4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Discussion: Agenda Item 13.2 Presentation: Discussion: ATTACHMENT 11 corrected so there may be some adjustments to the API's. Mr. Rallis pointed out som f the highlights including: · seven of our schools are above 900 API, all our schools continue to be 0 exemplary mark; · significant increase in number of students proficient or advanced' Igebra 1; · History/social science score improved significantly at grade 8 in science at grade 5; · more challenging levels of the California standards tests n by students. CST Summative Math numbers doubled; · increased number of students takin AP exams, AP scores continued to rise. Staff was asked what happens if we don't reach the ~ I goal by 2014. Mr. Rallis replied that if we do not meet the requirement, we go into an i vement plan. He also noted that they are making changes to the laws now and they are ing on the California modified assessment for an equivalent proficient or advanced. Th ta source book will be on the website once we have our final numbers. In the interim, ct Mr. Rallis to review a hard copy. Discussion included the importanc keep our schools equitable, the importance of rigor and relevance at all grades, and the' portance of preparing our students to do well when they leave our schools. Further discus' about the federal requirements and the goals that we set for our district in 2003. Our goal set higher than the federal standards. These targets drive us to look at our numbers a ook at how we are helping those students in our subgroups. The data source book provid information to evaluate how our students are performing. on seeing that the data is given to our teachers for both their incoming and outgoing s ents, that we need to be cautious on the effect to some students when we continue to raise bar, that we need to meet the needs of all students (not just those who are going on to col e), that we want all kids to be mentally and physically happy and ready to move on, that e the students the tools they need to succeed, and that we educate each and every ent. eport and Discussion on Scenarios for the City General Plan U ate Le Ie The Pleasanton City Council has requested input from the Board of Trustees regarding the three proposed development scenarios being considered for the General Plan Update under review. Details regarding the proposed scenarios, a map locating the proposed developments, information from the District's January 2006 demographer's report, and the projected impact of the three options on the schools that could be affected by this future development were provided to the Board. Janice Stem, principal planner with the City, was present. Ms. Lepley provided a blue-sheeted preferred plan option and reviewed the projected impact of the various scenarios. We have our demographers projected enrollment through 2009. When the impact is compared to the projected residential enrollments for 2009, it appears that overall capacity would be sufficient to house this potential student growth. This growth projection could change depending on the mix of housing that might ultimately be approved by the City Council due to the fact the current yields are significantly different for single family homes versus multi-unit attached. There is little known at this time about the anticipated yield factors for high density transit-oriented developments. Similar development in the South Bay has yielded minimal student enrollment. The City would appreciate hearing any of our comments, both positive and negative, on the im cts that we m. ht see. This item will come back at the next meetin for action. Comments included appreciating that the City is asking for our input on the General Plan, that it seems we will be able to accommodate any of the plans, that we need to be aware of the impact of the Alameda County land around us, and we need to monitor the transit-oriented developments. Other comments were that the north side of town may have more impact, we need to keep looking at our high school capacities and the balancing of those capacities, and, since the plans do not reflect any large lot single family homes being built, we may see more families moving into the attached housing. We will share with the Ci Liaison committee and will brin back to the next board meetin . DRAFT Minutes of the October 10, 2006, Regular Board Meeting Page 3 of 5 Approved by the Board of Trustees on _ 7.1 (3)