Comments on: State Board of Education delay of grant awards causes frustration

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:40:56 +0000

Looks like Lawrence dodged a bullet as the State will fund the four school improvement grants. MDUSD has the STAR results. Most likely it has dumped the data into its analysis program to estimate the API’s. Have you heard any cheers from the Dent Center ? Probably its going to be more like a funeral parlour. Will all six of the “persistently underperforming schools” remain on the list ? How many more will be added to the list ? Was Lawrence’s and Lock’s decision to keep those two principals in place justified by their 09/10 STAR results ? If not, what ACTION are they going to take with those principals ?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:01:45 +0000

When the Star results are released in the next week or so, pay attention to the results for Meadow Homes Elem and Oak Grove Middle to see if Rose Lock and Steve Lawrence’s decision to leave those principals in place was worth it to cause loss of the SIG funding for the other four schools. Can you imagine how furious the other four “peristently underchieving schools” feel knowing that they are likely going to lose out on funding to save two principals from underperforming schools ? Also pay attention to the seven potentials to be added. With six “peristently underchieving schools” already, MDUSD already has the greatest percentage in the East Bay, and will likely add to that with several more. Its a tragedy for the kids because district administrators protect “underpeforming principals”.

By: tharrington

tharrington — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 16:33:44 +0000

Perhaps some of the electricity bill savings the district expects to receive from the solar projects could be used toward maintenance and operations of the technology enhancements, as well as training for staff, so the technology will be used effectively.

By: Realia

Realia — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:15:39 +0000

At my school site we received funds to build a technology center, which has been underutilized, and no funds to replace or update equipment or such items a LCD projector bulbs (they must be paid for out of skimpy department funds). In meeting after meeting, administrators touted what technology enhancements would be next while ignoring questions about how to support and sustain the ones we already have. We also received well over $100,000 from Comcast to construct a music recording studio, which has sat unused for years now (no teachers know how to use it and when it was used, it was mainly so kids who never showed up for school came in after school to make raunchy rap recordings). Typical district short-sighted “planning.”

By: tharrington

tharrington — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:52:04 +0000

It is interesting that the Measure C poll asked voters if they would approve a $300 million bond measure, then the district tacked on another $48 million at the last minute.
In contrast, the Martinez board decided to reduce its November bond measure from $51 million to $45 million, after carefully considering how much they really needed.
Pete Pedersen told me in a July 29 e-mail that many details still need to be worked out regarding the projects to be completed.
“There are no more ‘detailed’ lists,” he wrote. “The details will be specified only as we begin working with sites developing their programs in the design phase of the Measure C Program. Some of the sites sent in specific requests (e.g. additional computer lab conversions, career ed requests, like NGHS, etc.), some sites did not request anything and, as you are aware most sites did not submit anything at all for ‘tech classroom enhancements.’ Recognizing that sites have diverse program and classroom tech needs, and using rough estimates of various classroom improvement/enhancement iterations/programs we established an average sq. ft value that could reasonably (be) used as an allocation value. This sq. ft allocation was then applied uniformly to each site based on verified sq.
footage to establish a site allocation for this category. The specific tech classroom enhancements will vary site by site, depending on site needs, program and curriculum. We want to be responsive to site needs, allowing them to exercise some discretion and not unilaterally impose pre-identified improvements. As the design phase begins we intend to report out, and post all site-specific improvements. Absent the opportunity to have meet (sic) with the sites for programnming and design phase input yet, I cannot speculate what each detailed improvement might be at each site.”
These unspecific “technology classroom enhancements” make up nearly $13 million of the total $202 million in expected improvements.

By: Realia

Realia — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:53:49 +0000

“Trustee Gary Eberhart and Superintendent Steven Lawrence said the district would not make plans it didn’t think would help the schools, just to get the money.”

Really? This is exactly what they did regarding Measure C. I guess the district only wants cash when it can benefit unspecified construction projects but not when it benefits students.

By: tharrington

tharrington — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:19:06 +0000

Mt. Diablo officials said the four reforms they had to choose between to be eligible for the grants were too restrictive in some instances.
If they had sought funding for Meadow Homes Elementary and Oak Grove Middle School, they would have had to put new principals at those campuses. Instead, they opted to come up with less drastic plans for reform.
At the time, Trustee Gary Eberhart and Superintendent Steven Lawrence said the district would not make plans it didn’t think would help the schools, just to get the money: http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2010/03/24/mdusd-may-not-chase-carrots-dangled-by-state/

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 05:10:01 +0000

I thought the Board had authorized the Supt to file for all six schools. Perhaps I misunderstood. But why would’t MDUSD being so cash strapped have applied for all six schools ?