The four Wilmington, Delaware traditional school districts are in the middle of a long lawsuit filed against them by the Charter Schools Development Corporation last January. But the lawsuit itself is absurd! Continue reading
Aside from the controversial Special Education Strategic Plan presentation and Delaware Academy of Public Safety & Security going under formal review, what else happened at the January State Board of Education meeting? This is what goes out to legislators and all those important education folks in the state!
January State Board Meeting Highlights
The State Board of Education held its Regular Monthly Board Meeting on Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
All materials and presentations from the meeting can be accessed on the online meeting platform posted within each month’s agenda as posted on our website (www.destateboarded.k12.de.us ).
- Here is a direct link to the agenda complete with links and attached documents related to presentations and other items before the Board: SBE Monthly Meeting Agenda
The audio recording from the meeting is now posted on the State Board website. An index of the recording with live links by section is copied below.
· Board President, Dr. Dennis Loftus, discussed his attendance at the Governor’s State of the State address earlier in the day and provided a recap of the key points involving education. The Executive Director presented her report which included discussion of the latest publication by NASBE which focuses on Early Learning. A link to the publication as well as a few other articles regarding accountability plans across all 50 states according to ESSA plans and an interesting approach to chronic absenteeism. Her posted report called “News Updates and Information” is provided monthly. There will soon be a link added to the home page for easier access to these reports and local and national articles related to education issues which are provided for review by the Board and public. Ms. Johnson then updated the Board on the work related to the Literacy Campaign and highlighted the upcoming meetings for the steering committee and subcommittees of the Campaign for Grade Level Reading.
· Secretary Bunting provided a comprehensive report to the Board which included details about several school visits and opportunities to engage with members of the business community and other policy leaders, meetings with school administrators, educators, and students in which she had been involved throughout the month. These visits included meeting with the School District Consolidation Task Force Academic and Student Needs Committee where they discussed the state’s EL Strategic Plan. She also had the opportunity to recognize the outstanding achievement of 4 schools for Continued Excellence and identified 15 as Recognition Schools. Recognition Schools receive a banner to display in their school as well as $8,000 to further advance learning at their schools. She highlighted her involvement at the P-20 Council, Governor’s Cabinet meeting, Family Service Council, and the G.E.A.R meeting.
· The Board received a presentation from the 2018 DE State Teacher of the Year, Virginia Forcucci. Following her presentation and discussion with the Board they honored her with the SBE Award of Excellence.
· The Board received a presentation on the Special Education Strategic Plan from the co-chairs of the Special Education Strategic Plan Advisory Council, Dr. Michele Marinucci and Bill Doolittle. Board members discussed the development of the plan and asked questions regarding the goals and metrics within the plan. Additional information and resources from the presentation were provided on the agenda page for this item.
· Department Regulations
o Regulation 925: Children with Disabilities Subpart D, Evaluations, Eligibility Determination, Individualized Education Programs was presented for final action. There was discussion regarding the comments received from the GACEC and Statewide Disabilities Council as well as the fact that this change was only addressing one aspect of the regulation to align with federal requirements. The Board was informed that a broader group of stakeholders are currently working on revisions to further update the rest of the regulation and that this regulation may be before them again with more comprehensive changes in the near future. A motion to approve the regulation as presented for final order was made by Mrs. Rutt and seconded by Dr. Whittaker. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote with one abstention (Mr. Rushdan, who was just confirmed to the Board the prior day and not a part of the prior month’s discussion of the regulation).
o Regulation 501: State Content standards was presented for final action. The amendments included the addition of statewide K-12 Financial Literacy and Computer Science standards. The public comment received as well as feedback received through the community engagement sessions held by the Department was shared with the Board. There was discussion regarding the date in regulation for adoption and how that was different from the full implementation date of these standards to be integrated and aligned with curriculum. It was explained that the date in regulation is the date that the standards would officially become the state content standards and that the implementation of those standards into professional development for teachers and integrated and aligned with curriculum would follow a similar timeline trajectory has was used for the Next Generation Science standards. A motion to approve the regulation as presented for final order was made by Mr. Heffernan and seconded by Mrs. Rutt. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote with one abstention (Mr. Rushdan, who was just confirmed to the Board the prior day and not a part of the prior month’s discussion of the regulation).
o Following the approval of Regulation 501, the Board took a moment to thank Mr. Michael Watson, Chief Academic Officer, for his many contributions to improving education for children in the state of Delaware. It had been announced the prior month that this would be his final State Board meeting before leaving the department. The Board recognized him for his service and awarded him the State Board’s Award of Excellence.
o Regulation 1008 DIAA Junior High and Middle School Interscholastic Athletics and Regulation 1009 DIAA High School Interscholastic Athletics were presented to the Board for discussion. These regulations are out for comment during the month of January and will be back before the Board in February for final action. The DIAA Executive Director and legal counsel addressed questions from the Board members regarding the proposed changes which dealt with Officials organizations and Foreign Exchange and International Students’ eligibility.
· The Board received public comment from two individuals commending them on the decision to approve regulation 501 and adopt statewide Computer Science standards for Delaware.
· John Carwell, from the Charter School Office, presented the Department’s request to place Delaware Academy of Public Safety and Security on formal review.
o At the December 18, 2014 meeting of the State Board of Education, the charter for DAPSS was renewed with the following conditions:
§ 1. The school shall attain a rating of “Meets Standard” on the Academic Framework for the 2014-15 school year; and
§ 2. The school shall attain a rating of “Meets Standard” on the Financial Framework for the 2014-15 school year.
o In SY 2014/2015 Delaware implemented a new system of accountability known as the Delaware School Success Framework (DSSF) and was permitted by the U.S. Department of Education to use this school year as the year from which to measure academic achievement and progress. Due to this waiver, DAPSS was provided an additional year to satisfy its conditions.
o In SY 2015/2016, Delaware changed the academic assessment for high schools from Smarter Balanced to SAT. Due to this change in academic assessment, DAPSS was provided an additional year to satisfy its conditions.
o In SY 2016/2017, DAPSS failed to meet academic standards in three of the four DSSF metrics and showed a decline in both academic achievement and academic growth.
o As for financial standards, in SY 2014/2015, SY 2015/2016, and SY 2016/2017, DAPSS failed to meet financial standards.
o In 2015-2016, DAPSS was approved for a modification to decrease enrollment. Despite this decrease, the school did not meet the 80% requirement for enrollment by May 1st for SY 2017-2018 enrolling only 77% of its projected population. As of September 30, 2017, DAPSS enrolled 228 of their projected 340 students or 67% of their approved enrollment. Since September 30, 2017, DAPSS’s enrollment has again declined. The school currently has 217 students enrolled.
o This is the third year that the school has shown a decline in enrollment going from 303 students in SY 2015/2016 to 217 students SY2017/2018. With a 2018 graduating class of 47 students, 49 choice applications, and one withdrawal at the time of this report, it is doubtful that DAPSS will meet the Financial Framework standard this school year.
o After considering these potential violations of its charter, the Department as approving authority, has determined that DAPSS should be submitted to formal review to determine whether the school is violating its charter and whether there are grounds for remedial measures. The Department is seeking the assent of the Secretary and the State Board for this action.
· The Secretary of Education following this outline of performance and concerns regarding the compliance with their charter stated, “Delaware Academy of Public Safety and Security appears to have failed to meet the conditions of its charter renewal and should have the opportunity for a rigorous review of the school performance. Therefore, as Secretary of Education, I assent to placing Delaware Academy of Public Safety and Security on formal review. In accordance with 14 Delaware Code Section 511(c), I seek the assent of the State Board of Education to the decision to place Delaware Academy of Public Safety and Security on formal review.”
· Dr. Loftus asked for a motion to assent to the formal review of the charter for Delaware Academy of Public Safety and Security. The motion was made by Mrs. Sorenson and seconded by Mr. Heffernan. After discussion of the Board which involved discussing the process that is included during formal review the motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
· The charter office also provided in its monthly update, which was posted on the SBE website for information a timeline for the review of the new application received to open a new charter school in Sussex county called Sussex Montessori as well as the major modification requested for Design Lab HS. The links to all of these were provided in the agenda item online.
· The Professional Standards Board had no items to bring before the SBE this month since their January meeting was cancelled due to snow.
· The Board had no one signed up for general public comment
· The Board received an update from its Deputy Attorney General regarding two appeal requests that have had their hearing and are currently in the time window in which either party is able to submit responses to the hearing officer’s recommendation. Both of those appeals will come before the Board for action at the February meeting.
The next regular monthly meeting of the State Board is scheduled for
Thursday, February 15, 2018
The meeting will begin at 4:00 p.m. and the Board will enter Executive Session to discuss two disciplinary appeals and then will return to general session at 5:00pm
January 18, 2018 – Delaware State Board of Education Audio Recordings
The Christina Board of Education meeting last night was filled with some awesome discussion about what appears in the title of this article. I painstakingly transcribed the part of the meeting with the Superintendent’s report to the Board and the crazy discussion after. Board member John Young was on fire!!!! The topics dealt with Governor Carney’s plans for Christina’s Wilmington schools. There is A LOT of information in here. A ton. From venereal diseases to transparency to possible school closures and more! I have a feeling things are going to look VERY different in Christina’s Wilmington schools a year from now. And for the record, I agree with John Young on EVERYTHING he said! Continue reading
I’ve listened to a few of the charter audio links. But nothing was shorter than Newark Charter School’s 16 minute audio recording. Their meeting, held on September 20th, didn’t discuss any aspect of the district-charter funding scuffle that monopolized Delaware education social media the first ten days of the month. They didn’t really talk about much of anything, which is surprising given the school year started. Their meeting minutes usually give an impression their meetings are longer than 16 minutes. I hope we don’t run into a case where some charters go into executive session to discuss the big stuff. Their audio gives no sign of how long they went into executive session to discuss “potential litigation”. Unless they do have potential litigation. It wasn’t on their agenda they put up September 9th but it was on September 16th. When they came out of executive session, they did unanimously vote to move forward on the potential litigation.
You can listen to the very short meeting here.
At last month’s New Castle County V0-Tech’s Board of Education meeting, Superintendent Vicki Gehrt wanted to get the ball rolling early on her contract renewal. Her contract isn’t up for another six months, but apparently she felt the need to bring it up now. The board wasn’t too keen on that. Details are scarce, but it wound up with the non-elected board going in and out of executive session throughout the night. As Gehrt and friends stayed in one room with Gehrt visibly upset. Scuttlebutt has it that the board is not too enamored with Gehrt, especially after the Amy Joyner-Francis death at Howard High School of Technology as well as other issues.
Ultimately, the board decided to table any talk of Gehrt’s Superintendent renewal until it is actually up for renewal. But they do have a board meeting tomorrow night. Will Vo-Tech Vicki bring it up again? Will there be more drama with unannounced adventures in executive session? And will the board meeting be heard for all to hear? Last month, the board was prepping for the House Bill 61 all school boards must record bill which goes into effect in a couple of months. But no recording was put up on the website. This is definitely a to be continued story…
The State Board of Education audio recordings from their very long meeting yesterday are now up on the State Board website. The Wilmington Education Improvement Commission portions of the meeting take up a collective two hours and twenty minutes of the meeting. Not included are the breaks, legal or illegal, during the meeting with respect to the WEIC discussion.
As I insanely do once in a while, during contentious board meetings, I transcribed part of the WEIC conversations. The three areas I focused on were the FOIA violation I believe the State Board committed by pausing the meeting to convene with legal counsel without calling for an executive session, the Christina priority school plans, and the funding/pause conversation surrounding the words “shall” and “may”. The key players in most of this are State Board President Dr. Teri Quinn Gray and WEIC Chair Tony Allen. Others are State Board members Pat Heffernan, Barbara Rutt, and Executive Director of the State Board of Education Donna Johnson. While I would have loved to get the whole thing transcribed, there isn’t enough time in the day. And as I’ve said before, you can only replay some of these voices so many times without wanting to jump off a bridge. Key parts or words are bolded for emphasis.
The FOIA Violation
There has been well over an hour of conversation at this point about the plan and a lot of back and forth between the State Board and Tony Allen. This occurs at the end of Part 5 in the audio recordings from the meeting yesterday.
Dr. Teri Quinn Gray: So, I just gotta check out the procedural piece of that with the attorney…do you mind? Cause I’m not sure about, uhm, the timing…
Tony Allen: Could I add, offer something, Could you make a motion to approve it with the new caveats, approval contingent upon…
Gray: Yeah, that’s why I need to make sure we get all the right pieces around that. I think I heard a little bit of that. So, let me ask for, uhm, a 15 minute break to consult with counsel and get the options around that. Do you mind?
Gray: Miss Rutt, can she come with me, with you, the attorney? It’s 3:46. We’ll be back at 4.
31 minutes later, beginning of Part 6 of the audio recording…
Gray: It’s 4:17 and we’re back in session. So why we left and the whole purpose of stepping away is we had , uhm, a proposal to table the current motion to approve the plan as presented. But, ugh, we brought forth an amendment motion that actually puts forth a conditional approval based on the conditions of changing the “shall” to “may” in the proposed resolution. And also having a wait for the Christina School District to act on the action item on February 23rd which involves submission of grant applications to the Department of Education for priority schools. And also contingent upon approval of the Department of Education of that plan, of that grant application. Right, so that’s the discussion that has been happening for the past thirty minutes or so and the expectation around that, uhm, if the board accepts that amended motion and vote accordingly, or affirmative in that, that we would ask that we take those two conditions and act accordingly however we see fit, we would be able to close that item before us. There is no need to bring this back to the table or as an agenda item for the board. We would be able to settle that based on those conditions being met.
Pat Heffernan: And if they’re not met?
Gray: And if they’re not met then the approval is, there is no conditional approval and we do not approve it.
Allen: Can I add two things?
Allen: I’ve consulted with many of the commissioners here on both the conditions. On condition one, back to Christina and the priority school plans, I think that, I appreciate, making sure that the condition is with respect to the Department of Education approving the plan as opposed to the Christina School Board being made, maybe that’s how I was interpreting it, made to approve their priority schools plan is a better way to get that. I think the Christina School District has every intention to approve the plan but I don’t think they take kindly to the State Board as making them so that’s…
Barbara Rutt: Sure
Allen: The second issue, with respect to “shall” and “may” is, I just want to reiterate, and you will act I know, I want to reiterate that on the board level, the commission level, the word “shall” was about making sure this wasn’t becoming an unfunded mandate. We talked about that at length during our discussion. I think that would be a significant hurdle for us. The district leaders have continued to express that if the resources aren’t provided they could not go forward. And it’s my suspicion is that they will see that change from “shall” to “may” as a potential for an unfunded mandate with a cause of concern for their districts. I will take that back to the commission, but I wanted you to know that as you make your decision, that could be a deal-breaker. While I would not speak for the commission at this moment, I can guarantee you that if it does not happen, you will not see the commission resubmit a plan.
Christina Priority Schools
Heffernan: I just want to add that, you know, the approval of the priority schools plan by Christina is, is it months or years late? So I have very little patience for Christina for semantics on that. They literally refused to approve plans to help the kids and honestly, I think got us to this table where we are today.
Secretary of Education Dr. Steve Godowsky: I just want to make this clear. On January 22nd of 2016, I sent Christina’s Acting Superintendent a letter indicating that either the board or the Acting Superintendent can submit and activate the, uhm, the original application for the priority, or the MOU that they submitted a year ago. Uhm, so that is what you are suggesting. It may not require a vote from the Board but we wanted to make sure which plan they want to move forward and if it was the MOU plan, and I have talked to the Board President. Then that will be acceptable to us going forward.
Heffernan: One thing that really troubles me about this is if the Christina Board doesn’t fully support these plans then, you know, we’re back to where we always were. And this is, so I, I, we can’t make, we have no authority to make any local boards approve anything, I totally get that, but I’m just very disappointed that this continues to be hard to get them to agree to help the priority schools. That’s all I’m saying.
Godowsky: And the Christina Board did sign off on their plan about a year ago with one day difference so I think they did support that plan. And now that we know that’s the plan on the table then we can move forward, I believe we can do our due diligence and be in a position to review that plan and make modifications.
Heffernan: So they approved this a year ago?
Godowsky: As part of, uhm, the Memorandum of Understanding, between the district and others that negotiated that alternative to the original plan, as I understand it. I was…
Allen: As I understand that, the impasse was between Christina and their approved plans and the former Secretary (Mark Murphy), not that they didn’t approve the priority school plans. That is my understanding.
Heffernan: But the Department didn’t approve the plans?
Heffernan: So we’re going to take the same plans that the Department didn’t approve…
Godowsky: No, no. I don’t know the history of why it wasn’t signed off. There were a number of contingencies on that which required the principal, replacing the principal, interviewing, or reapplying teachers for their positions, and management company that, ugh, that, those requirements have changed and we’re not in a position to impose those regulations. So I think that was the stumbling block. I don’t want to speak for Christina, and I don’t have all the history that they were the stumbling block, but later on there was an MOU submitted that never got signed off on at the Department level. I don’t know the reasons in detail. But I just know what I’ve looked at, in terms of the MOU, it’s consistent with much of what we want to do with those three schools, instructionally, which we’ve talked about since October, that I’ve been here. And, given some modifications, I’m ready to move forward.
Gray reiterates much of the conversation of what just went on…
Godowsky: I’m in receipt of those plans. I just needed, in a sense I have those plans.
“Shall” and “May”
Heffernan: I guess I’m trying to understand where the unfunded mandate is coming from. The redistricting portion of the plan is going to be unfunded or…
Allen: Remember, we arranged this for resources for English Language Learners, special education, and high concentrations of poverty. Every outline of current funding, none of that has been allocated yet, say, for the Governor’s commitment for the four to six million, right, so what we’re suggesting is each year, going through these two budget cycles, everything has to show up and if it that money doesn’t show up all the districts have particular issues with having Red Clay taking on these kids, and by the way this is not just a Red Clay issue, all the districts talk about this, taking on these kids with no changes in the funding formula for how they are going to help those kids.
Gray: And we’re committed to that same delivery around, particularly to support low-income and English Language Learners so we are… (note: Gray did not say special education)
Allen: And I agree. The question is about you all interpreting, and again, this might be an (inaudible) on our part, you all interpreting “shall” as required without deliberation.
Gray: That’s right.
Allen: We don’t interpret it that way. It was meant to be deliberation in consultation with the effected districts…
Gray: Right, so let’s just make it the “may”, and if we need to, we’ll do it, right? Because without this level of conversation and intimacy that we have now, whenever this may come forward a few years from now that “shall” is a… (very, very hard to understand what she said here but I did hear the word legal. Whether that was “legal” or “illegal” I was unable to tell)
Allen: I agree, and I do not give this short shrift, if you in fact approve it this way, it will require, I believe, a full-throated (inaudible) analysis that you will give in writing and in person to the commission, so…
Gray: Absolutely. We’re committed to that. The Board is committed to that for sure.
At this point, Dan Rich (another WEIC commissioner) says something to Tony Allen. Tony asks for five minutes, and then Kenny Rivera (President of the Red Clay Consolidated Board of Education and a commissioner on WEIC) says something. I think I heard the word “non-negotiable” but it is very hard to hear. The State Board grants the WEIC folks a five minute break. This is the end of Part 6 of the audio recordings.
The break ends, and the State Board is back in session in Part 7 of the audio recordings.
Gray: So Dr. Allen, did you want to add something before we go forward?
Allen: I consulted with many of the Commissioners here and I think there is general agreement that we could, and we would like you to consider, taking out all the provisions outlined in the resolution that we take back to the commission so that it does not come back to the State Board. But in general, but moving forward, it will be contingent upon sufficient funding. Effectively, that takes you out of the process at the final implementation stage.
Gray: So you’re saying?
Allen: What we’re saying disregard all the remaining “shalls”, make it all contingent upon the necessary and sufficient funding and resources and take it off of the State Board with respect to their responsibility for this board and to future State Boards.
Gray: So is that effectively removing the resolution?
Allen: It’s more changing the resolution but excluding State Board having ongoing responsibility for suspension of the timetable.
Gray: Could I ask the process specialist?
Donna Johnson: With process of approval of the redistricting process in and of itself, and there is the caveat there that the plan would become essentially non-void if necessary and sufficient funding were not available, what safeguards would be in place if those necessary sufficient funding and supports were not at each of the milestones? Where would there be a pause that takes place at that point?
Allen: Do you mean who would authorize that pause?
Allen: The authorization would come from the commission and the effected districts. So we’d take it out of the State Board’s hands. There is nothing in Senate Bill 122 that prohibits this.
After much back and forth, the State Board voted on the redistricting plan and the addendums as of 2/11/16 with no amendments which failed 3-4. The State Board then voted on the plan with the amendments about the Christina priority schools plan approval and the changing of “shall” to “may” on page 10 of the official plan. The motion passed with a 4-3 vote.
It appears the Academic Framework Working Group will have a few more meetings heading into September. They will be finalizing their decisions at their September 23rd meeting. Today I had a very cordial email exchange with Penny Schwinn, the Chief Officer of Performance & Accountability at the Department of Education. I found out the next three meetings will be on 9/2, 9/17 and 9/23 and I asked Penny Schwinn if they could be made public and for more stakeholders added to this group.
Schwinn indicated other than the non-negotiable items mandated by the US DOE, which have to be in there, the other items have not been finalized, including the participation rate penalty and the growth measures. She said no weights for the school report card have been finalized at this point as well. I did share with her that I felt far too much weight, as proposed based on their March meeting, is tied to the Smarter Balanced Assessment results. In addition, I did advise her more of the school culture, such as suspension & expulsion rates and even bullying statistics should be added, as this is a frequent concern for parents in any school choice.
Schwinn also shared that all Delaware Superintendents will receive emails about the next few meetings and all have been invited to attend. She did not say anything about the Board members in each district, but I did request the Board Presidents be emailed as well since they have a large say in district matters as well. I also asked if the meetings could be recorded and released on the DOE website to show a level of transparency for the public.
This measure the AFWG wants to have with a participation rates for standardized testing being multiplied by the school’s academic performance is a punishment against schools. It is out of the school’s hands if a parent opts their child out. It is 100% a parent’s right and their decision. Penny Schwinn did indicate she is more than happy to receive public input on this matter and anything associated with the school report card and welcomes any input. So please email Penny Schwinn and the accountability department at the Delaware DOE, DOEAccountability@doe.k12.de.us and include me in the cc: section with firstname.lastname@example.org so I can get an accurate feel for the opposition to this punishing measure.
I suspect the State Board of Education will attempt to vote on this at their October meeting, without true stakeholder input. This could be very damaging for our schools and teachers and students. A poor grade for a school can cause a lot of public perception to sway parents towards one school or another. This School Report Card is vastly weighted with the results of the Smarter Balanced Assessment, which can not and should not be a determining factor for how good or bad a school might be.
As well, email your legislator, the Delaware PTA, the school board in your district, and anyone who you think might be able to oppose this. If you have children in Delaware public schools, talk to other parents. Let the principal know you oppose this. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! Whether you support or oppose opt-out, this is not an accurate measurement of a school!
Details are still coming in on the controversial Delaware PTA Parent Opt-Out Town Hall from Thursday night. One member of the audience saw how heated this meeting was going to be so they recorded it. This same individual also went to the trouble of transcribing the incident with the member of the audience who is being referred to on social media as Mr. Brandywine.
First of all I’d just like to say thank you to the parents that came out tonight. I work for the Brandywine School District and it means a lot to see you here, expressing your concerns around the amount of testing. But, I sit here and I look across the room and I see a teacher that I used to work with, Sabrina Fitzhugh, who I think is an outstanding teacher. I think if every parent sat here, you can run through the outstanding teachers that your children have in the public school systems. And please be cognizant of the unintended consequence that opting out will have. Cause I sit here and I think, ‘when Sabrina gets her evaluation and some of the top performing students in her class opt out, Sabrina has to live with maybe a rating that doesn’t reflect….. (at this point several people became irate and were flabbergasted by what he was saying.) And, and I share the concern on the amount of testing and I just want to be clear (Someone from the audience, I believe her name was Meg Eldred, a teacher in the Christina School District, stated that opting out was nothing personal against the teacher) and I know that… (there was more grumbling from the audience. Terri Hodges called for the audience to be respectful of him and to allow him to speak. To which, the audience questioned WHY he was being given the floor at all. He was not a member of the panel and no other member of the audience had been given the right to speak, outside of the questions that were asked on the index cards, except to clarify a question that was asked) I will be the first one to share your concern on the amount of testing, right? But there are ripple effects and I want that to be heard not just to the parents, but I think that we all need to be cognizant of that because we do have outstanding teachers. So, please bare that in mind.
Mr. Brandywine was later identified as Brandywine Assistant Superintendent of Academics, Lincoln Hohler. A message was left for Mr. Holher yesterday for comment on this issue, but no call has been returned at this point.
I am very proud of this father. He has taken a courageous step. I’m not sure how many others have already done this, but it needs to be done. I posted an article last week with all the February board meetings. While this isn’t the only way to opt your child out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment, it certainly makes a large impact.
To hear a parent bravely opt his child out, go to the below link. It begins at the 33:05 time stamp.
If you want to know more about Christina and the Priority Schools, this audio recording goes into a lot more detail about the rationale behind their decisions Tuesday night. Jackie Kook gave an excellent public comment about choosing between two evils. Senator Bryan Townsend gave the longest public comment ever, and it is a must hear!
From the Christina Board meeting last night. Listen to every single word! Hear how four members of the board handed their schools over to the DOE.