Sutherland for Schools blog
The budget for the 2016-17 board meeting will be voted on Tuesday. The agenda will be posted shortly (the board book is too large to load). Of special interest is a $1.3 million item for the superintendent's leadership project, none of which has even been presented to the board. This may be a continuation of the $1.6 million project the board approved in March. Hired for this project was Action Learning Systems of Pasadena, run by Gary Soto. Soto has close ties to EQCA and EQCAI, the premiere California advocacy organizations for LGBT.
The board book and the agenda for the new board Equity agenda are on the information page of this website. Included are campus administrative appointments; however, they are not yet available to us (Friday 5:40 PM)
Citizens often become incensed because of some small thing one of our government agencies does. But we rarely tackle the big issues, because they are so hard to identify.
This from a poster this morning:
|Cow at cattle barn "job fair" (126.96.36.199) at 9:16AM on 6/3/16 commented onBudget goals: Plan for school climate, substitute adequacy and fair staffing|
Look at the source selecting teachers subs. I am a sub. Hire the right people. No one answers the phone and after being transfered several times, the Coordinator did Not know anything. That job fair was disorganized and a cattle call . I was offered a job at job fair only to be told by the principal that there was not a position. Who do I complain too?
Resistance to the new Office of Civil Rights bathroom rules continues to grow.
These are the three things I am hoping the Board will insist on. We need alternative classrooms for our most disruptive students. We need a decent substitute pool. And we need to have staffing procedures that (1) give everyone a fair chance and (2) staff all schools equitably. The present system isn't working (as you all know!)
Some of you already know that I voted against the $1 million for TFA ($8000 per teacher for 25 teachers per year for 5 years. My main issue is that they never have crucial real classroom experience (they go to a 5-week "training" but no real classroom responsibility, but there is also a significant issue on retention.
The last two weeks feature a lot of bad behavior and some of it is appearing on the CIA blog (www.ciafwisd.blogspot.com). The latest post is about the Arlington Heights High School prom night, when six baseball players and two cheerleaders, obviously inebriated, were allowed into the dance. The comments are illuminating. Apparently the AHHS staff let them in and very little was done in the way of punishment of the kids.
Here is the letter from the US Office of Civil Rights on transgender students.
Readers, your comments are helpful to me. I am concerned about the split in our community and am working with others on this. In a few days I will blog again about it after some more thought and consultation.
Well, I was wrong. Superintenedt Scribner said nothing in response to my request, proper under board policy, that we discuss this administrative regulation some time in near future and vote on it. President Ramos merely said he received the request but did not agree to put it on the agenda. Until I get a written agreement to place the item back on the agenda, there is no point in having another meeting. It was asserted last night that this policy was enacted in 2011. I invite you to look at this policy (FFH local) and make up your own minds. The existing policy is at http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/1101?filename=FFH(LOCAL).pdf However, this version is the 2014 version; the original 2011 version is not available. Here is the link to the revision Superintendent Scribner approved in April: http://www.fwisd.org/files/_PdD0T_/03dcc86328dd3f753745a49013852ec4/Transgender_Student_Guidelines.pdf
Well, I was wrong. Superintenedt Scribner said nothing in response to my request, proper under board policy, that we discuss this administrative regulation some time in near future and vote on it. President Ramos merely said he received the request but did not agree to put it on the agenda. Until I get a written agreement to place the item back on the agenda, there is no point in having another meeting.
It was asserted last night that this policy was enacted in 2011. I invite you to look at this policy (FFH local) and make up your own minds.
The existing policy is at http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/1101?filename=FFH(LOCAL).pdf
However, this version is the 2014 version; the original 2011 version is not available.
Here is the link to the revision Superintendent Scribner approved in April:
The blogger is correct that the positions of network specialists have been eliminated. Network specialists provided support in the four tested content areas. There were approximately 15 per content area—for the total of sixty. These individuals were responsible for providing support for all schools, all grade levels (some elementary, some secondary), in their tested content area.
The DII model is different. The philosophy of DII is not one in which the DII coach is responsible for building a teacher’s content knowledge or supporting a specific content area. The DII model addresses expectations for quality instruction in all content areas and all grades. The model honors the role of the teacher as the individual responsible for knowing his or her content area and focuses rather on how the teacher is planning, delivering, and evaluating instruction while ensuring that the students are active participants in each lesson.
DII is not a model that I have worked with in the past, but I have been very impressed by the depth of the research behind the model and with the fact that the importance of the relationship between the teacher and student is an essential part of learning.
Knowing that we are having some schools that are struggling more than others, Dr. Scribner’s leadership team decided to concentrate initial resources in the most struggling schools. As Dr. Scribner states periodically, “Sending the firefighters to the fire.” As you know, many of our schools do very, very well and require little or no intervention or support from central office. However, this is not the case with all schools. This first cohort of coaches will be working with approximately 50 schools that have been identified as those in highest need. Initial thinking has been to expand the cohort to the next third of schools in each of the two subsequent years.
If you have any more specific questions about DII, Dr. Salato would be more than happy to discuss them in depth. She is much more qualified than I to do this.
Becky Salato, Ed.D.
Chief Operating Officer
Action Learning Systems, Inc.
135 Rosemead Blvd.
Pasadena, CA 91107
Texas education code [G] [Sec.37.002(a), (b) and (c)] allows teachers to remove students from the classroom.