Comments on: Reform: Purpose and Direction – guest commentary

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:37:13 +0000

It also looks like the Budget Advisory Committee will meet Dec. 8: http://www.mdusd.org/Pages/default.aspx
I wonder if anyone from that group attended the Nov. 21 charter budget meeting.
The district has postponed the PAC meeting from Dec. 7 to Dec. 14, even though that isn’t showing up on the district’s website yet. No reason was given, but it could be because the Dec. 7 meeting would have been the same night at the COE CVHS charter public hearing.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:13:23 +0000

Check his Board approved job description.
Would it logically be Jeff McDaniel or Greg Rolen who is over construction ?
BTW, what is a “senior citizen” ? AARP thinks its 50 plus.

By: g

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:09:47 +0000

The “board” is still searching for applications for BOC members to complete the NEW 2002 Measure-C committee. Can someone please explain to me why
Peder Pedersen,
a “private citizen”
who, now retired from the District,
and who was contracted ONLY for the “2010″ M-C Construction/Project Manager position
is the “Go-To” person for the 2002 committee???
http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Documents/measccomapp.pdf

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 21:34:01 +0000

There is one listed on the front page of the district website for Dec 13. Seems like the grid under the Board’s page is full and the surprise meeting at the end of November took the last slot.

By: g

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:44:08 +0000

I seem to remember that there was one board meeting scheduled in Dec. No?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:21:02 +0000

@G Take a look at the timelines promised by Lawrence, SASS, and Julie Braun Martin in the CAP. Trained FACT instructional coach in place at each SIG site by Sept 2011. Teachers complete the assessment module of FACT by Sept 2011. MDUSD is quick to promise to get money, and slow to implement the reforms. 3 months behind already and school year nearly half gone. See Theresa’s link to the CAPs: http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2011/10/28/mdusd-still-waiting-to-hear-if-it-will-get-school-improvement-grants/

By: g

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:53:47 +0000

Dr J: I expect this is just another case of “accurate” versus “honest”. Lawrence, team and board majority have this concept down pat!

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:51:43 +0000

Mike, I also found this in the CAP. Is this what you were referring to ?
“Teacher Evaluation: All teachers at SIG sites will be evaluated annually.
Teacher performance evaluation at SIG sites will include a formula which considers student progress as a significant element (40%) in the existing evaluation tool.
The District will utilize the Formative Assessment for California Teachers (FACT model) as a formative assessment tool. FACT focuses the demonstration of teacher practice, reflective assessment, and support to assist teachers in developing as a practitioner and assuring maximum learning for students.
The SIG will provide each site with a trained (in FACT) Instructional Coach (TSA) during the first year of implementation to guide teachers through the inquiry process. The Instructional Coach will provide ongoing support and coaching but will not participate in the evaluation process.
Teachers will complete the assessment module of FACT collecting multiple measures of data including, but not limited to, district identified benchmark assessments. ”

Has this process started yet ?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:35:44 +0000

Mike, the District submitted the following statement to the CDE and Feds. Please pay particular attention to the teacher evaluation statement — is this true ? ” the District worked collaboratively with the Mt. Diablo Education Association (MDEA) to develop a memorandum of understanding that outlines the details of the increased learning time (c(1)) , the rigorous evaluation process that will be used to determine teacher effectiveness that includes student growth as a factor (a(2)) and the compensation that is being awarded to staff that are committed to increasing the learning of the students at Bel Air Elementary School (a(5)).”

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 03:27:21 +0000

Mike, here are the multiple references that suggest that MDEA agreed to the SIG applications: taken directly from the filed SIG applications from CDE on their website. I believe you that you did not agree to them, but they “suggest” to the State and Feds that you did. By your failure to object and silence, and to agree to an MOU that was NOT APPROVED by the Board, it appears that you did. I believe you need to write to the State and to the Feds and set the record straight. There is a reason the ACTUAL applications were never presented to the Board and discussed publicly — because they fudged the truth.

Page 48: A wide range of stakeholders were involved in the needs analysis process to ensure all areas of the school and community were represented, services and needs were aligned and OWENERSHIP WAS ACHIEVED. MDUSD believes that empowering and engaging all stakeholders from the beginning helps to ensure successful implementation of services and strengthens the sustainability and capacity of the system. Individuals involved include administrators, teacher leaders, UNION LEADERSHIP, community members, parents, students and External Entities. [Emphasis added]

Page 49:

Numerous meetings and conversations at the school level included School Site Council meetings, Alternative Governance Team meetings (AGT), staff meetings, parent
meetings (Parent Teacher Association), and English Language Advisory Committee (ELAC) meetings, and discussions with the TEACHER’S UNION and with community members in order to ensure local input was solicited and heard. [Emphasis added]

Page 49

At the district level, discussions at Educational Services (March-June 2010), Extended Educational Services (April 2010), Curriculum and Instruction Department meetings(April-June 2010), Feeder Pattern meetings (May 2010), K-Adult Articulation meetings (May 2010), the Superintendent’s Parent Advisory Committee (PAC-April 2010) and WITH THE TEACHER’S UNION, community members, site staff, district level leadership groups and public input helped to inform the system, gather ideas and determine needs and actions. [Emphasis added]

Page 54:

District

MDUSD leadership strongly supports each school’s restructuring (school improvement)plan and commits to continuing to work regularly with its UNION LEADERSHIP to identify best practices for students and teachers. MDUSD is confident that the district will be able to negotiate the necessary contract changes to support the grant requirements. [Emphasis added]

MDUSD is currently at the negotiation table with the Mt. Diablo Education Association (MDEA) teacher’s union. MDEA’s current teacher contract will end June 30, 2010. Now is the perfect time to begin these conversations.

Page 71

Review the district’s recruitment and hiring practices to explore how only highly qualified teachers would be assigned to low performing schools. MDUSD will WORK WITH THE UNION to give low performing schools advantages in hiring teachers first. [Emphasis added]

Page 71

categorical funds such as professional development opportunities or materials to support instruction. Additional financial incentives would need to be discussed
with the teachers union.