Re: Board Adopts Prop. H Spending Plan
The following comments on Prop H spending plans was posted on SfSchools by Amy Ottinger. I share her concerns:
I am really disappointed that the BOE voted to spend a fraction of the amount the district was requesting for academic support. While it goes back to the issue of "not enough money"—schools exist for one main purpose—to educate our children. This district currently does not have systematic academic intervention and remediation models for struggling students. Student Success Teams do meet, but real intervention requires extra teachers at school sites who work with and monitor each struggling child's progress.Amy Ottinger is the parent of two children who attend Lakeshore Alternative Elementary School in the SFUSD and is a member of the district's Community Advisory Committee for Special Education.
I have been a huge champion of special education issues, but want to point out that academic supports are a general education concern—particularly with the reauthorization of IDEA (2004)—there will be a lot of focus on "response to intervention" which is a gen. ed model.
In a district with a consistent and embarrassing achievement gap (African American, Latino, Pacific Islander, ELL, SPED), this decision puts us even further behind in tackling this problem. While $350,000.00 is "something" it sure isn't anywhere near the requested amount. I also want to point out that the BOE decided to spend almost as much on bureaucracy (policy and position) to track prop. h funding as it did on prop. h funding addressing academic intervention.
I have to say that I have been worried about the slow pace in hiring a new superintendent—worried that Gwen Chan may not be able to make the tough calls if it means firing or reassigning those under her when she rose from those ranks herself, wondering if she would have a new vision for our district instead of more of the same. But if this is the direction she is taking us—towards addressing the achievement gap with the most obvious and effective methods—then I am impressed!
Now, dear BOE members....please find the money to get real academic intervention and remediation in place!
Amy
Labels: School Board Notes, SFUSD Politics, Special Education
1 Comments:
The board was under intense pressure, with a long list of advocates speaking at two meetings in a row. I have mixed feelings myself, which probably means I support the compromise.
The longest line of speakers was calling for more money going into translation for non-English-speaking parents. I did have a bone to pick there on the basis that all the bashing of "that evil school district" does cost it public support, which harms all our kids in the long run. I accept that there is not ENOUGH translation -- the PTSA at my kids' schools can do only minimal translation of a very few limited materials, for example. (But we are the PTSA, an all-volunteer parent group, not the school district -- I imagine that the parents who need translation don't understand that, though.)
The speakers at the meeting tended to act like there's no translation whatsoever currently and non-English-speaking parents are just callously blown off without a thought. Well, I know that's not true, because I see how many SFUSD materials come home in multiple languages.
And one non-English-speaker claimed she had been forced to switch to private school because of the lack of translation in SFUSD. Sorry, not credible -- private schools are not known for welcoming non-English-speakers and showering them with translation services! And if any do, guaranteed that it's a segregated private school dealing with only one language; they're not coping with the needs for 80-odd languages that SFUSD deals with. Bashing public schools and promoting private schools with bogus praise at an SFUSD BOE meeting really ticks me off.
Post a Comment
<< Home