►
From YouTube: Fargo and West Fargo School Boards - Special Meeting
Description
Fargo and West Fargo School Boards - Special Meeting - LRE-Behavior Task Force
A
I
would
like
to
call
the
special
meeting
to
order
the
joint
meeting
of
the
Fargo
and
West
Fargo
school
boards.
It
is
Tuesday
January
22nd
at
4
p.m.
and
right
now,
I
would
like
to
call
to
the
podium
dr.,
David
flowers.
He
will
be
giving
us
a
presentation
on
the
LRE
behavior
task
force
recommendations
and
following
his
presentation
we
will
have
opportunity
for
discussions
and
questions.
Thank
you
all
for
being
here.
Thank.
B
So
I
have
completed
a
complete
report,
which
is
over
30
pages,
as
well
as
an
executive,
summary
and
I'll
further
condense
that
this
evening
into
a
PowerPoint,
but
I
think
that
the
audience
and
the
board's
also
have
the
executive
summary
as
well
as
the
complete
report.
So
just
know
that
I
am
trying
to
synthesize
the
work
of
you
know
12
hours
and
some
of
that
work
away
from
the
the
meetings,
also
in
the
form
of
study
and
readings.
B
Look
at
how
our
children
are
currently
being
served,
look
at
different
types
of
services
and
supports
and
curriculum
needs
to
support
students
with
behavior
needs
reach
consensus
on
critical
attributes
of
desired
programming
and
services.
In
other
words,
if
we're
going
to
add
any
kind
of
a
program
or
service
on
the
continuum
of
services
than
what
should
be
its
ingredients
or
specifications
and
then
reach
consensus
on
the
most
conceivable
configurations
for
our
community
and
region.
B
B
There
were
over
50
members,
not
all
of
them
were
voting
members,
but
they
represented
a
range
of
stakeholders,
including
school
board,
members,
legislators,
parents,
administrators
teachers,
community
members
and
advocates
and
service
providers,
those
that
were
not
voting
members
some
were
actually
you
know
in
the
room
as
as
resources,
and
you
shared
in
the
discussions
and
provided
information,
we
met
on
the
six
dates.
Originally,
the
work
was
outlined
to
occur
in
five
meetings,
but
the
process
evolved
and
task
force.
B
Members
requested
other
steps
and
processes
that
extended
the
the
need
to
go
another
meeting
to
complete
the
group's
work.
This
was
the
original
outline
of
work
that
the
task
force
was
done,
that
this
is
where
I
came
in
and
started
to
try
to
chunk
out
the
work
of
the
group.
How
will
we
meet
the
charge?
What
processes,
what
activities
will
be
most
appropriate
in
order
to
meet
the
the
charge
of
the
group?
B
So
that
included,
introductions
and
understanding
the
purpose
and
identifying
the
problem
that
the
task
force
was
addressing
and
establishing
norms
and
agreeing
to
a
process
to
use
in
order
to
study
the
issues
in
terms
of
solutions
and
brainstorming.
We
did
work
first
on
critical
attributes
and
reached
consensus
on
that,
and
then
we
were
to
evaluate
and
rank
those
critical
attributes
and
we'll
go
into
a
little
bit
of
detail
there
so
that
you
know
what
the
critical
attributes
are
and
how
they
were
valued,
relatively
speaking
by
the
task
force.
B
And
then
we
moved
to
looking
at
the
configurations
and
looking
at
the
pros
and
cons
again.
The
steering
committee
gave
an
initial
list
of
potential
configurations
that
was
added
to
by
the
task
force.
They
were
given
the
opportunity
to
think
of
anything
else
that
the
steering
committee
hasn't
thought
of.
B
That
might
be
a
viable
configuration
that
should
be
studied,
and
the
group
was
to
determine
the
pros
and
cons
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
and,
as
you'll
see
actually
also
to
look
at
the
potential
alignment
between
a
potential
configuration
and
the
critical
attributes
that
the
group
drafted
and
then
to
make
advisory
recommendations.
Regarding
the
attributes
and
the
potential
top
two
or
three
models
again
advisory
recommendations,
so
starting
on
that
far
left
box
at
the
first
meeting
of
the
group,
looked
at
norms
and
they
I'll
not
read
these.
They
decided
that
these
would
be
the
norms.
B
These
were
suggested
up
front
by
the
steering
committee
and
the
group
had
the
opportunity
to
add
to
or
adjust
the
norms
as
they
saw
fit.
We
did
decide
I'll
focus
just
for
a
minute
on
the
norm
of
consensus
being
80%
or
greater
and
I
outlined
for
them
that
to
determine
the
degree
of
consensus,
we
would
use
potentially
a
couple
of
different
processes,
one
the
low
tech
fist
to
five
model.
B
Okay,
much
of
the
time
we
were
able
to
use
response
software
clickers
so
that
we
could
register
immediately
and
know
you
know
the
consensus
or
the
degree
thereof
in
the
group.
This
is
an
important
point.
You
know,
because
part
of
the
charge
was
to
try
to
reach
consensus
and
that's
difficult
with
50
people
in
in
the
room.
So
we
had
to
have
a
plan
up
front
under
the
norms
for
how
we
would
we
would
do
this
so
that
that
was
the
first
part
of
the
process.
B
The
first
meeting
was
organizational
and
establishing
those
norms
and
reaching
some
consensus
on
the
process,
and
they
were
supportive
of
what
we
outlined
as
a
process
at
that
first
meeting.
So
they
also
needed
to
understand
the
current
services
couple
things
that
happened
to
do
that.
John
Porter,
who
is
the
director
of
the
regional
special
ed
co-op,
gave
an
overview
of
what
services
are
being
delivered
now
in
special
education.
What's
what
is
the
continuum
looked
like?
B
Currently,
this
is
from
the
State
Department
DPI
handbook
and
website,
so
that
we
know
what
we're
talking
about
here
and
how
children,
with
with
any
kinds
of
needs
along
the
continuum,
but
this
group
was
focused
on
the
least
restrictive
environment
for
behavior
needs.
So
you
see
that
a
level
a
is
where
students
are
inside
the
regular
classroom.
B
Eighty
percent
of
the
day
and
a
level
B
there
inside
the
regular
class,
no
more
than
79
percent
and
less
than
forty
percent
of
the
day
and
level
C
is
inside
the
regular
class
for
less
than
forty
percent
of
the
day
and
then
level
D,
which
does
not
exist
for
elementary
children
in
either
the
student
to
school
districts.
Nor,
to
my
knowledge,
in
the
state
and
I
would
tell
you
also
that,
in
addition
to
the
members
of
the
task
force
that
were
in
the
room,
dpi
was
participating
as
well
by
Skype
they
were.
B
B
It
became
a
point
that
had
to
be
clarified
at
one
point
during
the
work
of
the
task
force,
because
when
we
said
that
there
was
no
level
D,
the
point
was
raised
that
there
is
a
program
currently
at
Agassiz
right
now
for
middle
level,
where
the
students
are
more
restricted
than
in
a
traditional
level.
C.
B
We
made
it
clear
that
the
earlier
statements
were
regarding
elementary
programs
and,
of
course,
each
district,
either
independently
or
collectively.
We
need
to
decide
whether
it
will
ever
be
necessary
to
live
to
add
a
level
of
services
and
what
great
range
of
students
might
be
served
in
that
program.
B
So
the
next
step
that
the
group
tackled
was
to
talk
about
critical
attributes.
In
other
words,
if
we
are
going
to
consider
adding
a
program
in
the
continuum
of
services,
then
what
are
the
specifications?
What
what
does
this
group
that's
taking
a
deeper
dive
into
this
issue
than
any
other
lai-lay
group
in
our
community?
What
do
they
think
are
the
most
critical
attributes?
What
elements
should
be
heavily
considered
to
make
sure
that
they
are
a
part
of
such
a
program,
so
we
gave
them
a
prompt.
B
So
there
were
ten
curriculum
goals
and
transitions,
environment
and
culture,
social,
emotional
learning,
and
each
of
these
has
a
definition,
as
you
saw
in
the
report,
parent
and
family
engagement,
community
partners,
safety
and
appropriate
space
budget
sustainability,
staff,
training,
professional
development,
best
practices
and
relationships.
So
you
see
an
example
here
of
the
definition
for
one
of
the
those
attributes,
and
that
is
social-emotional
learning.
The
program
must
provide
a
mental
health
based
curriculum
that
supports
social
and
emotional
learning
and
trauma-informed
and
culturally
responsive
practices.
B
Each
of
these
went
through
some
wordsmithing
by
the
whole
group,
I
distilled
the
input
for
the
initial
wording,
and
then
they
had
the
opportunity
at
a
subsequent
meeting
to
further
wordsmith
it
and
and
clarify
and
share
perspectives
and
advocate
for
certain
words
being
included
or
not
so,
I
feel
pretty
confident
that
these
attributes
now
represent
a
consensus
of
the
group
and
you'll
see
that
they
had
the
opportunity
to
show
to
what
degree
they
had
consensus.
So
for
each
of
those
attributes,
then,
for
example,
this
is
the
first
one.
B
I
am
going
to
read
this
to
you,
academic
goals
and
transitions.
So
if
it's
just
a
heading-
and
what
does
that
mean?
Well,
they
said
that
means
that
the
program
must
identify
and
address
the
individual,
academic,
social
and
emotional
needs
of
each
child
and
monitor
progress
on
the
needs
that
made
a
more
restrictive
placement
appropriate
with
clear
and
frequent
monitored
goals
and
criteria
for
returning
to
a
restrictive
environment.
B
So
that's
an
example
of
the
give-and-take
that
happened
to
arrive
at
the
wording
that
you
see
in
front
of
you
in
the
final
report,
and
then
they
had
the
opportunity
to
express
to
what
degree
they
valued
this
attribute
being
passed
on
this
evening.
So
here's
an
example
for
that
first,
one
so
by
the
definition
of
the
group.
I
would
say
that
was
strong
consensus.
B
They
were
asked
the
question:
here's
the
statement
that
we
came
up
with
this
is
an
important
critical
attribute,
strongly
agree
to
strongly
disagree,
and
you
can
see
that
90
percent
because
of
rounding
that
adds
up
to
101,
but
the
rounding
that
the
software
does
so
a
couple
more
examples:
environment,
culture
and
climate.
The
program
must
create
and
sustain
a
safe
calm
and
welcoming
environment,
based
on
a
culture
of
trust,
respect
and
empathy
informed
by
knowledge
of
each
child's
background
and
individual
needs
again
very
strong
consensus.
B
So
each
of
these
here's,
the
social
and
emotional
learning
you
already
saw
the
definition
of
that
there's
a
level
of
consensus
on
that
one
being
an
important
attribute,
so
they
were
engaged
in
a
couple
processes
then
so
that
you
as
board
members
and
the
staff
that
might
need
to
process
the
input
of
this
group
could
better
understand
collectively,
where
they
were
about
the
relative
value
and
importance.
All
of
them
were
deemed
important,
but
we
could
we
forced
them
to
just
tell
us
all
right,
which
ones
are
really
the
most
important.
B
If
you
had
to
decide
so,
they
were
asked,
first
of
all,
to
rank
them
one,
two,
ten.
What's
the
first,
the
most
important
and
what's
the
least
important-
and
you
know
you
can
come
up
with
a
ranking
based
on
the
numbers
that
you
see
here,
but
we
asked
them
to
take
another
step
as
well,
so
that
we'd
have
multiple
measures
of
their
values
and
that
was
called
a
forced
choice
process.
You've,
never
done
that.
It's
kind
of
mind
wrenching,
because
you're
forced
to
compare
one
against
together.
B
So
you
can
see
that
the
academic
goals
and
transitions
ranked
first
and
fourth
for
most
of
these,
you
see
them
shaded,
green,
because
they're,
the
ones
that
are
shaded
in
green
in
both
columns
were
in
the
top
five
in
both
and
pretty
close
on
the
others.
So
we
ultimately
came
up
with
with
this.
That
has
the
statement
to
the
right,
of
course,
that
each
attribute
generated
was
deemed
important.
B
But
if
you
really
want
to
know
what
are
the
top
five
and
the
five
that
are
a
little
less
valued
if
they're
forced
to
choose,
then
this
chart
shows
that
so
the
top
five
are
that
academic
goals
and
transitions,
the
environment,
culture
and
climate,
the
social-emotional
learning
safety
and
appropriate
space
in
the
staff,
training
and
professional
development,
and
then
on
the
next
slide.
You
see
the
next
five
again
all-important,
but
relatively
speaking,
I
made
a
point
a
place
or
two
in
the
written
report
about
number
seven
budget
and
sustainability.
B
I
suspect
that
if
the
school
board
did
the
forest
choice
ranking
that
budget
in
sustainability
would
would
rank
higher.
Ultimately,
the
board
or
the
boards
will
have
to
weigh
that
one
very
very
carefully.
What
what
will
this
cost
and
if,
if
it
is
decided
ever
to
add
a
more
restrictive
environment,
what
would
it
cost
and
is
a
sustainable?
So
next
we
ask
them
all
right.
You've
told
us
that
these
attributes
are
critically
important
to
be
included
in
any
additional
program.
B
The
point
was
raised
if,
in
a
number
of
instances,
that
these
attributes
really
should
be
weighed
and
considered
for
all
of
our
programming
that
we
should
be
evaluating.
How
are
we
doing
now,
so
we
gave
them
the
opportunity
to
tell
us
how
do
you
think
we're
doing
on
each
of
these,
so
we
gave
them
this
rubric
and
asked
them
to
weigh
in
on
each
of
the
attributes.
So
the
continuum
is
this
is
an
attribute
of
significant
strengths
in
the
way
we're
currently
offering
our
program
programs
on
our
current
continuum
of
services.
B
This
is
an
attribute
where
some
improvement
is
needed
or
significant
attention
to
improving
this
attribute
is
needed
or
at
the
bottom
of
the
scale.
This
attribute
is
simply
absent
to
any
perceptible
or
desirable
degree,
so
they
evaluated
all
ten
of
those
attributes
and
each
of
them
that
remember
this
is
a
collective
group
coming
from
different
perspectives,
different
stakeholder
groups,
even
different
districts,
so
what
frame
of
reference
they
had
in
their
mind?
Were
they
thinking
of
the
Fargo
district
or
the
West
Fargo
district
or
one
of
the
rural
districts,
or
were
they
trying
to
think
collectively?
B
B
You
can
see
that
over
half
thought
that
that
was
an
area
that
needed
significant
attention
and
I
suspect
that
it
was
the
area
of
in
the
definition
that
knowing
how
a
child
gets
into
the
program
and
how
they
might
get
into
a
less
restrictive
environment
is
the
area
that
that
many
were
thinking
needs
needs.
Strengthening.
B
The
social
emotional
learning
showed
this
pattern
again
well
over
fifty
percent,
only
a
little
less
only
thirty,
nine
percent
thought
that
it
just
needed
a
little
bit
of
improvement
or
was
a
strength.
So,
to
summarize,
the
work
on
the
attributes
again
to
review
all
of
the
attributes
should
be
considered
important
and
a
value
that,
based
on
the
perception
of
the
task
for
only
three
of
these
attributes,
were
seen
as
strengths
and
those
were
attribute
to
environment,
culture
and
climate,
attribute
nine
best
practices
and
attribute
ten
relationships.
B
All
of
the
attributes
have
needed
improvement
and
some
of
them
need
over.
Sixty
percent
said
that
they
needed
significant
improvement,
always
not
in
place
to
any
significant
degree
and
those
were
social,
emotional
learning,
parent
family
engagement,
community
partnerships,
safety
and
appropriate
space
and
staff
training
and
professional
development
and
I'm
sure
that
that
mixed
in
with
with
those
perceptions,
were
concerns
about
child
and
and
staff
safety
and
and
all
of
those
elements
that
that
we
know
have
been
in
concerns
that
that
generated
some
of
the
need
for
the
task
force
to
do
its
work
at
all.
B
So
the
next
phase,
then
after
we
had
done
the
attributes,
was
to
actually
begin
to
analyze
the
the
potential
configurations,
the
list
a
through
G,
where
ones
that
were
conceived
by
the
by
the
steering
committee.
You
know
as
they
brainstormed
and
and
handed
off
to
the
committee,
but
here's
what
we've
thought
of
as
potential
configurations,
both
within
an
individual
district
and
those
that
might
be
collaborative
'z.
B
That
would
engage
more
than
one
district
and
then,
at
the
request
of
task
force
members,
they
added
configuration
h,
which
was
don't
make
any
additional
programs
at
a
level
d
or
above
work
on
improving
levels
a
through
c
and
do
nothing
in
terms
of
additional
programs.
So
they
wanted
to
evaluate
and
talk
about
that
one
as
well.
So
the
the
format
was
what
you
see
on
the
right
there.
B
We
were
to
look
at
each
of
these
talked
about
the
pros
and
cons
and
and
then
ultimately
determined.
To
what
degree
do
these
various
configurations
have
the
potential
to
deliver
on
the
critical
attributes
that
the
task
force
came
up
with,
so
that
kind
of
a
paradigm
would
look
like
this.
You
know
with
the
configuration
have
no
or
a
very
minimal
chance
of
having
congruence
with
the
attributes
like
zero
to
two
of
the
attributes
and
so
forth.
B
So
conceptually
it
might
look
like
these
next
two
diagrams
within
dive-in
diagrams
that
there's
very
little
overlap
there
between
the
the
proposed
configuration
or
delivery
model
and
and
the
ability
to
address
the
critical
attributes
in
this
one
there's
a
little
bit
more
overlap.
So
they
were
able
to
talk
about
the
pros
and
cons
one
by
one
at
their
tables.
They
talked
about
pros
and
cons
of
each
configuration.
Then
they
shared
with
the
whole
group.
B
The
process
that
we
use
with
for
a
given
configuration
one
table
would
be
on
point.
They
would
be
the
recorder
for
that
particular
configuration
of
recording
their
own
and
then
listening
as
we
shared
out
in
the
large
group
for
any
additional
pros
and
cons
or
advantages.
Disadvantages
of
that
configuration.
B
So
you'll
find
in
the
final
report
an
analysis
of
pros
and
cons
for
every
one
of
those
configurations
A
through
H,
but
we
then,
after
they
were
able
to
talk
about
them,
to
share
the
pros
and
cons,
discuss
them
in
detail.
Then
we
did
go
to
the
response
software
and
we
asked
them
all
right
using
this
kind
of
model.
What's
the
degree
of
potential
congruence
for
that
particular
configuration,
and
you
see
the
summary
right
here
and,
and
you
don't
see
any
80
percents.
B
In
other
words,
there
was
no
configuration
that
just
left
off
the
page
that
that
people
said,
though
this
is
it
if
you
ever
consider
doing
a
more
restrictive
environment
and
here's
the
one
that
80%
of
this
group
representing
diverse
stakeholders
in
the
community.
Here's
the
one.
So
the
best
that
we
have
is
that
deep
analysis
that
they
did
and.
B
The
relative
ranking
of
each
configuration,
so
you
can
see
that
and
I'll
show
you
a
graphic
representation
of
each
of
these
here
in
a
minute,
but
the
top
three,
where
F
a
special
program
at
a
regional
center
detached
from
a
district
building.
In
other
words,
it's
a
separate
building
to
a
special
program
within
the
district
attached
to
a
district
building
and
G.
A
special
program
contracted
with
an
outside
agency.
C
B
Just
for
clarification,
C
would
be
a
program
within
a
district,
so
each
district
would
be
kind
of
on
their
own.
That's
not
one
that
would
be
collaborative
F
would
be
so
you
can
see
a
graphic
representation
in
the
report,
but
I've
only
summarized
in
this
PowerPoint,
the
three
top
ones.
So
we
tried
to
represent
graphically
what
this
conceptually.
So
this
is
F
a
special
program
at
a
regional
center
detached
from
a
district
building.
B
So
you
see
it's
represented
as
a
separate
oval
within
district,
a
and
there's
no
intention
here
by
the
the
proximity,
the
location
or
the
size
of
these
shapes
to
depict
which
district
or
districts
these
might
be,
but
conceptually
district
a
would
be
the
host
of
this
program,
and
this
is
a
regional
center.
It's
not
connected
to
a
building.
B
C
B
Is
the
rubric
again,
we
asked
them
to
evaluate
it
and
you
can
see
that
there
was.
There
was
real,
pretty
strong
even
on
the
bottom,
that
no
I
don't
think
the
configuration
match
is
very
good,
but
this
is
the
best
that
you
get
a
23%.
That
said
that
it's
very
significant
potential,
eight
or
more
are
the
attributes
and
and
then
60%
significant
congruence
and
then
moderate
congruence
at
ten
percent.
So
you
add
those
up,
and
there
were
some
of
these-
that
tied
back
in
the
chart.
I'll
go
back
to
that
for
just
a
second.
B
Then,
for
the
for
this
particular
configuration
the
special
program
at
a
regional
center
detached
from
a
district
building.
As
for
every
one
of
these
configurations,
you
see
the
group's
work,
providing
you
with
advantages
and
disadvantages,
and
again
you
don't
see
any
of
these,
where
oh
it
it's
obvious.
It's
just
way
outweighs
the
you
know
the
the
pros
way
outweigh
the
the
cons
didn't
happen.
There
are
advantages
and
disadvantages
to
each
of
these
configurations,
so
this
says
it's
a
tough
topic.
B
It's
a
tough
issue,
but
again
and
I'll
not
go
into
the
detail
of
reading
these
to
you
because
they're
all
in
the
final
report,
but
but
you
do
see
that
the
group
provides
you
with
lots
of
data
about
each
of
these.
The
second
highest
ranked
one
was
a
special
program
within
the
district
attached
to
a
district
building,
and
the
task
force
was
a
very
understanding
and
clear
of
this
in
the
boards
need
to
be
as
well
here
we're
talking
about
each
district
being
on
their
own.
B
So
this
is
not
a
program
that
district,
a
B
and
C
could
send
their
children
to
in
district
a
like
the
previous
one.
This
one
would
be
each
district
deciding
do.
We
have
a
need
for
such
a
more
restrictive
program
in
our
district
and,
if
so,
the
task
force
that
studied
this
said
that
in
such
a
circumstance,
the
best
thing
would
be
for
it
to
be
attached
to
an
existing
building.
B
B
You
see
that
it
was
forty
percent
in
the
significant
category
and
then,
when
you
had
the
thirty
percent,
it
was
pretty
high.
Actually,
if
you
look
at
the
the
middle
category
through
the
top
category
and
again
this
one,
when
you
look
at
the
list,
it
looks
like
there
are
more
disadvantages
than
advantages,
but-
and
you
see
that
the
group
members
had
in
mind
the
idea
that
if
this
is
a
program
attached
to
an
existing
building,
that
it
still
needs
to
be
planned
carefully,
it
needs
to
be
available
space
either.
B
That's
available
or
that
could
be
built
on
so
that
you
could
do
things
like
have
specific
space
for
community
partners
that
there
would
be
room
for
that
to
happen
you
you
could
remodel
and/or,
build
it
from
scratch
to
make
sure
that
it
was
specially
designed
for
safety.
Remember
one
of
the
first
things
also
that
the
task
force
did
was.
B
So
again,
this
one
would
be
a
regional
center.
The
school
district
or
districts
would
not
run
it.
The
outside
agency
would
run
it
and
it
would
have
you
know
a
specific.
You
know.
Mental
health
services
focus
and
the
school
districts
would
of
course,
contribute
to
and
participate
in
the
design
of
the
curricular
piece,
but
this
one
would
be
one
actually
operated
by
probably
a
mental
health
provider
entity.
B
And
this
one
had
some
strong
on
the
on
the
bottom
end
of
the
scale,
but
then
relatively
strong.
On
the
other
end,
as
well
and
again,
the
group
provided
pros
and
cons
of
this
particular
configuration,
and
you
can
see
that
they
were.
They
were
looking
at
things
like
it
being
highly
specialized
and
individualized.
You
know
having
a
strong
focus
on
on
mental
health
needs
and
strong
collaborations
among
educators,
behavioral
and
mental
health
services.
C
B
That's
an
overview
of
the
work
that
the
group
did
I'm
going
to
give
you
some
final
observations
and
recommendations
that
were
synthesized
from
all
of
that
work.
First
of
all
on
the
critical
attributes,
I
think
that
should
be
considered
to
share
these
widely
among
staff
and
use
them
as
guidelines
for
evaluating
current
programming
within
each
district.
As
I
said
earlier,
that
was
collective.
There
were
participants
from
many
stakeholder
perspectives
and
different
districts,
so
maybe
a
deeper
dive
within
each
district.
How
are
we
doing
on
this?
B
Let's,
let's
talk
about
these
attributes
and
where
can
we
improve
and
what
do
they
mean
use
them
also
as
a
framework
for
professional
development
and
program
improvement
and
use
them
as
specifications?
Certainly,
if
there
is
consideration
of
adding
additional
programming
like
a
more
restrictive
program,
a
level
D
second
observation
or
recommendation
relates
to
the
configurations
and
delivery
models
and
locations
and
the
advice
there
is
if
the
districts
do
see
the
need
for
a
level
deeper
gram
than
consider
the
task
force's
analysis
of
the
pros
and
cons
of
each
of
these
consecutive
configurations.
B
Note
that
at
the
top
one
is
regional
and
the
other
is
isolated
within
a
district
so
collectively
and
individually.
The
districts
still
have
work
to
do
in
deciding
to
what
degree
is
such
programming
needed,
and
is
there
energy
and
commitment
to
collaborate
to
accomplish
that?
Or
would
we
do
it
on
our
own
as
individual
districts?
The
third
highest
ranked
configuration
that
contracting
with
an
outside
agency
would
require
a
very
strong
partner
and
there
were
suggestions
in
the
group
and
the
presence
of
members
of
the
group
that
would
be
I,
think
willing.
B
Partners
in
that
discussion
should
districts
decide
to
explore
that
further
and
then
the
fourth
configuration
remember
was
that
one
that
was
added
by
the
task
force
at
their
request,
which
was
don't
add
any
additional
program.
Take
these
attributes
and
improve
what
you're
doing
now
used
them.
As
the
previous
recommendations
suggested
for
professional
development
and
program
evaluations
so
forth
and
I
think
that
there
was,
there
was
a
consensus
that
yeah
that
needs
to
happen
regardless,
and
so
the
last
point
there
that
I
have
underlined
under
configurations.
B
B
Nevertheless,
as
I
as
I
observed
earlier,
it's
going
to
be
a
top
concern
with
the
group
at
the
table
now
and
then.
Finally,
just
move
carefully
in
implementation
of
a
more
restrictive
environment
level,
deep,
be
careful
about
the
needs
that
are
expressing
themselves
and
how
best
to
meet
those.
But
you
do
have
a
lot
of
data
and
input
from
this
group.
B
That
would
be
helpful
in
that
consideration.
The
last
thing
we
did
is
we
gave
them
an
opportunity
to
evaluate
the
process
and
they
were
asked
to
respond
to
this
rubric.
The
process
used
by
the
task
force
to
provide
advisory
input
was
appropriate,
given
the
size
of
the
group
and
the
complexity,
the
tasks
there
was
80%
consensus
on
that,
as
you
can
see
the
neutral
and
above,
if
you
were
doing
fist
to
five,
it
would
be
all
threes,
fours
and
and
fives,
and
then
we
asked
them
to
respond
to
this.
B
I
can
support
the
report
and
the
advisor
and
recommendations
that
would
be
shared
with
the
boards
and
again
less
strong
because
they
hadn't
seen
the
report
yet,
but
it
was
again
over
80%.
So
I
think
that
we
do
owe
this
group
of
debt
of
gratitude.
They
worked
hard.
It
was
tough
work
and
I
think
that
they
they
did
a
good
job.
With
this.
With
this
task
and
I'm
going
to
conclude,
formal
report
and
I
think
I'll
join
you
at
the
table
and
I
believe
next
thing
on
your
agenda
is
to
have
some
discussion.
B
I
would
certainly
be
prepared
to
answer
any
questions
about
the
process
or
the
report
itself.
If
the
discussion
leads
to
what
are
the
next
steps
and
those
kinds
of
things,
then
you
have
the
two
superintendent's
at
the
table
and
you
have
resources
behind
me
as
well
and
and
at
the
table
that
could
help
in
that
discussion.
I'll.
C
A
A
But
I
know
Fargo
Board
of
Education
has
a
meeting
starting
at
5:30,
and
we
have
a
few
blocks
to
walk
over
or
drive
over
to
that
location.
I
do
want
to
thank
all
of
the
community
members
that
were
involved
in
the
staff.
Definitely
as
dr.
flowers
you
mentioned.
No
other
group
on
the
community
has
studied
or
thought
as
deeply
about
these
issues
than
the
task
force.
No
other
collective
group
that
doesn't
mean
as
individuals
we
haven't
in
as
individual
school
districts
we
haven't,
but
collectively
it
was
wonderful
to
be
able
to
have
this
community
conversation.
A
D
This
is
for
Rupe,
hawk
and
Beth
right
now.
How
many
students
in
your
district
in
our
districts
do,
you
think,
would
qualify
for
a
Louisville,
D,
I've
tour
I've
toured
all
of
our
elementary
schools
in
West,
Fargo
and
I
have
seen
a
need
for
them
some
sort
of
a
facility
or
or
some
sort
of
a
program,
because
I've
I've
seen
one
school
where
the
principal
actually
gave
up
their
office,
because
if
a
student
has
been
disruptive,
so
I'm
just
curious
to
see
how
many
we're
gonna
collaborate
together.
E
Sure,
I'll
start
and
I
don't
want
to
not
be
able
to
give
a
number,
but
the
truth
is
that,
given
the
process
and
for
how
students
would
qualify
going
through
the
IEP
process,
it's
hard
to
say
I,
even
if
I
were
to
share
numbers
of
levels,
see
students
how
many
students
were
currently
in
our
level
C
program.
That
would
be
an
unfair
way
to
determine
how
many
potential
students
it
could
be
level
T,
because
we
have
students
that
are
in
that
program
that
need
to
be
in
that
program.
F
I
would
add
that
I
would
say
the
same
thing,
but
I
know
the
number
is
relatively
small:
it's
not
a
large
population,
but
we
have
students
who
are
moving
here
from
Minnesota
and
from
across
the
country
we're
a
level.
4
is
what
they
call
it,
that
is
written
in
their
IEP
and
we
don't
have
a
level
4
program.
F
So
when
we
came
into
this
process,
I
would
agree
with
superintendent
Gandhi
and
that
the
the
conversation
came,
because
we
have
students
who
are
having
struggles
in
a
C
and
are
now
candidates
for
residential,
and
that
is
out
of
our
city
in
our
region
at
the
elementary
level.
So
without
that,
let
that
level
of
service
that
was
our
focus
to
what
can
we
do
to
help
keep
those
students
in
our
district
and
in
our
schools?
F
So
the
conversation
moving
forward
would
be
really
looking
at
these
attributes
and
again
I
think
there
is
a
great
value
in
analyzing,
our
a
B
and
C.
Using
this
and
we've
talked
superintendent,
Gandhi
and
I
talked
about
that
as
being
our
very
next
step,
but
then
from
there
you
know
really
analyzing
what
those
numbers
are
and
the
parents
are
key,
as
well
as
the
IEP
team
and
making
those
decisions.
F
This
taskforce
was
not
set
up
to
make
decisions
for
other
people's
children.
It
was
set
up
to
look
at
attributes
that
we
would
want
to
ensure
in
all
of
our
districts
that
these
levels
are
being
addressed.
So
each
child
is
an
individual
with
an
individualized
plan
and
the
parent
and
that
team
make
the
decisions
for
that
individual
child.
G
Well,
I
do
have
a
question
because
I
hear
the
Karner
blue
is
in
the
report
and
that
that
was
looked
at
but
I
guess.
My
big
curiosity
is
what
other
level
D
besides
that
Karner
blue
other
than
the
one
in
Minnesota's
or
other
states
that
have
this
level
D.
That
has
been
looked
at
than
just
this
Karner
blue
I.
Guess
that's
my
question.
I.
F
Would
refer
to
maybe
our
special
education
director
there
are
other
programs
across
I
think
the
state
of
Minnesota,
specifically
in
other
states.
We
were
very
impressed
with
the
level
of
services
that
Karner
blue,
but
that
was
just
a
starting
point
to
kind
of
think
outside
the
box
of
what
we
have
done
here
in
West,
Fargo
and
Fargo.
Looking
at
what
some
other
models
are,
but
I
would
refer
to
our
both
our
special
ed
directors
on
other
programming
and
that
they've
seen.
H
So
collectively,
as
a
group
and
what
was
brought
to
here,
I
would
not
say
that
we
heard
from
a
plethora
we
heard
from
the
Fergus
Falls
area,
and
we
heard
from
Carter
Blue
I
can
tell
you
from
receiving
students
from
other
states
who
do
have
we'll
call
it
level
4
level
D.
Those
programs
do
exist
in
many
other
states
as
well.
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
talk
to
one
principal
just
a
little
bit
about
what
theirs
looks
like
and
we're
talking
from.
G
Was
my
question
because
if
everything
keeps
on
going
back
to
Karner,
blue
and
I
mean
if
that's
the
only
one
we're
looking,
you
know
what
I
mean,
not
that
that
was
my
question:
I
mean,
if
that's
you
know,
and
then
the
second
one
is
then
who
went
down
to
do
the
investigate
I
mean?
Was
it
psychology
folks
that
went
with
I
mean?
Was
it
artistic
professionals
that
went
with
I
mean
that
that's
my
big
yeah?
That's
another
part
of.
I
The
question
time
to
visit
and
to
observe,
but
we
also
would
include
it
at
the
next
level,
our
school
psychologist,
our
BCBA.
All
of
those
who
have
can
ask
the
right
questions
to
make
sure
we
develop
the
best
programming
to
go
forward
and
we
have
looked
at
programs
in
other
states
as
well,
including
like
Georgia.
I
E
I
can
chairman
one
thing
is
well
I
know
dr.
Cummings
reference
to
the
Fergus
Falls
Center,
that
was
from
Lakes,
Country,
Minnesota
and
I.
Think
one
thing
that
makes
districts
such
as
West,
Fargo
and
Fargo,
unique
in
our
metropolitan
area,
is
our
district
size.
So
when
we're
looking
at
comparable
services
in
other
states,
we're
not
necessarily
looking
at
what
other
districts
are
doing,
we're
looking
at
what
other
regions
are
doing
so
the
lakes
county
services
that
we
looked
at
and
presented
to
our
task
force
as
well.
E
They
serve
a
variety
of
districts
because
they
serve
a
large
group
of
smaller
school
districts,
not
districts
that
are
north
of
10,000
students,
each
so
I
think.
That's
why
we
sometimes
like
a
corner
blue,
because
Karner
blue
serves
a
larger
group
of
students
at
one
facility
coming
from
one
geographic
region.
G
One
more
question:
what
does
the
work
force
look
like
as
far
as
you
know,
psychology
mental
health
providers
I
mean
that
that's
going
to
be
a
huge
deal
with
with
everything
that
you
guys
have
done,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
doing
that.
But
I
just
want
to
know
what
the
you
know.
Work
force
doesn't
look
like
to
be
able
to
hire
more
of
these
professional
people
to
help
our
kids.
C
I
H
Schools,
like
psychology,
is
one
that
is
considered
across
the
state
of
North
Dakota
and
a
critical
shortage.
We
are
starting
to
see
the
effects
of
special
education
teachers
being
in
a
critical
shortage
as
well.
That's
one
of
the
things
that
we
talked
about
in
terms
of
even
looking
at
if
you
specialized
within
your
own
district.
Oh
you
could
pool
the
resources
that
you
have
into
a
particular
program
rather
than
seeing
it
spread
across
the
district.
So.
F
What
can
you
do?
Well,
what
are
the
barriers?
Why?
Why
are
we
struggling
with
a
funding?
Why
are
we
struggling
with
the
billing
and
having
those
conversations
with
our
legislators
and
with
these
agencies,
I
think
was
one
of
the
best
parts
of
the
the
conversation
and
a
very
good
use
of
our
time.
We
don't
have
eighty
percent
agreement
on
what
to
do,
but
we
do
know
that
now
that
we're
collaborating
people
don't
know
that
West,
Fargo
and
Fargo
are
already
collaborating.
We
came
from
a
me
before
this
meeting
talking
about
our
Career
and
Technical
Education.
F
H
Could
I
add
with
the
collaborating
with
the
community
and
within
Carlson
and
other
great
facilities,
the
Autism
Center?
The
collaboration
is
awesome
and
we
are
really
grateful
for
that.
We
still
have
to
remember
that
they're,
not
schools,
they're,
not
they're,
not
a
school
within
a
district
and
they
don't
have
the
educational
component.
So
even
partnering.
There
is
still
a
strain
on
our
district
on
our
districts
to
be
able
to
figure
out
these
successful
educational
programming
as
well.
What.
G
H
A
E
Oh
no
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
questions.
Real
quick,
I.
Think
one
of
our
struggles
is
so
the
name
of
the
task
force
was
the
LRE
behavior
task
force.
It's
because
under
special
education
law,
we
are
required
to
provide
the
child
with
the
least
restrictive
environment
and
what
that
means
is
outside
of
the
time
that's
in
the
dictated
by
their
IEP
for
their
special
education
services
that
they're
receiving.
E
We
still
have
to
provide
as
much
as
possible
their
general
education
services,
which
is
the
educational
aspect
of
everything
else
that
we
do
to
provide
for
all
children
within
our
district.
So
when
we
contract
with
great
individualized
specialized
services
such
as
an
Carlson
or
other
Autism
Center
that
specialize
in
that
one
service
that
meets
the
IEP
need
we're
still
lacking
the
rest
of
the
day
component,
based
on
that
student's,
IEP
requirement
and
what's
the
LRE
restrictions
that
they
have
on
providing
the
rest
of
their
Center.
E
J
J
It
is,
it
is
it.
We
know
the
advantages
of
contracting
third
party
services
and
the
depth
of
the
services,
but
I
think
there
was
a
misunderstanding
by
some
previous
to
this
task
force
that
we
would
employ
everybody
up
with
these
students
and
I
think
that's
very
important
to
underscore
I,
don't
I,
don't
personally
I,
don't
think
we
have
the
capability
to
do
that.
No
you're.
E
Know
I
think
she
had
the
right
assumption.
I
think
my
only
thing
would
be
Ellery
and
when
we
look
at
special
education
services,
it's
not
defined
by
a
physical
space,
it's
defined
by
time,
so
least
restrictive
environment
means
the
amount
of
time.
In
a
school
day,
a
child
received
special
education
services
versus
general
education
services
as
well.
So,
whatever
programs
that
we
develop
I,
think
one
of
the
main
critical
attributes
was
that
there
needs
to
be
a
clear
exit
strategy
and
fluidity
within
the
program
as
well.
E
So
we
want
to
be
able
to
provide
a
spectrum
of
services
starting
with
level
a
level
B
level,
see
that
all
of
our
students
can
progress
out
and
meet
their
needs,
but
it's
not
about
the
physical
location
that
will
dictate
what
type
of
service
it
is
is
about.
The
time
amount
of
time
the
student
spends
in
a
general
education
classroom
versus
when
they're
receiving
special
education
services
all.
A
Right
it's
5:00
p.m.
I
would
like
to
thank
everyone
for
their
additional
time
given
to
this
process
this
evening
and
wish
you
all
a
great
evening
again.
Thank
you
very
much,
I'm
sure
we
will
be
having
many
more
conversations
about
this
within
our
own
districts
and
possibly
together
thanks
again
meeting
adjourned.