MB Cluster 2010: April 2012

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

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As of tonight, the BoE rescinded the proposed changes to graduation requirements to include a Career Readiness Component.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.

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. 

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.)

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?)

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

MB Cluster 2010

Sunday, April 29, 2012

SDUSD Workshop (BoE Meeting) RE: Cluster Model

Dissertation - Case Study in Parental Influence at SDUSD

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

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

CTE Requirements - Rescinded