Part of the Bay Area News Group

Two MDUSD campuses plan to spend nearly $12.5 million in School Improvement Grants

By Theresa Harrington
Friday, March 16th, 2012 at 1:31 pm in Concord, Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

The California Department of Education recently awarded nearly $12.5 million in federal School Improvement Grants to Meadow Homes Elementary and Oak Grove Middle School in Concord.

The school board gave district staff approval to submit the applications, without ever publicly reviewing them.

Since they are not available on the district’s website, I am posting a link here:–Meadow-Homes_

Here are the improvement strategies each school has committed to in its application.

Meadow Homes:

1. Refine instruction in ELD, mathematics and language arts.

2. Support for intervention to enrichment structures.

3. Working with a leadership data coach.

4. Parent education and partnerships.

5. Provide increased learning time.

6. Access to enrichment curriculum and electives

Oak Grove:

1. Implementation of interventions for students not at grade level proficiency

2. Increased learning time and creating a community-oriented school that supports academic, social and emotional needs of students.

The complete plans are outlined in the application.

Do you agree with these plans?

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

55 Responses to “Two MDUSD campuses plan to spend nearly $12.5 million in School Improvement Grants”

  1. Doctor J Says:

    Lawrence and Eberhart’s plan to eliminate summer school and reduce the school year has failed English Learner children — Ed Trust West spanked Torlakson a year ago for promoting such ideas. Lawrence and Eberhart ignored the welfare of the children of MDUSD.

  2. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I asked Lawrence whether the relaxation of grad requirements impacted the report. Here is his response, from an email:

    “According to the report card the UC a-g data is from 2010 which would be prior to any changes being made. Last year’s report card would have been 2009 data. Therefore, it is an area the district needs to focus our efforts to improve, but I don’t believe the conclusion that you make is a valid one.”

    Actually, I wasn’t making a conclusion, I was just raising the question.

  3. Doctor J Says:

    So far no response backing up the alleged claims that the SIG Grants will fund a new Science lab at Meadow Homes: where are the responses from Drs. Supt. Lawrence and Principal Newling backing up their claims ? Either Lawrence doesn’t read what he certifies or he thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes or he thinks we can’t read, which is it ?–Meadow-Homes

  4. g Says:

    Dr. J: Did the district contract with RDA, as the doc indicates on page 29, to assist with “monitoring, analysis, and implementation of goals?

    Are we getting our money’s worth?

  5. Doctor J Says:

    @G#54 Yes, but the District refuses to produce the Annual Report for Cohort 1 that was prepared — Theresa requested it and hit a brick wall. I believe that in the last couple of months, the Board just approved the annual contract for Cohort 2. Evidence that we didn’t get our money’s worth was during Cohort 1, when the Feds audited MDUSD along with many others and then stopped the funding until a “Corrective Action Plan” was filed and approved — why ? Because MDUSD, as were many other districts, not following their SIG plans. So why wasn’t RDA telling the district this ? Or were they and the District ignored them ? Lots of unanswered questions for a lot of money paid to RDA. And of course, remember, that RDA had contracted to write about 4 schools, but with one closing, they only had to do 3/4 of the work !

Leave a Reply