News

Lessons learned from failed math program?

MV Whisman board OKs reduced Teach to One contract, asks superintendent to address oversight problems

The hasty roll-out and abrupt ending of Teach to One, the controversial digital math program adopted by the Mountain View Whisman School District, has raised questions about oversight and accountability. Without the approval of the board of trustees, or a signed contract, district administrators implemented a program valued at $478,000 this school year. When in December the Teach to One contract was finally presented for approval by the board, which has an obligation to oversee school spending, it was tucked away on the consent calendar, where noncontroversial items are voted on as a group -- without public discussion.

As previously reported by the Voice, district emails obtained through a Public Records Act request revealed a steady stream of teacher and parent complaints about Teach to One leading up to its abrupt termination in January.

In the aftermath of the program's termination, several trustees agreed that there was a significant communication breakdown between the district office and the board, a failure to properly vet the pilot program, and a sense that the Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph tried to move too quickly on a pilot math program that needed years -- not months -- of review prior to its roll-out.

Teach to One, a math program developed by the New York-based company New Classrooms, promised the school district a digital, personalized learning platform for students, offering a way to teach both high-performing and low-performing students at the same time. The appeal is easy to see, given that the district's achievement gap, measured using criteria based on students' family income and English fluency, is one of the largest in the country, according to a recent Stanford study on test scores.

In January, district officials opted to kill Teach to One, which had replaced the math curriculum for all sixth-graders, after 180 parents signed a letter in December demanding the program be ended. Among other things, the parents said the program had an abundance of technical glitches, errors, and math content that was "a mile wide and an inch deep," and turned off their children to math.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

According to school board president Jose Gutierrez, that's how the vetting process for the pilot program is supposed to work. Gutierrez told the Voice that the district tried the new math program as a trial balloon for all sixth-grade students, and the board heard loud and clear in December that a large number of families weren't happy with the program. Other families, he said, approached him and said they liked Teach to One, and were excited by it.

"We saw both pros and cons, which is exactly what a pilot program does," Gutierrez said. "I'm glad we're having this conversation now, and I'm glad we're getting feedback from parents, the teachers and the district in determining whether this was a good decision."

Board member Ellen Wheeler, on the other hand, said getting negative feedback after the program has been tested for months on hundreds of sixth-grade students is not the way the district ought to be running a pilot. Comprehensive vetting needs to happen ahead of time, Wheeler told the Voice, so the community isn't spotting flaws and bugs in a program that's already live.

"Everyone should have been involved earlier. Teachers should have been involved, parents and board members should have been involved," she said. "If we had done a slower and more deliberate process, which is what a typical pilot process is, we would get a better result."

The board's policy on pilot programs states that a new curriculum can be tested using a "representative sample" of classrooms over a period of time during a school year to see how well it meets the district's academic standards. The policy requires the district to seek feedback from teachers piloting the material, which "shall be made available to the board" prior to adoption as part of the curriculum. Guidelines from the California State Board of Education also call for a rigorous vetting process for piloting new curriculum, including a "representative committee" of parents, teachers and administrators at all grade levels.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Steve Nelson, who served on the board during Teach to One's implementation, said in an email that he believes the district parted ways with its own policies on curriculum adoption with Teach to One, and that the responsibility lies solely with the board president and the superintendent. Nelson argued that the district also failed to get feedback from teachers and parents in accordance with state guidelines.

Emails between district staff and the board that were obtained by the Voice show that board members were left in the dark about recurring problems with Teach to One, including a wave of opposition by families that came to light only when board members received the letter signed by 180 parents late last year. At a Jan. 17 study session on Teach to One, Wheeler said she felt uninformed about what people were saying about the program.

"We didn't get any feedback," Wheeler said. "What did the principals think of this? What did the teachers think about this? We had no idea."

Big questions linger over contract

The good news is that the district won't be on the hook for the full $478,000 in fees for Teach to One. Following a closed session meeting Tuesday, Feb. 28, the board voted 4-1, with Greg Coladonato opposed, to finally approve a contract with Teach to One that shaved the total bill down to $149,000. An earlier contract that was originally supposed to be signed by the board at the Dec. 8 meeting included $128,000 for "student licensing" costs, as well as a $350,000 service fee. That original contract had also stipulated that Mountain View Whisman would be responsible for the program's full cost, regardless of whether the district terminated it before the end of the school year.

The $149,000 bill doesn't represent the true cost of Teach to One, which is closer to $275,000. Superintendent Rudolph said the program prompted the district to hire more instructional aides, who are still working in the classrooms, as well as "copying costs" associated with the program. It's not clear whether the instructional aides will continue to work at the two middle schools, Crittenden and Graham, but anecdotal evidence shows teachers appreciate the extra help.

"The qualitative feedback we got from staff shows it's a real benefit to sixth-grade students to have those additional hands there," Rudolph said.

But both versions of the contract -- the original and the revised document -- came to the board after teachers had been using Teach to One in the classroom for months, which didn't sit well with some board members. Wheeler said the board's role is to review and approve contracts ahead of time, and that Teach to One has been the exception to the rule.

"We're not supposed to be rubber-stamping work that's already been done," she said.

Board member Greg Coladonato told the Voice in an email that it is "unacceptable" for major contracts like the one with New Classrooms, which originally cost nearly half a million dollars, to show up on the consent calendar -- a part of the agenda designated for items that are "routine" in nature and not expected to generate board discussion.

"I do not agree that a contract for $478,250, presented four months after services began on a grade-wide and year-long curriculum pilot rife with problems, is of a routine nature," Coladonato said.

Rudolph told the Voice Wednesday morning that district officials are already working to address these concerns.

Going forward, the board will be deviating from its old practice of approving contracts on the consent calendar, starting as soon as the March 2 board meeting. Several contracts on that meeting's agenda are now listed as individual action items.

The meeting also includes reviewing new guidelines for pilot program adoption, which includes the creation of an "instructional materials review committee" staffed by teachers, administrators and community members. The committee will set up several aspects of the pilot program including its duration, metrics for success and the review process, and will ultimately present its recommendation to the board.

Now that Teach to One has been out of the classroom for over a month, Wheeler said she believes it's time to learn from the mistakes and move on. Even though the program ultimately failed, she said she still believes Rudolph is an "excellent" superintendent who would benefit the district by sticking around for the long run.

"I think he, and all of us, have learned a lot of lessons in this," Wheeler said. "Going forward we're all going to do better, but I also want Dr. Rudolph to stay in his position."

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Lessons learned from failed math program?

MV Whisman board OKs reduced Teach to One contract, asks superintendent to address oversight problems

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Thu, Mar 2, 2017, 10:51 am

The hasty roll-out and abrupt ending of Teach to One, the controversial digital math program adopted by the Mountain View Whisman School District, has raised questions about oversight and accountability. Without the approval of the board of trustees, or a signed contract, district administrators implemented a program valued at $478,000 this school year. When in December the Teach to One contract was finally presented for approval by the board, which has an obligation to oversee school spending, it was tucked away on the consent calendar, where noncontroversial items are voted on as a group -- without public discussion.

As previously reported by the Voice, district emails obtained through a Public Records Act request revealed a steady stream of teacher and parent complaints about Teach to One leading up to its abrupt termination in January.

In the aftermath of the program's termination, several trustees agreed that there was a significant communication breakdown between the district office and the board, a failure to properly vet the pilot program, and a sense that the Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph tried to move too quickly on a pilot math program that needed years -- not months -- of review prior to its roll-out.

Teach to One, a math program developed by the New York-based company New Classrooms, promised the school district a digital, personalized learning platform for students, offering a way to teach both high-performing and low-performing students at the same time. The appeal is easy to see, given that the district's achievement gap, measured using criteria based on students' family income and English fluency, is one of the largest in the country, according to a recent Stanford study on test scores.

In January, district officials opted to kill Teach to One, which had replaced the math curriculum for all sixth-graders, after 180 parents signed a letter in December demanding the program be ended. Among other things, the parents said the program had an abundance of technical glitches, errors, and math content that was "a mile wide and an inch deep," and turned off their children to math.

According to school board president Jose Gutierrez, that's how the vetting process for the pilot program is supposed to work. Gutierrez told the Voice that the district tried the new math program as a trial balloon for all sixth-grade students, and the board heard loud and clear in December that a large number of families weren't happy with the program. Other families, he said, approached him and said they liked Teach to One, and were excited by it.

"We saw both pros and cons, which is exactly what a pilot program does," Gutierrez said. "I'm glad we're having this conversation now, and I'm glad we're getting feedback from parents, the teachers and the district in determining whether this was a good decision."

Board member Ellen Wheeler, on the other hand, said getting negative feedback after the program has been tested for months on hundreds of sixth-grade students is not the way the district ought to be running a pilot. Comprehensive vetting needs to happen ahead of time, Wheeler told the Voice, so the community isn't spotting flaws and bugs in a program that's already live.

"Everyone should have been involved earlier. Teachers should have been involved, parents and board members should have been involved," she said. "If we had done a slower and more deliberate process, which is what a typical pilot process is, we would get a better result."

The board's policy on pilot programs states that a new curriculum can be tested using a "representative sample" of classrooms over a period of time during a school year to see how well it meets the district's academic standards. The policy requires the district to seek feedback from teachers piloting the material, which "shall be made available to the board" prior to adoption as part of the curriculum. Guidelines from the California State Board of Education also call for a rigorous vetting process for piloting new curriculum, including a "representative committee" of parents, teachers and administrators at all grade levels.

Steve Nelson, who served on the board during Teach to One's implementation, said in an email that he believes the district parted ways with its own policies on curriculum adoption with Teach to One, and that the responsibility lies solely with the board president and the superintendent. Nelson argued that the district also failed to get feedback from teachers and parents in accordance with state guidelines.

Emails between district staff and the board that were obtained by the Voice show that board members were left in the dark about recurring problems with Teach to One, including a wave of opposition by families that came to light only when board members received the letter signed by 180 parents late last year. At a Jan. 17 study session on Teach to One, Wheeler said she felt uninformed about what people were saying about the program.

"We didn't get any feedback," Wheeler said. "What did the principals think of this? What did the teachers think about this? We had no idea."

Big questions linger over contract

The good news is that the district won't be on the hook for the full $478,000 in fees for Teach to One. Following a closed session meeting Tuesday, Feb. 28, the board voted 4-1, with Greg Coladonato opposed, to finally approve a contract with Teach to One that shaved the total bill down to $149,000. An earlier contract that was originally supposed to be signed by the board at the Dec. 8 meeting included $128,000 for "student licensing" costs, as well as a $350,000 service fee. That original contract had also stipulated that Mountain View Whisman would be responsible for the program's full cost, regardless of whether the district terminated it before the end of the school year.

The $149,000 bill doesn't represent the true cost of Teach to One, which is closer to $275,000. Superintendent Rudolph said the program prompted the district to hire more instructional aides, who are still working in the classrooms, as well as "copying costs" associated with the program. It's not clear whether the instructional aides will continue to work at the two middle schools, Crittenden and Graham, but anecdotal evidence shows teachers appreciate the extra help.

"The qualitative feedback we got from staff shows it's a real benefit to sixth-grade students to have those additional hands there," Rudolph said.

But both versions of the contract -- the original and the revised document -- came to the board after teachers had been using Teach to One in the classroom for months, which didn't sit well with some board members. Wheeler said the board's role is to review and approve contracts ahead of time, and that Teach to One has been the exception to the rule.

"We're not supposed to be rubber-stamping work that's already been done," she said.

Board member Greg Coladonato told the Voice in an email that it is "unacceptable" for major contracts like the one with New Classrooms, which originally cost nearly half a million dollars, to show up on the consent calendar -- a part of the agenda designated for items that are "routine" in nature and not expected to generate board discussion.

"I do not agree that a contract for $478,250, presented four months after services began on a grade-wide and year-long curriculum pilot rife with problems, is of a routine nature," Coladonato said.

Rudolph told the Voice Wednesday morning that district officials are already working to address these concerns.

Going forward, the board will be deviating from its old practice of approving contracts on the consent calendar, starting as soon as the March 2 board meeting. Several contracts on that meeting's agenda are now listed as individual action items.

The meeting also includes reviewing new guidelines for pilot program adoption, which includes the creation of an "instructional materials review committee" staffed by teachers, administrators and community members. The committee will set up several aspects of the pilot program including its duration, metrics for success and the review process, and will ultimately present its recommendation to the board.

Now that Teach to One has been out of the classroom for over a month, Wheeler said she believes it's time to learn from the mistakes and move on. Even though the program ultimately failed, she said she still believes Rudolph is an "excellent" superintendent who would benefit the district by sticking around for the long run.

"I think he, and all of us, have learned a lot of lessons in this," Wheeler said. "Going forward we're all going to do better, but I also want Dr. Rudolph to stay in his position."

Comments

Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Mar 2, 2017 at 11:56 am
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2017 at 11:56 am
46 people like this

It appears that the Superintendent and his associates got the School Board to VIOLATE CALIFORNIA'S OPENING MEETING LAW by using a closed session to approve a settlement (citing as authority CA Government Code section 54956.9 which only permits the Board to discuss threatened litigation in closed session with legal counsel - not to there vote on deals). I even warned the School Board about such a misuse of section 54956.9 before the meeting. Imagine a statute that permitted the approval of a settlement of a threatened lawsuit (which section 54956,9 does not) in closed session. Incompetent or corrupt school board members could stroll into a closed session on, say, a potential lawsuit by the Superintendent for defamation, and take action in the closed session and with no opportunity for public input settling the matter by assigning all of the District's assets over to the Superintendent! This School District is an ongoing disaster.


JW
Monta Loma
on Mar 2, 2017 at 1:14 pm
JW, Monta Loma
on Mar 2, 2017 at 1:14 pm
23 people like this

"The $149,000 bill doesn't represent the true cost of Teach to One, which is closer to $275,000." (Service and copying fees plus additional staff).

This needs to be posted in bold since Ayinde quoted in his letter to parents the lesser number. Lies, lies, lies are all we get [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]



Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Mar 2, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2017 at 2:02 pm
13 people like this

It should be acknowledged that the California Supreme Court in a case involving a state agency (the PUC) subject to a law like the Brown Act (Southern California Edison Co. v. Peevey (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 781, 798-805), did conclude that a closed session to discuss litigation actually pending in court did permit voting in closed session for a settlement. However, the statutory language upon which that interpretation was based does not extend to a closed session to discuss threatened litigation. Moreover, the Supreme Court's interpretation occurred before a change in the law in 2004 when California voters (adopting Prop. 59) amended the California Constitution to prescribe that the State's open meeting and public records laws are to be construed to further the "public's right of access."


Board Watcher
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Mar 2, 2017 at 3:31 pm
Board Watcher, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2017 at 3:31 pm
31 people like this

It seems like California law is quite clear on who should pay for this mess, see the last portion of Web Link.

In the event of malfeasance in office, the school district official invested by the governing board with the power of contract shall be personally liable to the school district employing him or her for any and all moneys of the district paid out as a result of the malfeasance.

Ayinde rolled out the program without proper vetting, decided without board involvement to move forward when external funding fell through and kept the board in the dark for a month.

I see no reason taxpayers should pay for his malfeasance! Jose can chip in to help pay if he really thinks everything was handled properly!

@ Gary

Looks like the settlement was approved improperly by the board. Perhaps we set up a gofundme page to gather money for a lawsuit?


Gary
Registered user
Sylvan Park
on Mar 2, 2017 at 4:57 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2017 at 4:57 pm
29 people like this

No money is needed for a lawsuit. I will handle it. The Superintendent emailed me to say the District would not be offering me legal advice but that the Brown Act had not been violated. To avoid a civil action or actions, the District has 30 days from yesterday to cute or correct the Brown Act violation (under Government Cose section 54961) and 60 days to agree not to continue to violate the Brown Act in the manner alleged (under Government Code section 54960). And civil actions are not the only remedy.


Alan Wessel
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Mar 2, 2017 at 4:57 pm
Alan Wessel, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2017 at 4:57 pm
64 people like this

Thanks Kevin for another great article!

I will use this space to respond to the inaccuracies contained in the district email which went out yesterday entitled "Reflections on 6th-grade Teach to One program".

Given the limited formatting options available here, I will mark my comments as follows; all else is taken verbatim from the district email.

Alan>>>
My comments are placed between these two "markers".
<<<

Dear Parents,

As you know, MVWSD piloted Teach to One, a national technology-blended-learning program, with its sixth-graders this fall. The District returned to its previous program, Eureka Math in January, amid frustration with logistics and technical difficulties, parent requests for more direct teacher instruction and mixed results on student performance data.

District staff, the Board of Trustees and the Superintendent have spent time reviewing this experience. Just as we talk with our students about growth mindset, we learned a lot in this process. While our District is committed to technology-assisted, personalized learning as a way to reach more of our students, there are things we could have done better, especially in respect to communication and involvement of all stakeholders. We’ll make sure to take these lessons to heart as we move forward.

We apologize for any stress that you or your student felt around math this year. Thank you for your support and patience as we innovate for the benefit of all of our students.

Alan>>>
I appreciate the apology for "stress" caused by the TTO roll-out. It is really a shame that this communication continues beyond the preamble.
<<<

Reflections about the Teach to One program.

Teach to One is not as expensive as rumored. Curriculum, whether technology or materials, is expensive, however, it’s been inaccurately reported that District owes $500,000 for TTO. The final licensing cost to the District for Teach to One is $149,000.

Alan>>>
The actual cost to the district as reported in the 2nd interim budget and confirmed in the Feb 28 Board meeting is close to $276K. Why do you try to sugar-coat the actual amount by just listing the licensing fees to New Classrooms? What were the major costs included in the $127K difference? Were there significant legal costs which the district is trying to hide?

By any measure, this is an outrageous amount of money. It is almost $500 per student!

If the contract had been ratified, the cost would have been a full half-million dollars. With that amount of money an additional 4 - 6 teachers could have been hired and a real personalized learning program could have been implemented perhaps making greater use of free web resources such as Khan Academy!
<<<

Teach to One (TTO) was reviewed and vetted before implemented. After careful consideration and evaluation, the District took research-based, technology-assisted learning and brought it into our classrooms as a way to better tailor instruction to individual students.

Alan>>>
No it was not. There was no careful consideration and evaluation. The evaluation package sent to me in response to my Public Records Act (PRA) request shows almost no vetting was done. Here is the document I received: Web Link
>>>

The District had many meetings, coaching sessions, and visits to other sites that used TTO.

Alan>>>
Wow, this sounds impressive but what does it really mean? I'm glad to hear there were lots of meetings ... and coaching sessions -- wow!

I know that a few teachers only visited a TTO site once. Some administrators visited one previous time.

I also know (according to emails made available to me via PRA request) that Ayinde Rudolph decided to implement the program before all teachers concerns had been addressed.
<<<

Teach to One did help groups of students achieve. Students enter middle school with a wide range of needs in math. We wanted to be able to better support all students including those who had gaps in their mathematical knowledge and needed intervention to those who needed extension and acceleration. TTO was a good fit for some students.

Alan>>>
If this is really true then perhaps TTO (at a reduced cost) should have been continued for that cohort? The parent letter signed by over 180 parents specifically allowed for such a possibility, if supported by facts.

If this statement is really true, why was TTO discontinued for all students?
<<<

MVWSD hoped to get some corporate sponsorship for TTO, but sponsorship was not a deciding factor in whether it would go forward this year. MVWSD makes decisions on curriculum based on whether it will help students achieve. TTO appeared to be a good fit, and seeking sponsorship was a responsible and creative way the District could offset its core program costs.

Alan>>>
New Classrooms scammed the district into accepting a $350K "support" fee in the contract shown in the Dec 8 agenda package. It doesn't seem like any other school district has been charged this much. For example, Oakland paid nothing no extra support fees and Nathan Hale (in Norwalk, CT) paid $160K (just search for: "New Classrooms" Master Services Agreement). Online articles describing TTO also mention much lower support fees.

Just because there might be external funding doesn't mean the district should accept outrageous pricing.
<<<

MVWSD tested the waters with a TTO pilot, as is typical in the process of exploring new curriculum, and followed its process for pilots including seeking parent, student and teacher input. MVWSD does not continue a program before it first completes a successful pilot.

Alan>>>
The pilot did not follow MVWSD policies as is clear from the "Governing Policies for Pilots" spelled out in the March 2, 2017 Agenda package which states:

If the district chooses to use instructional materials for grades K-8 that have not been adopted by the SBE, the Superintendent or designee shall ensure that a majority of the participants in the district's review process are classroom teachers who are assigned to the subject area or grade level of the materials. (Education Code 60210)

Education Code 60210 spells out other procedures which were not followed in the TTO "pilot".

There was no parent (or student) involvement in the selection of TTO. There was very little teacher input.

Rolling something out for the entire 6th grade is not a pilot and using results from the 6th grade to roll-out for all grades (as was planned) is also not appropriate.
<<<

District staff members spent a lot of time working with and communicating about TTO. Because teachers were in the classrooms every day implementing TTO, they were the first to see and experience issues. They and the Educational Services Department staff worked tirelessly as a conduit to Teach to One to troubleshoot problems and keep students on track and learning. District Office team members had weekly meetings to discuss TTO, as did District and site administrators and the District math coach. In addition, sites held weekly meetings which included teachers, administrators, and the District math coach. The Educational Services Department staff communicated regularly with parents, and emailed almost a dozen communiques to parents between September to December that highlighted and answered parent questions. While there is always room for improvement in District communications, much work was done to make this program work.

Alan>>>
Yes, district staff did indeed work hard. Overall, communications with students and parents were quite substandard, however.
<<<

TTO classrooms were closely monitored.

Alan>>>
Kevin's reporting revealed that there was chaos in many classrooms and that the true state of affairs was not communicated to the Board.

If there really was effective monitoring. why weren't conditions improved proactively?
<<<

Feedback was reflected in the adjustments that were made mid-year to TTO pacing and instruction so that MVWSD could continue to support and improve student learning.

Alan>>>
I'm really not sure what this means.
<<<

Chromebooks delivery delay complicated the implementation in the first few weeks of school, but did not significantly impact students. Students and teachers had access to Chromebooks from day one. However, these were not the Chromebooks that students currently take home. New Chromebooks were on order early in the summer, but delivery to the District was delayed. Students used District Chromebooks from a cart for the first few weeks of school, which was workable, but not ideal because students couldn’t take them home. Teachers were aware of this and assigned work accordingly.

Alan>>>
Then why mention it? This is a total red herring!
<<<

MVWSD listened to parents. Parent comments and experiences were collected and considered heavily in whether to continue the TTO pilot. We heard from parents who disliked the program, as well as from those who did like it. We were aware of the experience that some student and teacher users were having in the fall, but the District also needed to consider student data (latest results were available in January) and parent and student survey data (in December).

Alan>>>
Ayinde Rudolph refused to meet with concerned parents. District staff were muzzled in what they could say. Parents had to contact local and national media before any real action was taken --see below.
<<<

As soon as there was evidence that TTO was not working for the majority of MVWSD sixth-graders, it was discontinued. Typically a year is needed to collect the performance data that shows what effect a program has on learning. We were aware of the experience that some student and teacher users were having, but needed to wait for the latest data results (collected over time) available in January. The District looked at all available data, both qualitative (survey results, comments from parents) and quantitative (district assessments, teacher-generated tests) to make an informed decision about discontinuing TTO mid-year.

Alan>>>
It is clear that TTO was not discontinued due to test results (which were "mixed"), but rather due to the overwhelming parent pressure and negative press.

First Trimester data was negative as were the survey results from Dec, but these results were discounted and sugar-coated in district responses. So of course, the district "had" to wait for January results.

These included District benchmark tests which actually looked quite good and NWEA test results which looked somewhat worse on some measure than a totally different test (CAASPP) taken in August. (Sorry if this makes little sense, I append the district email "explaining the test data below.)

We're supposed to believe that changed everything? I don't think so!

Is it a coincidence that the program was discontinued after critical articles in the Voice and precisely one day after WSJ reporter Stu Woo asked Ayinde Rudolph for comment on an upcoming article? Again, I don't think so!
<<<

Respectfully,

José Gutiérrez, Jr.

President, Board of Trustees



Dr. Ayindé Rudolph

Superintendent


[The district email from yesterday (3/1/17) ends here.]

[The following text quoted verbatim from the 1/12/17 email announcing discontinuation of TTO. Sorry -- I can't follow the logic either either!]

What's changed significantly in the last 10 days:

On January 5th and 6th we received more data from internal teacher assessments and recent Northwest Evaluation Association Measure of Academic Progress (NWEA MAP) data from TTO. This latest data demonstrates that close to 52 percent of our students are on grade level {55.51% (Graham) and 48.24% (Crittenden)} with 51 percent of our students demonstrating growth equal to or above the national average, which is a drop from 58% of students entering the 6th grade on grade level on CAASPP. However, the former data (teacher-administered assessments) demonstrates students performed at a higher level on the two tested standards RP1 (Ratio and Proportional Relationships standard 1) and RP3 (Ratio and Proportional Relationships standard 3) compared to their peers from the previous years (RP1 61% proficient compared to 49% at the end of the 2015-16 school year and on standard RP3 60% proficient compared to 49% at the end of the 2015-16 school year).

At the heart of our decision-making, the most important factor is if our instructional programs are meeting the needs of all of students. With conflicting data points, it is hard to ascertain if TTO is having a positive impact on student performance because the latest data reports show the results are mixed. Some students aren't performing as well as we had hoped.

Our plan moving forward:

In light of the additional data received on January 5th and 6th, effective immediately, the District will discontinue using Teach to One. Instead, students will have teacher-led instruction with Eureka Math. Meanwhile, teachers, coaches and administrators will work on a plan to include technology to supplement math instruction. We are committed to personalized learning, but can't continue a program that does not meet the needs of all of our students.


Slann
Registered user
Monta Loma
on Mar 3, 2017 at 8:33 am
Slann, Monta Loma
Registered user
on Mar 3, 2017 at 8:33 am
30 people like this

Here's a lesson I learned: the Superintendent is arrogant, lacking in management skills, fiscally irresponsible, and tone deaf when it comes to SERVING the children (and parents) of our community. His position is not some "top down" private corporate office, but rather his responsibilities (not power and authority) demand accountability and giving thorough "heads up" communication to all staff, and parents, of his plans and ideas, BEFORE committing any of the district's monies. Perhaps it's time for a change.


the_punnisher
Registered user
North Whisman
on Mar 3, 2017 at 6:53 pm
the_punnisher, North Whisman
Registered user
on Mar 3, 2017 at 6:53 pm
33 people like this

Sigh. Mr. Rudolph has to go. The Administrative Position Is ALL PUBLIC RELATIONS. If he shows NO people skills, he is unfit for the job of superintendent ANYWHERE!His behavior is more suitable for a private enterprise like ENRON...
He should be terminated for willful malfeasance in office ( no golden parachute ) and a civil suit started to collect money owed to the District. His overt dishonesty to parents and the deliberate dishonesty by hiding important data to the Board speaks volumes about his character. His behavior flies in the face of California Laws on Open meeting and transparencies California required by the spirt of the law.
We see clear malfeasance in office, that is clear. Let this chapter of " snake oil salespeople and their product be ended, take their punishment and leave the stage; then we can get back to helping our victims get back to learning math using TEACHERS.


Board Watcher
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Mar 5, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Board Watcher, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Mar 5, 2017 at 4:21 pm
54 people like this

As "Common Thread" just posted on another topic, couldn't agree more!

It is time for her to LEAVE along with Ayinde. Then perhaps we can pass the parcel tax.

-------------------

What is the common thread in the disastrous missteps in our district?

Ellen Wheeler

She has been on the board throughout all of them and led the board during the TTO rollout. Yes, Ayinde needs to go, but so does Trustee Wheeler.

She is a nice enough person and shows up at all sorts of community events. I have nothing against her personally, but on the board she has been asleep at the wheel for much too long.


Board Watcher
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Mar 6, 2017 at 12:14 pm
Board Watcher, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Mar 6, 2017 at 12:14 pm
36 people like this

to Jose Gutierrez:

"We saw both pros and cons, which is exactly what a pilot program does," Gutierrez said. "I'm glad we're having this conversation now, and I'm glad we're getting feedback from parents, the teachers and the district in determining whether this was a good decision."

Really? I'm willing to cut you some slack given that you are a relative newcomer, but you are now Board President. The time to get feedback is prior to a roll-out so you have a chance to avoid a disaster, not afterwards! And where is the open discussion? Certainly not in the "we did everything right" email you just co-signed with Ayinde.

Speaking of which, why was Greg Coladonato overlooked in the board presidency succession? He is the only trustee who seems to understand that the board serves to provide oversight over the district. after Ellen, who had just served, he has the most seniority.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.