MB Cluster Minutes from meeting on 9/06/2012

MB Cluster Minutes 9:6:2012 PDF

Cluster Presentation Notes (9/06/2012) from SDUSD Area Superintendent Merino

Sept MB Cluster Presentation-1

Update from Cluster Chair, includes meeting dates for 2012-2013 school year

8:23:12 Cluster Update PDF

Minutes of MB Cluster Meeting 6/7/2012 ; see referenced additional posts

MBCluster Minutes 6:7:12 Final

Barrera Meeting (Sale of Real Estate) Memo, referenced in minutes 6/7/12

Barrera Meeting (Sale of Real Estate) Memo

Roundtable Summary Memo, referenced in minutes 6/7/12

Roundtable Memo

June 20, 2012
PBMS Principal to be Announced this Friday

Yesterday the new P.B. Middle School Principal was approved by the Board of Education and the district in a closed session meeting. Protocol states that the announcement may not be made public until the next publicly scheduled meeting. Therefore, the announcement will be made at the meeting scheduled for this Friday June 22nd at at 4 p.m..

By-Laws Updated: Added District Liaison

Hi,
In May we voted to update the By-Laws for the Mission Bay Cluster Committee.  We added a new Officer position:  District Liaison.

In summary, the definition of the District Liaison is:

The District Liaison shall be responsible for summarizing the advisory and actionable items proposed to the Board of Education that affect the MB Cluster on a weekly basis and distributing these to the Officers and/or the Committee. The District Liaison shall be responsible for communicating with the SDUSD administration either through the Area Superintendent or the Parent Support Liaison to understand upcoming SDUSD initiatives that affect the MB Cluster.

Below are the modified By-Laws:

120516 Mission Bay Cluster by-Laws

SDUSD Workshop (BoE Meeting) RE: Cluster Model

Recently the Board of Education held a Special Meeting to receive an update from Dr. Meyer, Deputy Superintendent of Academics, regarding the Cluster governance model.  Dr. Meyer provided a presentation (see below), the public was allowed to comment, and the Area Superintendents provided a brief update on each of the Clusters they supervise.  Although the exchange between the public was limited to a typical BoE style public comment and there was little notice prior to the meeting, there was great optimism that this would change and the Clusters would have a more rich dialog with the BoE and SDUSD administration.

What became clear after the meeting was that BoE Trustees would like input, but not by attending Cluster meetings.  They want representatives of the Clusters make appointments to see them in their offices at the SDUSD administration building.  There they can have a dialog and discuss issues in more depth.  The general public can exercise the same process to meet with the BoE.  I used this process to meet with John deBeck when he was held the position.

Dr. Meyer presentation

Cluster Development Presentation, 4-24-12

B. Catanzaro memo/report/talking points for public comment

Cluster Memo - Cluster Workshop (BoE meeting) on April 24, 2012

Dissertation - Case Study in Parental Influence at SDUSD

Below is a dissertation from a PB Community member.  Her PhD thesis was a case study in how the administration, BoE and parents interacted at SDUSD to implement change.

Perhaps there are lessons to be learned for the MB Cluster.


Callahan_Evette dissertationhttp://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5359236153645136738#editor/target=post;postID=1705373374090097587

Mtg: Apr 18 - MBHS Academic Improvement, BVT Task Force Recommendation (Barnard), Impact of A-G on MB Cluster

The agenda for the meeting is shown below.  Lively discussion resulting in every speaker's topic extending to twice the nominal time, leaving no time for Round Table discussion.

Next meeting will focus on elections and include a World Cafe style round table discussion.  The goals of the discussion include:

1.  Appreciate how polarized the community is on major issues.
2.  Identify where the community can agree to agree
3.  Summarize areas where we agree into Misison/Vision
4.  Inspire Task Forces to either explore more details or investigate solutions

On a personal note, next meeting in May will be the last meeting I will chair as the MB Cluster Chair.  Jennifer Tandy will take over as Chair after the May meeting.  It has been my pleasure to serve.  I will continue on as Past Chair.  It is not clear how the blog will continue after May.

Best regards,
Brian



Agenda


Agenda for MB Cluster Mtg (Apri 2012l)

Presentation

120417 Cluster Meeting

Area Superintendent Merino's Presentation


Merino - April 18

MBHS Academic Performance Improvement / A-G Impact (Hilgers)

Hilgers - April 18

BVT Task Force Recommendations (Martel)

BVT Task Force April 18

Round Table Discussion Topics (Catanzaro)


120417 Roundtable

CTE Requirements - Rescinded

Hi,
As of tonight, the BoE rescinded the proposed changes to graduation requirements to include a Career Readiness Component.  The following is from http://www.sandi.net/site/Default.aspx?PageID=3252

F.2.  Item Amended (and Approved) to Rescind the Graduation Requirement of the Career Readiness Component. The new graduation requirements will continue to align with UC/CSU 'a-g' subject requirements; taking Career Technical Education (CTE) courses will no longer be graduation requirements.The new graduation requirements will be implemented with the Class of 2016 and beyond.

Below is a message from MB Cluster Secretary Amy Monroe.  She and Rachel Forester attended a recent meeting that preceded the vote to understand more about the potential changes.

Hello, MB Cluster Community:

 

I hope you had a great week, and are looking forward to the remaining weeks of the school year.

I'd like to bring to your attention a matter under consideration by the School Board.  The issue is a proposal to require students to take Career Technical Education (CTE) classes as part of their requirements for graduation from high school.  Currently the vast majority of students take at least one CTE course while in high school, but this new requirement would go a step further.

 

On Friday, March 30, a small group of people (parents, administrators, other interested parties) met with Scott Barnett to push back against the proposed CTE requirements.  Rachel Forester and I represented the MB Cluster, and what follows is my take on the meeting, the CTE requirements, and some additional thoughts.

At this time, the MB Cluster does not have a recommendation, nor are we taking a position with regard to this proposal.  If you feel strongly about this issue, we encourage you to contact Scott Barnett, the other Board Trustees, and District personnel directly.

---

 

Roughly half of the Clusters in the District were represented; all Clusters were invited, but not all attended the meeting. 

 

The Board’s process, recommendations, and votes are outlined in the amended memo (attached).  I’ve also attached copies of a presentation given by Sid Salazar to the group in La Jolla on March 26, as well as the Task Force presentation made to the Board.

 

Essentially, along with implementing the “a-g” subject requirements, which would align District graduation requirements with the qualifications necessary to enter either a UC or CSU school, a Task Force also recommended adding requirements for CTE courses beginning w/ the class of 2016.  For this class, 1 year (2 credits) of CTE would be required, and for 2017 and thereafter 2 years (4 credits) in the same pathway would be required.

 

After some serious push-back from parents, teachers, administrators and other interested parties, the District has backed away from “requirements” and is now using the word “recommendations.”  The group we met with last week is pushing adamantly for a full rescission of the CTE recommendations or requirements altogether – and possibly for good reason. 

Brian Catanzaro posed a few questions to me after the meeting, and I've answered them below.  I hope this will give you adequate insight into this issue.

1. How do the new requirements impact the freedom of High School students to choose their studies?

This requirement would impact students significantly – especially those on more rigorous academic tracks, or those who actively participate in music, sports, arts, etc.  There is only so much room in a student’s schedule, and to fill it with CTE requirements would leave little-to-no room for added AP/IB classes or other areas of interest.  The other major challenge is that the CTEs would be required to be “in the same pathway” – meaning, a student can’t take 2 different CTEs in two different subject areas, but would be forced to pick a direction and stick with it for a full year (or two years, beginning in 2017).

 

What’s interesting to note is that (according to a 2009 survey – though, we’re not sure exactly how many schools/clusters/students were included in the survey) 97% of the students in the District already take at least one CTE course.  Of those something like 78% meet the 2016 requirement/recommendation.  The question our group kept asking over and over again is – why is the District trying to fix something that isn’t broken?  We weren’t able to come up with a definitive answer, but all agreed we’d love to “follow the money” and see who’s behind this.

2. Do we really expect that a high school graduate should have trade skills?  Aren't there many private institutions that provide certification (e.g. auto mechanic, electronics technician, contractor's license) that SDUSD will never provide?

This was a part of the discussion late in our meeting last Friday.  There were a couple of reps from the UC/CSU system there to help answer questions about “a-g” and how the CTEs fit into this plan.  They both indicated there were MANY resources available to students wishing to take CTE courses.  One of the concerns among our group was the inconsistent availability of various CTE courses throughout the District, and the lack of funding for developing new curriculum or transporting students to a school where their CTE of choice was being offered.  The UC reps said it’s quite common for high school students to go to local community colleges to get the courses they want or need. Again, the District is trying to fix something that isn’t broken.

 

Another point: The District had indicated the implementation of the new requirements wouldn’t cost any money.  But that can’t possibly be true.  If all students are required to take these courses, then new course offerings will have to be made available – new teachers hired, new classroom facilities built, etc.  (For instance, there aren't 4 CTE courses offered in the same subject area at La Jolla High School; and even if there were, they'd have to figure out how to get ALL students through those course requirements in the 4 years they're on campus.  Each school site would have to offer a significant number of courses, across many subject areas, in order to serve all the students at their site.)

3. Are the CTE requirements useful skills for all students?

The list of CTEs (and their overlap w/ current graduation requirements) is in the Task Force presentation I've attached.  While the list is extensive, it should be noted the offerings at any given school site can be quite limited; as is the schedule availability for many students, especially those at schools operating on a 6-period day.  Fwiw, MB High operates on a 4x4 schedule, and has a great many CTE/ROP offerings, so our MB Cluster students would feel very little impact from the requirements.  I believe, primarily for budget reasons, our 4x4 schedule won’t be around long, however, so we may want to consider the impact if our students are suddenly on a regular 6-period trimester schedule.

 

If a student is on an accelerated academic path, or participates in other extracurriculars, the CTE requirements would certainly not be useful.  There is merit in making an abundance of CTEs *available* to students - especially those not on a college track.  But *requiring* CTEs could be detrimental to students who wish to focus on other things.  (Perhaps the Board/District could consider one path or the other - a student is either college-bound, or takes the required CTEs.  But even in this scenario, there are flaws - what happens, for instance, if a student is half-way down one path and chooses to switch to the other?  Will they be able to graduate?)

4. What do the Board Members feel about this proposal?  Who is pushing this to pass?  Who is pushing this to fail?

This is the hardest to discern.  Our group felt we had Scott Barnett’s backing in getting a full rescission of the requirements.  We also feel John Lee Evans would support a rescission.  Other Board members have been harder to read, and the feeling was that Kevin Beiser was pushing for the requirements because many of the students in his Cluster areas aren’t college-bound and might benefit from greater CTE offerings.  As mentioned above, the District (Kowba and Meyer) have backed down from a full requirement, and are now pushing for recommendations instead.  This felt to those in the meeting on March 30 like a political play.

One area of particular confusion was funding.  There was discussion (and it's in the attached materials) that Program Improvement funds would be used to support the new CTE requirements.  Our groups' feeling was that unless there is definitive proof that the CTEs would help lift the District out of Program Improvement, then these funds should not be used to support the proposed CTE requirements.

 

The CTEAC (Career Technical Education Advisory Committee) called a special meeting for this afternoon.  We suspect they’re trying to push this forward, and influence Board members ahead of tomorrow’s discussion/vote at the regular Board meeting.  The meeting is at the Bd of Ed building, and is open to the public.  Some of the folks from last week’s meeting were planning to attend. 

 

There is a growing group of parents/teachers/administrators/interested parties planning to attend and speak at the Board meeting tomorrow evening, and they’ve been actively engaging various Board members and District personnel through email and phone calls.  If anyone from the MB Cluster feels strongly one way or the other, we encourage you to contact the Board and District personnel, and attend the meeting at the Bd of Ed building tomorrow evening.  The info for the meeting, and this agenda item in particular, can be found here:

Meeting: Regular Meeting, 5:00 P.M.
Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Item: F.2 Amend the Graduation Requirements of the Career Readiness Component for the Class of 2016 and Beyond; BUDGETED: N/A GSA-2, (OE-2)

URL: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/sandi/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=8STNY66229D7

 

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.  I can also put you in touch with other parents (from other Clusters) actively involved with this issue.

Thanks!

~Amy

CTE Requirements - Salazar Presentation

CTE Task Force Presentation

CTE Requirements - Amended Memo

Mtg: Mar 21 - YMCA/PBMS Co-Development, Report on Strategic Process, CST Scores Review for MB Cluster, MBHS Academic Improvement

Hi,

Just held this meeting. Here are the charts that were presented. There was a full agenda (see below). The meeting ran a little over. Next time we'll try to give more time for Q/A and try to include fewer agenda items to make sure we end on time.

Agenda

Agenda for MB Cluster Mtg


Crown Point Introduction

[See minutes below]



Meeting Charts
120321 Cluster Meeting
YMCA Presentation
PB Middle School Expansion Proposal 2012 - Community

Meeting Minutes
MB Cluster meeting minutes for Mar 21, 2012

Mtg: Feb 15 - Update on Budget / Strategic Process Kick-Off

Hi,
Sorry I'm so late in posting Feb's meeting. Regardless, the meeting was well attended and focused on updates from various Task Forces, an introduction to Sessions Elementary, a brief discussion of the MB Cluster Goals and the importance of Mission / Vision Statement, status of the Choice enrollment for the MB Cluster, and the beginning description of the Strategic Process.

Below are the presentations:

Sessions Introduction
Sessions Cluster Presentation Feb 2012

Meeting Presentation
120215 Cluster Meeting

Strategic Process
This process was released by SDUSD to describe a methodology for determining and assessing if school sites exhibited the qualities of schools that would improve academic achievement and reduce the historic achievement gap. A committee has already established several Quality School Indicators - qualities that when exhibited in a site, it is expected that the achievement gap would reduce and overall achievement would increase. These indicators require observables or Evidence to indicate that they do indeed exist at the site.

The sole reference indicated in this work is Karen Chenoweth's It's Being Done.
Sdusd Strategic Process

MB Cluster Choice Data



Mission Bay Cluster Apps 021412

Minutes

MB Cluster meeting minutes for Feb 15, 2012

X Factor Funding - 2012/13 proposal

This was passed onto me third hand on or about Jan 31, 2012. It contains the proposed (?) X Factor funding for each site in SDUSD based upon projected enrollment.

At first glance, it seems that sites are getting a much different allocation than 2011/12. However, a more careful analysis shows a change in methodology:

2011/12: Per capita funding was based upon discrete categories (small, medium, large site)
2012/13: A formula was applied to create per capita funding based upon the precise enrollment

The new formula appears consistently applied to all sites. However, some sites appear to gain (lose) because last year they were on the edge (boundary) of a small, medium, or large classification.

X Factor Funding for 2012/13

Strategic Process - Implementation of Vision 2020

The BoE approved the Vision 2020 over a year ago. This vision included addressing the persistent achievement gap (see the document below) as well as the goal of ensuring that all students have available the classwork to apply to a four year college.

Below is a draft of a document that outlines a process for achievement and monitoring progress towards the goals of Vision 2020.

Sdusd Strategic Process

A partial description of Vision 2020 can be found in:

Budget Book SDUSD 2011

CHOICE program - statistics

The list below details the number of students that applied for and were offered positions at schools other than their neighborhood school (Academic Year 2011/12).

1st Choice Selected Summary by School

The status of the CHOICE enrollment for Academic Year (2012/13) as of Jan 9, 2012. This does NOT necessarily include:

* Students that are continuing at MB Cluster sites from this year,
* Students that are advancing to another site in the MB Cluster

These students do not need to apply again to continue at an MB site.

The deadline for the CHOICE program (PI, Magnet, CHOICE, VEEP) is Feb 15, 2012.

Mission Bay Cluster Apps

Mtg: Jan 18 - Approval of MB Cluster Goals, Recruitment, Establishment of Additional Task Forces

Below are the documents presented at the meeting. For news and opinion, visit "MB Cluster Chair" at Facebook

Important Action:
The number of Committee Members from each site was adjusted. There was a discrepancy between the formula in the By-Laws and the example listed. The number of Committee Members was apportioned according to the formula described in the text:

Current Committee representation for 2011-12
o MBHS – 10
o PBMS – 6
o KSE – 5
o PBE – 4
o BVT – 4
o CPJMA – 4

The draft vision/goals were approved as the official goals of the MB Cluster:

Cluster Proposal Draft 11-17-11

Charts from the Chair
120118 Cluster Meeting

Charts from BayView Terrace
BVT Presentation

Charts from Area Superintendent Merino
Mission Bay Cluster Celebrations 1.18

Charts from MBHS regarding recruitment of CHOICE students
School Marketing MBHS

Minutes from the Meeting
Minutes Jan 18