Round Rock Leader Saturday, January 2, 2021 A5

Addie BroylesAustin 360 USA TODAY NETWORK

Not everybody's grandma made pizza, but if you have spent any time on Long Island, you might have heard of grandma pie.

This rustic, square pizza has origins at pizzerias in New York, some say as the easy-to-bake pie that res-taurants would bake for their staff. Others claim that this is the pizza that Italian immigrants would make either when they were in a hurry or didn't have an oven or a pizza peel. Most agree that the cheese goes on the dough first followed by the sauce and remain-ing toppings. No matter where the name came from or the specifics of how it's made, this style of pizza is a good option for baking at home when you're craving some-thing cozy and don't want to order takeout.

This recipe from "Open Kitchen: Inspired Food for Casual Gatherings" by Susan Spungen (Avery, $35) was originally sug-gested as a way to serve a small crowd at, say, a New Year's Eve party, but since we're cel-ebrating the new year during a pandemic, use this recipe as a way to make a meal for who-ever's in your pod and plan for leftovers.

If you heat up those leftover slices in a cast-iron skillet or a toaster oven, they might even be tastier than the day you made it. You could also use two differ-ent sets of toppings on each half of the pie to keep it varied.

Grandma Pie with Broccoli Rabe and Sausage

I first became acquainted with the Grandma Pie, a Long Island specialty, on one of my many trips back and forth between New York City and my place on the eastern end of Long Island. I love pizza, so I was always tempted to stop about halfway home for a slice. The pizza was pretty aver-age at this particular place, but still, it was pizza. One day they had grandma pie, and it was better than aver-age and exactly what I wanted — a nice neat car snack — not too saucy and crisp on the bottom. I continued to ask for it

on subsequent trips, but they rarely had it! A big pan of pizza is a great way to feed a family and have leftovers for the next day. If you have vegetarians, it’s easy to leave off the meat — you could substitute with well-roasted sliced shiitake mushrooms, which will lend a meat-less note of umami.

A note: Making pizza dough a day (or two) before you need it is not only convenient, but it also allows for a slow rise and a chance for fermentation, which equals flavor. If, how-ever, last-minute inspi-ration for pizza strikes,

you can skip the refrig-eration step and just let the dough rise until doubled at room tem-perature — it will take about 1 hour. You can also brown the sausage and cook the broccoli rabe ahead of time.

— Susan Spungen

For the dough:• 1 ½ teaspoons active dry yeast• 1 ½ cups warm water• 1 teaspoon sugar• 2 tablespoons olive oil, plus more for the bowl• 3 ½ cups all-purpose flour, plus more for kneading• 1 ½ teaspoons salt

For the pizza:• One 28-ounce can San Marzano tomatoes, drained and broken up (cores removed and liquid discarded or saved for another use)• 2 to 3 garlic cloves, chopped (1 heaping tablespoon)• ½ teaspoon dried oregano• 6 fresh basil leaves• ¾ teaspoon salt, plus more as needed• Red pepper flakes• 10 ounces (4 links) hot Italian pork sausage, removed from casings (optional)• 1 bunch broccoli rabe, thick stems removed• ¼ cup olive oil• 8 ounces fresh mozzarella cheese, sliced ¼-inch thick and torn

To make the dough: In a large liquid measuring cup, dissolve the yeast in the warm water. Stir in the sugar and oil. Combine the flour and salt in the bowl of a stand mixer fitted with the paddle attachment. Mix briefly to combine, then slowly pour in the yeast mixture on low speed until well combined. Mix for about 5 minutes on medium speed, until smooth. Use a bowl scraper to ease the dough into a ball, and transfer to a smaller well-oiled bowl. Turn it a few times to make sure the dough and the sides of the bowl are all well-oiled. Cover

tightly with plastic wrap and refrigerate overnight, or see note above about making it right away.

To make the pizza: In a medium bowl, combine thetomatoes, garlic, oregano, basil and salt and season with red pepper flakes. Set aside.Heat a large (12-inch) nonstick skillet over medium-high heat. Add the sausage and cook until no longer pink, breaking it up with a wooden spoon as it cooks, 6 to 8 minutes. Remove from the pan and set aside. Meanwhile, wash the broccoli rabe. Drain the broccoli rabe (but not very well; you want it to be dripping wet). Add it to the pan and increase the heat to high. Season lightly with salt and cover. Cook for 2 minutes, tossing once or twice. Remove with tongs to a plate and drain off any extra liquid.About 1 hour before you want to assemble the pizza, remove the dough from the refrigerator.Heat the oven to 500 degrees. If you have a pizza stone, place it on the bottom rack of the oven and preheat it, too. Pour the oil into a 13-inch-by-18-inch rimmed baking sheet and spread the dough in the pan. If it pulls back, cover with plastic wrap and let rest for 10 minutes. Spread the dough to fill the entire pan.

Sprinkle on the cheese, followed by the sauce, and then the broccoli rabe and sausage. Place on the pizza stone or bottom rack of the oven. Bake for 25 to 30 minutes, until crisp on the bottom and browned on the edges. Cut into squares and serve immedi-ately. Serves 8 to 10.

— From "Open Kitchen: Inspired Food for Casual Gatherings" by Susan Spungen (Avery, $35)

R E C I P E O F T H E W E E K

Sheet pan pizza recipe makes DIY pie easy

This pizza from “Open Kitchen” is topped with broccolini and sausage. [CONTRIBUTED BY GENTL AND HYERS]

“Open Kitchen” is a new cookbook from Susan Spungen. [CONTRIBUTED]

economically disadvan-taged seniors are currently considered college-ready, compared to 55% of all students.

The percentages of seniors who were consid-ered college-ready by the end of the fall semester declined from last year to this year across the board, however, African- American students saw the sharpest decline at 9%.

C u r r e n t l y , 5 5 % o f seniors show they are college-ready, compared to 61% of seniors during the fall of last year. The board’s goal is for 74% of students to be college-ready by the end of this year, though that goal was set before the pandemic.

Staff said the drop in college readiness is due in part to school closures and disruptions due to the pan-demic, including college entrance tests being can-celed or having the number of tests given limited.

Some trustees took issue with the way the data is presented because it does not distinguish if the students who are not considered college-ready have yet to take a college entrance test — possibly indicating that the reduced testing opportunities due to the pandemic are at fault for the decline — or if the student took a standard-ized test, but performed poorly.

“We are not used to having numbers that drop like this, but we’ve never had a pandemic,” said acting superintendent Daniel Presley. “The lack of opportunity to take a test, a kid who was planning on

going to college, who said ‘ah, I’m going to have to go to work because of finan-cial reasons,’ there are all kinds of social reasons and just personal reason why these numbers dropped.”

Presley said the problem is not unique to the Round Rock school district.

Trustee Cory Vessa asked Presley if the differ-ence in college readiness by campus could be explained by the different programs offered at each campus.

Presley said the demo-graphics of the campuses have more to do with the differences than the pro-gramming offered since each campus offers college readiness preparation and testing opportunities.

T r u s t e e T i f f a n i e Harrison pointed out that offering the same sup-ports at each campus is equality, but that does not guarantee equity. She said she wanted the dis-trict to start talking about what targeted support it can provide for struggling campuses.

T h i s y e a r , 8 2 % o f Westwood, 79% of Early College, 61% of Round Rock High School, 54% of McNeil, 43% of Cedar Ridge, 41% of Stony Point and 10% of Success High School seniors are consid-ered college-ready.

The board spoke with staff about current mea-sures used to increase college-readiness, includ-ing mentorship programs, school testing days, college exam preparation pro-grams, and more.

Harrison asked the staff to consider how they were targeting these practices to help students during the pandemic.

She also cautioned the district against solely focusing on students with-out working on the root

cause of the disparities. “When we are talking

about students from mar-ginalized populations, we are considering not always how to move the student, but how to move the system,” Harrison said. “I think our role as a district is to be looking about how the system is not serv-ing students. Let’s make sure we are not putting all of that on students and saying, ‘oh, you have to conform to fit this system that wasn’t really built for you.’”

Trustee Danielle Weston pointed out that the col-lege-readiness data is reflective of elementary school data.

“When I look at this data it is heartbreak,” Weston said. “But the time to start preparing for college, in reading and math, is not when you are a senior.”

Weston added that she doesn’t think she is the only person who is on the board because of that kind of data. Each of the four new trustees highlighted equity as on of their top issues during the election.

The board also expressed concern about disciplinary data. While the numbers are small due to fewer students being on campus because of the pandemic, board members worried that current data could indicate students in spe-cial education classes are being disproportionately disciplined. The board asked staff to look into past data to see if that has been a trend.

Presely said that with such a small number of students being punished, it will be possible for him to look into the circum-stances of each disciplinary action.

This fall, 0.6%, 14 of the 2,456, special education

students on campus were removed to in-school suspension, compared to 0.2%, 21 of 12,740, of stu-dents not receiving special education.

Last year, fall data showed 1.8% of special education students were removed to in-school suspension, compared to 0.8% of all students.

This year, 0.5% of spe-cial education students currently on campus were removed to out of school suspension compared to 0.0% of non-special edu-cation students (six out of the 12,740 non-special education students on campus).

Feller said that means special education stu-dents accounted for 60%

of OSS referrals.However, no students

were moved to OSS for a discretionary reason this fall -- meaning all of the 18 students who were removed to OSS commit-ted offenses that legally mandate OSS.

Last year, 0.9% of spe-cial education students and 0.3% of all non-spe-cial education students had been removed to OSS during the fall semester -- these numbers include discretionary and non-discretionary cases. Of the special education stu-dents who were removed to OSS last year, 26% were for discretionary reasons. It was 20% for non-special education students.

“Actually, this might be a good time where wecan dig in and really makesome progress for specialeducation (students),” Trustee Mary Bone said. “Maybe we can dig intothese individual cases andsee why these disparities occur.”

Harrison pointed outthat the district wastalking about both thecollege-readiness and the disciplinary data in the context of the pandemic,but that there has been a trend of disparities in both categories over time.

“I hope those commu-nity members who don’tsee a need for a chief equity officer, this is theexact need,” Harrison said.

SCHOOLFrom Page A1

OFFICIAL NOTICE

TO: THE RESIDENTS, CUSTOMERS, ANDTAXPAYERS OF THE MEADOWS ATCHANDLER CREEK MUNICIPAL UTILITYDISTRICT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY,TEXAS, AND TO ALL OTHER INTEREST-ED PERSONS:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that theBoard of Directors of THE MEADOWSAT CHANDLER CREEK MUNICIPAL UTIL-ITY DISTRICT of WILLIAMSON County,Texas (the “District”) adopted, as ofDecember 15, 2020, A RESOLUTION OFTHE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THEMEADOWS AT CHANDLER CREEK MU-NICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT: ESTABLISH-ING PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSINGDEED RESTRICTION VIOLATIONS ANDRELATED COMPLAINTS; PROVIDINGFINDINGS OF FACT; PROVIDING FOROPEN MEETING; PROVIDING AN EFFEC-TIVE DATE (the “Deed Restrictions Or-der”) and AN ORDER OF THE BOARDOF DIRECTORS OF THE MEADOWS ATCHANDLER CREEK MUNICIPAL UTILITYDISTRICT; ESTABLISHING RULES ANDREGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING ANDENFORCING THE DISTRICT’SSTORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN;PROVIDING PENALTIES UP TO$10,000.00 PER VIOLATION; PROVIDINGFOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVI-SIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR OPEN MEETING; PRO-VIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (the “S-tormwater Order”).

The Deed Restriction Order establishesthe policies, procedures, and condi-tions under which the District will en-force the deed restrictions in place forall sections of the District. The DeedRestriction Order also establishes thef f f f

fines for violation of any of the deedrestrictions of the District and providesthe procedures that will govern theBoard of Directors’ actions in handlingdeed restriction violations within theDistrict.

The following is a substantive state-ment of the revised provisions of theDeed Restriction Order:

The Deed Restriction Order establishesrules of procedure for processing andconsidering deed restriction violationsand related complaints that serve theinterests of justice and provides prop-erty owners with the opportunity torectify such violations prior to the Dis-trict initiating enforcement action inthe courts of law. The Deed RestrictionOrder establishes fines from $100 up toa maximum of $10,000 per deed re-striction violation. A detailed fineschedule is included in the Deed Re-striction Order.

The Stormwater Order of the Districtestablishes conditions under which theDistrict’s Stormwater ManagementPlan will be enforced. The StormwaterOrder also establishes the penalties forviolations of the plan and/or rules andregulations of the District.

The following is a substantive state-ment of the Stormwater Order:

The Stormwater Order establishesmethods for controlling the introduc-tion of pollutants into the municipalseparate storm sewer system (“MS4”)of the District in order to comply withthe requirements of the Texas Pollu-tant Discharge Elimination System[TPDES] permit process. Among other

things, the Stormwater Order allowsthe District to regulate pollutants fromstormwater discharges into and fromthe MS4; prohibits illicit connectionsand discharges to the MS4; requiresthe installation, implementation, andmaintenance of control measures; pro-vides for the assessment of penalties,including monetary, civil or criminalpenalties, for violating provisions with-in the Stormwater Order; and providesthe District the legal authority to im-plement inspection and enforcementprocedures to ensure compliance withthe Stormwater Order.

THE DISTRICT HAS THE AUTHORITY TOASSESS PENALTIES, INCLUDING CIVIL,MONETARY, OR CRIMINAL PENALTIESIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TPDESPHASE II MS4 PERMIT TXR040000 PARTIII SECTION A.3(a)(2)h, and SECTION49.004, TEXAS WATER CODE FOR ANYBREACH OF THE STORMWATER ORDER:

ANY PERSON WHO, IN THE SOLE DE-TERMINATION OF THE BOARD, ISFOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THISSTORMWATER ORDER, OR WHO CON-TINUES TO VIOLATE THISSTORMWATER ORDER WILL BE LIABLETO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION TO THEFULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, ANDSUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL PENALTY UPTO $10,000.00 PER VIOLATION.

The full text of the District’s Deed Re-striction Order and Stormwater Ordermay be obtained at the offices ofMcGinnis Lochridge, 600 Congress Ave-nue, Suite 2100, Austin, Texas, 78701.

/s/ Walter BerryPresident, Board of Directors

12/26/2020, 1/2/20210000614609-01

legal noticelegal notice legal notice

DJ