We're all busy with the holidays, plus the agenda is not chock full of excitement, so this will be an efficient post. Here goes:
Superintendent's Contract (Closed Session) - As I have reported in recent posts, the Board appears to be in the process of negotiating a new contract with Dr. Pitts. Her current three-year contract expires on June 30, 2011. The status of negotiations is unknown. It could be that the Board will emerge from closed session and start the open agenda by announcing that a new contract has been signed. Time will tell...
Bond Funding for Facilities (Agenda Item #8) - At the Nov. 17 monthly meeting, the Board announced the formation of a subcommittee that will lead the effort to update the 2008 Facilities Master Plan and lead planning efforts for a potential ballot measure in November 2011. Trustees Wade and Ritter were appointed to serve on the subcommittee. The subcommittee is reportedly meeting weekly, and the agenda packet includes a list of tasks that the subcommittee has outlined for completion in the near future. Highlights include conducting a "mini survey" of parents regarding preferred facility expansion option (e.g. two-school campus at NC site, re-build on San Clemente site, etc.) and organizing a "larger committee" to begin meeting in January to discuss facility expansion options. The draft structure for the committee is listed as: District Staff (2), Trustees (2), Union reps (2), SPARK rep (1), Community members at large (2).
Plenty of other items populate the agenda, but unless you feel like reading 100 pages of details regarding potential re-financing of outstanding bond debt, I think you can safely go back to addressing what's left of your Christmas to do lists.
Happy holidays,
Rob
p.s. It has finally happened. For the first time since the inception of this blog, I have an unmovable conflict and I will not be attending Wednesday evening's meeting. If anyone out there does attend, and you want to share some notes with the class, feel free to send them to me and I'll be happy to post them.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
NC Portables - Special Meeting to Select Bid on 12/1
On Wednesday at 4:30 pm the Board is holding a special meeting with one item only on the agenda, to approve the selected bid for installation of a new wing of "4 1/2" portables on the Neil Cummins campus. The selected location is between the play structure and the creek, south of the parking lot.
Note: A quick review, a "special meeting" is any meeting called by the Board that is not on their schedule of "regular meetings" that is published at the start of the year.
According to district staff, all submitted bids will be opened sometime tomorrow. Sometime between bid opening and the meeting itself, either a summary of all received bids, or possibly full copies of all bids will be posted in the agenda packet section of the district website.
Cheers,
Rob
Note: A quick review, a "special meeting" is any meeting called by the Board that is not on their schedule of "regular meetings" that is published at the start of the year.
According to district staff, all submitted bids will be opened sometime tomorrow. Sometime between bid opening and the meeting itself, either a summary of all received bids, or possibly full copies of all bids will be posted in the agenda packet section of the district website.
Cheers,
Rob
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Public Meetings Redux (a.k.a Board Operations 102)
Burgeoning interest the state of the facilities at the Neil Cummins and Hall campuses resulted in a lot of people looking for ways to participate in last week's Board meeting. A lot of people, it seems, also got a frustrating lesson in the mechanics of public agency meetings.
I say this because more than a few people arrived at the 10/17 meeting expecting to be able to offer their opinion to the Board regarding the state of facilities and whether the district should pursue placing a facilities bond measure on the ballot in November 2011. The first thing these people heard was an introduction to the meeting in which the Board President informed the room that the Board meeting was a "meeting of the Board in public" not a "public meeting." If you feel like smashing your laptop or ipad on the table right now, you're not alone. The world of public agency management and oversight can seem labyrinthian, obtuse and, well, crazy-making. But it is true that the Board is significantly constrained by state law that governs public agency meetings. To read an overview of the primary requirements that impact the agenda and meeting process, see my previous post Board Operations 101 from September 30.
In case you skipped right past and didn't re-read my old post, and because my wife and editor is encouraging me to restate the primary point, here it is: The Board can schedule a public hearing (agenda item including both public comment and Board discussion) on any subject it wants, with limited exceptions. The procedure often used by our Board, where items are discussed in public but public comment time is not included, is used by choice, not because that's the way it has to be. In case you doubt this, keep reading because...
...Since last week's meeting the ground has shifted a bit. Dr. Pitts' blast email of November 20 announced that the December 15 Board meeting (and, presumably all subsequent Board meetings until a decision is made regarding filing for the November 2011 election) will include time for public comment on facilities. One lesson here is that weighing in with your emails and personal presence at meetings can indeed influence the Board agenda. And rightfully so. The Board does, after all, work for us. We elected them to represent us, which should include actively listening to us. However, a second lesson is that you need to be persistent.
I sense the presence of a lot of persistent folks out there on the topic of our school facilities. I think the upcoming Board meetings, and separate public meetings/workshops that are reportedly being planned, will be well attended. I look forward to seeing you all at one or another of these events. I'm confident that together we can participate in a thoughtful process that will result in a well-informed path forward toward a successful bond measure and improved facilities for the benefit of all our kids and the Twin Cities community.
Thanks for reading, and I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving holiday.
-Rob
I say this because more than a few people arrived at the 10/17 meeting expecting to be able to offer their opinion to the Board regarding the state of facilities and whether the district should pursue placing a facilities bond measure on the ballot in November 2011. The first thing these people heard was an introduction to the meeting in which the Board President informed the room that the Board meeting was a "meeting of the Board in public" not a "public meeting." If you feel like smashing your laptop or ipad on the table right now, you're not alone. The world of public agency management and oversight can seem labyrinthian, obtuse and, well, crazy-making. But it is true that the Board is significantly constrained by state law that governs public agency meetings. To read an overview of the primary requirements that impact the agenda and meeting process, see my previous post Board Operations 101 from September 30.
In case you skipped right past and didn't re-read my old post, and because my wife and editor is encouraging me to restate the primary point, here it is: The Board can schedule a public hearing (agenda item including both public comment and Board discussion) on any subject it wants, with limited exceptions. The procedure often used by our Board, where items are discussed in public but public comment time is not included, is used by choice, not because that's the way it has to be. In case you doubt this, keep reading because...
...Since last week's meeting the ground has shifted a bit. Dr. Pitts' blast email of November 20 announced that the December 15 Board meeting (and, presumably all subsequent Board meetings until a decision is made regarding filing for the November 2011 election) will include time for public comment on facilities. One lesson here is that weighing in with your emails and personal presence at meetings can indeed influence the Board agenda. And rightfully so. The Board does, after all, work for us. We elected them to represent us, which should include actively listening to us. However, a second lesson is that you need to be persistent.
I sense the presence of a lot of persistent folks out there on the topic of our school facilities. I think the upcoming Board meetings, and separate public meetings/workshops that are reportedly being planned, will be well attended. I look forward to seeing you all at one or another of these events. I'm confident that together we can participate in a thoughtful process that will result in a well-informed path forward toward a successful bond measure and improved facilities for the benefit of all our kids and the Twin Cities community.
Thanks for reading, and I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving holiday.
-Rob
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Summary of the 11/17 Monthly Meeting
As in my preview post, I'm only going to address two items. One was a BIG item of discussion at the meeting and one wasn't mentioned at all. I'll start with the one that wasn't mentioned, because I get to choose!
Superintendent's Contract - Discussion of a new contract with Dr. Pitts was reportedly conducted during the Closed Session. According to the Board's report out on Closed Session activities, "no action" was taken on any items in the closed session. What exactly does this mean regarding the status of negotiation of a new contract? Who knows. I did, however, decide to send an email to President Mangan regarding when and whether any discussion of the projected timing for signing of a new contract would be discussed during the open portion of the meeting, or if parents would be actively solicited for input. What I heard back was - "Valerie's contract negotiation is a confidential discussion matter...The approved contract will appear in the Consent Section of the December meeting." In case this is at all cryptic, let's put it in English. The new contract is planned to be negotiated and signed sometime in the next few weeks, and it will only appear on the agenda lumped in with other cursory items that are approved, as a group, with one vote.
I have to say that after the conversations that took place at last May's meeting regarding the superintendent's contract, I expected a bit more from the Board as it approached the negotiation of a new contract. Granted, the actual negotiation part is, and must be, confidential. Would you want your salary/contract negotiation to take place in public? Me neither. However, the Board could choose to conduct greater outreach regarding the general issue of the superintendent's contract if it felt like it. Apparently, they weren't/aren't in the mood. However, that can't keep you from sending your thoughts to the Board at trustees@larkspurschools.org. I, for my own self, sent an email expressing my concern over the timing and process used. I won't bore you with the whole text, but the words "extremely frustrating" were prominently featured.
Facilities Bond Discussion - I could drone on about this issue. Instead, I'm just going to hit the highlights. Trustees Wade and Ritter were appointed to lead a subcommittee of the Board that will lead an effort, over the next three months, to prepare for the likelihood that a facilities bond will be placed on the November 2011 ballot. The Board expects to receive a status report each month on progress of the subcommittee's work, which will include: public outreach (presumably including public meetings with open discussion of options), updating of the 2008 Facilities Master Plan document to include current financial assumptions (interest rates, construction cost projection, etc.). Trustees Wade and Ritter will be taking the lead on citizen input, and indicated that they would very soon publish the appropriate email address to which folks can send comments, suggestions, etc. So, we'll all have a few months here to review, re-hash, debate, etc. the various options (two campuses at NC site, re-building on San Clemente site, etc., etc.) I'm sure some of you out there are having flashbacks, but hold on, we'll get through it together. Remember, its for the kids!
For today, I can summon no more. Until next time...
-Rob
Superintendent's Contract - Discussion of a new contract with Dr. Pitts was reportedly conducted during the Closed Session. According to the Board's report out on Closed Session activities, "no action" was taken on any items in the closed session. What exactly does this mean regarding the status of negotiation of a new contract? Who knows. I did, however, decide to send an email to President Mangan regarding when and whether any discussion of the projected timing for signing of a new contract would be discussed during the open portion of the meeting, or if parents would be actively solicited for input. What I heard back was - "Valerie's contract negotiation is a confidential discussion matter...The approved contract will appear in the Consent Section of the December meeting." In case this is at all cryptic, let's put it in English. The new contract is planned to be negotiated and signed sometime in the next few weeks, and it will only appear on the agenda lumped in with other cursory items that are approved, as a group, with one vote.
I have to say that after the conversations that took place at last May's meeting regarding the superintendent's contract, I expected a bit more from the Board as it approached the negotiation of a new contract. Granted, the actual negotiation part is, and must be, confidential. Would you want your salary/contract negotiation to take place in public? Me neither. However, the Board could choose to conduct greater outreach regarding the general issue of the superintendent's contract if it felt like it. Apparently, they weren't/aren't in the mood. However, that can't keep you from sending your thoughts to the Board at trustees@larkspurschools.org. I, for my own self, sent an email expressing my concern over the timing and process used. I won't bore you with the whole text, but the words "extremely frustrating" were prominently featured.
Facilities Bond Discussion - I could drone on about this issue. Instead, I'm just going to hit the highlights. Trustees Wade and Ritter were appointed to lead a subcommittee of the Board that will lead an effort, over the next three months, to prepare for the likelihood that a facilities bond will be placed on the November 2011 ballot. The Board expects to receive a status report each month on progress of the subcommittee's work, which will include: public outreach (presumably including public meetings with open discussion of options), updating of the 2008 Facilities Master Plan document to include current financial assumptions (interest rates, construction cost projection, etc.). Trustees Wade and Ritter will be taking the lead on citizen input, and indicated that they would very soon publish the appropriate email address to which folks can send comments, suggestions, etc. So, we'll all have a few months here to review, re-hash, debate, etc. the various options (two campuses at NC site, re-building on San Clemente site, etc., etc.) I'm sure some of you out there are having flashbacks, but hold on, we'll get through it together. Remember, its for the kids!
For today, I can summon no more. Until next time...
-Rob
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Previewing the Agenda for the 11/17 Monthly Meeting
No hesitating today; let's jump right into the deep end. After the initial shock, it will feel really good, I promise!
Agenda Item 5 - Bond Funding for Facilities Needs: I hear the ground abuzzin' about the Board starting discussions related to a potential facilities bond measure to go on the ballot in November 2011. The discussion item included on the Agenda for Wednesday's meeting will provide the first substantive, on-the-record, discussion where the Board can weigh the pros and cons of pursuing a facilities bond next November. In the packet materials are multiple supporting items that will be referenced during the discussion. The two most interesting to me were the draft timeline of activities that would be required to support a bond campaign (pgs. 5-7), and the results of a resident survey conducted in 2008 regarding support for a potential bond measure (pgs. 5-8 through 5-22). Click here to access packet materials on the district website.
Wednesday night would be a great time for any and all of you to come to the Board meeting and get involved in the discussion early on. The survey results from 2008 showed relatively broad support for a facilities bond, but significantly weaker support for the two-campus plan for the Neil Cummins site. Therefore, it seems other potential ideas are clearly still up for discussion, including potentially renovating or building new at the San Clemente site. I'm guessing that most of us have an opinion about a preferred option, so come on out and be heard. Or, send an email in advance of the meeting to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Closed Session - Superintendent's Contract: After two aborted attempts, the Board finally addressed the Superintendent's performance evaluation during closed session at a special meeting on Saturday, Oct. 30. Now, on the closed session agenda for 11/17, is listed the item "Superintendent's Contract." From having reviewed Dr. Pitts' contract with my own two eyes, I can inform you that it expires on June 30, 2011. I know some of you out there came to a Board meeting last May to discuss concerns regarding the value and structure of Dr. Pitts' contract. It is unknown how long it will take the Board to deliberate on, then eventually adopt a new contract with Dr. Pitts. So, if you have opinions on this matter, regarding appropriate compensation, duration, etc., now would be the time to start weighing in. FYI, Dr. Pitts' current salary is $198,000+. Her existing three-year contact included a significant (about $25,000) increase in year 1, and 5% annual increases in years 2 and 3. Whether the trustees are considering a similar structure in a new contract, only they know. You can send your input to trustees@larkspurcshools.org.
Consent Calendar - Recycling/Disposal of Obsolete Equipment: This item requests that the Board approve the "recycling" of obsolete equipment. This seems all well and good on its face. However, the list of items that are to be "recycled" includes 54 imacs and an Apple G3 Tower computer. I think these must be the old, colorful imacs with the funny, bulbous shape. I'm sure these computers aren't worth a lot, but aren't they worth something? Could they not be given away, or sold for a nominal amount to families that might like an extra computer for the kids?
-Rob
Agenda Item 5 - Bond Funding for Facilities Needs: I hear the ground abuzzin' about the Board starting discussions related to a potential facilities bond measure to go on the ballot in November 2011. The discussion item included on the Agenda for Wednesday's meeting will provide the first substantive, on-the-record, discussion where the Board can weigh the pros and cons of pursuing a facilities bond next November. In the packet materials are multiple supporting items that will be referenced during the discussion. The two most interesting to me were the draft timeline of activities that would be required to support a bond campaign (pgs. 5-7), and the results of a resident survey conducted in 2008 regarding support for a potential bond measure (pgs. 5-8 through 5-22). Click here to access packet materials on the district website.
Wednesday night would be a great time for any and all of you to come to the Board meeting and get involved in the discussion early on. The survey results from 2008 showed relatively broad support for a facilities bond, but significantly weaker support for the two-campus plan for the Neil Cummins site. Therefore, it seems other potential ideas are clearly still up for discussion, including potentially renovating or building new at the San Clemente site. I'm guessing that most of us have an opinion about a preferred option, so come on out and be heard. Or, send an email in advance of the meeting to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Closed Session - Superintendent's Contract: After two aborted attempts, the Board finally addressed the Superintendent's performance evaluation during closed session at a special meeting on Saturday, Oct. 30. Now, on the closed session agenda for 11/17, is listed the item "Superintendent's Contract." From having reviewed Dr. Pitts' contract with my own two eyes, I can inform you that it expires on June 30, 2011. I know some of you out there came to a Board meeting last May to discuss concerns regarding the value and structure of Dr. Pitts' contract. It is unknown how long it will take the Board to deliberate on, then eventually adopt a new contract with Dr. Pitts. So, if you have opinions on this matter, regarding appropriate compensation, duration, etc., now would be the time to start weighing in. FYI, Dr. Pitts' current salary is $198,000+. Her existing three-year contact included a significant (about $25,000) increase in year 1, and 5% annual increases in years 2 and 3. Whether the trustees are considering a similar structure in a new contract, only they know. You can send your input to trustees@larkspurcshools.org.
Consent Calendar - Recycling/Disposal of Obsolete Equipment: This item requests that the Board approve the "recycling" of obsolete equipment. This seems all well and good on its face. However, the list of items that are to be "recycled" includes 54 imacs and an Apple G3 Tower computer. I think these must be the old, colorful imacs with the funny, bulbous shape. I'm sure these computers aren't worth a lot, but aren't they worth something? Could they not be given away, or sold for a nominal amount to families that might like an extra computer for the kids?
-Rob
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Report from the 11/6 Strategic Planning Session
So in the final flurry of planning a surprise 40th birthday party for my wife last Saturday, I didn't make time for a pre post advertising the strategic planning session that was hosted by the Board on the morning of 11/6. Apparently no advertisement was needed, because the event was very well attended. I estimate that 25 people were in attendance for the four-hour session.
I highly encourage you to review the slide show presentation from the meeting, and other detailed strategic plan documents by clicking here. After Dr. Pitts gave a brief presentation supported by the slide show, we moved on to the core of the session, which was reviewing different pillars of the strategic plan in small groups. Each participant chose their three priorities and spent about 30 minutes discussing how the district is doing in that area, what pros and cons in the current environment are affecting performance, and other related observations. I personally had quite interesting chats about the district's fiscal integrity, the challenges of facilities planning, and the state of communication among district stakeholders.
I could talk at length about the details of some of these conversations, but instead I'd like to focus on a bigger picture thought. We have an abundance of engaged, dedicated and smart people who are committed to the success of our kids and our schools. It was a pleasure to meet a few more of them on Saturday.
For those of you who were not in attendance, let me encourage you again to click the link up above and review the elements of the current strategic plan. The meeting that was held Saturday was but one workshop in a series of events - Superintendent coffee chats, Board meetings, etc. - that will take place over the next two months or so leading up to Board consideration and eventual adoption of a revised Strategic Plan. So, keep an eye and ear out for future opportunities to provide your input to the process. The more the merrier!
-Rob
p.s. As a group we reviewed a fascinating presentation by Sir Ken Robinson, creativity and education expert, called Changing Education Paradigms. You can view this 12-minute presentation on you tube by clicking here. I highly recommend it.
I highly encourage you to review the slide show presentation from the meeting, and other detailed strategic plan documents by clicking here. After Dr. Pitts gave a brief presentation supported by the slide show, we moved on to the core of the session, which was reviewing different pillars of the strategic plan in small groups. Each participant chose their three priorities and spent about 30 minutes discussing how the district is doing in that area, what pros and cons in the current environment are affecting performance, and other related observations. I personally had quite interesting chats about the district's fiscal integrity, the challenges of facilities planning, and the state of communication among district stakeholders.
I could talk at length about the details of some of these conversations, but instead I'd like to focus on a bigger picture thought. We have an abundance of engaged, dedicated and smart people who are committed to the success of our kids and our schools. It was a pleasure to meet a few more of them on Saturday.
For those of you who were not in attendance, let me encourage you again to click the link up above and review the elements of the current strategic plan. The meeting that was held Saturday was but one workshop in a series of events - Superintendent coffee chats, Board meetings, etc. - that will take place over the next two months or so leading up to Board consideration and eventual adoption of a revised Strategic Plan. So, keep an eye and ear out for future opportunities to provide your input to the process. The more the merrier!
-Rob
p.s. As a group we reviewed a fascinating presentation by Sir Ken Robinson, creativity and education expert, called Changing Education Paradigms. You can view this 12-minute presentation on you tube by clicking here. I highly recommend it.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Summary of the 10/27/10 Monthly Meeting
So the World Series coming to town didn't cancel tonight's Board meeting, but it sure shortened it! The Board deferred all agendized items that were not time sensitive, conducted a streamlined meeting and finished at 6:50 just as the Giants were finishing off their six-run fifth inning.
While the meeting was short, the Board did discuss a few items of note:
Facilities / Bond Planning - The last time the Board discussed the pursuit of a bond measure to finance new facilities (primarily at Neil Cummins), concern was expressed that the district could not plan toward a November 2011 election date because the Tam High School district is already planning a bond measure for that date. Well, recently, Trustee Mowbray had a discussion with a member of the Tam High District Board, who advised her that our district should proceed with whatever date works for us. Given that input, the Board directed staff to start preliminary work to create a timeline of necessary activities that would lead to a facilities bond on the November 2011 ballot. Stay tuned...
Budget Status - The budget sure is a fast-moving target. Between the time the packet materials were posted to the website last week and the time of the meeting, Business Manager Becky White generated a new revision to the budget. The latest revision shows a +$93,960 change from the budget adopted in June (The version posted last week showed a -$53,618 change).
Technology Assistants - Dr. Pitts reported that the district is about to complete the hiring of two technology assistants. These staff will be responsible for installing newly purchased computer equipment and working with teachers to incorporate technology into their classrooms.
That's it - short and sweet.
Fear the Beard!
-Rob
While the meeting was short, the Board did discuss a few items of note:
Facilities / Bond Planning - The last time the Board discussed the pursuit of a bond measure to finance new facilities (primarily at Neil Cummins), concern was expressed that the district could not plan toward a November 2011 election date because the Tam High School district is already planning a bond measure for that date. Well, recently, Trustee Mowbray had a discussion with a member of the Tam High District Board, who advised her that our district should proceed with whatever date works for us. Given that input, the Board directed staff to start preliminary work to create a timeline of necessary activities that would lead to a facilities bond on the November 2011 ballot. Stay tuned...
Budget Status - The budget sure is a fast-moving target. Between the time the packet materials were posted to the website last week and the time of the meeting, Business Manager Becky White generated a new revision to the budget. The latest revision shows a +$93,960 change from the budget adopted in June (The version posted last week showed a -$53,618 change).
Technology Assistants - Dr. Pitts reported that the district is about to complete the hiring of two technology assistants. These staff will be responsible for installing newly purchased computer equipment and working with teachers to incorporate technology into their classrooms.
That's it - short and sweet.
Fear the Beard!
-Rob
Monday, October 25, 2010
Previewing the Agenda for the 10/27 Monthly Meeting
As I write, the Giants are still alive in the playoffs (Don't Stop Belivin'!). Alas, time must be made in our life for other things, too, so here we go. The Board will be gathering for its regular monthly meeting this coming Wednesday, October 27th, at 6:00 pm in the Hall library. I have reviewed the agenda and the accompanying packet materials, and the following items intrigued me the most.
Superintendent's Evaluation (Closed Session) - The Board was scheduled to provide Dr. Pitts with her annual evaluation during Closed Session of last month's meeting, but that plan was delayed. This month, Dr. Pitts' evaluation is once again on the schedule. This discussion will take place in private, but any of you concerned parents out there who have any input regarding the Superintendent's performance should take this opportunity to email the trustees at trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Board Self Evaluation (Agenda Item 11) - According to the Board's bylaws the Board shall annually conduct a self evaluation of how well the Board has been performing its duties. The Board members will discuss how they think they have been performing individually and how well the Board as a whole has performed over the past year. To review the criteria that will guide the evaluation discussion, you can review the detailed packet material on pgs. 40-41 of the document Agenda Items 6-10. Board procedures do not ensure the ability to ask questions or provide comment at the time an individual item is discussed, so if you have input your would like to be sure the Board considers when evaluating its performance, I recommend you send an email in advance to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Budget Update (Agenda Item 8) - The state adopted a budget! I'm not exactly sure that celebration is in order, but having an adopted budget beats the continued uncertainty that's been hanging over public agencies in the state for the last few months while the budget stalemate dragged on. District staff have updated the projected revenues and expenditures for the year based on the school funding components of the adopted budget, and the bottom line for our district is a reduction of only $53,618 from the original budget adopted by the Board last June. For more detail, see pgs. 19-32 of the document Agenda Items 6-10.
Facilities Planning (Agenda Item 10) - The Board will not be acting to approve any specific facilities item at the upcoming meeting, but it will hold a discussion regarding the overall facilities needs outlined in the Facilities Master Plan generated in 2008 and potential strategies for moving forward with projects included in the plan. On the short-term front, the Board will discuss progress on the planning stages of a project to add 4 1/2 portables to the Neil Cummins campus this year. See details at pgs. 34-35 of Agenda Items 6-10.
Technology Plan (Agenda Item 4) - Over the last few months the district has made significant investment in computers and technology infrastructure, funded by $275,000 from the general budget and $154,000 donated by SPARK (thanks to you contributors out there!). The Board will discuss how the new purchases are being implemented in the classroom and how they fit in with the district's overall technology plan. Now's your chance, tech professionals, to weigh in on how our schools are integrating the latest and greatest new tools into our students' educational pursuits! Share your thoughts at the meeting or by sending an email to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Those are my agenda and packet highlights, everybody. Please share comments below if you have them, and check back on Thursday morning for a summary of the meeting.
-Rob
Superintendent's Evaluation (Closed Session) - The Board was scheduled to provide Dr. Pitts with her annual evaluation during Closed Session of last month's meeting, but that plan was delayed. This month, Dr. Pitts' evaluation is once again on the schedule. This discussion will take place in private, but any of you concerned parents out there who have any input regarding the Superintendent's performance should take this opportunity to email the trustees at trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Board Self Evaluation (Agenda Item 11) - According to the Board's bylaws the Board shall annually conduct a self evaluation of how well the Board has been performing its duties. The Board members will discuss how they think they have been performing individually and how well the Board as a whole has performed over the past year. To review the criteria that will guide the evaluation discussion, you can review the detailed packet material on pgs. 40-41 of the document Agenda Items 6-10. Board procedures do not ensure the ability to ask questions or provide comment at the time an individual item is discussed, so if you have input your would like to be sure the Board considers when evaluating its performance, I recommend you send an email in advance to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Budget Update (Agenda Item 8) - The state adopted a budget! I'm not exactly sure that celebration is in order, but having an adopted budget beats the continued uncertainty that's been hanging over public agencies in the state for the last few months while the budget stalemate dragged on. District staff have updated the projected revenues and expenditures for the year based on the school funding components of the adopted budget, and the bottom line for our district is a reduction of only $53,618 from the original budget adopted by the Board last June. For more detail, see pgs. 19-32 of the document Agenda Items 6-10.
Facilities Planning (Agenda Item 10) - The Board will not be acting to approve any specific facilities item at the upcoming meeting, but it will hold a discussion regarding the overall facilities needs outlined in the Facilities Master Plan generated in 2008 and potential strategies for moving forward with projects included in the plan. On the short-term front, the Board will discuss progress on the planning stages of a project to add 4 1/2 portables to the Neil Cummins campus this year. See details at pgs. 34-35 of Agenda Items 6-10.
Technology Plan (Agenda Item 4) - Over the last few months the district has made significant investment in computers and technology infrastructure, funded by $275,000 from the general budget and $154,000 donated by SPARK (thanks to you contributors out there!). The Board will discuss how the new purchases are being implemented in the classroom and how they fit in with the district's overall technology plan. Now's your chance, tech professionals, to weigh in on how our schools are integrating the latest and greatest new tools into our students' educational pursuits! Share your thoughts at the meeting or by sending an email to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Those are my agenda and packet highlights, everybody. Please share comments below if you have them, and check back on Thursday morning for a summary of the meeting.
-Rob
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Previewing the Agenda for the 10/8 Special Meeting
That's right, it's special meeting time...again. At 10 am on Friday, at the District Office, the Board will hold a special meeting to consider exactly one item, which is to approve the solicitation of bids for the installation of a new set of portables at Neil Cummins.
This will come as no surprise to regular readers of these very pages, because the inevitability of more portables at NC was discussed in the summary of last month's regular meeting. At that time the Board directed staff to continue down the road toward new portables being installed this year. The first task was to review exactly how many portables could fit on the site between the playground and the creek, the next was to solicit bids for the actual construction.
I would happily tell you right now exactly how many portables are in the plan that will be put out to bid (it was projected to be 3 to 5) but no supporting staff report has yet been posted to the district website. If you want to know more about the proposed plan before the Board votes to authorize bid solicitation, it seems you will need to bring your own self down to the District Office on Friday morning for the meeting. Otherwise, I presume packet materials reviewed at the meeting will be posted to the district website shortly thereafter, or will be discussed at the next regular meeting.
-Rob
This will come as no surprise to regular readers of these very pages, because the inevitability of more portables at NC was discussed in the summary of last month's regular meeting. At that time the Board directed staff to continue down the road toward new portables being installed this year. The first task was to review exactly how many portables could fit on the site between the playground and the creek, the next was to solicit bids for the actual construction.
I would happily tell you right now exactly how many portables are in the plan that will be put out to bid (it was projected to be 3 to 5) but no supporting staff report has yet been posted to the district website. If you want to know more about the proposed plan before the Board votes to authorize bid solicitation, it seems you will need to bring your own self down to the District Office on Friday morning for the meeting. Otherwise, I presume packet materials reviewed at the meeting will be posted to the district website shortly thereafter, or will be discussed at the next regular meeting.
-Rob
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Board Operations 101 (a.k.a. What the Heck is the Brown Act?)
So, as you probably know by know, I am a professional public servant. I work for the City of San Francisco. If you know a "government employee" joke, I can almost guarantee you I've heard it. And, once people hear I work for government, I have to bear my share of "why is government so..." questions. On the plus side, I've learned a lot about how government agency boards/councils work, and why they do certain things in a certain way. Many of the perceived peculiarities of how government agency boards work has to do with something you may have heard of called the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act for short.) This is the state law that governs how public agency boards must conduct business in California.
Now, many consultants and lawyers (who know way more than I) make a living as Brown Act experts, and I am certainly not in their league. But I feel qualified enough to hit some high points that may answer some basic questions you may have had about why/how our Board conducts its business.
The Board must...
...publish an annual schedule of "regular" meetings. (Any meeting that is not a "regular" meeting is considered either a "special" or "emergency" meeting.) - Our Board publishes this schedule in the summer for the upcoming year, and the meetings are usually on the fourth Wednesday of the month at 6:00 pm.
...publish an agenda of all items to be discussed at a regular meeting at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting (24 hours for a special meeting, and 1 hour for an emergency meeting). - Our Board publishes the agenda through an email distribution (sent to anyone who has requested to be on the list) and by posting the agenda on the school district website.
...conduct Board business (i.e. deliberate then vote to take action) in "open and public" meetings. Any gathering of more than two members (of a 5-member Board) in considered a meeting and is in violation of the Brown Act if it has not been noticed, agendized, etc. - Considering this requirement along with the agenda requirement above leads to the next item , which can really frustrate people who don't fully understand the rules under which the Board operates, which is that...
...can only take action on items that are on the agenda, given the aforementioned posting and agendizing requirements. - This means that if you show up at a Board meeting and, during public comment, bring up the most insightful, fabulous, award-winning idea, but the idea happens to have nothing to do with an item on the published agenda, the Board by law can't take any action. The lesson here is that if you have a concern/burning issue/great idea that you think requires deliberation and potential action by the Board, simply showing up at one meeting isn't going to get your item heard. You need to work through staff and or individual Board members (by email, phone, etc.) in advance to request that the item be put on the agenda (agendized). Or, at a given regular meeting, you can address the Board members and directly request that the item be agendized for the next regular meeting. By the way, this public participation in the creation of Board agendas is supported by the California Department of Education, which says on its website that...
..."adopt regulations governing the procedures to be followed to...ensure that members of the public may include items on the agenda for consideration..."
...consider only specifically defined items during "Closed" session, to which members of the public are not admitted. - These items are almost always related to either personnel or litigation issues, e.g. taking disciplinary action against an employee or conferring with the Board's attorney regarding a claim or lawsuit to which the district is a party.
I think that's plenty for one post. If you have any questions or comments, or if you have an issue or area you'd like to see addressed in this blog, don't hesitate to leave a comment or send an email.
-Rob (your friendly neighborhood bureaucrat)
Now, many consultants and lawyers (who know way more than I) make a living as Brown Act experts, and I am certainly not in their league. But I feel qualified enough to hit some high points that may answer some basic questions you may have had about why/how our Board conducts its business.
The Board must...
...publish an annual schedule of "regular" meetings. (Any meeting that is not a "regular" meeting is considered either a "special" or "emergency" meeting.) - Our Board publishes this schedule in the summer for the upcoming year, and the meetings are usually on the fourth Wednesday of the month at 6:00 pm.
...publish an agenda of all items to be discussed at a regular meeting at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting (24 hours for a special meeting, and 1 hour for an emergency meeting). - Our Board publishes the agenda through an email distribution (sent to anyone who has requested to be on the list) and by posting the agenda on the school district website.
...conduct Board business (i.e. deliberate then vote to take action) in "open and public" meetings. Any gathering of more than two members (of a 5-member Board) in considered a meeting and is in violation of the Brown Act if it has not been noticed, agendized, etc. - Considering this requirement along with the agenda requirement above leads to the next item , which can really frustrate people who don't fully understand the rules under which the Board operates, which is that...
...can only take action on items that are on the agenda, given the aforementioned posting and agendizing requirements. - This means that if you show up at a Board meeting and, during public comment, bring up the most insightful, fabulous, award-winning idea, but the idea happens to have nothing to do with an item on the published agenda, the Board by law can't take any action. The lesson here is that if you have a concern/burning issue/great idea that you think requires deliberation and potential action by the Board, simply showing up at one meeting isn't going to get your item heard. You need to work through staff and or individual Board members (by email, phone, etc.) in advance to request that the item be put on the agenda (agendized). Or, at a given regular meeting, you can address the Board members and directly request that the item be agendized for the next regular meeting. By the way, this public participation in the creation of Board agendas is supported by the California Department of Education, which says on its website that...
..."adopt regulations governing the procedures to be followed to...ensure that members of the public may include items on the agenda for consideration..."
...consider only specifically defined items during "Closed" session, to which members of the public are not admitted. - These items are almost always related to either personnel or litigation issues, e.g. taking disciplinary action against an employee or conferring with the Board's attorney regarding a claim or lawsuit to which the district is a party.
I think that's plenty for one post. If you have any questions or comments, or if you have an issue or area you'd like to see addressed in this blog, don't hesitate to leave a comment or send an email.
-Rob (your friendly neighborhood bureaucrat)
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Summary of the 9/22/10 Monthly Meeting
It was a long meeting tonight folks, but fear not! I am here to provide an ever-so-timely and oh-so-engaging summary for your reading pleasure. Now, on to the highlights...
Healthy Kids Survey - Nancy Waters, counselor at Hall, gave a nice presentation on the results of this survey, which was completed last year by 5th and 7th graders. Mostly, our kids give the sort of answers we'd like to see on this survey, but a couple items generated interesting discussion.
Portables are Coming! - New portables will almost certainly be coming soon to Neil Cummins. The question at this point seems only to be how many. The location chosen is the grass area between the playground and the creek, along the fence that runs along the parking lot. Over the next month (probably to be confirmed at the next monthly Board meeting) the exact number we need/want to add (between 3 and 5, it seems) will be more fully explored.
District Teacher Count - You may have read in my recent preview post that the count of teachers for this school year is down from last year, to 91 from 97. Well, this is true. However, it was correctly pointed out during discussion that the FTE (full-time equivalent) number of teachers is actually up, from 80.6 to 81.95. How? The difference was attributed to the district having quite a few job share situations last year that are not in place for this year.
Ms. Halpern is Awesome! - As engaged school parents, this observation will come as no surprise to you. During tonight's meeting, specifically, Ms. Halpern was awesome because she just had to take a few minutes during the meeting to rearrange a book display and re-shelve a few, too. (She was at the back and I'm sure no one noticed except me. I just happened to be standing at the back for a few minutes to stretch my legs.) She sure is dedicated to her work, and we are so lucky to have her!
-Rob
Healthy Kids Survey - Nancy Waters, counselor at Hall, gave a nice presentation on the results of this survey, which was completed last year by 5th and 7th graders. Mostly, our kids give the sort of answers we'd like to see on this survey, but a couple items generated interesting discussion.
- Our 5th graders' answers suggest that they don't feel as much empathy as 5th graders at our "comparable" school. Only 36 percent of our 5th graders' answers suggest that they feel empathy some or all of the time (e.g. Do you care if someone else gets their feeling hurt?). Reportedly, the answers of 5th graders at our comparable school suggest 60+% of their 5th graders feel empathy some or all of the time in similar situations. What does this tell us about our group of kids? I have no idea, but I definitely think its worth careful consideration. According to Ms. Waters, she and Ms. Cookie are working on tweaks to the Character Counts program to try to further emphasize empathy as a component of good character.
- 31% of 7th graders reported having been in an car with an adult who had been drinking alcohol and feeling uncomfortable about the situation. The presumption by the Board members during their discussion (and it makes sense to me) is that the kids were likely referring to their own parents. This is - obviously - a very serious issue. We all hopefully realize the import of modeling appropriate behavior to our children, however... Two trustees advocated what (to me at least) were pretty extreme reactions. These were: 1) the school should feel comfortable teaching kids that it is never okay for anyone under 21 to have even a sip of alcohol (not counting religious ceremonies); 2) If going out to dinner as a family, pick a designated driver among the adults. Kids might take a mixed message from Mom drinking a glass of wine with dinner, then driving the car home. Tell me, folks: what do you think about these two ideas? I'd love to see some comments on this topic. One could argue that: 1) Some people think it's okay to offer their own kids an occasional sip of alcohol in the safety of their own home, and that is their own business. Also, as far as I am aware, this is perfectly legal. Moreover, the black and white message proposed has a bit of an "abstinence only" feel to it. 2) 12-13 year-old 7th graders are smart. Can they understand a nuanced message that Mom/Dad know when they're okay to drive and when they're not? It's important enough, that I think I'll ask again...What do you think?
Portables are Coming! - New portables will almost certainly be coming soon to Neil Cummins. The question at this point seems only to be how many. The location chosen is the grass area between the playground and the creek, along the fence that runs along the parking lot. Over the next month (probably to be confirmed at the next monthly Board meeting) the exact number we need/want to add (between 3 and 5, it seems) will be more fully explored.
District Teacher Count - You may have read in my recent preview post that the count of teachers for this school year is down from last year, to 91 from 97. Well, this is true. However, it was correctly pointed out during discussion that the FTE (full-time equivalent) number of teachers is actually up, from 80.6 to 81.95. How? The difference was attributed to the district having quite a few job share situations last year that are not in place for this year.
Ms. Halpern is Awesome! - As engaged school parents, this observation will come as no surprise to you. During tonight's meeting, specifically, Ms. Halpern was awesome because she just had to take a few minutes during the meeting to rearrange a book display and re-shelve a few, too. (She was at the back and I'm sure no one noticed except me. I just happened to be standing at the back for a few minutes to stretch my legs.) She sure is dedicated to her work, and we are so lucky to have her!
-Rob
Monday, September 20, 2010
Previewing the Agenda for the 9/22 Monthly Meeting
It's monthly meeting time again, folks. I've reviewed the agenda and all the supporting packet materials, and this month's meeting will be heavy on performance and survey data. Below I've highlighted what I think are the most noteworthy items.
Superintendent's Performance Evaluation - This is a Closed Session item, which means that the Board will be providing Dr. Pitts with her annual evaluation in the private session that precedes the public meeting. Obviously, we members of the public can not participate in, or hear, the content of the evaluation (as with all personnel discussions regarding individuals.) However, the listing of this item on the agenda lets us know that the evaluation will be happening. So, if you have any information that you would like to share with members of the Board that you think is pertinent to the evaluation of Valerie's performance over the past year, you could take this opportunity to send an email to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
API (Academic Performance Index) Score for '09/'10 - The annual API scores regarding student performance are now available. The district's total score is 920, up from 915 for '08/'09. Neil Cummins' score is 918, which was no change, and Hall's score is 921, up from 914. Nice performance by our students!
Healthy Kids Survey - The Board will review detailed results of this annual survey of 5th and 7th graders. Our students were asked questions regarding use of drugs and alcohol, safety, TV/video game usage habits, physical activity levels and eating habits. For 20+ pages of detailed results, see the packet materials here. Here are a few results I highlighted:
To preview the detailed packet materials regarding these items, click here. To add to the Board's discussion of these or other items on the agenda, come on down to the meeting Wednesday night, or email the Board members at trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Check back later this week for a summary of the meeting. Also, if you have comments, questions, or input of any kind regarding this blog, please leave your comments below.
-Rob
Superintendent's Performance Evaluation - This is a Closed Session item, which means that the Board will be providing Dr. Pitts with her annual evaluation in the private session that precedes the public meeting. Obviously, we members of the public can not participate in, or hear, the content of the evaluation (as with all personnel discussions regarding individuals.) However, the listing of this item on the agenda lets us know that the evaluation will be happening. So, if you have any information that you would like to share with members of the Board that you think is pertinent to the evaluation of Valerie's performance over the past year, you could take this opportunity to send an email to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
API (Academic Performance Index) Score for '09/'10 - The annual API scores regarding student performance are now available. The district's total score is 920, up from 915 for '08/'09. Neil Cummins' score is 918, which was no change, and Hall's score is 921, up from 914. Nice performance by our students!
Healthy Kids Survey - The Board will review detailed results of this annual survey of 5th and 7th graders. Our students were asked questions regarding use of drugs and alcohol, safety, TV/video game usage habits, physical activity levels and eating habits. For 20+ pages of detailed results, see the packet materials here. Here are a few results I highlighted:
- Only 1% of our kids report having personally tried marijuana or cigarettes. But when asked how many of their peers they think have tried these items, they say 10%. Which number do you think is closer to the truth?
- 12% of 5th graders reported seeing someone else carrying a knife or gun at school (vs. only 1% of 7th graders). This number seems quite high; I presume will hear some detailed discussion of this one on Wednesday night.
- 75% of kids (5th and 7th combined) report that "yesterday" they watched TV or played video games for one hour or less. Hmm, I smell something fishy. Could they be telling us what they think we want to hear?
To preview the detailed packet materials regarding these items, click here. To add to the Board's discussion of these or other items on the agenda, come on down to the meeting Wednesday night, or email the Board members at trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Check back later this week for a summary of the meeting. Also, if you have comments, questions, or input of any kind regarding this blog, please leave your comments below.
-Rob
Thursday, September 16, 2010
A Little Light Reading
The board meeting the other day was in the morning, so I couldn't attend. No update there. And since there is a little lull in the action, here are three articles that might be of interest.
Why School Reform Fails - Newsweek
Forget What You Know about Study Habits - New York Times
New Reed School Superintendent - Marin Independent Journal
Why School Reform Fails - Newsweek
Forget What You Know about Study Habits - New York Times
New Reed School Superintendent - Marin Independent Journal
Monday, September 13, 2010
Previewing the Agenda for the 9/14 Special Meeting
The Board has scheduled a "special meeting" for Tuesday, 9/14, at 10:00 a.m. We can get into what is so "special" about special meetings another time. Suffice it to say that any meeting convened by the Board that is not a "regular" meeting (i.e. the monthly meetings, for which an annual schedule is published) is a "special" meeting.
Anyway, the need for a special meeting this month was discussed at the 8/25 monthly meeting. I mentioned in the earlier summary of the 8/25 meeting that the Board discussed summary financial information for fiscal year 2009-2010. The unaudited actuals report was a part of this discussion. This report is basically a summary of final revenues and expenses for the district for last year, which has not yet been reviewed by the district's auditor. The original plan was for the Board to discuss the unaudited actuals during the 8/25 meeting and vote to approve them so they can be sent to the county Office of Education.
However, Board members did not receive their copies of the unaudited actuals report (which is about 100 pages, by the way) in advance of the 8/25 meeting. Rather, they were provided their copies at the meeting. Therefore, the Board decided to defer voting to approve the report until members had a chance to review the report in detail. If time had allowed, I presume the Board would have waited until the next regular meeting (set for 9/22) to hold their approval vote. In this case, though, the district is required to submit the unaudited actuals to the county by 9/15. Therefore, a special meeting was required so the Board could grant its approval before the deadline.
While they're together, the Board will also discuss a federal education jobs bill reportedly signed into law on 8/10. District staff are now able to project that the new law will provide $235,000 for hiring or reinstating "school level services jobs." (An interesting aside into the weirdness of government - this funding is included in a law officially titled the "FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act". What does education funding has to do with the FAA? Your guess is as good as mine.)
To view the agenda or packet materials for the 9/14 meeting, click here.
-Rob
Anyway, the need for a special meeting this month was discussed at the 8/25 monthly meeting. I mentioned in the earlier summary of the 8/25 meeting that the Board discussed summary financial information for fiscal year 2009-2010. The unaudited actuals report was a part of this discussion. This report is basically a summary of final revenues and expenses for the district for last year, which has not yet been reviewed by the district's auditor. The original plan was for the Board to discuss the unaudited actuals during the 8/25 meeting and vote to approve them so they can be sent to the county Office of Education.
However, Board members did not receive their copies of the unaudited actuals report (which is about 100 pages, by the way) in advance of the 8/25 meeting. Rather, they were provided their copies at the meeting. Therefore, the Board decided to defer voting to approve the report until members had a chance to review the report in detail. If time had allowed, I presume the Board would have waited until the next regular meeting (set for 9/22) to hold their approval vote. In this case, though, the district is required to submit the unaudited actuals to the county by 9/15. Therefore, a special meeting was required so the Board could grant its approval before the deadline.
While they're together, the Board will also discuss a federal education jobs bill reportedly signed into law on 8/10. District staff are now able to project that the new law will provide $235,000 for hiring or reinstating "school level services jobs." (An interesting aside into the weirdness of government - this funding is included in a law officially titled the "FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act". What does education funding has to do with the FAA? Your guess is as good as mine.)
To view the agenda or packet materials for the 9/14 meeting, click here.
-Rob
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Basic Aid vs. Revenue Limit
If you're at all like me, the first time you heard the terms "Basic Aid" and "Revenue Limit" used in a discussion of our school district's budget, you had no idea what they meant. In somewhat classic bureaucratic style, the terms are not at all intuitive.
Each school district's Revenue Limit ($ per student) is re-calculated each year based on a multi-variable model (variables include school type, enrollment size, historical spending patterns, etc.). Most simply, a Basic Aid district generates an amount of money per student in property taxes (not including school-oriented parcel taxes) that is equal to or greater than its calculated Basic Aid amount, while a Revenue Limit district needs supplemental funding from the state to reach this amount. So, that's still sounds a bit complicated, I think. Thankfully, I came across a wonderful graphic that illustrates the concept in an easily digestible way:
"The Bucket Analogy
If the bucket is completely filled by local property tax revenues, the state has no need to "top off" the bucket. If the bucket overflows with local property taxes, the district gets to keep the overage. Districts whose buckets are filled by local property taxes are called "basic aid" or "excess revenue" districts." (Thank you, Edsource.org)
According to a projection made by the state Department of Education in early August, and statements by school district Business Manager Becky White at the 8/25 Board meeting, we will be a Basic Aid district for FY10-11. Although, according to Becky, her projections of our property tax revenues have us just exceeding the Basic Aid amount (i.e. our little bucket above will contain just a few drops.) Even so, according to data also from EdSource.com, that puts us in the company of only about 60 school districts out of over 1,000 in the state.
Also in the 8/25 meeting, Valerie noted to the Board that our (projected) status as a Basic Aid district for FY101-11 will make us significantly less susceptible to last-minute budget shenanigans by the state, because the state is more likely to withhold/adjust supplemental Revenue Limit funding from schools than it is to attempt to withhold Basic Aid money that originated from local property taxes.
Once again, we can all be thankful for southern Marin's (relatively) stable property values. I hope you all enjoyed a nice holiday weekend!
-Rob
*Correction - This is an updated version of this post. The original said that parcel taxes are included in the Basic Aid calculation. Parcel taxes are in fact not included.
Each school district's Revenue Limit ($ per student) is re-calculated each year based on a multi-variable model (variables include school type, enrollment size, historical spending patterns, etc.). Most simply, a Basic Aid district generates an amount of money per student in property taxes (not including school-oriented parcel taxes) that is equal to or greater than its calculated Basic Aid amount, while a Revenue Limit district needs supplemental funding from the state to reach this amount. So, that's still sounds a bit complicated, I think. Thankfully, I came across a wonderful graphic that illustrates the concept in an easily digestible way:
"The Bucket Analogy
According to a projection made by the state Department of Education in early August, and statements by school district Business Manager Becky White at the 8/25 Board meeting, we will be a Basic Aid district for FY10-11. Although, according to Becky, her projections of our property tax revenues have us just exceeding the Basic Aid amount (i.e. our little bucket above will contain just a few drops.) Even so, according to data also from EdSource.com, that puts us in the company of only about 60 school districts out of over 1,000 in the state.
Also in the 8/25 meeting, Valerie noted to the Board that our (projected) status as a Basic Aid district for FY101-11 will make us significantly less susceptible to last-minute budget shenanigans by the state, because the state is more likely to withhold/adjust supplemental Revenue Limit funding from schools than it is to attempt to withhold Basic Aid money that originated from local property taxes.
Once again, we can all be thankful for southern Marin's (relatively) stable property values. I hope you all enjoyed a nice holiday weekend!
-Rob
*Correction - This is an updated version of this post. The original said that parcel taxes are included in the Basic Aid calculation. Parcel taxes are in fact not included.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
LA Times - Grading the Teachers
So I caught a bit of a very interesting episode of NPR's Talk of the Nation earlier this week. The subject was grading teacher performance, and the main guest was Jason Felch of the LA Times. The Times has been running a series called Grading the Teachers, which included analyzing seven years of data that had been collected on the effectiveness of LA Unified's faculty. As a data and research geek, I was naturally intrigued!
Many of the findings of the Times' analysis were, of course, somewhat specific to LA, but some more general findings that I found interesting were:
• Highly effective teachers routinely propel students from below grade level to advanced in a single year. There is a substantial gap at year's end between students whose teachers were in the top 10% in effectiveness and the bottom 10%. The fortunate students ranked 17 percentile points higher in English and 25 points higher in math.
• Many of the factors commonly assumed to be important to teachers' effectiveness were not. Although teachers are paid more for experience, education and training, none of this had much bearing on whether they improved their students' performance.
If you'd like to read more, click here to be transported to the entire first article in the series, which also includes other related links.
Cheers,
Rob
Many of the findings of the Times' analysis were, of course, somewhat specific to LA, but some more general findings that I found interesting were:
• Highly effective teachers routinely propel students from below grade level to advanced in a single year. There is a substantial gap at year's end between students whose teachers were in the top 10% in effectiveness and the bottom 10%. The fortunate students ranked 17 percentile points higher in English and 25 points higher in math.
• Many of the factors commonly assumed to be important to teachers' effectiveness were not. Although teachers are paid more for experience, education and training, none of this had much bearing on whether they improved their students' performance.
If you'd like to read more, click here to be transported to the entire first article in the series, which also includes other related links.
Cheers,
Rob
Monday, August 30, 2010
New Proposed Drug and Alcohol Policy
I thought we'd start the week with a discussion of the new County-proposed drug and alcohol policy that was given first consideration at the 8/25 Board meeting. For starters, everyone should know that the proposed policy was developed by the Main County Board of Education (BOE) in coordination with Marin County Health & Human Services and the Youth Leadership Institute (YLI). According to the Board's discussion on 8/25, the County BOE has adopted the policy and is requesting local school districts to do the same.
I think all of us engaged parents would agree that serious, smart and sensible policy toward drug and alcohol use by minors is of utmost importance. Given the suspicion with which many kids view adults' attempts to tell them "what's good for you", I really like that the proposed policy was developed in conjunction with the YLI. According to the YLI's website, it has been it operation for over 20 years and is committed to "innovative strategies that encourage youth to examine the environmental and societal factors contributing to the issues at hand—whether they are unhealthy eating, substance abuse, or violence—and to develop programs and strategies that shift those factors."
So, after reading the proposed policy, and checking out the organizations involved in developing it, I think the policy seems quite well formulated. A principal focus of the policy is prohibiting the acceptance of "sponsorship or financial assistance" from alcoholic beverage companies at school events or school-supported events. This doesn't seem to pose any problem, except for a concern I've heard floated that, depending on how one interprets the policy language, adoption could make certain aspects of the annual auction party questionable, such as accepting donations of wine from vineyards or distributors.
In case you're concerned that the Board wouldn't realize this, don't be. At the 8/25 meeting, Board members postponed adoption of the new policy so that specific questions regarding the relevance of the proposed policy to adults-only, fund raising events (e.g. the auction itself and related parties bid on during the auction) could be discussed and resolved with County BOE representatives (and, presumably, with legal staff, if necessary) before formal adoption by our Board is considered. The Board asked Valerie to lead this research and to report back.
Beyond tabling a vote on adopting the policy until questions related to the auction party are answered, the Board also made a noteworthy proposed addition to the language. President Mangan noted that the introductory sentence of the policy references the use of "alcohol and illegal drugs." He suggested that kids' misuse of ostensibly "legal" drugs (e.g. antidepressants, anti-ADD, prescription pain meds) can pose as much of a problem as use of "illegal" drugs. He suggested the language be broadened to take this into account.
The likelihood is that the Board will get answers to its questions and be ready to vote on adoption of drug and alcohol policy at its next meeting on September 22. Your best opportunity to provide input to Board members between now and then is by sending an email to trustees@larkspurshools.org.
I think all of us engaged parents would agree that serious, smart and sensible policy toward drug and alcohol use by minors is of utmost importance. Given the suspicion with which many kids view adults' attempts to tell them "what's good for you", I really like that the proposed policy was developed in conjunction with the YLI. According to the YLI's website, it has been it operation for over 20 years and is committed to "innovative strategies that encourage youth to examine the environmental and societal factors contributing to the issues at hand—whether they are unhealthy eating, substance abuse, or violence—and to develop programs and strategies that shift those factors."
So, after reading the proposed policy, and checking out the organizations involved in developing it, I think the policy seems quite well formulated. A principal focus of the policy is prohibiting the acceptance of "sponsorship or financial assistance" from alcoholic beverage companies at school events or school-supported events. This doesn't seem to pose any problem, except for a concern I've heard floated that, depending on how one interprets the policy language, adoption could make certain aspects of the annual auction party questionable, such as accepting donations of wine from vineyards or distributors.
In case you're concerned that the Board wouldn't realize this, don't be. At the 8/25 meeting, Board members postponed adoption of the new policy so that specific questions regarding the relevance of the proposed policy to adults-only, fund raising events (e.g. the auction itself and related parties bid on during the auction) could be discussed and resolved with County BOE representatives (and, presumably, with legal staff, if necessary) before formal adoption by our Board is considered. The Board asked Valerie to lead this research and to report back.
Beyond tabling a vote on adopting the policy until questions related to the auction party are answered, the Board also made a noteworthy proposed addition to the language. President Mangan noted that the introductory sentence of the policy references the use of "alcohol and illegal drugs." He suggested that kids' misuse of ostensibly "legal" drugs (e.g. antidepressants, anti-ADD, prescription pain meds) can pose as much of a problem as use of "illegal" drugs. He suggested the language be broadened to take this into account.
The likelihood is that the Board will get answers to its questions and be ready to vote on adoption of drug and alcohol policy at its next meeting on September 22. Your best opportunity to provide input to Board members between now and then is by sending an email to trustees@larkspurshools.org.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Summary of the 8/25/10 Monthly Meeting
So I attended the monthly Board meeting last night with my blogger hat firmly in place - and I have 7 1/2 pages of notes to prove it! Don't worry, I won't subject you to that much detail. After all, one of the main objectives of this blog is to summarize only the most interesting things. The things I think you really will want to know. So here goes...
Advisor Services Contract with Ross School District - I highlighted this item in the recent preview post as an item of note. After hearing detailed discussion at the meeting, I find it even more interesting. In attendance at the meeting was a special guest, Mary Jane Burke, Marin County Superintendent of Schools. So, it turns out that the whole idea for the advisory contract - under which Valerie and our facilities director will provide up to 12 hours per week ($60,000 max.) in services to Ross during the coming school year - started with Mary Jane. Ross approached Mary Jane about being a mentor to its new Superintendent/Principal, and Mary Jane in turn contacted Valerie. Several months of discussions and meetings ensued that resulted in the contract that was approved last night. President Mangan said the Board gave special consideration to the potential effect of losing some of Valerie's time to the Ross contract. The agreed-upon solution was to carve out some administrative-oriented duties from Valerie's workload (e.g. coordinating and maintaining the website) and assigning those to others. Both Board members and Mary Jane discussed how routine monitoring and evaluation throughout the coming year will be important to assess the impacts of the contract on both the Larkspur and Ross districts.
Financial management issue - The district's Business Manager, Becky White, reported prelimnary year-end budget numbers for the fiscal year that ended 6/30/10. Although we all know budget issues were tough, it could have been a lot worse. Believe it or not, we actually ended last year with a surplus of $481,000, when our initial projection had been for a deficit of $502,000. That's a total of $983,000 better off than where we projected we would end up. (This would explain the district's ability late last year give the teachers a 2% increase that was retroactive to July 1, 2009.) I, for one, am incredibly happy we all didn't have to live through having almost $1 million less last year. It was a challenging enough year as it was.
President Mangan reported that the County sent the district a letter praising us for:
Generally, our kids continue to score very well on these tests. One score that stood out to me when I previewed the packet materials before the meeting was a seemingly low score for our 7th graders in "general math." At the meeting, I learned (courtesy of Principal Norbutas), that this number is artificially low because it does not include the most advanced 7th graders who took the algebra test instead. These kids' scores were included in the 8th grade score for "algebra."
New portables at Neil Cummins? - Turns out that Neil Cummins is stretched so thin that up to three additional portables may be showing up as soon as this fall. The projected cost for adding three more is $180,000. More to come on this soon, I presume.
Well there you go, school fans, I could write more but I feel it's time to stop for today. If you've made it this far, please take another minute or two to share your feedback with me. Do you like what you've seen so far? Do you have suggestions, requests,...? I'd love to hear from you.
Also, this post just needed to end, so I saved one interesting thing for a separate post to come in a few days. That is, new proposed drug and alcohol policy language supported by the County that some fear will require curtailing the presence of alcohol at fund raising events (auction party?). I don't see it coming to that, but I'll say more soon.
Never stop learning...
-Rob
Advisor Services Contract with Ross School District - I highlighted this item in the recent preview post as an item of note. After hearing detailed discussion at the meeting, I find it even more interesting. In attendance at the meeting was a special guest, Mary Jane Burke, Marin County Superintendent of Schools. So, it turns out that the whole idea for the advisory contract - under which Valerie and our facilities director will provide up to 12 hours per week ($60,000 max.) in services to Ross during the coming school year - started with Mary Jane. Ross approached Mary Jane about being a mentor to its new Superintendent/Principal, and Mary Jane in turn contacted Valerie. Several months of discussions and meetings ensued that resulted in the contract that was approved last night. President Mangan said the Board gave special consideration to the potential effect of losing some of Valerie's time to the Ross contract. The agreed-upon solution was to carve out some administrative-oriented duties from Valerie's workload (e.g. coordinating and maintaining the website) and assigning those to others. Both Board members and Mary Jane discussed how routine monitoring and evaluation throughout the coming year will be important to assess the impacts of the contract on both the Larkspur and Ross districts.
Financial management issue - The district's Business Manager, Becky White, reported prelimnary year-end budget numbers for the fiscal year that ended 6/30/10. Although we all know budget issues were tough, it could have been a lot worse. Believe it or not, we actually ended last year with a surplus of $481,000, when our initial projection had been for a deficit of $502,000. That's a total of $983,000 better off than where we projected we would end up. (This would explain the district's ability late last year give the teachers a 2% increase that was retroactive to July 1, 2009.) I, for one, am incredibly happy we all didn't have to live through having almost $1 million less last year. It was a challenging enough year as it was.
President Mangan reported that the County sent the district a letter praising us for:
- An impressive amount of funds from outside sources (i.e. SPARK and PTA. That's US by the way. Nice donating, all you parents out there.)
- Our ability to maintain a notable reserve fund.
- The overall great work done by Becky White. (Becky is fabulous, by the way. I learned this when I got to sit and chat with her at a previous meeting, one she went to even though she wasn't giving a presentation. If you haven't met her, you should. And when you do, be sure to say thanks for all her excellent work.)
Generally, our kids continue to score very well on these tests. One score that stood out to me when I previewed the packet materials before the meeting was a seemingly low score for our 7th graders in "general math." At the meeting, I learned (courtesy of Principal Norbutas), that this number is artificially low because it does not include the most advanced 7th graders who took the algebra test instead. These kids' scores were included in the 8th grade score for "algebra."
New portables at Neil Cummins? - Turns out that Neil Cummins is stretched so thin that up to three additional portables may be showing up as soon as this fall. The projected cost for adding three more is $180,000. More to come on this soon, I presume.
Well there you go, school fans, I could write more but I feel it's time to stop for today. If you've made it this far, please take another minute or two to share your feedback with me. Do you like what you've seen so far? Do you have suggestions, requests,...? I'd love to hear from you.
Also, this post just needed to end, so I saved one interesting thing for a separate post to come in a few days. That is, new proposed drug and alcohol policy language supported by the County that some fear will require curtailing the presence of alcohol at fund raising events (auction party?). I don't see it coming to that, but I'll say more soon.
Never stop learning...
-Rob
Monday, August 23, 2010
A look at the agenda for the 8/25/10 monthly meeting
Hi there Larkspur school fans! Welcome to my first blog post. My plan is to do a preview post and a summary post regarding each school board meeting. This is a preview post regarding the monthly meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 8/25, at 6:00 pm in the Hall school library. To inform the post, I reviewed the agenda and all the supporting "packet" materials that are posted on the school district's website.
If you see something among my highlights that particularly peaks your interest, please consider either a) attending the Board meeting to hear/participate in the discussion, b) send the Board an email sharing your thoughts to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Every agenda and meeting of a public board such as ours contains a lot of routine (i.e. boring) items that aren't that interesting. On the flip side, some quite interesting, and potentially controversial items are often buried in the fine print. For my money, here are the most interesting things on the 8/25 agenda:
Item 5- Discussion of STAR/CST standardized test results for the 2009-2010 school year, with detailed breakdown of performance by subject matter and grade level.
Item 6- Discussion of facilities planning issues, with specific focus on the current school year.
Item 10- Discussion of proposed policy language from the Marin County Board of Education regarding drug and alcohol prevention at school and school-related activities.
Item 19- This little nugget was a surprise at the end of the agenda. It seems that our esteemed Superintendent, Valerie Pitts, will be spending up to one day per week over the coming school year serving as an advisor and mentor to the new Superintendent of the Ross School District. Ross will be paying the Larkspur School District up to $60,000 for these advisory services.
Thanks for making it through the whole of my first blog post. If you have thoughts or suggestions, please send me an email. Thanks.
-Rob
(If you'd like to view the full agenda and supporting info, click here.)
If you see something among my highlights that particularly peaks your interest, please consider either a) attending the Board meeting to hear/participate in the discussion, b) send the Board an email sharing your thoughts to trustees@larkspurschools.org.
Every agenda and meeting of a public board such as ours contains a lot of routine (i.e. boring) items that aren't that interesting. On the flip side, some quite interesting, and potentially controversial items are often buried in the fine print. For my money, here are the most interesting things on the 8/25 agenda:
Item 5- Discussion of STAR/CST standardized test results for the 2009-2010 school year, with detailed breakdown of performance by subject matter and grade level.
Item 6- Discussion of facilities planning issues, with specific focus on the current school year.
Item 10- Discussion of proposed policy language from the Marin County Board of Education regarding drug and alcohol prevention at school and school-related activities.
Item 19- This little nugget was a surprise at the end of the agenda. It seems that our esteemed Superintendent, Valerie Pitts, will be spending up to one day per week over the coming school year serving as an advisor and mentor to the new Superintendent of the Ross School District. Ross will be paying the Larkspur School District up to $60,000 for these advisory services.
Thanks for making it through the whole of my first blog post. If you have thoughts or suggestions, please send me an email. Thanks.
-Rob
(If you'd like to view the full agenda and supporting info, click here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)