School Board of Alachua County again criticizes details of Strategic Plan, issues LGBTQ+ History Month proclamation, signals changes to book challenge procedure

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the October 1 School Board of Alachua County meeting, the board again declined to approve the Annual Implementation Plan that is part of the new Strategic Plan, issued an LGBTQ+ History Month proclamation, and decided to discuss changes to their book challenge process at a workshop.

Eastside High School performers

The Eastside High School Chorus and Theater programs presented several musical numbers, including this performance (rewind to see the previous songs):

ACEA Union Update

During the ACEA Union Updates agenda item, ACEA President Carmen Ward said the district had offered a Memorandum of Understanding to provide bonuses to teachers at Alachua Elementary, but the district denied those bonuses to teachers at Irby Elementary. The two schools serve the same zone, with Irby serving grades K-2 and Alachua Elementary serving grades 3-5. Ward said, “The correct place to fix [situations like this] is at the bargaining table, but as you know, we’re at an impasse.” A teacher from Irby also spoke about the issue during Citizen Input.

LGBTQ+ History Month proclamation

Member Sarah Rockwell read the LGBTQ+ History Month proclamation, resolving that Alachua County Public Schools join school districts and other entities across the nation in recognizing October 2024 as LGBTQ+ History Month. The proclamation was signed by Chair Diyonne McGraw and Superintendent Shane Andrew.

Annual Improvement Plan

The board considered approval of the Annual Improvement Plan, part of the Strategic Plan, for the second time; the Annual Improvement Plan contains the critical initiatives to be implemented in the first year of the plan. 

Chief of Teaching and Learning Jacquatte Rolle said the board had been given the Annual Implementation Plan, which breaks down those critical initiatives into action steps; the Implementation Plan was not attached to the meeting agenda available to the public. Rolle emphasized that the Implementation Plan is “fluid and may be adjusted as needed during implementation, therefore we are not seeking approval of the Implementation Plan.”

McGraw asked several times for a motion to approve the Annual Improvement Plan, but Rockwell and Member Kay Abbitt sat silently; Member Tina Certain was participating via Zoom, and Member Leanetta McNealy was absent.

Rolle proceeded with her presentation, with the intention of having each theme leader talk about the key measures and implementation plans for that theme.

The first theme was Teacher Recruitment & Retention, and Abbitt asked how the district would know if it met its goal of increasing the filled positions by 10% because no starting data was provided. She continued, “There’s not enough information… Increase the percentage of filled positions – based on what time? When are you going to do that?… And who’s included in that? Who are we including as teachers?”

Rockwell agreed, “In general, not specific to this critical initiative, but in general, the key measures don’t always link back clearly to the critical initiative.” She used an example of the Student Achievement objective: the key measures are “meet or exceed state averages on all required state assessments” and “meet or exceed state averages for high school graduation.”

Rockwell said, “Yes, that is the ultimate hope of all the work that we’re doing in academic achievement, but those measures don’t relate back to the key initiative of using multiple data sources effectively.” She said she understood that staff didn’t want the board to approve the Implementation Plan because then they would need to bring it back every time anything changed, but “you’re missing the entire route [between the critical initiative and the key measure]… And so they feel very disconnected and confusing… In addition to the key measures being disconnected from the critical initiatives, they aren’t specific and clear.” She said there were also typographical errors in the document, and “it’s just not ready for public consumption right now.”

McGraw said, “It sounds like we need a special meeting or something… We’re not going to vote on this tonight.” She said the board members should let staff know what needs to be changed.

Abbitt responded, “But we’ve said it – it’s not like we haven’t said it,” and McGraw said, “but evidently it’s still not getting… it’s still not resonating. So at this point, we need to pull it back.” Since there was no motion, she moved on to the next agenda item.

Book challenge procedure

After voting to approve a list of final orders on challenged books, new Staff Attorney Will Spillias suggested changing the procedure for challenging books, saying that in Leon County, “we just felt that the District Library Advisory Committee – there’s a parent on there, there’s a media specialist, there’s a teacher, there’s a principal. That’s where you kind of get into the books. If you have a hearing, it’s sort of an adversarial process, right? And if the board wants to go that way, I mean, that’s fine, but it’s not required by statute.”

Rockwell said, “I agree with streamlining the process. We’re spending a lot of resources, both human resources and financial resources, on these book challenges, resources that could be used to fund programs for our students.”

McGraw suggested having a discussion about the book challenge procedure at their monthly workshop at 9 a.m. on October 14.