifically, a follow-up discussion took place and the Board was asked to consider a recommendation on an additional mitigation strategy, surveillance testing, which was introduced last week. The return date options which were presented at the December 9th meeting were recapped. It was noted the Board and Administration received considerable feedback on these two topics since the meeting on December 9th, from teachers and staff, parents, and the community. The discussion moved forward with the Board, noting the sincere desire to make the best decisions that can be made for the community with the information that has been provided.
An overview of the presentation included the following:
∙ Safeguard Surveillance Update
∙ Data Review
∙ Teaching and Learning Updates
∙ Final Recommendation of Return to Hybrid Date
Approval of Agreement with Safeguard Surveillance
At the December 9th Board of Education Meeting, Board Members heard a presentation by Dr. Ed Campbell of SafeGuard Surveillance regarding a new mitigation strategy - surveillance testing (saliva testing) that screens for the presence of COVID-19 in an individual. The benefits of surveillance testing include:
- Allows districts to test, receive test results (within 24 hours) and notify individuals of a clinically significant reading before coming to school. This benefit would allow the district to keep asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers who may pass a daily self-certification out of our school buildings, risking the spread of the virus within buildings.
- Allows districts who are fully remote to determine if surveillance positivity rates are low enough to safely return to an in-person learning model.
- Allows districts to monitor their own, localized data. This allows districts who have low levels of positivity or case activity to continue the in-person learning experience, even if community data rises or surges.
It is important to note that surveillance testing does not take the place of D200 current mitigation strategies including wearing masks, maintaining physical distance, practicing good hand hygiene, frequent and regular cleaning and sanitizing, implementing enhanced air ventilation strategies, and monitoring any health concerns or symptoms.
Following the presentation and discussion on December 9th, Board Members expressed interest in entering into an agreement with Safeguard Surveillance and in understanding the specific timelines for implementation of this mitigation strategy.
Administrators reviewed the surveillance testing program, including the purpose, goals, and benefits of this important mitigation strategy. This included the proposed process and timeline, steps to ensure complete data privacy for District 200, and costs of the program. Additionally, a communications plan was developed to inform and engage the District 200 community in this important mitigation strategy.
The cost is $11 per test administered. The total cost will be based on the total number of students and staff participating in the surveillance program. Funding will come from the contingency allocated in the FY21 district budget.
An overview of Safeguard Surveillance: COVID-19 Surveillance for School was provided by Dr. Schuler and members of the Administrative team and included the following: ∙ Why Test in Schools?
∙ Current Mitigation Strategies
∙ Types of Testing
∙ Testing Factors to Consider
∙ SafeGuard Surveillance – How? Surveillance Workflow 6 Steps
∙ District 200 Implementation
∙ SafeGuard Surveillance
o Data and Student Information
o Cost and Funding Source
o Current Partners (Nine local districts/schools)
o Communication Plan
o Consent Timeline
There was additional information/comments on the following:
∙ Exploring testing as a mitigation strategy is something that has come up and been discussed by local Superintendents in their weekly meeting with the DuPage County Health Dept. The Administration has been studying this mitigation strategy for a while.
∙ Using testing as a mitigation strategy has evolved as opportunities in testing have evolved during the pandemic.
∙ Surveillance testing would be additional support to other current mitigation strategies, including universal masking, physical distancing, hand hygiene, cleaning and sanitizing, daily symptom screening, and contact tracing. It is not meant to take the place of these other mitigation strategies.
∙ The opportunity to identify asymptomatic cases of COVID-19, therefore reducing the potential spread of cases.
∙ The three types of testing include diagnostic, screening, and surveillance. Diagnostic tests have to be approved by the FDA as they provide a definitive diagnosis of COVID 19 positive, and tend to be the most expensive of testing options. Both screening and surveillance testing would need a diagnostic test for confirmation. Surveillance is the least expensive of the testing options.
∙ Surveillance testing is provided to larger populations to measure community outbreaks.
∙ Surveillance testing specimens are de-identified for the lab. There is no individual student identifying information in the specimens provided.
∙ Testing factors to consider include the potential for false positives/false negatives, logistics as it relates to the process being doable, turnaround time, the cost for the district, equity, and certification/approval that may be required.
∙ Students or employees would opt-in to the surveillance testing.
∙ There are a lot of pieces operationally that fall behind each of the surveillance workflow steps.
∙ Surveillance testing would be available for all in-person learners and staff at the secondary level and would take place weekly.
∙ Parent consent would be required for students to opt-in for surveillance testing.
∙ The only information indicated on each vial will be a barcoded seven-digit ID number (unique to D200). All results would be merged with student data and handled in compliance with educational and medical data privacy laws.
∙ The number of estimated tests being conducted per week is between 2,800-3,400 depending on the opt-in numbers which will need to be determined.
∙ The communication plan includes a written community update, a community Zoom Q&A, a communication with a link provided to consent to testing, and other ongoing social media and email reminders.
∙ There would be collaboration with the EL Department and other community partners to assist in the communications effort.
∙ There will be multiple consent/opt-in opportunities for testing.
∙ The District would only pay for the tests that are run. Estimates are provided to SafeGuard to ensure they have adequate supplies that are needed to run the tests within the turnaround timeline specified in the agreement.
∙ Language in the contract to ensure the lab can turn results around (based on the number of samples submitted).
∙ Estimated cost per month ($150,000/month). Only locked into a 60-day agreement, therefore would be committed for at least six weeks upon return after winter break.
∙ It was recommended to begin the surveillance testing the week of January 4, 2021.
There were questions/comments/discussion on the following:
∙ Funding for surveillance testing: CARES dollars – have been targeted for technology support for this year (live streaming, going 1:1 technology). Recommending this expenditure comes out of the contingency fund that has been set aside from our local budget to support COVID related expenses that were not identified at the beginning of the school year.
∙ Opening the path for opportunities for extra curriculars; providing the most localized data set you can have to continue to operate in-person.
∙ Giving an opportunity to take an adaptive pause (if needed) at a specific building vs. an entire HS or MS level.
∙ Disposal process of the vials at the lab.
∙ Any scale of concerns over the number of new districts being added to do surveillance testing?
∙ Consent process and deadlines.
∙ Overview of the testing process – collection of saliva sample options to consider.
∙ Role of the local health department, notification, and contact tracing in the process.
∙ Participation in testing will be voluntary.
∙ If a student or staff member has been COVID positive in the last 90 days, there is no need to participate in surveillance testing.
∙ Percentage of students that has been identified as COVID positive.
∙ Exclusion tree referenced by IDPH and isolation option.
∙ Staff time and identified staff designated to assist in the process – health services staff will play a key role.
∙ Prepping of test kits and use of volunteers.
∙ Anticipated participation rate for surveillance testing.
∙ The anticipated expense per month for the number of students expected to provide samples.
∙ Expecting the incident rate to be less than 1% for this testing.
∙ Is there a threshold set where the District would change the learning environment?
∙ Are there other things that this money could be spent on?
∙ Will this assist in the process of a return to full-time in-person learning?
∙ Guidance has not been relaxed from the local health department in terms of the definition of physical distancing requirements (currently six feet).
∙ Any sense of teacher participation in surveillance testing?
∙ The possibility of offering the opt-in for surveillance testing to students that are of higher needs and may have trouble with physical distancing.
∙ The District is cognizant of data security/privacy issues and has to handle personally identifiable information all of the time for students and staff.
∙ A dollar spent to stay open and keep kids in school is an important dollar spent.
∙ Any impact on the structural ability to balance a budget next year in FY 22?
∙ Contact tracing challenges at the MS and HS level and the potential benefit of this testing helping with that in the long run.
*The presentation continued with Data Review and Teaching & Learning Updates before voting on surveillance testing since the two items are related.
It was recommended that the Board of Education approve and authorize the Superintendent to sign the Services Agreement for COVID 19 surveillance testing with Safeguard Surveillance LLC, substantially in the form presented by the Superintendent and subject to final approval by the Board’s attorney and Superintendent.
MOTION
Member Booton moved, Member Crabtree seconded that the Board of Education approve and authorize the Superintendent to sign the Services Agreement for COVID 19 surveillance testing with Safeguard Surveillance LLC, substantially in the form presented by the Superintendent and subject to final approval by the Board’s attorney and Superintendent. Upon a roll call being taken, the vote was: AYE 6 (Booton, Crabtree, Hanlon, Long, Paulsen, Ericksen), NAY 1 (Mathieson). The motion carried 6-1.
*Update on COVID-19 Dashboard and Return to Hybrid Plan
The 2020-2021 school year resumed on September 1st, consistent with adjustments that were made to the District 200 Reopening Plan on August 14th. Elementary students began the school year with the option of in-person instruction on a modified day or the Virtual Academy. Middle and High School students started the year remotely. Beginning October 13th, middle and high school students began the transition back to the hybrid model. On November 16th, we began an Adaptive Pause at the middle and high schools with a scheduled update at the December 9th Board Meeting.
On December 9th, three options were identified for a return to in-person learning through the hybrid plans at the middle and high school. The options were identified in the presentation from the December 9th Board Meeting, which was attached to the board report. Following an update on the local metrics, Board Members discussed the options for a return to the in-person hybrid plans for middle and high school students and staff. The update included the following:
∙ County Rates (as of December 7, 2020)
o DuPage COVID-19 School Metrics
∙ County Rates (as of December 14, 2020)
∙ Local Data for D200 area zip codes (from Northwestern website)
o Weekly New Case Rate per 100,000 Population
o Rolling Average 7-Day COVID Positivity Rate
o Rolling Average Number of COVID Cases Per Day
o Daily Totals Over the Last Week
∙ Case or Outbreak Activity
o EC/Elementary
o 4,004 in-person students
∙ Staff Absences
o Staff required to be out due to quarantine, isolation, child care, or waiting test results for themselves or family member – by week
∙ Start Date Recommendation (Grades 6-12)
o Monday, January 11, 2021
∙ Teaching and Learning Updates
o Hybrid Learning Priorities
▪ Focus - Provide live instructional supports for all students daily
▪ Focus - Provide a live connection with teachers and peers daily
▪ When students return to in-person learning, live streaming will be added to increase daily live instructional supports and connections for students on their at-home days and when in quarantine.
o Example Lesson Using Live Streaming as an Enhancement
▪ Daily lesson design will vary depending on the objectives and content
o Hybrid Learning Priorities to Maintain
▪ Hybrid priorities to maintain with a return to in-person learning
▪ Lesson design with the live streaming enhancement
o Hybrid Learning Priorities to Increase
▪ Hybrid priorities to strengthen with a return to in-person learning
▪ Using live streaming to strengthen these priorities
o Implementation Plan
▪ December
∙ set up equipment in all classrooms
▪ January
∙ technical training on how to use equipment
∙ professional learning on enhancing instruction with live streaming
∙ practice using the technology with students in the classroom and at home
∙ prepare students for the new instructional model
∙ phase-in with full implementation by February 1 (the first day of the second semester) recommended
o Additional Considerations
▪ Stakeholder surveys
▪ Exploring additional opportunities for secondary students to access personalized supports daily from teachers
▪ Analysis of the MS Virtual Academy schedule for long-term consistency
o Start Date Recommendation (Grades 6-12)
▪ Monday, January 11, 2021
There was additional information provided on the following:
∙ Metrics have held steady since the December 9 board meeting.
∙ Quarantine numbers have been maintained, even in the two weeks following the Thanksgiving break.
∙ Efforts that are underway that will continue to address substitute needs/coverage.
∙ The recommended start date (January 11) gives the district time to implement surveillance testing.
∙ Integrating live streaming as an enhancement to a model requires some shifts in instructional design and delivery.
∙ Learning needs to be designed so it promotes active learning and avoids passive watching of a lesson on a live video call.
∙ Prioritize video calls for supports, collaboration, and connections.
∙ Use digital tools to deliver content, collaborate, assess, and provide feedback.
∙ The use of live streaming to provide more structure and organization for our students, allow teachers to support student learning each day, strengthen the classroom community with real-time activities, and collaboration between all students.
There were questions/comments/discussion on the following:
∙ The District has all of the necessary equipment to support the recommendation.
∙ Virtual Academy – students are taught by a different group of teachers.
∙ A communication has recently been sent out to all secondary families relative to choice (in-person vs. remote learning for the second semester).
∙ VA students would not participate in surveillance testing.
∙ Working on a solution to the issue of when hybrid resumes, how will the synchronous schedule of instruction be impacted for VA students?
∙ Members of the Teaching and Learning Committee had an opportunity to visit WNHS and see the autonomy of different set-ups of live streaming, and how they are using the time. Impressed by the teachers’ agility. The staff has adapted their style to create the best experience they can.
∙ The plan for the Teaching and Learning Committee to visit more schools.
∙ Staff concern over lunch taking place at the HS and MS level?
∙ The idea for a little touchpoint to be sent every week to staff on focused targets that we are seeking information on – this would be a way for the Board to continue to hear on this process.
∙ Not giving up until we get all students back in school full-time.
∙ Asynchronous work – how can we make this more meaningful?
∙ The need to find ways to work together to carry out our respective roles.
∙ D200 is one of the few school districts to have a consistent in-person elementary program since September.
∙ We are going to be in a constant state of change through the pandemic. The need to remain flexible and adapt.
∙ The need to provide hope to students, families, and staff.
It was recommended that the Board of Education set the return date for in-person hybrid plans for middle and high school students and staff as of January 11, 2021.
MOTION
Member Hanlon moved, Member Long seconded to set the return date for in-person hybrid plans for middle and high school students and staff as January 11, 2021, as presented. Upon a roll call being taken, the vote was: AYE 7, NAY 0.
The motion carried 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
There being no further business to come before the Board in Open Session, Member Crabtree moved, Member Booton seconded to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice call being taken, all were in favor and the motion carried 7-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 PM.
https://www.cusd200.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=22857&dataid=34329&FileName=Minutes%20Dec%2015%202020.pdf
Alerts Sign-up