Saturday, June 25, 2011

Reporting Violations

Since the Board has a new-found interest in governance, I have tried something new. I have tried reporting policy violations to them and asking them to enforce the policy.

So far I have reported two.

I reported the superintendent's failure to submit an annual program placement report to the board as a violation of policy C56.00 and I reported the creation of the APP program at Ingraham as a violation of policy D12.00.

In response, I got reply emails from Theresa Hale in the Board office. She said that the Board did get the annual report on program placement and that is it this document and this document. I responded to her that neither of those documents meet the requirements of the policy because they do not speak to how the decisions reflect the guiding criteria for program placement.

She also said that policy D12.00 wasn't violated because it provides for additional sites in the vent of substantial district-wide growth, which, she says, has been experienced. She also listed a lot of Spectrum programs as if they were highly capable programs. I wrote back to inform her that Spectrum programs are not covered by either the highly capable programs policy or the highly capable programs grant. I reminded her that the policy allows for additional programs only with Board review, and there was no Board review of the creation of the program at Ingraham.

Do you know of other policies that have been violated? Please write to the Board and ask them to enforce the policy.


Melissa Westbrook said...

Theresa wrote you back. I thought policy was what Erin Bennett covered. (Maybe Theresa asked Erin.)

Anonymous said...

Not a policy violation, but a more than year old promise to rewrite the volunteer policy.

Considering some Board directors are in-the-school volunteers, I would think they have a vested interest in keeping their promise to rewrite policy for due process and fairness, eliminate threats and harassment by administrators, etc.


Anonymous said...

What about the new "autism" programs? Those are listed as "inclusion and self-contained". Now, how can that be? How can you do inclusion for autistic students in general education while you're providing a self-contained classroom for some other autistic students not in general education? It's been tried before and didn't work then either. (the staff can only be in 1 place, right?) There is NO such program type now. Did the board not review this program type either? Were they supposed to?

This is a pretty obvious attempt to assuage parents whose children need inclusion programs, but aren't able to access them because the district cancelled them in favor of - ICS. The program without staff. The "no-staff" idea doesn't work too well for students with autism.


Anonymous said...

The Career and Technical Education Policy has been violated every year since inception.Policy calls for increasing staff and programs/pathways of study each. The net decrease is about 12 positions vs 12 plus the annual increases.

Not including CTE in the Weighted Staffing Standards (WSS) at the building level is a huge part of this, as is the twice as high "overhead" rate charged to all CTE programs internally.
Section is 52.

Signed CTE Advocate

olliesdad said...

How far back do you want us to go, Charlie?