DSBA meeting 1/13

Sorry I’m late getting these notes up, but was busy with some home medical issues. Now the DSBA BofD meeting was business as usual for most of the night however the big topic on all lips was Race to the Top. Like most others who had met with rep from DEDOE, and signed the MOU it left a bad taste in their mouths. The biggest issue was it felt as if everyone except board members were given face time with the governor and DOE’s folks to get an understanding. We all felt as if we had a dagger hanging over us to sign or the children we represent would not get even the remotest of funding! There is not a district who does not see the writing on the budget wall so any money is better then none.
The issue is not only were we not given all the details in a timely manner, but there are so many potholes in this program it smells like something I’ve stepped in before. The DSBA was asked to write a letter of approval for the RTTT plans of Delaware, and it did but a second letter is planned to go to the folks in Dover. This second letter will detail the feelings of local board members who as the elected representatives of the districts should be held in as high regard as the teachers unions and superintendents!
Other business of the night was review of the legislative updates for the incoming session. One of interest was a discussion of the states Zero tolerance policies with legislation being recommended that gives boards more room to discuss each incident individually and set the appropriate discipline for each. Last tidbit was a website if you have time and want to search your districts- SunlightOnSchools.org


About Gary M Wolfe

The Author spent 10 years as a member of the Milford Delaware Board Of Education, and is currently seeking the 18th Senatorial seat in the Delaware Legislature.
This entry was posted in Delaware Politics, Education. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to DSBA meeting 1/13

  1. John Young says:

    This is why DOE does not care what bards think:

    New REG as of 1/14/10:

    11.0 Accountability for Districts that are classified as Under Improvement:
    11.1 Under Improvement Phase 1 – A district that meets the definition of Under Improvement found in 2.11.5 shall, in the first school year after meeting the definition of Under Improvement, be considered in “Under Improvement Phase 1.” A district that is in Under Improvement Phase I shall develop and implement a District Improvement Plan.
    11.2 Under Improvement Phase 2 – A district that is identified as Under Improvement Phase 1 pursuant to 11.1 and fails to meet AYP for an additional year shall be considered “Under Improvement Phase 2.” Such districts shall evaluate and modify the District Improvement Plan and shall incorporate such plan into the Consolidated Application of the Education Success Planning and Evaluation System.
    11.3 Corrective Action Phase 1 – A district that is identified as Under Improvement Phase 2 pursuant to 11.2 and fails to meet AYP for an additional year shall enter “Corrective Action Phase 1” status. The Department shall develop a corrective action plan for the district as outlined by Federal ESEA requirements. The Secretary of Education shall investigate the reasons for the continued deficiency of the district’s performance and shall consult with the State Board of Education prior to finalizing the plan. The corrective action plan may include requirements found in 20 U.S.C.A. Section 6316(c)(10)(C) as permitted by State law and may also include implementation of provisions found in 7.0. The district shall implement the corrective action plan.
    11.4 Under Improvement greater than Corrective Action Phase 2, a district shall continue with the activities as outlined in 11.3. In addition the Department of Education shall evaluate the corrective action plan and make appropriate modifications as needed.

    Per 11.3 here is FED CODE 20 U.S.C.A. Section 6316(c)(10)(C):

    Certain corrective actions required In the case of a local educational agency identified for corrective action, the State educational agency shall take at least one of the following corrective actions: (i) Deferring programmatic funds or reducing administrative funds. (ii) Instituting and fully implementing a new curriculum that is based on State and local academic content and achievement standards, including providing appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students. (iii) Replacing the local educational agency personnel who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly progress. (iv) Removing particular schools from the jurisdiction of the local educational agency and establishing alternative arrangements for public governance and supervision of such schools. (v) Appointing, through the State educational agency, a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the local educational agency in place of the superintendent and school board. (vi) Abolishing or restructuring the local educational agency. (vii) Authorizing students to transfer from a school operated by the local educational agency to a higher-performing public school operated by another local educational agency in accordance with subsections (b)(1)(E) and (F) of this section, and providing to such students transportation (or the costs of transportation) to such schools consistent with subsection (b)(9) of this section, in conjunction with carrying out not less than one additional action described under this subparagraph.

    Is there any doubt?

  2. kilroysdelaware says:

    That’t for the update. I can’t find fault with any board member voting yes or no to the MOU because DOE sorry to say an agent of Jack Markell’s put a political gun to the school boards heads.

    It’s unbelievable Delaware public schools receive about 8% federal funding anf the governor give USDOE the keys to local comtrol and will force local taxpayers to fund RTTT after the two years of funding.

    DOE skims 50% of the 36 milion dollats a year leaving the districts 18 million to divided. The cost to do the compehensive teacher evalaution will be costly and up to $10,000 cash bonus for High effective teachers will eat the funding up in no time.

    With Newt Ginrich on Arne Duncan’s RTTT dream team and P. Dupont on the Rodel Foundation Vision 2015 board the GOP will stand down. For local school boards and taxpayers it’s political checkmate.

    Duncan’s Mayoral control goes to DE Sec. of Education where state legislators have no say.

    I keep reqesting legislation that requires the indentifcation of all funding be notated in the text of any state proposed ed. legislation. If not funding requirements will default to the local taxpayers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s