|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Updated story
After an avalanche of parent opposition, the Mountain View Whisman School District announced last week that it will end the controversial new digital math program Teach to One. But questions remain whether the district disregarded its own rules regarding pilot programs, and whether the superintendent erred in agreeing to an expensive, nearly half-million dollar classroom program without securing the funds ahead of time.
In a Jan. 12 email to parents, Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph said the Teach to One pilot program, which has been used in all sixth-grade math classes since the start of the school year, will be discontinued, effective immediately. The decision, Rudolph told parents, stems from test results earlier this month showing that fewer sixth-graders are able to perform at grade level.
The adoption of Teach to One has been a hotly contested move. The program is a new curriculum for sixth-grade students, complete with its own lessons, exercises and assessments done on computers. The selling point of the program is that it’s a “smart” math program with algorithms designed to adjust to each student’s performance, with lesson plans tailored to strengths and weaknesses.
In a lengthy letter last month, parents called on the district to discontinue the program, calling it flawed and brimming with problems. Among the concerns, parents noted that topics are taught in an incoherent and seemingly random order, are riddled with mistakes and outright wrong answers, and students are frequently given math problems that are better-suited for ninth-graders and beyond. Worse yet, many parents say their children are frustrated with math or have lost interest in the subject because of Teach to One. The letter was signed by 180 parents of fifth- and sixth-graders.
At a special school board study session on Teach to One on Tuesday, Jan. 17, Rudolph said he takes full responsibility for the challenges that district staff, teachers and families faced in implementing Teach to One, and that it’s now clear that the digital math program isn’t the right fit. But from the outset, he said, the program seemed like exactly what the district needed.
In the first few months of the year, district officials were grappling with a new report that found deficiencies across the district’s education programs, including big disparities in student performance in math and other subjects. Right around the time the district was formulating a new strategic plan, Rudolph said, someone approached staff with a personalized learning program — Teach to One — and they discussed a possible private donor who would pay for much of the cost to pilot the program.
“I don’t think that there was anyone in the room (who) didn’t believe that this was the right approach for us to have,” Rudolph said.
The first major setback came around the end of the year, when the unnamed donor withdrew the offer to pay for Teach to One. The unapproved draft contract between the district and New Classrooms, which developed Teach to One, states that both parties will “put forth best efforts” to raise philanthropic funding to pay for the $350,000 in service fees to run the program. The draft contract, which never appeared on a board agenda until last month, was pulled from the consent calendar at the last minute in order to revise the terms. A bill for $115,000 to cover 90 percent of the annual per-student fees was due last July, according to the draft contract.
The total cost of the Teach to One project is expected to be about $521,000, according to the district’s first interim budget report, which was approved by the district board on Dec. 8.
When asked by the Voice what contract or agreement terms have been in place since implementing Teach to One when the school year started in August, district officials declined to provide any details, stating that the contract terms are still under negotiation.
It’s no fault of the district or New Classrooms that the philanthropic money fell through, Rudolph said, but that possibility should have been brought up as a concern prior to adopting the program.
Board member Greg Coladonato called it a “bait and switch” to agree to a contract when the money hasn’t even been handed over, and suggested that the district avoid doing that in the future.
“It’s bad public policy to say, ‘OK, we trust that you’ll take care of these hundreds of thousands of dollars that we’re technically on the hook for,'” Coladonato said.
The nail in the coffin for Teach to One came when a new batch of test scores showed losses in math performance for the district’s sixth-grade students. “Internal teacher assessments,” and results from what’s called Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) data, show that just under 52 percent of sixth-grade students were performing at grade level, which is a drop from 58 percent when the same group of students started sixth grade in the fall. The new information conflicted with previous data showing students performed better on two Common Core-aligned math assessments.
The inconclusive data and mixed reaction from parents, Rudolph said, ultimately led to the decision to cut the program.
“We had parents who were very concerned about the program and we had parents who said that they were in support of the program,” Rudolph said. “We had data that said our kids were losing ground, and we had data that said that our kids were making ground.”
Before ending the program entirely last week, the district was already planning to cut back on Teach to One. After a district-run survey on the math program yielded hundreds of critical comments — one parent threatened to switch to a private school just to get away from it — the district office sent out a notice calling for a 50-50 split between Teach to One and traditional teacher-led instruction. Parents packed the Jan. 5 board meeting and told board members that the concession was not enough, and would effectively waste 50 percent of math class time instead of 100 percent of class time.
Sixth-grade math will now return to the original teacher-led instruction using the previous curriculum, Eureka Math, and teachers and administrators will continue to work on a plan to supplement math instruction with technology and personalized learning.
Lessons learned?
Throughout the study session Tuesday, Rudolph repeated that many lessons have been learned in trying to implement Teach to One, and big improvements need to be made for the next time the district tries something new and experimental. More communication was needed to reach out to parents and the community, he said, including a real two-way dialogue instead of sending out email updates and FAQs.
“We have to make sure, if we have a pilot, that we engage parents and find more ways to gain feedback” Rudolph said. “We didn’t do a good enough job of getting enough qualitative data, we owe it to all of our parents that they have a voice to provide that type of feedback”
But several parents at the study session remained skeptical, pointing out flaws in the pilot-adoption process and problems in the contract with New Classrooms that need to be addressed before moving forward. Graham parent Robin Colman said she found it troubling the district would ever accept a program on an “as is” basis, meaning New Classrooms is not on the hook for any warranties in providing Teach to One. Even more troubling, she said, is a non-disparagement clause in the unapproved draft contract that would prevent district employees from making any critical comments about New Classrooms.
If the non-disparagement clause isn’t outright illegal, Colman said, it at least throws into question how forthcoming teachers and district staff can be in openly talking about the flaws of Teach to One.
“It makes this dialogue strange,” she said. “I don’t know if the superintendent today believes he is bound by that clause, and that’s something for the superintendent and counsel to decide, but that’s troubling, and that’s illegal.”
When Coladonato asked Rudolph directly whether they were bound by a non-disparagement clause, Rudolph initially said that the only thing district staff cannot discuss is the terms of the contract that is still under negotiation. But Rudolph later stressed the importance of having a “factual” representation of Teach to One during the study session, and mentioned that staff ran it by the district’s legal counsel ahead of time.
Other parents urged the superintendent and the board to foster a far more inclusive process for adopting pilots. Graham parent Alan Wessel pointed out that guidelines adopted by the California State Board of Education call for a rigorous vetting process for piloting new curriculum, including a “representative committee” of parents, teachers and administrators at all grade levels. No such committee was created for Teach to One, and the program would likely have been rejected by parents if they were involved early on, Wessel said.
District resident Steve Sherman encouraged board members not to allow the deep criticism of Teach to One to have a chilling effect on trying new things, and cautioned against taking an overly safe approach to improving the district’s education programs.
“We can make this decision that we’re scared of impacting our kids’ education and therefore we’re not going to try anything new,” Sherman said. “But if we truly want a district that’s willing to innovate, try stuff and continuously try to get better all the time, we need to give people a little bit of room to work and maneuver.”
Thank you, parents, for your time, concern, and deeply rooted concern for our children. If Ayinde wants to use them as lab rats without obtaining the proper legal permission via the board, waste $521,000 of taxpayer money, allow all 6th graders in the district to fall behind in math for 4.5 months, and effectively ignore parent concerns for 1.5 months, and THEN blame “irregular test scores” instead of his mistakes like a rational man would, then it’s time for him to leave along with TTO.
This district is going nowhere with the brash decision making of Ayinde. As another commenter said in a prior thread, “Let’s not forget that closing the achievement gap is only successful if we’re bringing the bottom up and not the top down”.
This “pilot” wasted a lot of students’ time and tax payer money. It ran afoul of state laws and local policies. And it ended only because of staunch parent opposition. (Thanks to the Mountain View Voice for immediately underscoring that.) And yet the school district is trying to present this as a decision they reached on their own, because they were responsible administrators who simply looked at the data. What a crock.
During this process, we figured out two things about Mr Rudolph. He’s certainly good at CYA and doing bureaucrat-speak. He should maybe put some of that energy into actually talking with parents and acknowledging their observations and concerns. Frankly, I think if we had sent a letter with 200 signatures to our congressman, or even our Senator, we would have received more acknowledgement. Mr Rudolph carries on as if he’s the Pope. Oh, wait, even the current Pope bothers to talk with regular people.
It would be nice if Rudolph would just get real and show that he’s actually learning something from this. If he doesn’t, he’ll just make the same mistakes again.
To immediately discontinue it in this way, the results must have been very bad.
These “Mixed” results would have been tolerated if any significant number of students did well. Saying “Oh gee, we’re just not sure, the results are mixed so we should stop it” is ONLY to save face and dodge ownership of a massive failure and mistake made by the district.
The results were TERRIBLE, admit it, and that’s why you pulled the emergency brake. The district made a BAD DECISION and most students suffered. Just admit that. We can all see it clearly anyway so you look foolish with the purposely vague “Mixed results” statement.
Thanks. Tried that. Volunteered for everything. Showed up. Gave my time and money- won prizes every year for raising or giving the most money at events. And the one time I really needed help I was completely ignored by Ayinde. I stand by my belief that he’s not worth MVWSD’s time or money.
Hopefully he can show everyone else that he’s got some good character traits because our intellectual (helped those test scores!) and volunteering family has bailed, and many more won’t even come to the district because of this one fiasco. But thanks for the advice.
Don’t assume the 180+ parents here are not involved. Many hold positions in their respective schools, volunteer tirelessly in class and through school programs, fund raise, attend board meetings and sit on various committees…You name it, they do it. Please add “nightly sixth grade math teacher” to that list.
Half a Million dollars could go very far to help struggling students and high performing students. Our district is unique and it is important to put quality programs in place to help ALL children.
You don’t know the story and you clearly don’t have a child impacted. But thanks for your advise.
RakingJill, You’re either working for Ayinde and shilling for him, or you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and you haven’t been following the story.
Read this article and comments that follow, especially the one from District Insider.
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2017/01/05/parents-up-in-arms-over-digital-math-program
If @RakingJill is the Jill I have seen volunteer at both school and district committees, then she does not deserve the mocking that some people anonymously wrote here. She is not an elected official, and she isn’t ill-informed, she holds an optimistic and well-informed view.
Whoever she is, any Mountain View resident deserves respect for sharing their opinions.
It was a tragedy that the previous four years was marked by a board member who would respond to different opinions with ridicule. This board member is gone, can we hope that parents won’t model or accept this tone any longer?
The time lost by the students (and more importantly, self-belief in math) are very serious, and the board should use their Tuesday meeting to explore this, along with future board protections against district mistakes (no district can be mistake-free if a board does not actively do their part on the team to help catch them). No one on this forum can say as the fact that $500,000 was lost when the TTO contract has not been approved and the services not delivered.
My kids had excellent math instruction when they were at Graham 8-12 years ago, when every school year brought a new principal and a new superintendent. What’s the common factor? The teachers! Let’s stop treating teachers like underlings and let the people who know how to teach be in charge of the math curriculum! If the district truly wants to “attract and retain high quality teachers” a good place to start would be to recognize that they are the experts and stop micromanaging them.
Parents wanted action. Took action. Got results. Rejoice. Be happy. Pat yourselves on the back. I applaud all of you. Savoir the victory a little, you won. I was expecting to see comments of cheers and joy.
But it’s not enough. We want more. Blood is in the water…We want heads to roll. Hammer the guy with the impossible-to-please-everyone-job. Remove him, take his job, right? How long has he been in charge? Made a mistake and that’s it? He’s done?
Dropped the ball, no question. People want him to at least admit the mistake. He couldn’t if he wanted to, he legally can’t. I’m sure in the following days the terms of the contract will be revealed and all the legal speak that handcuffed the teachers, principals and all those in the know will be out in the open. I know I sound like a sympathizer now huh?
And before I’m questioned, yes I have a sixth grader at Crittenden that was affected by all this.
I guess I see the twisted beauty in the process. The taking a chance, the failure (which is part of life right?), the rise up against it, the victory…the lessons learned.
And to the commenter who listed all the wonderful things they did for their child, their school, other students ETC. , only to be ignored by AR. THANK YOU. DON’T STOP. Please.
You’re not doing it for him. All of this…It’s for the kids!
Victory! Woo hoo!
Bravo to all the parents and families that are upset about this digital math program.
The end-of-year Smarter Balanced (Common Core) standardized testing is equally, if not more, flawed and problematic, and that’s how your kids and schools are judged.
Do your research.
Google fairtest.org, and any opt out of standardized testing websites to get more information.
You should work with Khan Academy. LASD has already shown great success using Khan Academy.
Honest question here:
Are you trying to say the district doesn’t owe $521,000 because the product didn’t deliver? I’m no attorney but I’m pretty sure the contract was for TTO, whether parents, students, and teachers were happy with it or not. That’s what’s so maddening. One person used his power to spend without any input.
Is this the case? Or do you feel like MVWSD can just stamp it as void now?
I agree, but Los Altos has 100 other things gaping for them besides Khan Academy such as 1,000% fewer English language learners, $3M more dollars in their foundation per year alone, hundreds of hours more teacher training, higher teacher pay, better educated parent population (overall, of course), etc etc etc.
But I agree. Teachers and then Khan to supplement = wonderful. Solely online learning = what are we paying math teachers for again?
The board packet for Tuesday’s study session is out. Look at the timeline for all kinds of communication opportunities amongst stakeholders. According to the slides, “Included in Approved LCAP” is what was required. Maybe folks should have been paying more attention in the spring? School Districts are not small, nimble startups. They manage users (students), customers (parents & taxpayers), regulators (State & County), along with a highly educated work force. Walking a mile in their shoes is required once in a while. Democracy (including Public Education) only thrives when the public is engaged. That means in the spring in this case, not only after the fact when the problems have started. Thanks for being interested in your kid’s education, as studies have shown that to be one of the strongest indicators toward student success — Parent Engagement!
“If you have concerns, be proactive and get involved. Volunteer at your school. Go to a board meeting. Donate to MVEF. Be an AVID mentor. ”
Um, that’s exactly what these parents were doing. I think they did a great job and I’m glad Rudolph has a lot of smart people holding him to a high standard.
And no, he doesn’t get an easy A for trying (and neither do our kids trying to learn math, BTW).
This experiment with teaching elementary math and our children was a costly failure and totally avoidable. It’s clear that this complete bungling of something so basic only proves that Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph is not, and was never, qualified for the job. Hello, he had no previous experience as a superintendent! He is like TTO writ large! How, after watching him botch this up, can we possible trust him with any other decisions or recommendations? The sooner the Board gets rids of him the better. And if the Board doesn’t figure this out soon, the Board will be recalled as well. After all, if Steven Nelson saw this storm brewing way before the rest of the board, what does that tell you? Just maybe the guy had it right all along.
@Old Steve I just looked at the packet for the study session and you are right about the posted timeline. The Powerpoint seems to also say, Dr. Rudolph would pilot test this way again.
It is easy for Steve Nelson to say he saw it coming now. And if he did see it coming at the time, his method of showing his concern got in the way of his message.
Love it: Pope Ayinde
He’s too good for the lowly parents in Mountain View
He knows what is right and we do not
We are just annoyances to him
Has not really connected with our community
Arrogant
I agree with Dysfunction Maximus – time for Him to move on
This was not just a little mistake…
I’m thinking Raking Jill is some type of groupie – definitely a shill
Yesterday’s study session started with an an hour-long attempt by the Superintendent to sweep the multitude of mistakes and oversights under the rug that occurred during the evaluation and implementation process of the ill-conceived TTO program. Thanks to the courageous parent contributions as well as questions by a few board members, some light was shed on the events and decision process shortcomings that led to the fallout from the TTO program. I sincerely hope that the leadership of the MVWSD district implements processes to follow good practices and policies. Early parent/community input for all new curriculum pilots and implementation is not only required but it is the smart thing to do!
Thank you for the update. That’s a shame, but not surprising.
I agree it’ll take parents’ careful oversight to keep Ayinde in line from now on. This is a shame because while parents have always beeen involved, no one wants to babysit/wait for the next shoe to drop. We want to trust.
It sounds like some of the board members were more transparent and honest. That’s a huge step in the right direction.
Rudolph admitted in his presentation that he got SUCKERED (not his choice of words) into a contract with New Classrooms under the assumption someone else would pay for most of it. When that fell through, he agreed to the ~$500K version which got posted for the Dec meeting. Oh, and that’s when he sent it out for legal review. (The slide stated “in Nov”.)
With that level of incompetence the board should IMMEDIATELY start the search for a replacement.
Not that any school with decent teachers would want to utilize Teach to One at any price. Look how little you are paying for a program which makes kids HATE math — what a deal!
Dear MVWSD Board,
Please encourage him to move on so you can hire a new superintendent.
He is incompetent: Agreeing to move forward with a bad program, without proper vetting with the community (including math teachers), under a belief that “someone else” would pay for it, then looking at the small print of the contract….
Mountain View deserves better.
How does one get suckered/tricked/whatever into a contract with public funds??
Secondly, who did Ayinde think would pay for this program? Google?
@@Graham parent, Questions, parent, others…
On Superintendent Rudolph:
I have liked some of what he has done, disliked some. I recognize that it’s his first-time at this job and since I know that I have made mistakes, even bad mistakes, at a new job, I do tend to cut him some slack on beginner mistakes. His job does require the exercise of authority and it’s a fine-line he’s walking between the proper use of authority and arrogance. Even with a new less aggravating Board, it’s still a difficult job.
Dr. Rudolph has learned a lot about how to do his job, but he has much still to learn. Hopefully he will learn how to lead our district without dictating and how to correct mistakes more gracefully and reverse himself when it’s best to do so.
The MVWSD has had a really bad history with Superintendents, even before the two separate districts merged many years ago. We’ve had more too much turn-over and too much controversy and too many different people in the job. I am not surprised the district couldn’t find an experienced fully-formed Superintendent to hire.
If we push out Dr. Rudolph before he fully learns his job, how would we ever be able to attract any good talented leaders in the future? Who would want to be Superintendent at MVWSD when we can’t tolerate any mistakes?
As Trustee Wheeler is fond of saying, “Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.”
OK?
Just a heads-up that this article has been completely re-written to capture the Study Session on Tuesday.
Some nice tidbits:
“I don’t think that there was anyone in the room (who) didn’t believe that this
wasn’t the right approach for us to have,” Rudolph said.
Perhaps you have to make sure you have the right people in the room. Next time include teachers and parents and not just your cronies!
Board member Greg Coladonato called it a “bait and switch” to agree to a
contract when the money hasn’t even been handed over, and suggested that the
district avoid doing that in the future.
“It’s bad public policy to say, ‘OK, we trust that you’ll take care of
these hundreds of thousands of dollars that we’re technically on the hook
for,'” Coladonato said.
Thanks to Coladonato for being the only Trustee willing to ask tough questions and state the obvious!
When Coladonato asked Rudolph directly whether they were bound by a non-
disparagement clause, Rudolph initially said that the only thing district
staff cannot discuss is the terms of the contract that is still under negotiation.
But Rudolph later stressed the importance of having a “factual” representation
of Teach to One during the study session, and mentioned that staff ran it by
the district’s legal counsel ahead of time.
Based on that (non)answer, he probably is subject to such a clause — good catch, Kevin!
What did he say?????
Kevin F., did you get his quote exactly, word for word?
Could you add more context?
“I don’t think that there was anyone in the room (who) didn’t believe that this wasn’t the right approach for us to have,” Rudolph said.
Count the negatives folks!
I don’t know about you, but to my interpretation of grammar, he’s saying that everyone in the room believed it was NOT the right approach.
I wish I had more context for that quote and to know for sure it’s an exact quote.
OK MVWSD Board –
Acknowledge he is incompetent and encourage him to move on.
Caladonato got it right: “It’s bad public policy to say, ‘OK, we trust that you’ll take care of these hundreds of thousands of dollars that we’re technically on the hook for,'” Coladonato said.
We deserve better.
If the results presented by Ayinde (see https://www.mvwsd.org/images/district/board/2016-17/agenda_20170117.pdf) were REALLY true, TTO was tremendously successful. The incoherent argument made by him (again see link) for cancellation of the program just makes no sense. There is the possibility that some kids were actually well-served by TTO. If the program had been piloted correctly, we would have some real insights. Now we will never know and the entire 6th grade was subjected to complete chaos due to his bungling!
What we do know is that the district bowed to public and media pressure and that Ayinde wanted to stop the spotlight of scrutiny focused on his misdeeds:
* Suckered into agreeing to $500K contract
* No prior legal review?!!!
* Non-disparagement clause — who would agree to that?
* No Warranty — again, who would agree to that?
* Not a real pilot — let’s just use the entire 6th grade!
* Plan was to use this pilot to roll-out to entire school; what about also testing how it works for 7th or 8th grade students? Oh, it will be OK…
* No teacher involvement in selection of program — what would they know?
* No public involvement in selection of program — they just cause trouble!
* It’s OK if I make mistakes, I’m new at this. But still pulling in $220,000 see http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/06/22/school-board-approves-big-superintendent-pay-raise
* And still costing the district $57,000 in “coaching services” (again see http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2016/06/22/school-board-approves-big-superintendent-pay-raise). Perhaps the district should ask Peter Gorman Leadership Associates for a refund?
I’m just disgusted by the whole mess!
@@Graham Parent: You nailed it – he bowed to public and media pressure so as to stop the spotlight of scrutiny focused on his misdeeds
@Parent: Agreed. Mountain View deserves better.
Regarding his 10% raise – the only remaining Board member who approved it is Wheeler. Her term is up in 2018.
Respectfully, I encourage parents to funnel their valuable attention at real concrete board policy changes. Most changes were laid out in the December parent petition, but a petition alone won’t lead to new policies without continuous attention by the community.
Consider demanding the elected board:
1) firm up its policies on contracts. MVWSD’s board policies are largely irrelevant pieces of boiler plate copied directly from state CSBA templates, that may not respond to real local needs. The board is far too skittish about authoring new policies that may not have come from CSBA:
http://mvwsd.org/district-info/board-of-trustees/board-policies/3000-business/145-3312-bp-contracts
2) firm up the language to be clear the order of steps to involve teachers and parents in any digital curriculum adoption/any large scale pilot (current policy is too vague on what community participation with digital curriculum means)
http://mvwsd.org/district-info/board-of-trustees/board-policies/6000-instruction/275-bp-6161-1-selection-and-evaluation-of-instructional-materials
3) change the board culture to be more interactive with community members who take time to show up to board meetings. It is a false interpretation of the Brown Act and of good governance to not allow the community to speak more freely and to let district staff respond directly to the community, as long as the board shows restraint. Staff can and should do Q+A with community members. This TTO mistake is made so much worse by not having better means of listening and communicating information people want to know. For example, no one in the public (including the press) knows what the district’s cost is for this pilot. It’s not $500,000, but without more info, that number spreads outrage. The board superintendent retreat is coming up, but it’s not listed in future board agendas. There is no way for the public to know if they should attend meetings, since board packets reveal little to nothing on future meeting topics.
@ ST parent 1/19/17 – need to respond to the disparaging comments made about prior superintendents in both the Whisman and Mountain View School Districts. In my opinion, both Dr. Eve Bressler (WH) and Dr. Trish Bubenick(MV) were outstanding, long term superintendents. Unfortunately, Dr. Bubenick got hijacked by a small minority of parents and teachers over a math curriculum that led to her leavIng. And, now, once again, math rears its ugly head and folks are calling for the superintendent’s head!!
@ Christopher Chiang All three of your last points have merit (IMO) and all three we could work on, as concerned residents to submit to the Board, as a community Agenda Item. You know the law I think.
You have to, respectfully, stop playing by ‘gloves off’ political boxing rules with me in public debate. I was not the cause of your political problems. I am not the cause of Dr. Rudolph’s administrator problems. I am glad that you are starting to see, like the DQR found, there are institutional problems with Board Leadership { your point 3) especially }.
And – I really wish Dr. Rudolph would not take full responsibility for this. There is such thing as district LEADERSHIP, and President Wheeler greatly enabled this problem, by her continuing CLOAK of OBSCURITY that she brings to the organization. President Wheeler – had almost weekly “Agenda planning” meetings over 5 months, (7 Regular Board Meetings) without once putting Middle School Math as a specific item on the Board Agenda!
If Trustee Wheeler – ever straightforwardly assumes some direct responsibility – I will be totally surprised!
Mr. Nelson, community school policy is neither about you or I. If you examine the public record, I more often have not critiqued your positions, but nearly always challenged your approach. You can always contact me directly via email. Please save these forums for a public discussion.
I feel that some people on this forum think that replacing the superintendent will magically fix problems. Each of our past superintendents had expensive non-transparent gaffes. I don’t blame them alone, they lacked a governance team that worked together to help each other. Every member of the governance team has in the past operated in silos constructed out of narrow interpretations of the Brown Act (around closed meetings), deference to the superintendent, indifference to public input (early in policy processes), or plain personality differences (the isolation of specific board members because of their political ideologies). This results in people making decisions without the wisdom of a bigger more diverse group.
Working to help the new board stop these bad traits will bring about better student outcomes than the attacks on the superintendent in a venue here that he cannot defend himself.
Yes, why don’t the two of you take your argument off of this forum. It’s obvious that you disagree and this is not the place to air your dirty laundry about the other. It’s gettIng old. If one of you comments, why can’t the other be big enough to just left it go? Get a life!
@Interested Observer
“@ ST parent 1/19/17 – need to respond to the disparaging comments made about prior superintendents”
I made no “disparaging comments” about any of the people you named, nor did I blame the prior Supers as the root of all evil in our district. There have been many causes for why we have seen so much turn-over and so many controversies. Personally, I put just as much if not more blame on the many Trustees over the years. Not to mention the fault of the voters who wont support as much school funding as other nearby cities. Oh and how few people step up to offer their services as Trustees so we have little to choose from.
“Dr. Eve Bressler (WH) and Dr. Trish Bubenick(MV) were outstanding, long term superintendents.”
OK, why did Bressler leave?
And why did Bressler not return when Bubenick left?
“Dr. Bubenick got hijacked by a small minority of parents and teachers over a math curriculum that led to her leaving.”
That implies she was convinced to switch sides on a math issue and lost.
“And, now, once again, math rears its ugly head and folks are calling for the superintendent’s head!!”
Not I, I am all for giving Dr.Rudolph time to learn how to do his job better. I do hope he learns that changing his mind is not a sign of weakness but rather a sign of learning and wisdom.
Digging in your heals on a controversial issue when you’re in a position of authority is a highly tempting and common response to criticism, but it’s rarely productive.
Executives often believe that they must enforce their authority FIRST, then think about the politics and then think about the actual issue. They often feel that anyone who disagrees with them is only interested in undermining their authority. It takes experience and wisdom to set-aside that gut-reaction and to recognize the fact that virtually always people are only interested in the issue itself and have no intention of undermining the executive in any manner.
Just as you assumed I was trying to smear the names of all prior Superintendents, when in fact I was talking about the overall effect to our district of all the turmoil we have seen so far this century.
Stop already!
Previous Board members had their chance. Now go away – (this means you: Nelson & Chiang).
Time for this new Board to make changes at the top to ensure effective leadership.
As has been said previously – Mountain View deserves better.
What are the math classes like now that they have jettisoned TTO? I assume there is a fair amount of confusion with the transition back to Eureka (?) Math.
@OMG! whoever
Mr. Chiang and myself came in #1 and #2 in the Nov. 2012 board elections. That represents tens of thousands of citizen votes, for us to try our hand at elective office. We did this in the open, under our own names and with our own resources. The issues/problems with this Board providing effective leadership (Mr. Chiang did very effectively writes about 3 above) are entirely within our rights to publicly comment on. I think neither of us will defer to your wish.
You state ” That represents tens of thousands of citizen votes.” Check the Registrar of Voters and you will see that you received 7,002 votes in the election – not even close to tens of thousands. But you must be using “alternative facts.”
@ @ Steven Nelson of Cuesta Park,
Please provide a citation next time you claim to cite facts. Here’s mine, from the SCC ROV:
results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Santa_Clara/43231/113724/en/summary.html http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Santa_Clara/43231/113724/en/summary.html
Go to that page, and select “All” in the “Display” pull down menu. Then search the page for Whisman, and you will find the correct, official results:
CHRISTOPHER KENT CHIANG 26.59% 11,114
PETER DARRAH 18.13% 7,581
BILL LAMBERT 19.83% 8,289
JIM POLLART 11.30% 4,726
STEVEN E. NELSON 24.15% 10,095
People have to be careful these days, much of what you read online is false.
Quoting the article:
———–
Throughout the study session Tuesday, Rudolph repeated that many lessons have been learned in trying to implement Teach to One, and big improvements need to be made for the next time the district tries something new and experimental. More communication was needed to reach out to parents and the community, he said, including a real two-way dialogue instead of sending out email updates and FAQs.
———–
It doesn’t seem like ANY lessons were learned. When will the district actually start a “real two-way dialogue” with parents and the community? It seems like the only way we find out what is really going on is from Kevin’s excellent reporting in the Voice. See his latest installment http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2017/02/16/stuck-with-a-half-million-dollar-bill
From what I can tell, Mountain view parents you are never going to get a really top-notch superintendent because you don’t deserve one. OMG someone made a mistake. OMG. Let’s go thru another expensive search, lag time in between superintendents, more time wasted on-boarding time. Let Steve Nelson and MV voice harass and publicly humiliate him. And let’s kick him/her out too if they ain’t your version of perfect. And then start all over again! And then pat yourself on the back. Way to go! Woohoo.
Well excuse us for expecting that along with a Salary of $220,000 combined with Leadership Skills hand-holding from Peter Gorman to the tune of $57,000 we would actually get an experienced Superintendent who knows how to do his job.
Nobody is expecting perfect.
It is also clear from his past job-hopping experience that once Ayinde gains some real experience he will move on. At that point we’ll have to search for a new Superintendent anyway. So why exactly should we put up with this?
I just caught up on this thread since my daughter’s teacher was discussing this fiasco. So to be honest, we use https://www.studypug.com/math-6 to supplement her math 6 class. However, this is with a lot of human interaction and parental assistance. You cannot just throw a kid in front of a platform and think that technology will solve all your problems. Math 6 is a foundational math subject and as such, there’s a lot of basics that a human need to ascertain that the student understand.
I applaud Dr. Rudolph for trying. The program has been successful for certain populations in other districts. Maybe it could have been piloted as an intervention, but at least he is trying. And, when presented with parental concerns, he did not stick his head in the sand or push on with an unpopular program. He made the hard decision and cancelled it. He was listening and was responsive.
This is not an easy district to run. Parents are smart and supportive but demanding. Curriculum has to meet the needs of children whose parents have PHds and children who are homeless. The funding is nowhere near as robust as adjacent districts and our educational foundation pulls in a quarter of the amount of funds they do.
Already, in two short years, changes are apparent. The strategic plan is in place with clear goals and timelines. We have a board of concerned citizens to support the district’s goals who aren’t afraid to ask the hard questions and not just rubber-stamp everything the district want to do.
Please judge Dr. Rudolph and the district on what they have already accomplished and support the courage it took to try something new.
If you have concerns, be proactive and get involved. Volunteer at your school. Go to a board meeting. Donate to MVEF. Be an AVID mentor.
@ST Parent
It was indeed a double negative, not a triple negative. Thank you for point this out.