The purpose of this blog is to help the West Contra Costa Unified School District succeed at educating our children.
Friday, September 7, 2012
WCCUSD admits guilt of Ed Code violation...finally!
Why is the district so slow to respond to queries-concerns? It took over 2 months for me to get a response to my observation that the district was violating the Ed Code by not reporting the number of non-fully credentialed teachers on the 2010-2011 School Accountability Report Cards.
June 21, 2012: I informed acting WCCUSD HR director (M.W.) of deficiency. No reply.
June 22, 2012: I sought explanation from Ohlone principal (E.L.) (no reply).
July 2nd, 2012: At the "Special" WCCUSD board meeting in El Cerrito, I informed the board and Superintendent that they were in violation of the Ed Code.(no reply-just blank stares)
July 17, 2012: Email to President Ramsey (copied superintendent and board) requesting explanation regarding incomplete SARC documents. (no reply)
September 5, 2012: WCCUSD board meeting. I informed board and Superintendent that this was a repeat violation, that in 2008, a lawyer from a public advocacy group previously cited this violation. Again, blank stares, and silence. (Note-silence was not an issue when Mayor Romero and President Ramsey exchanged words, resulting in a 5 minute time-out)
Upon leaving this meeting (now safely off camera), the new HR Director informed me that I was correct about the violation and that the district was in the process of correcting this for the 90% of the schools that failed to provide this information to parents. He told me (safely off camera) that the previous Director (A.R.) simply didn't do it.
It should be noted that this previous director recently received an award for not doing their job. Or maybe they did do their job?
Approximately 10% of the WCCUSD principals complied with the law. These were the schools that had zero or one non-fully credentialed teachers. Is it possible that the principals were given the choice to not provide this data if they thought it would be harmful to the school? Or perhaps this was an order by the Superintendent? And why was the board mum? Complicity or ignorance?