Review of Board Meeting!!

[dpip...@cox.net]

Hi Chesapeake PAGE members:

The board voted to table the decision to vote on the proposed gifted
plan until the next meeting on Monday, May 14th. It seems to be good
news; however it appears that very little change will occur and it
appears to be just political posturing.

First, Dr. Powers , Assistant Superintendant, denied that there was
ever a requirement in the 2008 initiative. She stated that “the plan
did make a commitment to try to endorse. NOT TRUE!!! I have a written
copy before me that states twice . "Teachers endorsed in gifted
education or working towards endorsement WILL provide instruction for
gifted students". These statements were made verbally several times at
the meetings in 2008 by administration; as well as stated to parents
for the last four years. Dr. Powers made the statement several times
last night that the board was voting on the same plan, which I am in
complete disagreement. I played a video clip from the 2008 board
meeting with Anita James reading the statements from the power point
presentation!! The last 5 year plan (2006-2011) at least guaranteed
that the lab teachers were endorsed. Now, there will be no endorsement
requirements for any teachers of the gifted. Although we do have 113
endorsed from 25 in 2008. So progress has been made.

Dr. Powers also stated that “parents were advocating for the teacher
endorsements to be accelerated” and Kym and myself have not made such
a statement. I have not heard one parent make this statement. I do not
believe this statement is true!! In fact, in my letter to the school
board I stated that this has been and will continue to be a slow
process and I felt that parents are trying to be understanding of the
financial situation. I also stated that I believed that if we
continued to endorse 1 cohort a year for the next five years I
estimate that all the endorsements could be completed by then. I
can't be certain because administration refuses to provide this
information, which has been requested by myself and board member, Jay
Leftwich. CPS has been working toward endorsement for the past four
years and they have four additional years until the technical review.
I believe that we are at approximately 50% endorsed, so we can do
this, especially if they would follow the grouping policy outlined in
the initiative and compactly group the gifted students as much as
possible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The final statement made by the board was that they may place wording
in the plan to have a GOAL of 100% teacher endorsement, but there
will not to be a requirement. This wording is pointless!!! Dr.
Patricia Powers stated that endorsement was not required by state
regulations, which is true. However, we were promised that CPS would
provide more than the minimum and this was the exchange for closing
down the lab school, where all the teachers were required to have
endorsement. During 2008, everyone was excited and stated how much
better this new initiative would be!!! Even I drank the Kool-Aide.

Dr. Powers, after numerous questions, finally admitted that if the
requirement was in the plan then CPS would be held ACCOUNTABLE and
this could be cause for concern with the technical review scheduled to
be completed by the state in 2016. If not all teachers were endorsed,
working on endorsement, or endorsed within 5 years, etc!!!! I will try
to investigate these concerns further and what would be the
ramification if CPS made a lot of progress, but fell slightly short of
the 100% requirement. Mr. Mercer stated what would we do if some of
the endorsed teachers retire, etc? UMM what do the other school
divisions with this requirement in there plans do? You don’t make
policy base on expecting 100% at all times. Do we need to have
endorsed substitute teachers? I can understand that it would be a
major issue if CPS was not meeting the state requirements, but I am
unsure if the objective is something above and beyond the minimum
requirements what the real ramifications would be. Several other
districts do list this requirement in their plans. It seems to me
that Dr. Powers doesn’t believe that CPS will be able to meet this
goal over the next 4 years. It seems obvious to me, CPS is covertly
attempting to stop the flow of money out of the budget for
endorsements by eliminating the requirements so that teacher
participation will decrease and they won’t have to pay. This will
allow them to state in the future that they offered the money to
support and promote endorsement, but it’s the teachers fault because
they didn’t sign up to take classes. Currently there are 46 teachers
signed up with HR to take courses. I wonder what the numbers will be
next year or the year after that without the requirement????

In regards to grouping, there was relatively little discussion
regarding this issue, which at times can be controversial. However, my
copy of the initiative states" Homogeneous groups, cluster groups, and
flexible grouping WILL be used to serve gifted students in their home
schools". I provided a video clip from the 2008 meeting with DR. NICK
(previous superintendant) stating that students would be grouped
depending on the number of gifted students at the school, He explained
"first homogeneous groups, second cluster grouping with a goal of 50%
gifted and 50% high ability learners, and third small clusters for
schools with low gifted populations with additional support from the
gifted specialist"!! The proposed plan states clusters for both
elementary and middle with no further specifics regarding how cluster
grouping will occur. Last night, I again requested this grouping
policy be written into the plan. CPS and the members of the school
board refused.

Dr. Powers stated that one of the issues gifted parents have is that
we want only homogeneous groups and she explained that due to numbers
this was not possible. Many would like a magnet school or geographic
gifted centers. However, the concern isn’t having cluster classes, the
issue is whether the clustering will be implemented the way that it
was promise to ensure gifted students' needs are met. I am concerned
however that grouping decisions at some schools may not be based on
the policy stated in the 2008 initiative or any attempt to compact the
students as best they can in an effort to minimize the number of
endorsement teachers required. Again, I can't reliably assess this
situation since administration refuses to provide me with this
information.

I do know for a fact that one middle school has four gifted classes on
one team, which has worked very well this year. This principal has
been told he must create two teams for next year, despite the fact
that his school would need more endorsed teachers whether a
requirement or a goal!!!! Another middle school has been using two
teams for their four gifted classes, which also increases the number
of endorsements beyond what appears to be needed. If middle schools
have more than four gifted classes then they need an additional team;
however I do not believe they do and I feel that it would be highly
unlikely. Why doesn’t CPS try to compactly group the students as much
as possible to meet the minimum amount of endorsed teachers needed and
then as more are endorsed grow from there?? CPS seemed to care more
about how the school grouping looks than how the grouping is meeting
the educational needs of all the students in an efficient and cost
effective manner!!!! CPS has no intention of trying to met a 100%
endorsement goal!! Just more smoke and mirrors folks!!! I will
continue to fight and advocate over the next two weeks. If you are
concerned and haven’t sent an email to the board (their listed on the
CPS home page under the School Board tab at the top) please do it
now!!!! It would be great if more parents would come out to the next
meeting and speak. CPS is RENEGING on their promises and gifted
services will deteriorate in the coming years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We should
not sit by and make it easy for them. If we do then that is our
failure as parents and citizens. If CPS doesn’t keep their promises
then that is their failure, not ours!!!!
Thanks,
Deborah Piper

[myty...@aol.com]

Deb - I think that Patricia Powers needs to see your letter.  What do you all think?

 

Kym

I don't trust email=))  PLEASE let me know that you received this even if you have nothing to say!!

Hi Chesapeake PAGE members:

The board voted to table the decision to vote on the proposed gifted
plan until the next meeting on Monday, May 14th.  It seems to be good
news; however it appears that very little change will occur and it
appears to be just political posturing.

First, Dr. Powers , Assistant Superintendant, denied that there was
ever a requirement in the 2008 initiative. She stated that “the plan
did make a commitment to try to endorse. NOT TRUE!!! I have a written
copy before me that states twice . "Teachers endorsed in gifted
education or working towards endorsement WILL provide instruction for
gifted students". These statements were made verbally several times at
the meetings in 2008 by administration; as well as stated to parents
for the last four years.   Dr. Powers made the statement several times
last night that the board was voting on the same plan, which I am in
complete disagreement. I played a video clip from the 2008 board
meeting with Anita James reading the statements from the power point
presentation!!  The last 5 year plan (2006-2011) at least guaranteed
that the lab teachers were endorsed. Now, there will be no endorsement
requirements for any teachers of the gifted. Although we do have 113
endorsed from 25 in 2008. So progress has been made.

Dr. Powers also stated that “parents were advocating for the teacher
endorsements to be accelerated” and Kym and myself  have not made such
a statement. I have not heard one parent make this statement. I do not
believe this statement is true!! In fact, in my letter to the school
board I stated that this has been and will continue to be a slow
process and I felt that parents are trying to be understanding of the
financial situation. I also stated that I believed that if we
continued to endorse 1 cohort a year for the next five years I
estimate that all the endorsements could be completed by then.  I
can't be certain because administration refuses to provide this
information, which has been requested by myself and board member, Jay
Leftwich. CPS has been working toward endorsement for the past four
years and they have four additional years until the technical review.
I believe that we are at approximately 50% endorsed, so we can do
this, especially if they would follow the grouping policy outlined in
the initiative and compactly group the gifted students as much as
possible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The final statement made by the board was that they may place wording
in the plan to have a GOAL of 100% teacher endorsement, but  there
will not to be a requirement. This wording is pointless!!!  Dr.
Patricia Powers stated that endorsement was not required by state
regulations, which is true. However, we were promised that CPS would
provide more than the minimum and this was the exchange for closing
down the lab school, where all the teachers were required to have
endorsement. During 2008, everyone was excited and stated how much
better this new initiative would be!!!  Even I drank the Kool-Aide.

Dr. Powers,  after numerous questions, finally  admitted that if the
requirement was in the plan then CPS would be held ACCOUNTABLE and
this could be cause for concern with the technical review scheduled to
be completed by the state in 2016. If not all teachers were endorsed,
working on endorsement, or endorsed within 5 years, etc!!!! I will try
to investigate these concerns further and what would be the
ramification if CPS made a lot of progress, but fell slightly short of
the 100% requirement. Mr. Mercer stated what would we do if some of
the endorsed teachers retire, etc? UMM what do the other school
divisions with this requirement in there plans do?  You don’t make
policy base on expecting 100% at all times. Do we need to have
endorsed substitute teachers?  I can understand that it would be a
major issue if CPS was not meeting the state requirements, but I am
unsure if the objective is something above and beyond the minimum
requirements what the real ramifications would be.  Several other
districts do list this requirement in their plans.  It seems to me
that Dr. Powers doesn’t  believe that CPS will be able to meet this
goal over the next 4 years. It seems obvious to me, CPS is covertly
attempting to stop the flow of money out of the budget for
endorsements by eliminating the requirements so that teacher
participation will decrease and they won’t have to pay. This will
allow them to state in the future that they offered the money to
support and promote endorsement, but it’s the teachers fault because
they didn’t sign up to take classes. Currently there are 46 teachers
signed up with HR to take courses. I wonder what the numbers will be
next year or the year after that without the requirement????

In regards to grouping, there was relatively little discussion
regarding this issue, which at times can be controversial. However, my
copy of the initiative states" Homogeneous groups, cluster groups, and
flexible grouping WILL be used to serve gifted students in their home
schools". I provided a video clip from the 2008 meeting with DR. NICK
(previous superintendant) stating that students would be grouped
depending on the number of gifted students at the school, He explained
"first homogeneous groups, second cluster grouping with a goal of 50%
gifted and 50% high ability learners, and third small clusters for
schools with low gifted populations with additional support from the
gifted specialist"!! The proposed plan states clusters for both
elementary and middle with no further specifics regarding how cluster
grouping will occur. Last night, I again requested this grouping
policy be written into the plan. CPS and the members of the school
board refused.

Dr. Powers stated that one of the issues gifted parents have is that
we want only homogeneous groups and she explained that due to numbers
this was not possible. Many would like a magnet school or geographic
gifted centers. However, the concern isn’t having cluster classes, the
issue is whether the clustering will be implemented the way that it
was promise to ensure gifted students' needs are met. I am concerned
however that grouping decisions at some schools may not be based on
the policy stated in the 2008 initiative or any attempt to compact the
students as best they can in an effort to minimize the number of
endorsement teachers required. Again, I can't reliably assess this
situation since administration refuses to provide me with this
information.

I do know for a fact that one middle school has four gifted classes on
one team, which has worked very well this year. This principal has
been told he must create two teams for next year, despite the fact
that his school would need more endorsed teachers whether a
requirement or a goal!!!! Another middle school has been using two
teams for their four gifted classes, which also increases the number
of endorsements beyond what appears to be needed. If middle schools
have more than four gifted classes then they need an additional team;
however I do not believe they do and I feel that it would be highly
unlikely. Why doesn’t CPS try to compactly group the students as much
as possible to meet the minimum amount of endorsed teachers needed and
then as more are endorsed grow from there??  CPS seemed to care more
about how the school grouping looks than how the grouping is meeting
the educational needs of all the students in an efficient and cost
effective manner!!!!   CPS has no intention of trying to met a 100%
endorsement goal!!  Just more smoke and mirrors folks!!! I will
continue to fight and advocate over the next two weeks. If you are
concerned and haven’t sent an email to the board (their listed on the
CPS home page under the School Board tab at the top) please do it
now!!!! It would be great if more parents would come out to the next
meeting and speak.  CPS is RENEGING on their promises and gifted
services will deteriorate in the coming years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We should
not sit by and make it easy for them. If we do then that is our
failure as parents and citizens. If CPS doesn’t keep their promises
then that is their failure, not ours!!!!
Thanks,
Deborah Piper

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Chesapeake PAGE" group.
To post to this group, send email to chesape...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chesapeake-pa...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chesapeake-page?hl=en.