The Long-Awaited Student Assignment Plan

Here's the agenda item from the upcoming Wednesday Board meeting. 

I have not had the opportunity to compare the red-line with the green printed (clean) versions of the SAP.   (And actually, it would be interesting to compare the last red-line version with the current one and see what differences there are.)

Here's the agenda for the entire meeting.

I note one interesting thing on the agenda.  The Board is to vote on the SMART Goals that guide the Superintendent's work. There are two amendments to this BAR; one from Director McLaren and one from Director Peaslee and Director Patu.  It involves wording over who are the groups in "students of color."
McLaren
I move that the Board amend the 2015-16 Superintendent SMART Goals #1 and 2, to replace the
“for all historically underserved populations” language African American males and other students of color,”as noted in the attachment to the Board Action Report.
 
Peaslee/Patu
By identifying the other groups of historically underserved students in the goal it makes it very clear
that these students will also benefit from the work behind this SMART goal.

The focus on African American males is not removed and there is no dilution of the strategy of “targeted universalism” in the goal or strategy as laid out in the rubric. 

This inclusive language recognizes all of our most historically underserved students and conveys to their parents, communities and leaders that we are focused on improving outcomes for each and every one of them.

So it seems to me that the disagreement, such as it is, is in actually calling out the groups affected and whether "African American males" should be called out over all other groups.

This should be an interesting discussion.

As well,  the Board is going ahead with the Superintendent's raise AND extension based on these two reasons NOT to do so.

IX.VIII. ALTERNATIVES
[Alternatives will be drafted and made public after the Superintendent’s evaluation is performed, which will give direction on alternatives, which will be drafted and made public prior to Board action on November 18, 2015]. Not provide a salary increase. This is not recommended as the Board wants to keep its compensation package competitive now and for future superintendents and the Board wants to recognize the Superintendent’s service to the District from February 1, 2015 until now. 

So no "alternatives" done.  He gets a raise because to not do so would somehow trouble superintendents of the future.  His compensation package IS competitive.  

Not provide a contract extension. This is not recommended because the Board is granting this extension based on the Superintendent’s performance and historically an extension has been granted when the Superintendent’s performance matches the Board’s expectation. To not grant an extension would signal his likely departure in 18 months and this could create organizational and senior leadership instability.

 What?!  First, the Board has proved ZERO information on the Superintendent matching "the Board's expectation."  Where is that?  

And, he himself SAID, from the beginning, that he wasn't going to stay but now is?  The point is that someday he will leave and has to give something like six months notice. Isn't that going to "
create organizational and senior leadership instability?"

I still say no to this and believe that the Board is simply trying to shore him up as the majority leaves office .  I do not believe this is being done based on merit and/or performance.