Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Live Blogging - Math Adoption, Part Eight

Patu reading the BAR for adoption.

McLaren said it came forward to C&I committee and they voted to move it forward.  

Peaslee asked for questions on original motion.

Carr asked about procedure because in the past, they didn't discuss the motion before the amendments.  Ron English said that amendments come first for discussion and then go back to original motion (with or without amendments depending on amendment votes).  

Peters and McLaren were asked to move on their amendments.  

McLaren is author of Amendment 1 and is withdrawing it.  

Peters - we came forward with the first amendment for dual-adoption - choice, equity and upholding Board policy. Clear they tried hard and in good faith.  But Monday they were informed by legal counsel that the MAC was not asked about dual adoption in the first place.  Peters said she wasn't sure she believed this ruling.  

She understands the problematic issues of dual-adoption and will second amendment to withdraw Amendment 1.  She said everyone wants this math adoption to suceed.  

McLaren regrets having to withdraw this idea because she believes it to be  a good one.  Cannot surmount the issues around a dual adoption.

Voted 7-0 to withdraw amendment for dual adoption.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

So now Dr. Wright (sic?) is, with great grace, charm and aplomb, is telling the board if they adopted MIF, because the staff asserts it is $3.1M more, her is the extraordinary list of things that we MUST sacrifice. It is a big scary list. It is essential items, like 5 SpEd supervisors... Sigh.... So it's either math or disabled kids. Nursing support for medically fragile children. Poor staff in department of data. Middle school athletics. You get the picture. If only I could really, actually, truly believe his facts. They found money for some big hires recently, right? This just seems so hollow. Obviously, I am far too skeptical.

I hope the Directors see through this.

WASTE NOT

Anonymous said...

So the District choice to select enVision is not at all based on $, but instead based on the best outcome for our students. Right?

Why then have the first two staff speakers focused solely on costs and nothing else?

The first speaker on how expensive Singapore will be. The second speaker focusing on all of the staff positions and services we will lose if Math in Focus is adopted.

For reals - after the District has just added multiple NEW six figure income positions?

Why is staff not talking about the curriculum that will best allow the majority of our students to succeed in learning math! Ummm...isn't that what is being debated?

Pretty heinous really.

I shy away from watching these meetings because I never have enough TUMS or other stomach calming substances in the house. Case again tonight.

-StepJ

Anonymous said...

@Waste Not: No amount of skepticism is too much in SPS. Your hunches and suspicions will invariably turn out to be accurate.

@StepJ: Spoken like an SPS veteran.
You have to admire staff's stamina.

WSDWG