December 9, 2013
Board Meeting Highlights
Dani Jurichko and Sandy Borneville recognized as Employees
of the month.
Consent calendar adopted (exception item D)
Trustee Moran nominated Trustee Severson as president of the
Board (selected).
Trustee Moran and Trustee Krompholz were nominated as vice
president of the Board. Trustee Butler pointed out that Trustee Moran has twice
served as a previous officer and the Board guidelines indicate that an
experienced trustee who has not served as an officer shall have the
opportunity. Trustee Moran, Rossiter and Severson voted to elect Trustee Moran
as VP.
Trustees determined which Trustees would serve on which
committees.
Interdistrict transfers for the employees’children:
Trustee Butler supported the attendanc of employees’
children in our schools and had engaged in extensive research of the Education
Code and policies in districts throughout Contra Costa. The following school
districts accommodate the children of employees attending their schools:
Martinez, Mt. Diablo, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Moraga, Acalanes, and Lafayette.
Mr. Moran expressed concern that if a district favors one
group it automatically excludes others. He requested more information. Trustee
Rossitor asked for historical information. Mrs. Farrell reported that the
majority of teachers’ children who apply are accepted. Since ’09-10 there have
been 5 denials and 1 retraction.
Trustee Severson asked if requests are site specific. That
stipulation varies.
Teachers, Emily Cashen, Barbara Gunderson, Sue Boudreau,
Charles Shannon, Erin Miller, Adam Miller, and Paula Lopez spoke in support of
interdistrict transfers.
Ms Gunderson pointed out that at one time state law
supported the interdistrict transfers. When that door closed, the Education
Code supported interdistrict transfers. OUSD once did so as well and the Board
was asked to reinstate.
A Glorietta parent encouraged the board to admit the
children of teachers and provided a letter to the Board.
Teacher, Debra Jokish’s son was denied attendance for her
child although told upon hiring that her child would be able to attend. She spoke in support of those teachers’
children who have/will come after her son.
William Hudson, citizen, spoke in support and is “amazed”
that the teachers’ children are not readily admitted.
Trustee Krompholz spoke in support of admitting the children
of district employees.
Trustee Rossitor referred to the issue as a “process
concern” and expressed unease about legal challenge.
Trustee Severson referred to legal counsel.
Matt Moran would like to see multiple policies and expressed
concern about families who buy/rent within the district in late August. In
closing he stated that he would like to support the employees’ children.
First Period Interim Report ‘13-14: the Board approved a positive
financial status extending through 2015-16.
Furniture for new district office: Board aproved budget of
close to $69,000. Mr. Silvas reported that some pieces from previous office
will be recycled. The furniture will be purchased from the Sam Clar company.
Mr. Hudson from Friends of Wagner Ranch inquired as to the
possibility of a restroom facility in the Nature Area and a more permanent roof
than currently exists in the cooking area. FWR underwrites staffing for
programs in Nature Area. Inquired about a defined budget, matching funds,
materials for possible projects there.
Trustee Rossitor expressed interest in replacing the 11
portables in the district. The
Facilities Task Force budget does not iclude replacing portables b/c of
feedback from task force meetings. Other items received the earmarked funds.
Lengthy discussion about items on Task Force Facilities list.
Columbia Training for K-5:
Use of funding from Common Core budget to support spring
training approved.
Common Core
Expenditure Plan
Mrs. Marshall identified that the preliminary budget had
been composed through OTEC, the Coordination Council, the Curriculum Committee
and a teachers’ survey.
$200.96 per student based on 2012-13 enrollment
$499,995.00 to be spent by 7/15/13
Develop and adopt an expenditure plan, explain at public
meeting, adopt at future meeting
Funds may be used in three categories: instructional
materials, professional development. integration through tech-based instruction
including infrastructure, band-width, connectivity, support, software
Preliminary Funds distribution:
39% professional development
52% technology
9% instructional materials
2013-15: $44,234.00
ELA, math, both subjects integrated into Common Core, report card development,
software programs
$196,010.00: Columbia , “other” training, teachers
collaborating together”
ELA, math, science,
tech training
$259,751.00: technology; focused on infrastructure,
equipment, installations software
Charles Shannon spoke to increased time devoted by teachers
to developing Common Core units without compensation and the lack of available
materials for transition/Common Core. Charles encouraged looking at other
funding sources for technology due to high percentage earmarked for that area.
10:00 pm: consensus to continue Board Meeting. Trustee Moran
departed.
Communication: Trustees attended CSBA Conference
Dr Jaconette thanked Trustees for attending and thanked
Trustee Rossitor for her tenure as previous Board President.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted by,
Colleen Sullivan
OEA VP
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you to everyone who came to the School Board Meeting on Dec. 9th, and to those who sent e-mails, and to those who spoke at the meeting. As a Board member, I really appreciate the comments and input from teachers and staff on the important issues which we are facing and hearing first hand from staff on these issues. I hope everyone (all stakeholders) continue to be comfortable sharing input with all Board Members. thank you! Sarah Butler
ReplyDeleteThis is from the CDE website re. laws regarding interdistrict transfers:
ReplyDelete"Policies regarding intradistrict/open enrollment and interdistrict/reciprocal agreement transfers are the responsibility of each local district governing board and are not within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Education (CDE). Each local district governing board has ultimate authority over general education processes such as district transfers. Parents/guardians shall work with their local school district administration to share their concerns and to determine what local processes their district has in place regarding district transfers.
California’s educational system relies on local control for the management of school districts on the theory that those closest to the problems and needs of each individual district are the best able to make appropriate decisions on behalf of the district. In allocating their resources among the schools of the district, school district governing boards and district administrators must follow the law, but they also have the additional task of setting the educational priorities for their schools and weighing the importance and urgency of all of their education needs."
So there seems to be no basis for the board comments regarding the legality of prioritizing the children of staff at our schools.