Comments on: Live blog of Feb. 27 MDUSD meeting

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 06:55:37 +0000

McClatchy has announced that the QEIA waiver has been accepted (even before the March hearing date) and that the WASC team liked what they saw at MDHS. The favorable WASC report seems to have given her carte blanche to do as she originally intended to do before the teachers voiced their “no confidence.” Teachers were very respectful of the WASC process and did not want the students or school to suffer. They put on a good face. Is it too much to expect that McClathy has learned anything from this?

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:44:08 +0000

Yes, the board voted unanimously to approve the waivers.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:33:56 +0000

Who is telling the truth ? At Monday nights Board Meeting, Lori O’Brien SASS Asst. Director of Categoricals, stated in response to a question by Trustee Cheryl Hansen about the “parental involvement” required as stated in Supt. Lawrence’s Oct 26, 2011 letter on the Federal reqt’s of the “LEA Plan Addendum” as a result of MDUSD being named as a “Program Improvement” District and I quote from the transcript:

“At the beginning of November we received permission from CDE to not go through the entire process as outlined in that letter. . . . CDE in looking at the process that was used and the quality of the Addendum that was approved by this Board on June 28, 2011 felt that we had met the requirement and there was no further need for us to go back out to the community and do that again.”

I emailed Christine Swenson, CDE Director of Improvement and Accountability Section, about Lorie O’Brien’s statements and Ms. Swenson replied: “I have checked with the staff here; no one advised the district that parent input was not necessary.”

Lorie has yet to identify who from CDE gave her this advice that Ms. Swenson denies. If Lorie O’Brien wasn’t telling the truth about the LEA Addendum, what about the QEIA counts ??? If Lorie O’Brien was telling the truth, why won’t she tell us who at CDE gave out that advice ? Why would CDE say that the Federal requirements did not need to be followed ?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:23:21 +0000

Has the Board Secretary, Steven Lawrence, disclosed yet what happened at the Feb 22 Public Hearing and Board Meeting ?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:10:34 +0000

Gee all i got was a high five. Yes she did ask teachers to go. Some were foolish enough to refuse.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:06:10 +0000

It’s possible. I didn’t really dig too deeply into the calculations and the different methods.
Also, I think one method counts students at the end of the year and the other counts them at a different point in the semester, so that could make a difference as well.

By: g

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:48:12 +0000

Theresa @44, is it maybe because some TA assignments were shuffled around and by incorporating them in the (re)calculations, the classes were recounted as actually being less than 27 students per (teacher)class?

By: MDHS Teacher

MDHS Teacher — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:28:26 +0000

PS: Cherie,

Way to spend paid work time on the blogs (it records what time you post, ya know…)(8:13 AM) LOL.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:07:35 +0000

O’Brien said her list supercedes Sach’s list because it was recalculated using a different method. The CCCOE accepted the new list as a replacement for the old list, based on O’Brien’s calculations. But, that still doesn’t answer the question: why didn’t the classes over 27 students on Sach’s list show up on O’Brien’s list?

By: MDHS Teacher

MDHS Teacher — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:07:04 +0000

FYI MDHS just passed their WASC three year review with a score of 9/10. (A)

@Cherie Adcock (Administrative Secretary at MDHS)
Are you for real? What is with this “new teeth” idea? Are you saying that Kate McClatchy, your direct supervisor, bribed you with the promise of cosmetic surgery if you went to bat for her? Is that legal?