Minutes from the GCEP Board Meeting – June 28, 2010

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GREATER CRENSHAW EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, INC.

JUNE 28, 2010

 

The Board of Directors of The Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership held a Regular Meeting on Monday, June 28, 2010 at Crenshaw High School, 5010 11^th Avenue Los Angeles, California.

The following directors, constituting a quorum of the Board of Directors, were present:

• Blair Taylor, President (via phone)
• Dean Karen Gallagher, Vice President
• Dr. Lewis King, Secretary/Treasurer

 

Also present were the following staff and advisors of the Members of the Organization and invited speakers:

• Carrie Harris Allen, Principal of Crenshaw High School
• Pamela Bakewell, Los Angeles Urban League
• Renita Smith, Los Angeles Urban League
• Arturo Frazier, Los Angeles Urban League

 

Welcome & Opening Remarks

The meeting was called to order at 7:10pm by Dean Karen Gallagher, GCEP Board Vice President.

Dr. Karen Gallagher opened the meeting with commendations regarding the recent graduation ceremony.  She also informed the Board that July 1^st is the opening date for graduation reservations at Galen Center; she welcomes Crenshaw to hold their ceremony at that location for the upcoming school year.

Approval of Minutes

The Vice President of the Board, Dr. Karen Gallagher, made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 17, 2010 Board meeting.  It was properly seconded by Dr. Lewis King and unanimously approved.

 

Legal Update

The Legal Update Action Item was postponed to the next board meeting.

Principal’s Report

Principal Carrie Allen opened her report by commenting on the recent graduation ceremony at the Galen Center.  She noted that the school was excited to have the venue and that it accommodated the audience very well. 

Principal Allen also mentioned her recent conversation with the WASC office; she noted that they meet on June 30 and will know about the school’s standing (with regards to accreditation) afterwards.

Principal Allen also noted budgetary concerns with regards to staffing for the 2010-2011 academic school year.  Crenshaw expects a decreased number in funding due to the fact that there was a decreased number in the enrollment projection.  Due to this, the school is looking at cuts that are going to affect the socio-psycho support mechanisms as well as the administration.  She also noted that the school 1) had been assigned two principals who were subject to layoffs and 2) was trying to convert Assistant Principals to maintain the second Assistant Principal (to give a team of four which is appropriate for the number of students that we have).  Principal Allen’s main concern was that the school can make it through a normal day and the numbers will support the necessary changes.

There was a need for clarification with regards to the enrollment for the following year and how those numbers were calculated.  Principal Allen clarified that projections are done on the lowest month of the year (tactic used to balance budget).

Principal Allen requested that the Board assist in helping to maintain two key positions within the school: Dropout Prevention coordinator and Psychologist.  She is looking forward to sitting down with the partners for proposals for support and in building or expanding budget to include some of the things that need to be considering in the long run. 

Principal Allen noted that she has been wrestling with the faculty vote to go with a different bell schedule (eight period schedule) using the two by eight schedule; with this schedule, students would have four classes a day.  This creates common conference periods as well as student elective options. 

There was some discussion regarding communication, dialogue and debate with the grant that the school is pursuing (SIG grant).  The SIG (School Improvement Grant) is classified under the restart model and the school site council formally voted to go forward with the grant.  At a recent faculty meeting, it was decided that should the school receive the grant, there would be discussion of the terms and provisions of the grant and whether they are acceptable at a later date. 

Mr. Taylor asked for clarification regarding the teachers’ objections to the SIG grant. Concerns expressed by a faculty attendee were as follows:

• Grant requires that staff follow grant template/guidelines in implementation
• Staff will be subject to participating in the professional development that was specific to the grant. 
• The terms of the grant relating to incentive pay
• School site versus district process and how the grant would be implemented.  
• LAUSD definition of restart model (not the same as transformation model);
• A significant amount of the grant money would be taken to open a new office at LAUSD office called the SIG turnaround office.
• Teachers would be randomly selected and placed in a pilot program in which they would be subject to random evaluations.
• Teacher evaluation results would be based on student test scores
• There was no opportunity for faculty and parents to meet regarding this matter

 

Dr. King stated that we should consider the objections of the faculty who are not in agreement with some of the defining factors of this grant.

Principal Allen expressed her concern that teachers had formed opinions based upon faulty or incomplete information. 

President Blair Taylor expressed that it would be detrimental to the school to pass on a major funding opportunity, considering the current fiscal situation for schools.  Dr. Gallagher noted that there needs to be a more clear process for how the school decides to apply for grants and pass on them.  She also noted that grants often come at the last moment, and have to be responded to quickly.

Allen made a final point of clarification that she asked the district to come in and speak to her staff about the grant.  Representatives from the local district office came during the last week of school to discuss the SIG grant in question.

Executive Director’s Report

Due to the absence of Dr. Rudy Crew, there was no Executive Director’s report.  It has been postponed until the next meeting.

Public School Choice 2.0

Ms. Renita Smith discussed the second round of public school choice with LAUSD and there are schools in the Crenshaw area that are on the block for bidding: Mann and Audubon.  The recommendation from the President is that GCEP should submit the letter of interest as an initial interest plan for the schools and to assert continuity in the feeder patterns.  This letter is due on Wednesday, June 30, 2010.  In order to move forward in the process, organizations must submit letter of interest. 

There were some comments from the audience that GCEP should perhaps to not submit a letter of interest because at this time.

Board members addressed these concerns by discussing the fact that many organizations applying to operate schools lack the fundraising capacity, strategy, and results of GCEP.  President Taylor emphasized that GCEP has no intention of operating a school without a parent and stakeholder vote approving GCEP.

President Blair Taylor motioned that the letter be submitted and Gallagher properly seconded.  Dr. King discussed and insisted on language that says provision that the LOI (Letter of Interest) states that it is not a takeover and it is intended as collaboration.  Blair stated that the language of the LOI have standard language.  King urged that there be some form of communication between GCEP and the other schools to inform them of GCEP’s intentions prior to submitting the LOI.  The motion passed unanimously.

Promise Neighborhood Grant

Ms. Renita Smith presented the information regarding a two-stage federal grant Promise Neighborhoods for which a $500,000 planning grant opportunity has arisen.  This grant would present a funding opportunity for GCEP.

Some members of the audience admonished the board to be selective in seeking funding, since some funding has restrictions/requirements. 

Mrs. Smith noted that the Coalition consists of Community Coalition, St. John’s Wellness, and The Brotherhood Crusade.  Dr. King commented that signing the MOU was another instance that causes GCEP to appear as if they are not sincere in their struggle to bridge the divide between GCEP and the faculty.  GCEP needs to consider seriously the consistent voice of faculty and parents.

Dr. Gallagher moved to table the agenda item.  The Board should wait until they have the full documentation to review.  The item was tabled.

 

Executive Director Search Update

Dr. Gallagher reported that there are still three active people in the running and the Ad Hoc Committee is trying to go through the orientation process before school starts.  The school site council is prepared to look at the three resumes.  The committee decided that they need to modify the Executive Director Search process so that all candidates are able to have access to the same information about the position.

There was an action item to approve the timetable for the search.  However, the audience expressed concern with the fact that there is no member of the school site council who is on the Ad Hoc Committee.  There was also concern about the timeline and its creation, but it was assured that the timeline was created in collaboration over a year ago.  The Board decided that a third member would be added and the process would continue to advance until there was a third member on the Ad Hoc Committee and they represented the School Site Council. 

Dr. Gallagher moved to approve the timeline and Taylor seconded the motion.  It was passed unanimously.

Board Expansion Update

Renita Smith reported on the continued efforts made with the board expansion process.  She continued by stating that there are 4 parent candidates that have almost completed the entire process including the LAUSD Volunteer Screening Process. The names of the candidates will not be revealed until the entire vetting process has been completed.  The intention is to have several candidates ready to be confirmed for the board expansion by the next GCEP Board Meeting.  There are two other candidates in the same process; one is a university partner and the other from a corporate foundation.  The original criteria for board expansion called for parent representation, members with educational expertise, and members with financial giving capacity.  This current pool of candidates meets the criteria specified for the GCEP Board Expansion process. 

 

Public Comment

Dale Simmons spoke about the STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine, and Mathematics) project at Crenshaw.  He has been engaged with Crenshaw through the robotics program.  Mr. Simmons implemented programs with NASA assistance and received support of UCLA, USC.  He has the support of Aerospace Corporation in which they have extended funds to schools in our community.  The plan was to create a stem or small learning community that came to fruition.  He expressed concerned that the sole African American high school in Los Angeles has decided to dissolve its STEM SLC and asked GCEP for support in reversing that decision.  He feels that Crenshaw needs to maintain its focus on the development of math and sciences.  It was  clarified that the goal was to have STEM to go school-wide and embed the strand in all of academies and the Head of STEM is working with lead teachers to get this implemented in all SLCs.  Principal Allen agreed to meet with Simmons to discuss the matter further so that all of the sponsors of the program could be well informed.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 9:34pm.  It was properly moved and seconded.