Part of the Bay Area News Group

Catholic colleges oppose federal law, arsons on Antioch campuses and school closure debate in Oakland

Although this blog typically focuses on education news in Contra Costa County with an emphasis on the Mt. Diablo school district, I would like to throw a few other regional stories out this week for discussion:

Higher education reporter Matt Krupnick reports that Bay Area Catholic colleges are joining a fight against a new federal law that requires health plans to cover birth control. They argue the law violates their rights to oppose contraception: http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_19123137.

Do you think Catholic colleges should comply with the law by providing contraception to students?

Antioch reporter Paul Burgarino reports that arsonists have struck two elementary schools, decimating the play structure at one and damaging the wall of a multiuse room at another: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_19121741.

“When the kids saw (the burned play structure), their faces fell,” said Lone Tree Elementary Principal Patty Ward. “You could see some of them were in tears and just asking why this happened.”

What do you think the community can do to try to prevent such incidents in the future?

Oakland schools reporter Katy Murphy reports that some members of the Oakland school board are having second thoughts about a plan to close five elementary schools to save $2 million: http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_19106686?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com.

This year, the Mt. Diablo school district in Contra Costa County closed one elementary school and one middle school in an attempt to save $1.5 million, along with other cost-cutting and revenue generating strategies.

Like the Mt. Diablo district, Oakland has experienced declining enrollment. Many Oakland students have also moved out of the district or transferred to charter schools that are not district-operated.

Do you believe it makes sense to close schools in districts with declining enrollment?

Posted on Sunday, October 16th, 2011
Under: Antioch school district, Education, Katy Murphy, Matt Krupnick, Mt. Diablo school district, Oakland school district, Paul Burgarino | 9 Comments »

New plans for Holbrook and Glenbrook schools

Tonight, the Mt. Diablo school board expects to act on one plan for Holbrook Elementary and another for Glenbrook Middle School in Concord, which trustees have agreed to close.

The Student Achievement and School Support Division is asking the board to approve a “Title 1 Schoolwide Program” at Holbrook, along with Sun Terrace Elementary. Holbrook’s program would last three months, while Sun Terrace would implement the program on an ongoing basis.

“The emphasis in schoolwide program schools is on serving all students, improving all structures that support student learning, and combining all resources, as allowed, to achieve a common goal,” the staff report states. “Schoolwide programs maximize the impact of Title I. Adopting this strategy should result in an ongoing, comprehensive plan for school improvement that is owned by the entire school community and tailored to its unique needs.”

The Holbrook and Sun Terrace communities spent a significant amount of time planning for these programs.

“Each school established a planning team that included the Schoolsite Council and English Language Advisory Committee, teachers and staff, and parents and community representatives to oversee the development of the Title I Schoolwide plan,” the staff report states. “The planning team gave input related to the comprehensive needs assessment (Academic Program Survey and other assessment data) and made recommendations for the comprehensive plan (Single Plan for Student Achievement). The plans were approved by the Board of Education on January 11, 2011.”

Less than one month later, the board voted to close Holbrook.

Trustees tonight will also vote on a plan to offer partial use of Glenbrook Middle School for the 2011-12 year to the Flex Public Schools charter, according to legal requirements under Proposition 39.

The agreement would provide space for 121 high school students in rooms 701-705, exclusive use of room 706 for administrators, shared use of the multiuse room/cafeteria/auditorium, along with shared use of the PE building, science lab in room 800, hard court, turf and parking.

According to a letter from associate general counsel Deborah Cooksey to Flex Public Schools, the district provided the charter operator with a preliminary facility offer related to use of Glenbrook on Feb. 25 — 17 days after trustees voted to close Glenbrook and three days after trustees agreed to Superintendent Steven Lawrence’s recommendation to “Develop a program at Glenbrook that will allow us to reduce the number of special education students served by nonpublic schools.”

Lawrence’s recommendation made no mention of allowing a charter school to occupy space on the Glenbrook campus. Trustee Cheryl Hansen said in a voicemail message Monday that this proposal came as a “surprise” to her.

The staff report doesn’t include any information regarding the fiscal impact of this decision. However, Cooksey’s letter states that Flex would pay the district approximately $74,874.87 as a “pro rata share amount” based on “actual costs for the year immediately preceding the charter school’s use of the facilities.”

Lawrence has not yet shown trustees a breakdown of costs and savings to support his assertion that the district would save $1.5 million by closing Glenbrook and Holbrook and adopting his other Feb. 22 recommendations.

Trustees tonight also expect to review the district’s School Closure Transition Plan, which doesn’t include any reference to what will happen to Holbrook and Glenbrook after they are shut down.

In addition, the board will review a draft strategic plan that includes: “Develop comprehensive short-term and long-term plans that proactively anticipate and address enrollment trends (e.g., decline and/or growth in enrollment, attendance boundary adjustments, possible school closure or repurposing, capacity needs, facilities issues, fiscal impact).”

Do you believe a strategic plan would help to limit intensive staff and community time spent on planning for programs that may only last a few months and prevent “surprise” ideas for repurposing closed sites from surfacing after a closure decision has been made?

Posted on Tuesday, March 29th, 2011
Under: Education, Mt. Diablo school district, Theresa Harrington | 2 Comments »

Mt. Diablo school closures prompt continued questions

Some Holbrook Elementary parents and teachers who attended Tuesday’s Mt. Diablo school board meeting are frustrated that trustees didn’t respond to their proposal to convert the K-5 school to a K-6 campus instead of closing it.

Today, parent Kelly Van Boekhout sent trustees the following invitation:

“Subject: An Invitation

Hello Board,
I attended the Board meeting last night.
I stood up at Public Comment and extended an invitation to you. No one responded to me.
So I would like to extend the invitation again.

I would like to ask you to come to Holbrook Elementary to hold an open forum with our parents, staff and community to address our questions and concerns over your decision to close our school.

We have presented questions to you at Board meetings that have gone unanswered. They are not rhetorical questions. They are things we would like to know the answers to and things we would like to understand. If you fail to respond to us directly, how do you expect us to understand your decision?

It is not a matter of whether or not we will ‘go along’ with your decision. We have no choice. It’s a matter of whether or not we will move into the next school year understanding that our Board is making decisions to the best of their abilities in serving as many students as possible. It is a matter of whether or not we will have faith and trust in our Board.

I do not claim to be capable of doing a ‘better’ job than any of you at balancing what is now a completely upside down budget. And I understand that there is no way to give any student money that you simply don’t have.
Please understand that I extend this invitation to you with the utmost respect.

We would simply like answers from the people who know the ‘how and why’ the decision was made.

Please come to Holbrook.”

During the meeting, Van Boekhout addressed the board twice: once during general public comment and once before trustees voted to change boundaries for students who currently attend Holbrook and Glenbrook Middle School.

First, she spoke about the meeting held Monday night at Holbrook with Rose Lock, assistant superintendent for Student Achievement and School Support. Here’s what Van Boekhout said:

“Last night, you sent Rose Lock to our school to discuss our new boundaries. She had no answers for our questions and could only make notations of our concerns with the intent of returning them to you.

You have made a decision that greatly affects our entire community, and I feel that we deserve at least a minimal amount of respect .

At this point, all the questions we have asked, answers we have proposed and concerns we have stated have fallen on deaf ears and have been blatantly ignored.

I would like to ask you to come to Holbrook and hold an open forum with the parents, staff and community where you, the people WITH the answers can address our questions and concerns.”

Later, Van Boekhout talked about her daughter, who attends Holbrook, before the board voted to send Holbrook students to Sun Terrace and Wren Avenue elementary schools. These were her comments:

“Last year my daughter STAR tested for the first time. She scored advanced both in English and Mathematics. She did not win her intelligence from the bottom of a Cracker Jack box. She received it from me, her father, her teachers, her SCHOOL.

I would like to make it clear that I have no issue with either Wren or Sun Terrace…I ask that you either rescind your decision to close Holbrook Elementary or that you provide concrete evidence and numbers to prove to this community that it was the best decision possible.”

Parent Adam Delanoy questioned the “geographic equity” of the decision to close both Holbrook Elementary and Glenbrook Middle School, which are in the same neighborhood.

“What I fail to understand and no one has answered,” he said, “is why a district of 150-square miles closed two schools within a mile of each other. This deserves an answer. Many families have students in both schools. Some families will be forced to transport students two miles in one direction and four miles in another direction in busy areas, if they even have transportation. We also deserve an item-by-item cost accounting……if MDUSD is a district where kids come first, then you need to show us.”

John Ferrante, who served on the previous Measure C oversight committee, said the district should redraw boundary lines for all schools because the district is spending money on new classrooms and denying transfers based on overcrowding.

“Even the federal government has enough brains to redraw lines every 10 years,” he said. “We could save taxpayers money.”

Willie Mims, who represents the NAACP in East County, said the district should provide transportation to the displace students.

“When you make a decision that’s going to impact students and communities, there should be some mitigation by the district to alleviate part of their pain,” he said. “Suppose you have families that cannot afford to pay for the bus ride? Then what?”

Superintendent Steven Lawrence said the cost for students to take County Connection buses would be about $720, but the district could provide a bus for $400 per family that would make a round trip to Sun Terrace, Wren Avenue and Holbrook elementary schools; as well as El Dorado or Valley View middle schools.

Although Trustee Lynne Dennler seconded Trustee Linda Mayo’s motion to adopt the proposed boundaries, she ended up voting against it, saying she wasn’t comfortable asking families to pay for the buses.

“I have a very hard time asking any family to add $40 to their monthly budget….,” she said. “These were their schools. We’re closing them.”

Trustee Cheryl Hansen abstained after reiterating her call for an explicit accounting of how much the district is saving by closing Holbrook and Glenbrook as well as how much it is spending on the transition (ie. for vice principals at schools the students will go to). In addition, she repeated her previous request for the district to plan what it will do with the closed campuses.

Mayo said the district can no longer afford to provide busing and it can only do so if families pool together to reimburse the district.

“Of course, it’s not perfect and we do regret that expense for our families,” she said. “We just do not have the funds to support that at this time.”

Sherry Whitmarsh clarified that students’ high school attendance boundaries wouldn’t change.

Board President Gary Eberhart, who participated in the meeting via speakerphone, said the decision to close the schools had been made and the board needed to move forward. He agreed that long-term, the district should look at new boundaries, but said the board didn’t need to add that to staff’s list of duties right away.

Eberhart also asked that Lawrence bring back the district’s School Closure Transition Plan to future meetings so the board could continue to provide direction. He attempted to make a motion to this effect, but General Counsel Greg Rolen said it would need to be placed on an agenda as a separate item, since it was merely an attachment to the school boundaries item. (Also, it wasn’t added 72 hours before the meeting.)

Hansen asked staff to develop new boundary maps for all of the schools that will be receiving students from the closed schools, incorporating the expanded attendance areas.

Do you think the district should look at redrawing boundaries for all schools?

Posted on Wednesday, March 16th, 2011
Under: Education, Mt. Diablo school district | 49 Comments »

The K-6 Holbrook Elementary proposal

Despite the Mt. Diablo school board’s decision to close Holbrook Elementary in Concord, parents and staff members at the school are holding out hope that they can change the minds of trustees and persuade them to transform it into a K-6 campus.

Here’s their proposal:

“Plan for Proposed 6th Grade at Holbrook Elementary

6th grade students attending: 175
5th grade students attending: 50
(Based on Glenbrook 2009-2010 SARC)

Number of Classes:
5 – 6th grade classes
1 – 5th-6th combination class
1 – 5th grade class

This number is planning for 32 students per class. If School Improvement Funds were transferred from Glenbrook, the class enrollment could be lower. Of course, each class could go as high as 34 students.

The staff at Holbrook would welcome the 6th graders from Sun Terrace, Wren Avenue and Meadow Homes. We believe we can provide an opportunity for academic achievement and success for these 6th graders that they might not find elsewhere

Academic Schedule

The students’ academic day would be from 7:55 a.m. – 2:35 p.m. as it is now at Holbrook. The schedule would include 125 min. daily of Reading/English, 45 min. daily of English Language Development and Academic Language Development, and 55 min. of math daily, as well as 40 min. of Science, 40 min. Social Studies and 20 min. of P.E. four days a week.

Enrichment and Intervention

We also plan to continue our strong data driven academic intervention program during the school day and after school. We want to draw the students in by having “Tech Bridge” (a Chevron-sponsored science and technology program) for the 5th and 6th grade girls and Project SEED for the 5th and 6th grade boys. We also will continue intramural sports at lunch recess. We would like to add a fine arts component to the after school activities by offering drama and choral music.

Sixth grade ‘at-risk’ students would be assigned to mentor teacher. All staff members would help support this program.

Location

We would have the 5th and 6th grade students housed in adjacent classrooms close to the MUR to give them a sense of identity (Rooms 27, 26, 25, 22, 23, 24, 20).”

What do you think of this plan?

Posted on Tuesday, March 15th, 2011
Under: Education, Mt. Diablo school district, Theresa Harrington | 6 Comments »

Mt. Diablo district school closure plans revealed

At Tuesday’s Mt. Diablo school board meeting, Trustee Cheryl Hansen proposed that the district develop a short-term plan for closing Holbrook Elementary and Glenbrook Middle School in Concord, as well as a long-term plan for school closures.

She expressed frustration that the proposal she submitted to Superintendent Steven Lawrence was not the same as item 7.4 on the agenda. The long-term plan outlined in agenda item 7.5, however, was her exact submission.

Here’s what she sent to Lawrence:

“March 1, 2011

Action Item for March 8, 2011 Board Meeting

Submitted by Cheryl Hansen

SCHOOL CLOSURE PLANS

We need to develop two school closure plans, one to address the immediate needs of the two schools slated for closure and one long-term plan to address the enrollment trends:

PLAN #1 – Glenbrook and Holbrook School Closure Plan

• Develop an immediate plan to address the closure issues around the closing of Glenbrook and Holbrook. There is an urgent need to identify the new schools of attendance for these students, which would include a redrawing of attendance boundaries, among other issues (see list below).

PLAN #2 – Development of a Long-Term Plan for School Closure

• Establish a new School Closure Committee to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of MDUSD schools and facilities to develop a long-term (3-year minimum), comprehensive plan to identify and address potential school/facilities closures and openings.

• Here are just some of the key components to be researched, evaluated, and addressed in the plan:

1. An analysis of continuing growth and/or declining enrollment trends

• The School Closure Committee’s report still needs in-depth analysis and reflection.

2. Redrawing attendance boundaries to establish balanced feeder patterns

3. Transportation issues (e.g., availability)

4. Traffic and safety issues

5. Relocation or redistribution of special education/after school/support programs at schools to be closed

6. Transition and support plan for students at schools to be closed

7. Staffing impact and needs

8. Redistribution of revenue/funding sources at the closing schools

9. Use of Measure C facilities monies

10. Maintenance and security of closed facilities and/or possible use of closed facilities

11. Explicit accounting of actual money saved from school closures, not just a best guess.

In addition, use the CDE’s ‘Closing a School Best Practices Guide’ as a resource.”

[END PROPOSAL]

Instead, a more narrowly-focused item appeared on the agenda, focused on redrawing boundaries for Glenbook and Holbrook.

 Here’s what it said:

“Attached is a Power Point with attendance boundary changes that were shared at the January 25th Board meeting. The Board will establish the new attendance boundaries for students currently at Holbrook and Glenbrook.

If the Board adopts the attached boundaries students currently in the Glenbrook attendance areas 2 and 3 would attend El Dorado, and areas 1 and 4 would attend Valley View. Neither El Dorado or Valley View is in Program Improvement; therefore, students could not request a transfer under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This includes students living in the Glenbrook attendance areas that are currently on NCLB school of choice transfers. It is recommended that we allow these students to remain at their current middle schools; however, the District will no longer provide transportation. Currently, we provide three buses: one goes to Pleasant Hill, one goes to Pine Hollow and Diablo View, and one goes to Valley View and Sequoia. The students in the new El Dorado and Valley View attendance areas would be provided a 30 day window to submit a new Intradistrict Transfer Application (attached) to attend another middle school. Again, students currently on school of choice would not need to reapply. Students in attendance area 5 who will attend Oak Grove can apply for a transfer under the No Child Left Behind school of choice process and we would provide transportation through Title I funds.

Holbrook students currently living in areas 1 and 4 would attend Sun Terrace and students living in areas 2 and 3 would attend Wren. If students wish to attend a different elementary school families will be provided the same 30 day Intradistrict Transfer Application window as mentioned above. Transition meetings with Holbrook and Glenbrook families and representatives from their newly assigned schools will be scheduled once the Board approves new boundaries. When the 30 day transfer window closes and we assign students to schools, we will have the data necessary to determine the following:

1. Reallocation of staffing.

2. Reallocation of Title I – III and EIA/LEP funds.

3. Reallocation of resources such as instructional materials, library materials, furniture, technology equipment, etc.

4. We will continue to work with Concord City personnel and Police personnel to work on traffic and safety issues.

5. Transportation — At the February 22 Board meeting, information was shared that it would cost $21,500 to create a bus run from Glenbrook to either El Dorado or Valley View. The regional transportation staff is analyzing new bus routes based on the attached boundaries being adopted. Currently, there is no funding to start new bus routes; however, we will continue to work with them to analyze transportation needs throughout the district.

6. At the February 22 Board meeting it was indicated that School Improvement Grant funds would be lost for Glenbrook. We are still waiting for the California Department of Education to provide directions around transferring the after school program funding.

We are currently analyzing the best uses for the Glenbrook and Holbrook facilities. At this time, we do not recommend forming a 7-11 committee to consider selling either property.”

[END AGENDA ITEM]

Hansen said she was not asking for attendance boundaries.

“I think it’s larger than that,” she said. “I think a lot of these issues (in her proposal) go along with it. One of the elements I would want is the inclusion of community and school staff. I cannot believe the number of amazingly good questions and suggestions I’ve received from parents and staff that are creative and insightful. I would hope we would have the courtesy and respect to meet with them in their neighborhoods. That was what item 7.4 was supposed to be. We have to have enough respect and care that we can list those, talk about the people responsible, and show some accountability around that.”

Glenbrook office manager Berta Shatswell said delays in making decisions have been detrimental to the students and staff. After the board voted Feb. 8 to close the school, Board President Gary Eberhart suggested another idea to try to save the School Improvement Grant, she said.

Eberhart suggested closing Westwood Elementary and making it a sixth-grade only campus with students from Glenbrook and El Dorado Middle School and calling it “Glenbrook Middle School.” Glenbrook’s seventh- and eighth-graders would attend El Dorado Middle School, under the proposal. The improvement grant would have served students at the “relocated” Glenbrook site. The state Department of Education rejected this proposal, after first indicating that it might be possible.

“Now, there is yet another idea of how to reconfigure Glenbrook,” she said. ”How will our students get to school? Transportation and safety is still the main concern because there is not geographic equity. Most of our students cannot afford public transportion.”

She also worried about the loss of counseling services for 160 Glenbrook students that is now being funded with the grant.  

“How much money is actually being saved and why are the neediest being hurt?,” she said. ”The board and superintendent should protect the neediest students and communities.”

In 18 years working at Glenbrook, she said she had never seen Eberhart visit the campus (except for the board meeting regarding school closure).  

Willie Mims, a NAACP representative from Pittsburg, said the board should look at all options before settling on one plan.

“One of the things that concerned me is that there was no funding for busing of the students that you’re planning to move from one campus to another,” he said. ”It’s an issue of environmental justice. If these communities are students that are minority and low-ioncome and they are suffering the greatest impact, then you are dealing with some serious issues of environmental justice.”

Earlier in the meeting, about 30 parents, students, teachers and community members asked the board to reconsider its decision to close Holbrook Elementary. Many of them also said this decision lacked districtwide equity, since the two schools are in the same neighborhood, about 1 mile apart.

“Next year, it will be hard for my mom to get me to another school,” said Ricardo Cuellar. “Please don’t close Holbrook. If you close it, I will be sad.”

No trustee suggested rescinding their decision.

Trustee Lynne Dennler, however, suggested an idea that would allow the district to pay for busing all Glenbrook students to their new schools: assign them all to Oak Grove Middle School, which is one of the state’s “persistently lowest-achieving schools.”  Because of this, students could request transfers under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the district would be legally obligated to bus them.

Trustee Sherry Whitmarsh said she would be concerned about assigning more students to Oak Grove than the campus could accommodate (in case they didn’t all opt to transfer to other sites).

Hansen complained that the maps Lawrence provided didn’t include street names, making it difficult for parents to figure out where their children were supposed to go.

Lawrence said the students in Area 1 on the map would be assigned to Oak Grove and could request NCLB transfers. Since Oak Grove is working to get off the NCLB list, the district might not fund busing in the future, he said.

Lawrence said it might be challenging to have community meetings before March 15, but said it might be possible by March 29.

“Part of this to me is to relieve the stress,” Hansen said. “I think parents need more specificity around the rationale.”

Eberhart opposed Hansen’s plan, in part because she didn’t consult district staff about it.

“I agree that we definitely need a plan, but my concern is that this plan has been put together in a vaccuum that doesn’t include staff at all,” he said. “My concern is that this now lays out a plan for the Board of Education that determines” ‘What are our critical path items?’ I think developing a plan without staff input at this point is haphazardous and is going to create a situation where things are going to get missed and timelines are going to get blown.”

Lawrence said Rose Lock, assistant superintendent for Student Achievement and School Support, had drafted a plan “ensuring that we do create a timeline.”

“I think some of the issues that Ms. Hansen has brought up have been addressed in here,” he said.

He then distributed Lock’s draft plan (which was not included in the agenda packet).

Here is Lock’s plan:
 

SCHOOL CLOSURE TRANSITION PLAN – DISTRICT

Date/s Activity Person Responsible
ASAP Letter to MDEA members Julie Braun Martin
3/11 Meet with Union Presidents Julie Braun Martin
3/11 Schedule weekly meetings with principals involved Rose Lock
Julie Braun Martin
3/14 Letter to families on school assignment & transfer info Rose Lock / TIS
3/14 Student rosters to receiving & closing schools TIS
3/16 – 4/15 Transfer window Felicia Stuckey-Smith
3/17 Letter to families already on transfer status Felicia Stuckey-Smith
3/17 – 4/30
3/17 – 4/30
3/17 – 4/30
Classified transfer process (confer with Union Presidents first)

  • Food Service
  • Custodial
  • CST
  • CSEA
Julie Braun Martin
Week of 3/21 Meet with Glenbrook, Holbrook & Meadow Homes communities (include info in letter) Council
4/16 – 4/30 Process transfer requests
Keep track as they come in
Identify available spaces at receiving schools
Felicia Stuckey-Smith
May Provide schools format/forms for inventory

  • Who will do it?
  • When?

Work with sites to distribute inventory

Jen Sachs
Joe Estrada
Jeff McDaniel
5/1 – 5/15 Develop moving plan (2 days for teachers) Jeff McDaniel
5/2 – 5/6 Certificated Involuntary Transfer process for school closure Julie Braun Martin
5/20 Determine additional administrative support Council
6/30 Identify location of spec ed programs

  • Holbrook (SDC)
  • Glenbrook (SDC)

Re-assign RS

Mildred Browne
  Transfer process for Classified & Certificated Julie Braun Martin
  After School Programs? Stephanie Roberts
  Distribution of cums (Fred involved) Mildred Browne

SCHOOL CLOSURE TRANSITION PLAN – SITE

Date/s Activity Person Responsible
  Transition meetings Between principals
Between parent clubs
  Transition activities for students & families  
  Inventory materials, textbooks, library materials, equipment, instruments, furniture, etc.  
  Impact on master schedules  
  Develop housing plan
Review & adjust tentative assignments
Receiving schools
  Training new staff  
  Closing activities Closing schools
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

“The plan the superintendent just passed out seems to be pretty inclusive,” Eberhart said. “It includes the tasks, who will be responsible, as well as a pretty explicit timeline. To send them in a different direction doesn’t make a ton of sense.”

Hansen said she had never seen Lock’s plan. Eberhart stressed the need to work with staff.

“I’m not prepared to support this this evening,” he said. “I think the staff is well on their way to bring a plan forward. I still would request that staff continue to move forward with their plan, because I think they’re in a position to understand the critical needs at those sites to make things happen there for our services.”

Whitmarsh agreed.

“I’m thinking this is moot,” she said, “because staff’s already doing it.”

Lawrence then reversed his earlier comment and said staff would meet Monday, March 14 with parents at Glenbrook, Holbrook and Meadow Homes Elementary schools.

“We’ll blow up the map and we’ll have streets on there with the current recommendations so we can share their responses with the board on Tuesday (March 15),” he said. “And the board can consider adopting boundaries for those sites Tuesday.”

Hansen was pleased with the pushed-up timeline.

“And that’s how fast the movement can occur toward accomplishing this,” she said.

The board then voted down her proposed plan 1-3-1: Hansen was the lone vote in favor; Mayo abstained because she was participating via phone and didn’t have Lock’s plan.

Trustees then voted 4-1 to table Lawrence’s boundary recommendation until Tuesday. Mayo voted against this, saying she believed it was restrictive.

Discussion regarding the long-term plan was much shorter.

Hansen moved to adopt it and no one seconded the motion.

Shatswell has informed me that Glenbrook’s school closure plan meeting will take place at 7 p.m. Monday in the school’s multiuse room.

Are you satisfied with the district’s plan?

Posted on Thursday, March 10th, 2011
Under: Education, Mt. Diablo school district | 3 Comments »

Mt. Diablo Trustee Cheryl Hansen jumpstarts school closure transition plans

On Friday morning, I received an e-mail from Mt. Diablo Trustee Cheryl Hansen telling me that she had submitted a proposal to the district regarding school closures for discussion by the board on March 8.

Here is her proposal:

“March 1, 2011

Action Item for March 8, 2011 Board Meeting

Submitted by Cheryl Hansen

SCHOOL CLOSURE PLANS

We need to develop two school closure plans, one to address the immediate needs of the two schools slated for closure and one long-term plan to address the enrollment trends:

PLAN #1 – Glenbrook and Holbrook School Closure Plan

• Develop an immediate plan to address the closure issues around the closing of Glenbrook and Holbrook. There is an urgent need to identify the new schools of attendance for these students, which would include a redrawing of attendance boundaries, among other issues (see list below).

PLAN #2 – Development of a Long-Term Plan for School Closure

• Establish a new School Closure Committee to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of MDUSD schools and facilities to develop a long-term (3-year minimum), comprehensive plan to identify and address potential school/facilities closures and openings.

• Here are just some of the key components to be researched, evaluated, and addressed in the plan:

1. An analysis of continuing growth and/or declining enrollment trends

• The School Closure Committee’s report still needs in-depth analysis and reflection.

2. Redrawing attendance boundaries to establish balanced feeder patterns

3. Transportation issues (e.g., availability)

4. Traffic and safety issues

5. Relocation or redistribution of special education/after school/support programs at schools to be closed

6. Transition and support plan for students at schools to be closed

7. Staffing impact and needs

8. Redistribution of revenue/funding sources at the closing schools

9. Use of Measure C facilities monies

10. Maintenance and security of closed facilities and/or possible use of closed facilities

11. Explicit accounting of actual money saved from school closures, not just a best guess.

In addition, use the CDE’s ‘Closing a School Best Practices Guide’ as a resource.”

[END PROPOSAL]

I tried calling Superintendent Steven Lawrence to discuss Hansen’s proposal, but didn’t hear back from him. I also left a message with Rose Lock, Assistant Superintendent for Student Achievement and School Support, asking about the status of school closure plans. I did not get a response.

The principals of the two schools said they had been told by the district that students would find out where they were being assigned next year by March 15. Based on this information, I wrote a story about Hansen’s proposals.

When the agenda for the March 8 meeting was posted, it didn’t mention Hansen’s proposals. Instead, it included item 7.4 “Boundary Options for Holbrook Elementary School and Glenbrook Middle School” and item 7.5  ”Development of a Long Term Plan for School Closure.”

The boundary plans state that Glenbrook students who are currently on No Child Left Behind transfers to other schools (such as Sequoia Middle School) would no longer be able to continue to receive those transfers if they are assigned to El Dorado or Valley View Middle Schools. Berta Shatswell, office manager at Glenbrook, told me she believed the transfers were supposed to be good for three years, however.

The staff report states that students who are currently on No Child Left Behind transfers could remain at their current schools, but would no longer receive district busing. This could come as a surprise to those families and may place a financial hardship on them, since they will be required to transport their children to faraway schools.

Glenbrook students assigned to Oak Grove Middle School would be able to receive No Child Left Behind transfers with busing, since that school is one of the lowest-performing in the state.

The 30-day window for applying to transfer to other schools for both Holbrook and Glenbrook students would begin March 8, if the board approves the boundaries, according to Lawrence’s staff report.

In addition, the district would hold meetings at the schools to inform families about the transition.

Lawrence states that the district would be able to provide the following information after the 30-transfer period:

“1. Reallocation of staffing.
2. Reallocation of Title I – III and EIA/LEP funds.
3. Reallocation of resources such as instructional materials, library materials, furniture, technology equipment, etc.
4. We will continue to work with Concord City personnel and Police personnel to work on traffic and safety issues.
5. Transportation — At the February 22 Board meeting, information was shared that it would cost $21,500 to create a bus run from Glenbrook to either El Dorado or Valley View. The regional transportation staff is analyzing new bus routes based on the attached boundaries being adopted. Currently, there is no funding to start new bus routes; however, we will continue to work with them to analyze transportation needs throughout the district.
6. At the February 22 Board meeting it was indicated that School Improvement Grant funds would be lost for Glenbrook. We are still waiting for the California Department of Education to provide directions around transferring the after school program funding.

We are currently analyzing the best uses for the Glenbrook and Holbrook facilities. At this time, we do not recommend forming a 7-11 committee to consider selling either property.”

Agenda item 7.5, which calls for a “long-term school closure plan,” doesn’t mention Hansen. Yet, it appears to be Hansen’s proposal:

“• Establish a new School Closure Committee to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of MDUSD schools and facilities to develop a long-term (3-year minimum), comprehensive plan to identify and address potential school/facilities closures and openings.
• Here are just some of the key components to be researched, evaluated, and addressed in the plan:

1. An analysis of continuing growth and/or declining enrollment trends
• The School Closure Committee’s report still needs in-depth analysis and reflection.
2. Redrawing attendance boundaries to establish balanced feeder patterns
3. Transportation issues (e.g., availability)
4. Traffic and safety issues
5. Relocation or redistribution of special education/after school/support programs at schools to be closed
6. Transition and support plan for students at schools to be closed
7. Staffing impact and needs
8. Redistribution of revenue/funding sources at the closing schools
9. Use of Measure C facilities monies
10. Maintenance and security of closed facilities and/or possible use of closed facilities
11. Explicit accounting of actual money saved from school closures, not just a best guess.

In addition, use the CDE’s ‘Closing a School Best Practices Guide’ as a resource.
Funding.”

Lawrence doesn’t include the “explicit accounting of actual money saved” in his school boundary staff report. Yet, Hansen told me she wants to know exactly how much is being saved from closing Glenbrook and Holbrook and wants to know whether the district will achieve its goal of $1.5 million in savings with the other cost-cutting measures recommended by Lawrence Feb. 22.

When Trustee Gary Eberhart proposed an idea related to school closures in February, he did not provide any written report to the district or to the public. Hansen said she wanted to let the district and the public know what she was thinking ahead of time, so they would not be surprised on Tuesday.

Are you satisfied with Lawrence’s short-term recommendations related to school closure? Do you agree with Hansen’s recommendation for a long-term plan?

Posted on Sunday, March 6th, 2011
Under: Education, Mt. Diablo school district | 23 Comments »

What will happen to Mt. Diablo district Measure C funds designated for closed schools?

One of the many unanswered questions regarding the Mt. Diablo school board’s decision to close Holbrook Elementary and Glenbrook Middle School in Concord is: What will happen to the Measure C funds designated for improvements on those campuses?

Before the Measure C election in June, the district posted general categories of improvements on its website, but didn’t give the public an itemized list showing what was planned, including costs. Now, the general information appears to have been removed from the website link, which was previously available by clicking on “Website with more information about Measure C including individual school plans” here: http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Pages/measurecjune2010.aspx.

Here’s what was planned at each site (from the district’s “2010 Facilities Master Plan Update/Proposed Bond Program Profile: 2010 Facilities Improvement Plan,” which has not been posted online, to my knowledge):

GLENBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL: 13 items costing $3.65 million
Solar panels: $1,285,528
Centralized irrigation: $16,486
Roofing system: $144,268.75
Windows: $36,002.10
Door hardware: $24,240
Floor covering: $47,815.95.
Restroom renovation: $295,200.
Food service: code improvements: $45,593.25
Electrical security system: $140,524.86
Telecommunications: $70,0000
Network cabling and upgrades: $120,912
Technology classroom enhancements: $213,487.50
Middle school science lab cluster: $1,214,000
TOTAL: $3,654,058.41

HOLBROOK ELEMENTARY: 20 items costing nearly $2.7 million
Solar panels: $791,094
Centralized irrigation: $9,346
Concrete repairs: $25,350
Paved playground repairs: $19,107.75
Playground equipment replacement: $49,500
Fencing replacement: $6,650
Exterior doors: $16,250
Roofing system: $14,462.50
Windows: $50,774.40
Door hardware: $4,040
Floor covering: $37,968.
Restroom renovation: $246,000.
Food service: code improvements: $43,112.85
Classroom air conditioning: $977,637.
Administrative air conditioning: $2,673.
Kitchen air conditioning: $22,750
Electrical security system: $96,027.58
Fiber optic backbone: $58,0000
Network cabling and upgrades: $78,000
Technology classroom enhancements: $143,467.50
TOTAL: $2,692,210.58

TOTAL FOR BOTH SCHOOLS: $6,346,269 or more than $6.3 million

The district applied for and received California Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS) for the solar panels, with specific amounts designated for each site.

Glenbrook didn’t need air conditioning, because it already has it (El Dorado and Valley View, which most Glenbrook students will be transferred to, don’t yet have air conditioning.)

Superintendent Steven Lawrence said he would use some Measure C money to explore the idea of building a new high school in Bay Point (or possibly upgrading an existing campus to make it a high school). No cost estimates have been shared with the board yet regarding this idea.

What do you think the district should do with the $6.3 million in Measure C funds designated for Holbrook and Glenbrook?

Posted on Monday, February 28th, 2011
Under: Education, Mt. Diablo school district | 15 Comments »

Will the Mt. Diablo school district really save $1.5 million?

Mt. Diablo schools Superintendent Steven Lawrence persuaded the school board to unanimously approve his recommendation not to close any additional schools Tuesday, without giving trustees a cost savings analysis to back up his claim that the district would save $1.5 million.

His PowerPoint presentation — which included answers to many questions — was missing one very important question and answer: How do the recommendations add up to $1.5 million?

Here are cost savings estimates I was able to dig up from previous PowerPoints:

(From Feb. 8 meeting):

Closing Holbrook Elementary would save $350,995 in salaries/benefits and $72,543 in utilities for a total of $423,538.

Closing Glenbrook Middle School would save $519,285 in salaries and benefits and $100,070 in utilities for a total of $619,356.

Together, closing both schools would save $1,042,894 or about $1 million.

However, Lawrence pointed out that closing Glenbrook would increase El Dorado MS to 1,115 students, Valley View MS to 787 students and Oak Grove MS to 761 students.

“We would need to add one or two vice principal positions at a cost of approximately $102,000 per position,” he wrote in his PowerPoint.

Two vice principals would cost $204,000.

Trustees on Tuesday agreed with Lawrence’s plan to create a nonpublic school special education program on the Glenbrook site, but were not given any cost estimates for this.

On Feb. 8, Lawrence told the board: “The program would grow over time and we project after the third year we would save $400,000 annually.”

There was no estimate for the first and second years. However, if this program uses a majority of the site, the district could lose the $100,070 in utilities savings estimated above.

This means the $619,356 estimated savings for closing Glenbrook would be reduced by $204,000 for the two vice principals and by $100,070 for utilities, leaving $315,286 in savings for Glenbrook, and $738,824 for Holbrook and Glenbrook combined.

On Feb. 8, Lawrence estimated the district could save $130,000 by combining two necessary small high schools. However, he didn’t give the total costs for salaries, benefits and utilities at each of the sites.

This means trustees don’t know how he’s arriving at his $130,000 small necessary schools estimate. On Tuesday, trustees went along with Lawrence’s suggestion to study high schools further, meaning they currently haven’t agreed to close or consolidate any small necessary high schools and can’t count the $130,000 estimate in their savings.

Also on Feb. 8, Lawrence told trustees they could save $91,000 by redrawing boundaries around Meadow Homes Elementary in Concord and $51,000 by redrawing boundaries around Delta View Elementary in Pittsburg to arrive at $140,000 in savings from discontinued “overflow” busing. Trustees agreed to this on Tuesday.

Finally, Lawrence brought up the new idea Tuesday of providing online “learning opportunities” to independent and home study students. He gave no cost savings estimate for this idea and didn’t explain how it would save money.

So, here’s a rundown of the savings the board can count on:

Closing Holbrook: $423,538
Closing Glenbrook: $315,286 (with 2 vice principals and utilities added back)
Redrawing boundaries: $140,000

TOTAL SAVINGS: $878,824 — or $621,176 less than the board’s goal of $1.5 million.

Here are Lawrence’s other recommendations, for which he did not give solid cost savings estimates:

Create a nonpublic school program at Glenbrook: $400,000 after third year

Investigate ways to meet student needs in necessary small high schools more efficiently: possibly $130,000

Offer online learning opportunities to independent and home study students: unknown savings

The amounts the district will lose as a result of closing Holbrook and Glenbrook are a bit firmer:

School Improvement Grant: $584,000 per year for two years or $1,168,000 (plus the district could be required to give back funding this year for summer school or other programs not implemented)

ASES (after-school program): District would lose $114,225 of its Glenbrook grant and $122,828 of its Holbrook grant, or a total of $237,053.

TOTAL LOST: $1,405,053

This means the district could be giving up $526,229 more than it is saving under the board-approved plan. (Unless the nonpublic school, small necessary high school consolidation and online learning equal or exceed $526,229).

Do you think Lawrence should have demonstrated the district could reach its $1.5 million savings goal instead of asking trustees to rely on staff’s belief that this target would be met?

Posted on Thursday, February 24th, 2011
Under: Education, Mt. Diablo school district | 33 Comments »

Mt. Diablo superintendent recommends no other school closure

The agenda for Tuesday’s Mt. Diablo school board meeting, which is likely to include another vote on the school closure issue, has been posted.

But Superintendent Steven Lawrence isn’t recommending closing another school. Instead, he says in his staff report that he believes the district can reach its goal of saving $1.5 million a year by:

• Closing Glenbrook Middle and Holbrook Elementary schools in north Concord as planned (and forfeiting nearly $1.2 million in Glenbrook’s School Improvement Grant funding over the next two years);

• Developing a program at the closed Glenbrook site that would “allow us to reduce the number of special education students served by nonpublic schools;”

• Redrawing boundary lines around crowded schools to “minimize overflow transportation costs;”

• “Investigate ways to meet student needs in our Necessary Small High Schools more efficiently;” and

• Provide “online learning opportunities” to students in the district’s Independent Study\Horizon and Home study programs.

One big question is whether Lawrence can provide the board with hard numbers to back up this recommendation and show the savings he is promising. The other huge caveat is in his introduction to the recommendation:

“Provided the Governor’s Budget proposal is approved and our funding is only reduced by $18.38 per student…”

This means that if Gov. Jerry Brown’s funding proposal is not approved (and voters don’t approve his proposed tax extension), the district would have to make much deeper cuts, which could include more school closures. Obviously, the district won’t know that until after the proposed June election.

Lawrence also notes in his staff report that:

“The purpose of this Board item is to:

1. Answer Board questions asked at the Tuesday, February 15, 2011 Board workshop;

2. Consider whether additional facilities need to be closed. Currently, Silverwood, Westwood, and Willow Creek are being considered;

3. Consider consolidation or closure of Necessary Small High School programs and Diablo Community Day School;

4. Provide an opportunity for staff to make a recommendation to the Board.”

As has been seen in the past, trustees can also bring up their own ideas and will likely discuss the idea brought up by Board President Gary Eberhart to “move” Glenbrook to the Westwood Elementary site, if the board were to close that campus.

At the Feb. 15 meeting, Lawrence suggested consolidating some small necessary high schools on the Olympic High School campus. However, teacher Skip Weinstock told me there is no room on that campus for a new program, unless the Alliance special education and/or Crossroads small necessary high school for pregnant teens and teen moms were moved.

Weinstock suggested the district could instead move small necessary high schools to the Mt. Diablo High School campus, which is in the same area of Concord and has excess capacity.

Trustee Linda Mayo asked Feb. 15 whether Lawrence had considered consolidating small necessary high schools on the Ygnacio Valley High School campus, which also has excess capacity.

Some Glenbrook Middle School parents have expressed concerns about the idea of locating a nonpublic special education program in their neighborhood, since it could include students who are severely emotionally troubled. Hopefully, Lawrence will give more details about the type of program he envisions.

Glenbrook parents and staff also question the estimated savings for closing Glenbrook, if it is instead used to house another program. If the district is going to essentially “keep it open” for another student population, they wonder why it doesn’t just allow Glenbrook to continue to operate there, keeping it’s $1.2 million grant over the next two years. Could a nonpublic school instead be housed on the Holbrook site?

According to the state’s school closure “best practices” advice: “Some of the alternatives as listed below do not involve real cost savings if this is the focus of reasons for school closure: …
reorganize attendance boundaries;
use surplus classrooms for other district functions;
enter into joint-use/joint occupancy agreements;
convert to community day school use;
convert to a small high school;…”

Also, Lawrence hasn’t been specific about how “redrawing boundaries” would affect the families of students in new boundary areas. Currently, overcrowded schools are in low-income areas of Concord and Bay Point.

Now, the district pays to bus “overflow” students to other campuses. If the district redraws the boundaries, some of those students would likely be assigned to schools that are farther away from their homes. But their parents would be responsible for getting them there, since the district wouldn’t have to bus them anymore. This could place additional financial hardship on low-income families.

Lawrence also hasn’t clarified what would happen to families now living in the Glenbrook attendance area whose children are bused to other schools on No Child Left Behind transfers (since Glenbrook is a low-achieving school). Office manager Berta Shatswell said these transfers are supposed to be in effect for all three years of middle school. But, if the school closes, will the district honor its promise to bus those children to other schools for two more years? If so, where would they be picked up? If not, these students could be in for a big surprise.

Some in the community have questioned the district’s decision-making process regarding school closures. Contra Costa Times columnist Tom Barnidge attended the Feb. 15 board meeeting and has been following the issue.

You can see his take on the process in his latest column, entitled: “Mt. Diablo trustees making closures as painful as possible.”

Do you agree with Barnidge’s assertion that “Every decision seems to be a reactive, knee-jerk fix to problems as they arise without long-range considerations”?

Posted on Saturday, February 19th, 2011
Under: Education, Mt. Diablo school district | 37 Comments »

How the Mt. Diablo district promised to spend its Glenbrook Middle School Improvement Grant

Here’s a copy of Glenbrook Middle School’s approved three-year, $1.7 million grant application.

If the school board closes the school, it will lose its 2011-12 and 2012-13 funding and could also lose a portion of its 2010-11 funding not used this year (such as for summer school).

School Name: Glenbrook Middle School

Activity Description

(See instructions)

Subtotal

(For each activity)

Object Code

Certificated Salaries

 

1000

     

Teacher (Coach) – Hire 3 Intervention Support Teachers(1 ELA, 1 Math, 1 Data) at $56,000 each to provide support to teachers to improve student learning. 3 DTE x $56,000 = $168,000 x 3 years

$168,000 x 3 years = $504,000

1100

     

Collaboration for teachers to review data monthly (from assessments) – Teachers will be released by grade level & department for a ½ day per month to analyze data, identify essential standards, target instruction & identify intervention groups.  27 teachers x $70/half day sub x 10 months = $18,900 x 3 years.

$18,900 x 3 years = $56,700

1160

     

Professional Development Days for Teachers Prior to School – Professional developments days for teacher to plan & prepare for school year.  Content will include ELA, ELD, Math, data & common assessment & school climate. (27 teachers x $20/hr x 7hrs/day x 2 days x 3 years)

$7,560 x 3 years = $22,680

1160

     

Planning Time for Teachers to Develop Common Assessments & Pacing Guides – Planning time for teachers during the summer to develop common assessments, pacing guides & lessons.  (16 teachers x $20/hr x 7hrs/day x 10 days x 3 years)

$22,400 x 3 years = $67,200

1160

     

Hire Teachers to Teach a 4 week Summer School Program – Summer School program that includes ELA & Mathematics intervention as well as enrichment electives for students.  (20 teachers x 20 days (4 week program) x 5 hrs/day x $25/hr plus administrator at $,7000 x 3 years)

$57,000 x 3 years = $171,00

1160

     

Extended Day (as Part of the After School  Program) – Provide Extended Day Intervention & enrichment classes to students not a grades level and any student who chooses to take an enrichment/elective class.  (8 teachers x 3 days/wk x 32 wks x 1.5 hrs plus 1 hour prep/wk x $25/hr x 3 years)

$35,200 x 3 years = $105,600

1100

Increase Librarian from .40 FTE to 1.0 FTE – Increase librarian from a .40 FTE to 1.0 FTE .40 provided by the district. (.60 FTE x $56,000 x 3 years)

$33,600 x 3 years = $100,800

1100

     

Classified Salaries

 

2000

     

Employee Benefits x 3 years

 

3000

     

STRS-Certificated (8.25%)

$28,269 x 3 years = $84,808

3101

PERS-Classified (10.200%)

-

 

Medicare-Certificated (1.45%)

$4,969 x 3 years = $14,906

3321

Medicare-Classified

-

 

SUI-Certificated (.720%)

$2,467 x 3 years = $7,401

3502

SUI-Classified

-

 

Social Security-Classified (6.2%)

-

 

WCI-Certificated (2.96%)-Workers Compensation Insurance

$10,143 x  years = $30,428

3601

WCI-Classified (2.96%)

-

 

Certificated Hourly-PARS (3.750%)

$12,850 x 3 years = $38,549

3331

Classified Hourly-PARS (3,750%)

-

 

Dental ($1,406 per person, 3 staff)

$4,218 x 3 years = $12,654

3421

Vision ($196 per person, 3 staff)

$588 x 3 years = $1,764

3431

Health Insurance-Certificated  $1,384 + union negotiated $3,300, 3 staff

$14,052 x 3 years = $42,156

3411

Health-Classified

-

 
     

Books and Supplies

 

4000

     

Curriculum Associates Assessments (Math & ELA) – Data/Assessment.  Purchase Curriculum Associates benchmark assessments for every student.  Each student 6-8 will need 2 booklets (ELA & Math) at $4 each.  540 students x $4/book x 2 books (ELA/Math)  $4320 x 3 years

$4,320 x 3 years = $12,960

4300

     

Curriculum Associates Assessments (Science for 5th & 8th graders) – Data/Assessment.  Purchase Curriculum Associates benchmark assessments for every student.  8th grade students will need 1 additional book (Science).  176 8th graders x $4 = $704 x 3 years

$704 x 3 years = $2,112

4300

     

Curriculum Associates Assessments (California English Language Develop Practice & Mastery) – Will be administered 2 times per year to measure progress and monitor instruction. (300 students x $4 x 2 booklets x 3 years)

$2,400 x 3 years = $7,200

4300

     

Curriculum and Associates Scanner – Data/Assessment.  Purchase 2 Curriculum Associates scanners to support assessment tools implementation & analysis (2 scanners x $800 each – $1,600 x 3 years)

$1,600 x 3 years = $4,800

4400

     

Purchase Board Math Curriculum & Training for 3 AIMS Classes – Purchase Board Math curriculum, training and instructional materials.

$5,000 x 3 years = $15,000

4300

     

Supplies and Materials – Instructional supplies and materials for summer school program.

$10,113 x 3 years = $30,339

4300

     

Conferences, Contracts and Travel

 

5000

     

Contract with Outside Entity for an External Entity – External entity will work with staff/administration to support data analysis, targeted instruction and interventions.  Total contract is $24,000 x 3 years.  ($800/day x 3 days/mo x 10 mo)

$24,000 x 3 years = $72,000

5800

     

Independent Contract for a Psychologist Intern – Independent contract for a Psych Intern ($5,500/day x 4 days a week = $22,000 x 3 years)

$22,000 x 3 years = $66,00

5800

     

Contract with Phil Gonsalves for Math Coaching and Support – Paid technical assistance.  Math Coach, Phil Gonsalves, will visit and coach the Glenbrook math department & meet with teachers during release days to support math instruction.  2 days/mo x 10 months x $1,000/day x 3 years.

$20,000 x 3 years = $60,000

5210

     

Contract with Phyllis Goldsmith for Reading Language Arts – Pd technical assistance.  RLA Coach (Phyllis Goldsmith) will visit & coach the Glenbrook RLA department & meet with teachers during release days to support reading instruction.  2 days/mo x 10 mo x $800/day x 3 years.

$16,000 x 3 years = $48,000

5210

Contract with Aida Walqui for English Learner coaching – Pd technical assistance.  EL Coach (Aida Walqui) will visit & coach the Glenbrook math department & meet with teachers during release days to support math instruction.  2 days/mo x 9 mo x $800/day x 3 years.

$16,000 x 3 years = $48,000

5210

     

Professional Development for Fred Jones Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning – Glenbrook Middle will send 6 teachers to the Fred Jones Culturally Responsive Teaching & Learning/Classroom Management Training to support the development of a positive school climate.  (6 teachers x $1,000 x 3 years)

$6,000 x 3 years = $18,000

5210

     

Read 180 Professional Development – For teachers to learn Read 180 Intervention curriculum and program

(2 teachers x $2,000 x 3 years)

$4,000 x 3 years = $12,000

5210

     

Facilities

 

6000

     

Subtotal

$552,353 x 3 years = $1,657,058

 
     

Contracts over $25,000

-

 
     

Indirect Costs

 

7300

     

Indirect Costs (5.73%)

$31,649 x 3 years = $94,947

7310

     

Total

$584,002 x 3 years = $1,752,005

 

Do you agree with the school board’s decision to close the school and forfeit the grant? Do you think the board should pursue Board President Gary Eberhart’s idea of using this grant money for a combined sixth-grade only school that would consolidate students from Glenbrook and El Dorado middle schools on the Westwood Elementary campus (with Westwood being closed)?

Posted on Friday, February 18th, 2011
Under: Education, Mt. Diablo school district | 1 Comment »