A grant for nearly $500,000 is the source of another controversy
in the School District. The School Board voted Monday night to
accept the grant, but it was a 4-3 vote, with Trustees Mike Hickey,
Amina Khemici and Shelle Thomas voting against acceptance.
A grant for nearly $500,000 is the source of another controversy in the School District. The School Board voted Monday night to accept the grant, but it was a 4-3 vote, with Trustees Mike Hickey, Amina Khemici and Shelle Thomas voting against acceptance.
The purpose of the three-year grant is to make it possible for Live Oak High to develop small learning communities (SLCs) for all its students, Principal Nancy Serigstad told the board Monday.
She also responded to trustee questions about the district’s obligations, should the grant be accepted.
“The obligation is the same as it is now: keep the lights on, hire staff…,” she said. “There is absolutely no financial obligation.”
The money from the grant, Serigstad said, would mainly be used to pay staff for release time for training, for student advocacy and academic guidance counseling. Because the grant runs out over three years, she said the staff would also focus on putting an “infrastructure” in place that would allow the SLCs to continue after the grant ends.
Members of the Ed Spec committee, which is charged with developing curriculum for Live Oak High and the new Sobrato High, have raised questions about SLCs, or “clusters,” as they are sometimes called, during committee meetings.
Committee member Valerie Hickey, wife of trustee Mike Hickey, told board members during the public comment portion of the meeting Monday night that this grant is the culmination of what she has suspected for several years.
“I do not enjoy standing before you and raining on your parade,” she said. “I’m sure you are very excited about receiving a grant, especially in economic times like these. However, when I feel the district is not being up front about issues that will affect our entire student population, I feel it is my obligation to come before you.”
Valerie Hickey told the board that it appeared, because of this grant, as if the work of the Ed Spec committee had been completed and a plan was already in place.
“There have been plenty of opportunities where this plan could have been shared with the public: I have been part of the Ed Specs committee since last spring, and not a word of this plan has been spoken, even after my continual prodding,” she said.
One of Valerie Hickey’s concerns is that the district has had a plan for education in mind and is not willing to discuss or debate it.
“Almost two years ago, I came before the School Board because of the attempts to eliminate advanced classes; I made numerous addresses to the board and the newspaper about my concerns that the removal of advanced classes was part of a much bigger plan,” she said.
“I continued to ask the question, ‘What is the plan? Give us the plan, and let’s debate it.’ I was told time and time again, there is no plan! I voiced my concerns that we were moving to a clustered method of teaching. It seemed those on the school board thought I was crazy – just a hysterical parent. Not to worry; there was no big plan.”
“Here we are now, almost two years later. I have learned that our district has been approved for a Small Learning Community grant. Upon reading all 79 pages of it, I have learned that all of my suspicions over the last two years were confirmed. This grant describes the full implementation of clusters for every student in grades 9-12. I have finally received the plan that everyone said did not exist.”
Concerns have been expressed by parents that clustering students would lead to “dumbing down” of students or elimination of advanced classes. Serigstad said neither of these things would happen.
“The classes will be offered just the same as always,” she said. “All of our courses must be standards-based, but we’ve been moving in that direction for a while.”
Thomas said she would wanted to read the full grant application before she made a decision.
“I’m really torn tonight,” she said. “I want to be supportive of this, but I haven’t read the grant … This is altering the way we work as a high school. I trust you (Serigstad), I trust the staff, but I’m up here representing the community and I promised when I was elected that I would read every contract, every document, before I voted on it.”
Thomas said she had requested a copy of the grant application from the district on the Thursday before Monday’s board meeting. She said trustees were given copies of the application at 5 p.m. Monday, just as they went into closed session before the regular session at 7 p.m.
Trustee Del Foster said the smaller learning communities idea is not a new one. He said smaller class size has been a “philosophy” of the board as long as he’s been on it. However, he said, he appreciates that the cluster grant might be a new idea to the newer board members.
“I can also understand the anxiety of the newer board members that haven’t been a part of it for six years,” he said. “With Live Oak test scores not improving, it is apparent that something we’re doing is not working … I prefer to have the full buy-in of the board (on the grant), so perhaps we should table this for two weeks. On the other hand, I appreciate that Nancy (Serigstad) and her staff are ready to get to work on this.”
Trustee Jan Masuda said she had been aware of the movement toward SLCs for years.
“This has been discussed at the state level for 11 years,” she said. “I believe we should go forward with this. If it belly flops, we’ll try something else.”
Trustee Mike Hickey said he did not agree.
“Regarding Jan’s comment, I have four kids in the system, and I don’t want to experiment on them,” he said.
Masuda later said she realized she misspoke. Then she called for the vote, adding that she was familiar with the SLC idea and had had the opportunity over the years to visit schools with this program in place.
As Thomas was asking Serigstad about the impact of tabling the motion for two weeks, until the Oct. 20 meeting, saying she would abstain from the vote if it was really necessary to vote at the current meeting, Board President Tom Kinoshita called for a vote.
Thomas voted no.
“I’m voting ‘no’ because I feel I have been pushed into this,” she said.
