Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
C&I Mtg Jun 09 2014

C&I Mtg Jun 09 2014

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7|Likes:
Published by Julian A.
C&I Mtg Jun 09 2014
C&I Mtg Jun 09 2014

More info:

Published by: Julian A. on Jun 10, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/10/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Banda: M Tolley and his staff made it very clear dual is not tenable. Today I did sent out an email to our k5 principal indicating that that is our intent, that we have a single adoption, and I really encouraged them strongly to do that, and that we would scrutinize them closely. We have schools stll have waivers in effect. No intention to undo. Thursday morn we had (will have?) a district leadership team meeting, opportunity for them to discuss concerns they may have, and opportunity for them to say we need to have a clearly articulated well-aligned math curriculum. We are not necessaryil saying they need to
have a way, not my posiiont to tell then they can’t have a waiver. We want to make sure they address al
5 criteria if they submit a waiver. Marty I understand form vendor there are several schools using EnVM without waiver. Are you thinking these schools will get waivers. Banda. I
don’t think so.
M. Tolley: What was communicated thursday morning is we have an adopted se t of materials, mif. 11 schols currently using, three of which have waivers. Those schools currently using even without waiver if they want to continue to use EnVM, they need to file a waiver. Whether or not it gets approved is another question. The request goes to executive director of schools. We have to seriously consider articulation and effects on mobile students in the region, then a waiver may be denied. Blandford: Has criteria for approving waivers already been decided. Tolley: Policy 2020 has five criteria Blandford: Would you call the approval subjective or objective? Toelly: Five criteria, schools have to demonstrate the need that school better served by the requested materials. Peaslee: I was involved in writing the waiver policy. [2012] I made an amendnent that added a clause that Supe could deny waiver. Intent of policy was that schools using district-adopted materials could request waiver if District adopted material not meeting needs of students. Never intend waiver process to be used as an end-run around adopted curriculum. Also, 2020 policy requirements for community engage are not specific at all, that is a subjective criterion, so very concerned about that, because we are being flood by emails from parents that something is happening in their building around waivers, but they are not getting asked by principals. Fact is , the way this is being done, in fast track manner, without really serious community engagement is really problematic, because lots of these parents, really happy with mif adoption but now are hearing their principals seeking EnVM waiver. Thirdly there is no indication that these BLTs requesting waivers have actually looked at MIF, or used MIF.
Many haven’t even looked at EnVM
. There is a kind of firestorm going here that has nothing to do with making a really well -informed thoughtful decision about instructional materias that will impact every single student in the school. We do need to improve
 
on this policy. Meanwhile I am very concerned that there is an effort to do an end run around the policy. This is an abuse of the policy, not the intent of the policy. Peters: purpose of the waiver was for schools for whom adopted curriculum is not suitable, for them to get chance to close achievement gap, get better results for their students
, but they haven’t even use
d the mandated material so this is clear abuse of waiver policy. Other concern is communities only hearing about this on very short time line, getting lots of S.O.S. emails,
“My principal
seeming to be doing somthing without che
cking in us”, then PASS doing something, this is to subvert
the vote of the board. This is a terrible precedent to set. I thank Banda for writing his letter to uphold the board decisions I do feel Sup Banda you just said that you want to encourage the principals to
consider
 taking mif. I have to say no they
have
” to take
MIF, right now most schools do not qualify based on principles in waiver. I do agree with schools already using EnVM get to continue. Funding for waivers: has been sproradic arbitrary
, seems like we’re changing the
rules all of a sudden in a rush, it
s raising alot of eyebrows in the community. For unity and strength
of district we can’t allow
this. Blandford: I have different interprettion of emails we
’ve beg
un to see. At least some o
f emails I’ve seen
are less about having env or mif, but more about desire to pay attention to process by MAC. Be that as it may, the Board made a decision to not pay attention to that, to overulel it, so I think this is opportunity for some principal and some school community. If they have the flexibility to pursue another option, that is what they are doing. In this room a month ago several principals said this is what would happen. It seemed to me the message we should take is that it would behoove us to listen total. 2
nd
 comment. What is the interpretation of your email Jose, and whether or not principals have clear guidance as to whether or not there is a wiaver process or not, because I hear there is a lot of wiggle room. We need to eliminate wiggle room. Many principals out there are trying to prepare waivers. I want some clarity. Banda: We listented to some PASS leadership earlier today. We are aware there is a lot of work being done to consult the BLT
s, we don’t want them to spend unnecces
ary time dedicated on that. So I think tomorrow will provide a good opportunity to talk about this. We need to hear from principals, there is a lot of unsettlement around the whole adoption. Our responsibility to hear them out, but also share with them our focus, to come t gether. We have to move forward can continue to have this creating conflict. Peters. I must correct the record. Stephan, you said we did not pay attention to the process. I beg to differ. We took it very. Seriously. T
hat’s why we brought d
ual adoption. The principals union gave us strongest reason against dual. Staff gave us many reasons against dual, so we withdrew the dual, had everything to do with board policy. This was not a frivolous decisions. Now we have principals ironically are trying to get a a dual --
the very thing they didn’t want
. Blandflour: I need to correct your correction. The principal
response says both that they don’t want a
dual, and they want the MAC recommendation to be respected and adopted. That was a decision for mif. My interpretion is quite different. Our principals were very clear in wanting the recommendation of the MAC to be honored and that has caused this dissention that is in the air right now.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->