|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton school board is set to consider another update to the Measure I1 Facilities Master Plan on Tuesday night.
The plan details how the $270 million from the Measure I1 school facilities bond, approved by voters in 2016, should be spent — in five separate issuances. This will be the third time the plan has been presented to the board over the past few months, with the Board of Trustees having put forward proposed adjustments each time.
The final plan is expected to be up for approval June.
Trustees asked for one particular change at the April 10 board meeting: to include funding for the full scope of the VoIP phone/clock/bell/speaker system in Issuance B, which is scheduled for 2019. Previously, the full $6.7 million allocated for this category had been evenly divided between Issuance B and Issuance C, which is set for 2022.
In consideration of the board’s request, staff has adjusted the issuance schedule so that the full amount for the VoIP system would be dispersed all at once.
The first issuance from the Measure I1 bond was in 2017, and Issuances D and E are scheduled for 2024 and 2027, respectively.
The open-session meeting is scheduled to begin 7 p.m. Tuesday at the district boardroom, 4665 Bernal Ave.
In other business
* A series of recognitions will take place Tuesday night, which is the last regular board meeting before graduations.
The board will honor students who were singled out for exhibiting the character trait of “integrity,” valedictorians and salutatorians, student board members, Project Lead the Way Chevron Design Challenge awardees, the We the People teams from Amador Valley and Foothill high schools, and the alumni and mentors for the We the People teams.
* The board will hear an update on the district’s Student Inter-Schools Action Council (SIAC), and a review of their work from the 2017-18 school year.
*Trustees will hear a report on the district’s career technical education program (CTE) and the Tri-Valley Regional Occupational Program (TVROP). Along with an overview of the programs, presenters will discuss plans for the upcoming school year, spotlighting the new Mentoring through Agriculture program at Harvest Park Middle School.
* The board will hear the annual report from Pleasanton Partnerships In Education (PPIE), a nonprofit which raises funding for Pleasanton schools.
This past year, PPIE contributed $644,163 to the Pleasanton Unified School District, according to the organization, the largest portion of which ($240,000) was directed toward intervention specialist programs.
* The board will receive an update on Gov. Jerry Brown’s May budget revision, which was released May 11. The administration will be attending the workshop on this revision on May 18 and May 22.
* The board will consider approving a bid for roof replacement at Amador Valley High School to Premium Roofing for a total of $297,000.
* The board will consider approving a resolution regarding the possible use of the Education Protection Account. Funds from the account are not additional funds from the state, staff notes, but rather are related to cash flow.
* Trustees will consider approving the new job description of coordinator I, business services.
* During a closed-session from 5-6:15 p.m., the board will continue the performance evaluation of Superintendent David Haglund and consider the appointments of a director of human resources and a director of student services.
Also during closed session, the board will confer on negotiations with the Association of Pleasanton Teachers and the California School Employees Association, and consider a compromise and release agreement regarding anticipated litigation.
Though these items will be discussed in private, community members are able to publicly comment on any closed session topics at the meeting’s start at 5 p.m.
* From 6:15-6:45 p.m., the board will have dinner with student board members.
Wow, sounds like a major data breach to me. What would be the possible use of this data? Sounds like a major violation of FERPA where students have a right to privacy guaranteed by the Federal government. Maybe the city will be using the data to forward it to the FBI or DOJ for immigration checks, fingerprinting, etc.
Not listed are the items on the consent calendar (a series of items the board votes on in one action). Among them is 11.5–Approval of the Amendment to the Student Success Card Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Pleasanton and the Pleasanton Unified School District.
Seems innocuous enough, but in reality it is granting the city **access to student data for all high school students, with the intention of expanding it to middle school students and “possibly” elementary school students**.
This proposal is problematic on several levels:
“This recommended opt-in process would require parent/guardian consent with the rest of the consents we collect during the summer registration process, whereas the 2017-19 pilot opt-in was a separate process. The Administration is requesting the Opt-out process instead, which could provide an increase in participation in the program. High rates of participation could also provide enhanced opportunities for students to access library resources for homework or research work.”
The first sentence indicates the opt-in can be part of the summer registration—exactly where parents expect this information. It is likely this alone will gather more participants.
In another paragraph in the narrative, the program is being expanded to all high school grades. This, too, is likely to gather more participants.
The last two sentences above use “could”—so as one might expect, there is no guarantee an opt-out process will provide more participants than an opt-in process.
There is no form provided as an attachment that shows the board the information that would be provided to parents in either an opt-in or opt-out process.
The fact that the district would provide student data to the city is not mentioned in the narrative—it merely indicates “continued data sharing.”
The fact that the student data would no longer be under the district’s control is not mentioned.
While the city has it’s own data protection, there is no guarantee this student data will remain private (it’s difficult even for the district to make that statement).
This is yet another example of staff presenting an item as a foregone conclusion. Something as important as the sharing of student data should be a separate item, should provide in-depth information (including proposed forms and language for communicating to parents), and should include a public discussion by the board in public. This is particularly important as this report vaguely alludes to dropping the program into the middle and possibly elementary schools, with a timeline of “in subsequent years.”
While cooperating with the city has many benefits for this community, an opt-out process that gives student data to another entity should not be one of them. The board voted on this once, declining opt-out in favor of opt-in, and should not be reconsidering this change without a much broader discussion.
This access should remain an opt-in so parents understand just who has their child(ren)’s information.
Ostensibly, it is in order for students to use their school IDs at the library instead of a library card. However, the district gathers the student data and gives a copy to the city. I see this as an opt in program so parents are certain to understand what is being given to the city. To be fair, I imagine either entity’s system could be hacked, but this doubles the chances and an opt out system means many parents won’t realize what is happening.
Item 11.5 on the agenda: http://agendaonline.net/public/Meeting.aspx?AgencyID=106&MeetingID=49681&AgencyTypeID=1&IsArchived=False
…..and still no new school.
Fix the roof – but why isn’t there existing funds to cover that? Was general maintenance and replacement costs not foreseen?
No more money for this broken system- and why is a domestic terrorist organization allowed to negotiate behind closed doors? We get to see money for roofs and laptops but never the union. Get this cancer out of our schools. It’s hurting students and teachers.