Docstoc
EXCLUSIVE OFFER FOR DOCSTOC USERS
Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.

Quality Education Investment Act _QEIA_ Facts

Document Sample
Quality Education Investment Act _QEIA_ Facts Powered By Docstoc
					                             Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) Facts
                             A fact sheet about the QEIA Grant for Rio School District
                                                             April 5, 2007


This QEIA Fact Sheet serves as a response to several misleading statements made by
the Rio Teachers’ Association regarding the QEIA grant and the application process.
RTA leadership has known about
the QEIA grant for several
months.
RTA leadership was in attendance at the
March 14, 2007 Board Meeting when the
QEIA Presentation was made to the Board.
RTA should be aware of what is required
and that School Site Councils, the Board of
Trustees, District administration and PTA all
                                              Excerpt from an email sent by the RTA President to the
have a voice in this process. RTA has the Rio del Valle teachers on March 29, 2007
right to consult. RTA has the right to
bargain issues that may be required once money has been awarded. RTA does not have the right to unilaterally
impose another management structure that supersedes all others.
Principals met with their site staff to ascertain an interest in applying for QEIA funding
Each Principal met with their staff to determine if they wanted to apply in light of the commitments they had
already made. RDV was the only site that wanted to apply for these funds.
How much money would QEIA provide?
The money that would be generated from QEIA has been reported in one document by the RTA President as $6
million and in yet another written document $10 million. In reality, the amount RDV would have received is
$511,800 for year 1 and $548,000 in subsequent years as long as certain criteria is met. Even if all criteria are met,
the total grant award for RDV would be $3,800,000. In light of the odds of decile 1 and 2 schools meeting
required growth targets, this amount is unlikely.
According to CDE, the odds of a decile 1 or 2 school making the growth targets each year for seven years will be
a significant challenge. In a three year time span from 2004 through 2006, only 14.6% of decile 1 and 2 schools
met their API targets each year for three consecutive years. In light of this information, district leadership was not
willing to agree to the RTA President’s demand that the 40 hours of required professional development be done
only during release time during the instructional day. This demand would have resulted in a loss of approximately
6-7 days of quality instructional time for Rio students. Loss of quality instructional time would make it even more
challenging to meet and exceed the growth targets as required by the terms of this program.
State guidelines regarding this QEIA grant application do not include reaching an
“agreement” with the Association
Prior to participating, the California Department of Education guidelines required the local governing board to
conduct a hearing to discuss the program and the school’s plan. This would have been done after notification that
we would receive the funding. RTA leadership made several demands that they wanted agreement on prior to
submitting the application. The California Department of Education will not even have the rules associated with
QEIA completed until June 30, 2007. There could not be any commitment to areas that have yet to be defined. In
addition, it is useless to spend time discussing possibilities for something that may or may not be funded. On the
other hand, this would be appropriate in the future if the District were selected to receive the Grant.
In order for the Grant to be funded after application, the school must first be selected by
lottery. RDV would then have to meet the following obligations:
• Meet new class size reduction requirements for grades 4-8 in the core academic subject areas (the lesser of 25 or
  five fewer students than in 2006-2007 school year)
• Each teacher must meet the Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements of No Child Left Behind
• Maintain a teaching staff with at least average teaching experience of the district
• Exceed API growth targets in the first three years and meet them annually thereafter for four years
• Provide forty hours of professional development to all teachers and instructional paraprofessionals, made
  available by the district and/or site council
• In the first three years increase actual pupil attendance.
• Conduct an academic review process that includes the elements required of School Assistance and Intervention
  Teams.
• In each of the first three years of the program, schools are required to make at least 1/3 of the progress required
  to meet the above goals, with 100% compliance after the third year.
• If the school falls short of the 1/3 goals, the County Superintendent will notify the State Superintendent of
  Public Instruction. If after year three the above expectations have not been fully maintained, the State
  Superintendent of Public Instruction is required to terminate QEIA funding.
• RDV must also revise their Single Site Plan for Student Achievement to incorporate the programmatic
  requirements of QEIA and meet all of the Williams v. State of CA requirements in the first year of funding.


Districts that accept QEIA resources on behalf of a school (this means after the school
was selected) are to agree to the following:
• Ensure the school complies with provisions in the act.
• Ensure that the principal has exemplary qualifications and experience and provide professional development to
  assist in that leadership role.
• Provide data to the state of the school’s progress in meeting programmatic obligations
• Comply with the action plan required by the High Priority Schools Grant Program, including submitting the
  plan to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and consulting with the exclusive representatives of the
  certificated employees.
• Make general assurances as to support for the school and allocation of resources.


Negotiations as to the impact and effect of Grant implementation would be appropriate
after Grant funding is received. Negotiations would involve meetings with the
Association and its representative and the District and its representative
• After the money is received and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction develops the rules with respect to
  average teacher experience, the District will have to apply those rules which is complicated by the opening of
  Rio Vista as well as SB 1655 (Scott) that now allows principals to refuse a teacher assignment to his/her school.
  (This further limits the options that would ensure seniority parity at both school sites.)
• The district would need to decide how it would sever relationships with new teachers that were hired as a result
  of QEIA, if the school were to stop receiving funding during the first seven years or thereafter. In addition, the
  District would need to plan for terminating the program after seven years or finding other funding sources to
  sustain it long term.
RTA demands to bargain were premature and unreasonable
It was premature for RTA to issue a unilateral
demand in writing in order for the RTA president
to sign off on the application. The time to
negotiate issues was at the time the District
received notice that it would be selected for
funding and if mandatory subjects of bargaining
were identified. Collective bargaining needs to be
done at the table, not in side letters between two
people.
There are significant issues for the Board of
Trustees and others to consider and many voices
to be heard. There was not a demand by RTA to
bargain these issues if and when the District
received funding.There was only a written
demand that required the District to unilaterally
agree to RTA terms in exchange for the RTA
President signing the application.
In a direct quote from an email to RTA Teachers,
the RTA President states, “signing without
negotiations was not an option.” The application
clearly did not intend or require any bargaining to
occur as part of the application process. Why
spend time on something that may or may not
happen?
Signatures by the Board and the Superintendent
would not have saved this application. It would
have been rejected and deemed incomplete
without the signature by the RTA President. The
RTA’s President’s refusal to sign the application     This is a subsequent demand presented to administration on
denied the District the ability to apply.             March 28th. The initial demand mirrored an earlier proposal
                                                      made at the bargaining table on February 23, 2007 to form
                                                      committees in which at least 50% of the members are teachers.

				
DOCUMENT INFO