As most of you who have been reading this blog know, many of us believe that the comprehensive and special ed plans are not acceptable in their "current" form. As pointed out in Part II and Part III of our blog, the two documents contain numerous inaccurate statements and errors. As a result, we recommended that the board not approve these plans until all our comments and concerns were addressed to the satisfaction of the authoring committee and the public.
These plans were two of many things discussed, approved, or tabled that concerned us during this meeting. While there were some board actions that lead us to believe they are taking a harder look at our spending, there was a noticeable lack of support by the Administration in providing the board with the facts and justification necessary to make the most informed decisions possible. The board appeared to have some interest in tabling the special ed plan to allow board members additional time to review revisions and comments, but reluctantly approved it after being informed by the Superintendent that the plan was due by May 1, before the next full meeting of the board. The Superintendent could have asked her team to make revisions ahead of the May 1 deadline and held a special board meeting for approval, or could have engaged with the state and CCIU for a short extension while they reviewed submissions from other districts. By sharing the deadline but omitting these options, our Superintendent steered the board to vote to submit the current plan to the state despite concerns by some of the members as to the plan's accuracy, completeness, and relevance.
We discuss this further later in this post, which follows the meeting's agenda in order of topics.
Special Report:
We discuss this further later in this post, which follows the meeting's agenda in order of topics.
Special Report:
Matt
McCain (Athletic Director) – Back in January Mr. McCain presented the status of
the Coatesville boys Lacrosse program club team. In
that presentation he explained that he thought the middle school consolidation would reduce the number of teams in the budget from three per sport to one (only 7th and 8th graders can play team sports under PIAA rules), thus allowing the Boys Lacrosse club to be granted status as an official district team that would compete in the Ches-Mont league. In a follow up to that presentation, Mr. McCain shared that he had subsequently been given direction not to reduce the number of teams at the middle school level in order to give every middle school student who was interested the opportunity to play sports at the middle school level. Without these cost savings, the only way he thought the district could afford the team would be if the budgets for uniforms and safety equipment were cut for all other approved district teams. He did not think this was an appropriate approach to take, and thus reluctantly recommended the board not approve the lacrosse team. The board members appeared to want to approve the team and inquired whether funds could come from other areas, such as signage fundraising under board policy 711.
Mr. Fisher
added a motion to the Operations committee – Letter E: “To have Mr. McCain make revisions in the 2019-2020 athletic budget to support
in full the boy’s lacrosse program to compete in the Ches-Mont League.”
The consent agenda is where the board generally approves items that were previously discussed and passed at the committee meetings, and which need no further comment or discussion. Items are removed from the consent agenda if they were not previously approved at a committee meeting, if a member wishes to ask questions about the item before voting, if a member wishes to make a comment about an item, or if a member plans to vote against or abstain from an item. (Members are required to abstain from items that would present a conflict of interest, such as a motion item that involves a family member.) Below are items that were removed from the consent agenda.
Fisher
Removed
|
Wuertz
Removed
|
Marshall
Removed
|
Keech
Removed
|
1: B,
E, F, G, H, I, M, N, O, P, Q, R
2: D,
E, F, G, H, I
3: D,
New E
|
3: C
|
2: B,
|
2: A, C
|
FINANCE COMMITTEE
B. Bayridge Consortium, Inc. –Letter of
Agreement
RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the
Board of School
Directors approve the
Letter of Agreement between
CASD and Bayridge Consortium to
provide professional development services for
the 2019-2020 school
year. Services will be paid for
with Title II professional development funds.
(Enclosure)
Fisher - “I
asked this to be pulled for the following reasons, in lieu of our constant
battle with the budget. I would need
some additional information before approving this. That being said, and I understand that these
are title II funds, but Title II funds can be spent wisely as well. So what I would ask for, at this current
time, myself as an individual I will be voting no for this agenda item. Based on the fact that I would like to see 1.
Some data that supports how well this initiative has worked for us, because
this is not new. 2. I would like to hear from the teachers and from the trenches
I would like to hear what their buy in is to this program. What they see in the trenches with this program
and the type of support they are getting from this program.”
This contract appears to cost at least $84,000 in speaker fees plus additional undisclosed costs for travel on six different occasions, including 22 nights in a hotel. Bayridge consulting is the firm the district has contracted with to bring Dr. Villa to the district for professional development in the area of special education, with a particular focus on the inclusion model. The topic in the contract is noted as "to be determined." Dr. Villa has come to the district multiple times under the current administration to train on his co-model, but teachers have indicated that even he admits the district does not follow his model with fidelity. Teachers we spoke to indicated that the information he provides does not change over time, and they cannot implement his methods under the staffing and policies of the district.
I. Ellin Oliver
Keene –Contract for Speaking Engagement
RECOMMENDED
MOTION: That the Board of School Directors
approve the Contract with Ellin Oliver Keene for professional development
services, as presented. Services will be
paid for with Title II professional development funds. (Enclosure)
Fisher
said he was pulling this for the same reason as letter B because he would like
to see the data and get input from the teachers.
The total cost of this contract was $86,000 including training and travel fees. The contract was dated December 6, 2018, but did not appear on a board agenda before this meeting. This would be at least the second contract under which Ms. Keene came to the district, so input should be available from teachers as to whether they found her training effective, and data should be available to show whether student results improved following the teacher training. Members of the community noted that the Pennsylvania Writing and Literature Project is right in our backyard and could be a more cost effective way to implement training for K-8 teachers in the area of literacy.
The total cost of this contract was $86,000 including training and travel fees. The contract was dated December 6, 2018, but did not appear on a board agenda before this meeting. This would be at least the second contract under which Ms. Keene came to the district, so input should be available from teachers as to whether they found her training effective, and data should be available to show whether student results improved following the teacher training. Members of the community noted that the Pennsylvania Writing and Literature Project is right in our backyard and could be a more cost effective way to implement training for K-8 teachers in the area of literacy.
We note that Title II professional development funds can be spent in a variety of ways. The district has just received a generous grant that will allow it to adopt a 1:1 technology model, but in order to benefit from this grant, there is an immediate and urgent need for technology related training. One possible option for the funds proposed to be spent on contracts with Dr. Villa and Ms. Keene would be for these Title II funds to be used to train teachers on how to leverage technology effective in their lessons.
M. Chester
County Intermediate Unit Budget Adoption
RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Board of School Directors approve
the 2019-2020 C.C.I.U. Core Services Budget in the amount of $27,930,942, as
presented. (Enclosure)
N. General
Service Agreement –Bounce House –Kindergarten Kickoff
RECOMMENDED MOTION: That
the Board of School Directors approve the agreement between Jets Bounce, LLC
and CASD for an inflatable bounce house, as presented. (Enclosure)
O. Memorandum
of Understanding to Proceed with Arbitration
RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Board of School Directors approve the Memo of Understanding with CATA, as
presented. (Enclosure)
P, Memorandum
of Understanding –Teamsters Contract
RECOMMENDED MOTION: That Board of School Directors approve the Memo of Understanding with the Teamsters
Local Union 384, as presented. (Enclosure)
We believe all of these items were pulled from the consent agenda because they did not appear on the committee agenda. All passed without controversy.
EDUCATION
COMMITTEE
A. Comprehensive Plan
RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Board of School Directors approve the
Comprehensive Plan which was on the
District’s website for
public review since
March 15th and remained available for review thru April 12,
2019.
TK: “There were a substantial number of
comments that the public had given us and I see they have been added to the
document. I would just like a little
more time to review it”
RM: “I totally agree with Mr. Keech.”
Fisher then asks Dr. Taschner “Does the deadline
allow us to do so?”
She then replied “I believe so”
Therefore Tom Keech proposed the item be tabled, and this motion passed. The item was removed from the agenda and not voted on at this meeting.
At the meeting, it was unclear what edits, if any, had been made to the document under consideration for the board's approval, as it was not linked in the agenda. It was also removed from the website at the end of the public review period and could not be read or reviewed by anyone who did not download it during the public review period. Following the meeting, the district posted a revised version of this document as well as the special education plan. However, the revisions did not address many of the comments submitted during the public review period and covered in our prior article. We did contact the state to confirm the deadline for this document's approval and were informed it is November 30th
2019. Thus, it appears that plenty of time remains for the substantial revisions we believe are appropriate.
B. Special Education Plan
RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the
Board of School
Directors approve the
Special Education Plan which was on the District’s website for
public review since March 15thand remained available for review thru
April 12, 2019.
RM:
“I
asked this to be pulled because of the number of comments that had been received
and the hour in which we received this was just not enough time.”
Fisher then asks Dr. Taschner again “Does the timeline
allow us to have further review and wait until the first meeting in May?”
CT: “It does not”.
RF: “This plan must be submitted by what date?”
CT: “May 1st”
RF: “The plan needs to be submitted by the
first of May, in order to be in compliance with the state”
Which then he looks over to Dr. Taschner
and asks her “I assume at this time we just have to vote on the plan as
is?”
CT: <inaudible response due to outcry from the audience>
CT: <inaudible response due to outcry from the audience>
RM: “Why did we wait until the last minute to
give us those comments to review, because I didn’t get them until after 1am in the
morning the other night?”
CT: “The
process was, and this was an attempt to try to go above and beyond, so we - the
comments were actually provided to the board.
We met before this past weekend. So the comments were provided to
the board, um actually when they were received and some of them were-were
provided directly to the board. We then took the comments and sent them
back out to the committee. Each of the committees to make sure the committees
had an opportunity to see all the comments and the feedback that was given.
And then the committees had an opportunity to say which they would like- any
they would like to be included or not. Then came back, took the comments,
added ones that were, um deemed appropriate and then... presented them in a - the
comments that had been included for the board to see.”
RM: “And I hear you, but let me just say I’m
in no position, I will be voting no because I am in no position to <inaudible response due to outcry from the audience> . To have those comments, I asked for them a
while ago. I mean…. That’s just where I’m
at. Again, I am one vote, but I don’t believe that the timing was sufficient.”
The motion to approve the special education plan was approved, although several board members had indicated they originally had hoped to table the agenda item to allow more time for review and possible revisions. However, in light of the deadline, several members reluctantly voted "yes." The only members that voted against the plan were Rob Marshall
and Brandon Rhone.
Although Dr. Taschner's comments indicate that members of the special education committee had an opportunity to see all of the comments and the feedback that was given, and were asked to say which comments/feedback they would like included, this did not appear to be accurate. During public comment, a community member read the email that was sent to members of the committee by Rita Perez on April 15, 2019, which included as an attachment the public comments received during the review period. Rather than asking which comments should be included, members were told "if you have any final thoughts about the plan, please email me directly by 3:00 PM on Wednesday, March [sic] 17."
Although Dr. Taschner's comments indicate that members of the special education committee had an opportunity to see all of the comments and the feedback that was given, and were asked to say which comments/feedback they would like included, this did not appear to be accurate. During public comment, a community member read the email that was sent to members of the committee by Rita Perez on April 15, 2019, which included as an attachment the public comments received during the review period. Rather than asking which comments should be included, members were told "if you have any final thoughts about the plan, please email me directly by 3:00 PM on Wednesday, March [sic] 17."
C. Course Selection Books
RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Board of School Directors approve the C.A.S.H.S.
and C.A.I.H.S. course selection books.
Enclosures: CASH CAIHS
TK: “Mr. Fisher, I pulled this one. I just wanted to ask the Superintendent a quick question, a few questions actually. Do all the courses that we have int he book, mostly I'm interested in the new ones, but in all of that, that we have a written curriculum and that we've already budgeted for the supplies and textbooks and things like that that will be necessary for all the courses that are in the book.”
CT: “I'll ask the principals to both come up and I'll answer in part while they both come up. The courses that were piloted last year and I would ask them to say which ones those were, in the sciences - I think there was a Zoology - and the principals would be able to tell you which ones that were being taught this year. The money is budgeted should that pilot wish to continue and should there be sufficient enrollment, which we will not know until course enrollment ends, and then any finishing of, as they finish their writes would have to be done this summer, but we won't know that until course selection is done to see if the students are even interested in taking those courses, and then I would let the principals answer if anything new other than that was added."
MS: “There are two, well at CASH, there were two additional AP classes that were recommended and they come with their own curriculum, and that would be AP Comparative Government and AP Microeconomics, and again, they come with their own curriculum and textbooks <inaudible>.”
BC: “Mr. Keech, I believe you're looking for as far as pilots last year, we had Microbiology added to the High School one as well as the other course was the ALS Research one for this year that was offered through the University of Pittsburgh, it was also a dual credit course.”
CT: “I do know the ALS Research curriculum was written. It was written in the summer and those materials are there. I do know that for sure because I just happened to see the teachers when they come in to Dr. K...so I do know that was complete. I do not know about the Microbiology?"
BC: “It's the same as the Historic Research Preservation, the second level, that curriculum was also written and...”
CT: “That was also done in the summer."
RF: “Thank you."
MS: “And I can tell you the pilots for CASH were Zoology, which I believe Dr. Taschner mentioned, Marine Biology, Nutritional Chemistry, and we had a Biology course, I'm sorry a Botany course, but that one did not run.”
CT: “I do know the ALS Research curriculum was written. It was written in the summer and those materials are there. I do know that for sure because I just happened to see the teachers when they come in to Dr. K...so I do know that was complete. I do not know about the Microbiology?"
BC: “It's the same as the Historic Research Preservation, the second level, that curriculum was also written and...”
CT: “That was also done in the summer."
RF: “Thank you."
MS: “And I can tell you the pilots for CASH were Zoology, which I believe Dr. Taschner mentioned, Marine Biology, Nutritional Chemistry, and we had a Biology course, I'm sorry a Botany course, but that one did not run.”
RF: “So, just in summary, there is a curriculum for each item in the book and there is, there are materials to those courses, is that correct?"
BC: “Microbiology - that was a pilot so that was running concurrently - and we were going to re-evaluate it at the end of this year to see if we were going to continue on that way or we're looking for another course, another science elective. That was a pilot course, that shows interest to the students as well so...”
RF: “And of course, this would be in concurrence with the budget. If there's a reason to cut some items, then obviously those courses would not run.”
BC: “Correct, and so based on what Dr. Taschner indicated, due to the interest when the course selection opened, the idea of where the popular courses are, those students are interested and the ability for us to turn the budget or remove it from that.”
RF: “Any other questions or comments?”
AW: “Mr. Fisher, I have a question regarding, more so in the 9/10, the...what were traditionally the pre-AP classes and now are listed honors classes with the statement at the end that they do prepare you for the AP classes. Could you give us just a...”
BC: “Sure. All honors level courses should actually prepare our students to advance into an advanced placement course so that is the change for that. The purpose is to again prepare more students for advanced placement through that honors level.”
AW: “And I can attest to that as a parent as well. They do...honors classes do prepare them for AP.”
RF: “Any other questions?”
DM (Student Representative): “I do have a question, Mr. Fisher. Just to clarify, I am part of the ALS course in this building and although this is the pilot year, we have not partnered very much in the classroom with the University of Pittsburgh. We went in September and they sent us supplies of fruit flies and all that. Where there be more involvement with the University of Pittsburgh next year in the course? Is that something that we know?”
BC: “Yeah, and again, I believe the design of the course is to continue to build on the same things and continue on the pathway to research for a cure for ALS and work with those researchers so as the program develops and continues to grow with that partnership with the University of Pittsburgh...to be able to again to have our students be part of that research and development and hopefully find a cure for ALS.”
DM: “Thank you."
BA (Student Representative): “I also have a question, Mr. Fisher. So to clarify, the Pre-AP is no longer available for students? Pre-AP English?"
BC: “Well again, when you're looking at Pre-AP and AP, it's almost one and the same. so we don't want to give credit twice for a course of Pre-AP and then advanced placement the following year. So, what we want to do is give more students to advance into the advanced placement. So hopefully are students and our teachers are prepared to being able to have those honors level advance into those AP classes for that following year, correct.
BA: “Right. I mean I personally believe that I took Pre-AP and honors English and I personally believe that the Pre-AP prepared me for AP more than the honors did and I believe I am an intelligent student, but we need to look at the students who aren't as intelligent as other students and I believe <inaudible> that the Pre-AP class..."
BC: “I completely agree and our teachers should be able to be well equipped to go in there and provide differentiated instruction based on student needs and meet them where they are. The ought to be able to meet their needs, prepare them, and meet them where they are, prepare them for the advanced placement regardless of intelligence levels."
BC: “Microbiology - that was a pilot so that was running concurrently - and we were going to re-evaluate it at the end of this year to see if we were going to continue on that way or we're looking for another course, another science elective. That was a pilot course, that shows interest to the students as well so...”
RF: “And of course, this would be in concurrence with the budget. If there's a reason to cut some items, then obviously those courses would not run.”
BC: “Correct, and so based on what Dr. Taschner indicated, due to the interest when the course selection opened, the idea of where the popular courses are, those students are interested and the ability for us to turn the budget or remove it from that.”
RF: “Any other questions or comments?”
AW: “Mr. Fisher, I have a question regarding, more so in the 9/10, the...what were traditionally the pre-AP classes and now are listed honors classes with the statement at the end that they do prepare you for the AP classes. Could you give us just a...”
BC: “Sure. All honors level courses should actually prepare our students to advance into an advanced placement course so that is the change for that. The purpose is to again prepare more students for advanced placement through that honors level.”
AW: “And I can attest to that as a parent as well. They do...honors classes do prepare them for AP.”
RF: “Any other questions?”
DM (Student Representative): “I do have a question, Mr. Fisher. Just to clarify, I am part of the ALS course in this building and although this is the pilot year, we have not partnered very much in the classroom with the University of Pittsburgh. We went in September and they sent us supplies of fruit flies and all that. Where there be more involvement with the University of Pittsburgh next year in the course? Is that something that we know?”
BC: “Yeah, and again, I believe the design of the course is to continue to build on the same things and continue on the pathway to research for a cure for ALS and work with those researchers so as the program develops and continues to grow with that partnership with the University of Pittsburgh...to be able to again to have our students be part of that research and development and hopefully find a cure for ALS.”
DM: “Thank you."
BA (Student Representative): “I also have a question, Mr. Fisher. So to clarify, the Pre-AP is no longer available for students? Pre-AP English?"
BC: “Well again, when you're looking at Pre-AP and AP, it's almost one and the same. so we don't want to give credit twice for a course of Pre-AP and then advanced placement the following year. So, what we want to do is give more students to advance into the advanced placement. So hopefully are students and our teachers are prepared to being able to have those honors level advance into those AP classes for that following year, correct.
BA: “Right. I mean I personally believe that I took Pre-AP and honors English and I personally believe that the Pre-AP prepared me for AP more than the honors did and I believe I am an intelligent student, but we need to look at the students who aren't as intelligent as other students and I believe <inaudible> that the Pre-AP class..."
BC: “I completely agree and our teachers should be able to be well equipped to go in there and provide differentiated instruction based on student needs and meet them where they are. The ought to be able to meet their needs, prepare them, and meet them where they are, prepare them for the advanced placement regardless of intelligence levels."