Jeff Bryant writes here about promising developments in New Mexico. where educators are reimagine the future of schools.
Not many people would think of New Mexico as an educational paradigm. Its test scores and very low, and it’s child poverty rate is very high. It endured eight years of a Republican Governor who believed in Je Bush’s ideology of high-stakes testing, test-based evaluation of teachers, and choice. That model produced no improvement, but quite a lot of teacher alienation.
Bryant interviewed the state president of the NEA,who filled him in on the union’s dreams for the future.
“I think we’re all going to be different after this,” Mary Parr-Sanchez told me in a phone call, “but I don’t know how.” Parr-Sanchez is the current president of NEA-New Mexico, the National Education Association’s affiliate in the Land of Enchantment, and “this” of course is the profound trauma of schooling amidst COVID-19…
Our current governor [Michelle Lujan Grisham] is showing impressive leadership, but our previous governor of eight years drove education into the ground,” she said, referring to former Governor Susana Martinez, whose administration’s response to the economic downturn during the Great Recession was to slash education spending, expand privately operated charter schools to compete for funding, and impose a punitive regime of evaluating teachers and schools based on high-stakes standardized testing.
Some of the heavy-handed evaluation systems Martinez championed have been repealed by Governor Lujan Grisham, but New Mexico still funds its schools less than it did in 2008.
Much of what Martinez imposed on New Mexico were pillars of education policy that started with No Child Left Behind legislation passed during the George W. Bush presidential administration and extended under the Barack Obama presidency.
“I loved being a teacher in the 1990s,” Parr-Sanchez recalled, “but since No Child Left Behind [which became law in 2002], all the joy was taken out of teaching. The test-and-punish program got us nowhere, and for the past 10 years, teachers have felt like they’ve been under assault.”
Despite these onerous policies, Parr-Sanchez saw the emergence of a different, more promising school model in her state.
“When I first learned of the community schools model, it hit me like a lightning bolt,” she told me. “I loved it because it focused on [the academic and non-academic needs of children], and the focus was on learning and a culturally relevant curriculum, not just test scores. The movement for community schools brought the joy of teaching back for me.”
Now, she is convinced the community schools model is the most promising way forward for schools as they reopen to the new realities of recovering from the fallout of COVID-19.
“In our state’s response to the pandemic, we’ve had to be very sensitive to issues of poverty, and the state has challenged districts to reach all children, including special education students and homeless students,” she explained. In this kind of emergency situation, she believes community schools have an advantage because “the model enables you to look at the whole child.” (A whole child approach considers more than just students’ academic outcomes to include attention to students’ health, mental, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions that often have more impact on students’ abilities to learn.)
“What happens during the school day is not enough to improve the trajectory of children until you deal with what is really going on in children’s lives. Are they hungry? Are they homeless? The testing agenda took us away from addressing this. Community schools can bring us back.”
Finally something uplifting to start my day. I hope Jeff will provide updates on their efforts, perhaps they will reveal templates for the rest of the country. Gov. Lujan Grisham has indeed been impressive on many fronts. New Mexico has been one of the stellar states responding to the pandemic. The horrible problems the Navajo nation has experienced can be laid at the feet of the feds, who have tried to make her job harder and harder.
In order to create community schools with wrap around services for needy students, we need the support of state legislatures that will provide funding, or we need a DOE that will provide grants to states. We currently have neither.
In our current fiscal crisis the cyber barbarians are at the gate waiting for governors to let them demolish human education. Parents need to understand that online products are not an equivalent opportunity for students. The results on online instruction are dismal. Parents are going to have to fight for students if they want to stop the cyber invasion of education. Cash strapped governors with large deficits are too willing to gamble with the education of young people to help close the economic gaps caused by Covid-19.
“Parents need to understand that online products are not an equivalent opportunity for students.”
Oh, I think they do- particularly after experiences with the school closures. I haven’t met one parent here who wants to continue with “online learning”. In fact, I think there’s more of a recognition of what schools provide to students AND communities.
may this terrible virus ordeal have left one lasting impression on parental minds: it is a PROFESSION to teach
Schools in several states have already been operating on shoestring budgets. Some states are still paying less for education than they did in 2008. This NEPC position paper encourages districts to get through the crisis without sacrifices the quality of education.
“If policymakers blind themselves to these limitations of cyber-schooling and attempt to follow a cheaper remote-learning path as a way to “do more with less,” they will be guaranteeing grave outcomes for young people today and in the future.”https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/austerity
By the way, I loved being a teacher in the 1990s too. It was a golden age of enlightened public education where I taught.
Is Jeb Bush’s lobbying organization still mindlessly cheerleading online learning to replace public schools?
I notice they dropped one the “pluses” of the approach- it’s cheaper. In the past they advertised that- we were all going to save billions of dollars a year plunking kids in front of screens and telling them it’s a “school. Someone in marketing must have figured out telling low and middle income parents “we want to give you this cheap junk replacement while our children continue to attend pricey private schools with class sizes of ten” wasn’t a smart pitch.
Jeb Bush’s conscience is a cash register.
Jeb Bush does not have a conscience when it comes to education. If you will remember, Rod Paige, inventor of No Child Left Behind, was Bush’s mentor.
Well put
Two ed reform organizations that promote charter schools and vouchers conducted a “survey” which they admit isn’t random but from which the entire echo chamber determined that charter schools handled the pandemic better than public schools, and this has now become “true” in every corner of the echo chamber and will be repeated for the next 20 years:
“The reports from AEI and CRPE were limited to information that was offered by district websites, meaning it did not account for plans that were disseminated through school websites, email, direct contact, or other forms of communication. CRPE’s analysis also had additional limitations: It did not randomly select CMOs and districts to review, and the number they reviewed is not large enough to make any general comparisons between school districts and charter school networks.”
Wouldn’t it be great if we could get some “reports” conducted by people who DON’T have a specific ideological mission (and funding) to expand charter schools and vouchers?
I mean, come on. All of the information we get about public schools is compiled and presented by ed reform organizations? Organizations that blatantly and constantly promote charters and vouchers? How is this even fair to public school STUDENTS let alone public schools?
Is it too much to ask that we get some people who support the existence of public schools to evaluate public schools? That’s impossible?
Thanks Diane. I really enjoyed putting this piece together and expect to do more with a similar focus.
Thank you, Jeff. Keep ‘em coming!
Jeff. Please examine the Cincinnati Public Schools Learning Center model, one of the first in the country and still going strong with about the same administrative model in many schools but programs specific to each community. Not on the list of standard services but available in several schools, for example, are legal services for immigrant students and their parents–aiding a reduction in anxiety. Another center has enlisted Habit for Humanity to work on home ownership and upgraded affordable housing.
Reading this gave me a perspective on my sister’s job as one of four hisch asst principals in upstate-NY. It’s frenetic, demanding, high-stress work. In addition to normal admin tasks, each of them has a personal caseload of 60 “high-risk” kids w/a combination of issues, primarily stemming from poverty [school is 26% free lunch]. Constantly putting out fires, frequently off-hrs/ wkends. If the district were a system of community schools, that kind of work would be shouldered by more people. Schools already do this work; they need to be connected in an organized way with community resources.
Yes. There are models. The administration needs to be lean and agile with a structure that gives voice to students, parents and caregivers, teachers and principals. They need to help in deciding which services are needed, when, and on what terms they might be provided by existing social agencies or in other ways “invented.” The risk is that outside contractors will rush in looking for profits (even if non-profits) and market their services.
What is the background of Mrs. Zuniga, the Community Schools Coordinator? Will the plan eliminate or contribute to The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle? …well planned out…
Are these coordinators funded by the REFORM movement and/or their benefactors?
What are schools giving in return, such as MOU’s that include access to teacher and student pii? Who decides what pii to collect? The Community Schools Coordinator?
How are they receiving the Money? Through District Foundations, Grants to Districts or Counties, etc.? What strings are attached to the grant funds?
LAUSD’s TENTATIVE AGREEMENT
2019-2022 agreement included, under “Additional Agreements – B. – #21 “Community Schools”. The money is running through the LA County Dept of Public Health. They identified Rand’s home base – a CA Basic Aid School District as a recipent of Community Schools Grant Funds. Rand had something to do with that.
In 2017, The Arkinsas Public Schools Resources, Inc. applied for a Grant from the Walton Family Foundation
Project Name: Arkansas Public School Resource Center Proposal
Date:7/1/2017
Total Requested: $14,286,895.00 (three years)
“The Arkansas Public School Resource Center (APSRC) seeks a three year grant totaling $14,286,895 to continue growth and the expansion of critical services to charter and traditional rural school districts in Arkansas. These funds will support the institutional mission of our organization and enhance our ability to serve as an educational change agent by providing access to research-based school
enhancement and innovative strategies in the areas of charter development, communication, finance, legal, technology, and teaching and learning.
APSRC has been recognized as one of the premier educational leaders in our state, based on its strong membership and the collaborative partnerships it has generated with regional and national educational partners. In the last two years, APSRC has been recognized by a wide variety of funders from the Governor’s office (Learning Blade) to the Arkansas Department of Education (Charter Development) to the Gates Foundation (Teacher Practice Network) to Facebook (Techstart Partnership) as a critical partner in advancing educational innovations and direct services to schools across Arkansas
“The Arkansas Public School Resource Center noted the following support from all the usual suspects and more includting Gestalt Community Schools –
The List:
A+, AETN/Lynda, AR Learns, Arkansas Association for Supervision Curriculum Development (AASCD), Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansans for Education Reform Foundation, Arkansas Parent Network, Arkansas Rural Education Association, Arkansas School Board Association, Arkansas State Teacher’s Association, Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, Arkansas STEM Coalition, Arkansas Tech Center for Leadership and Learning, Center for Advanced Spatial Technology (CAST), Democracy Prep, Donor’s Choose, Educational Service Cooperatives, EdReflect/BloomBoard, Einstein Group, Inc., Elevating and Celebrating Effective Teaching and Teachers (ECET2)Environmental and Spatial Technology (EAST), Exalt, Facebook Foundation, Flake & Kelly Commercial Realty, Friendship Education Foundation, Gates Foundation, Genesee Intermediate School District, Gestalt Community Schools, Great Minds, IDEA Public Schools, In As Much Foundation, Kaiser Foundation, KIPP Foundation, Learning Blade, Lighthouse Academies, Missouri Charter Public Schools Association,National Association of Public Charter Schools, National Center and State Collaborative, New Schools for Baton Rouge, New Venture Fund, Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), Office for Educational Progress, Oklahoma Department of Education, Oklahoma Public School Resource Center (OPSRC), Reform Alliance, Responsive Education Solutions, Rutherford Learning Group, Schusterman Foundation, SEAS, SIATech, Student Achievement Partners, Summit Public Schools, Teach for America, Technology Information Center for Administrative Leadership (TICAL), Thinking Media/Learning Blade, and WestEd.
An Initial goal – due by the end of 2017 included: 60% of the 20 pilot districts would
participate in Personalized Learning Leadership, Grade Level and Team
Trainings. This would be achieved by use of ZOOM.
“4. Improve and promote excellent teaching performance in novice and experienced
educators through face-to-face modeling, ZOOM, digital meetings facilitated by T &
L coaching staff June 30, 2017 and annually Facilitate 2-4 meetings per school year
with Buddy and/or Novice Teacher”
*Provide an online analysis system for district leaders that can be accessed by
browser on any Internet connected device and produces timely analysis of their
district’s data. At this point in time , there should be 175 licensed users or 125 districts using the product.
(2017-2020) Goal: Technology: 1. Develop a new analysis system capable of gathering data directly from a district and processing that district’s data within 24 hours of being entered into their system. This system will include human resource information thereby giving district leaders the most current information for a deeper view and greater understanding of their data.
By June 2019, 10 districts would have participated in 2018 Cohort and 10 districts will participate in 2019 Cohort trainings.
By June 2020, APSRC will have assisted at least 35 districts with transitioning from
traditional classrooms to personalized learning classrooms and 35 districts from the Cohorts will have successfully implemented a Personalized Learning Platform delivery
system.
Goal: Charter: 1. To assist with CMO recruitment, APSRC will maintain a diverse coalition of stakeholders committed to serving as ambassadors for the charter movement in Arkansas and fostering the expansion of high-quality CMOs.
Goal: Communications: 1. Create an online learning environment in which educators are able to access enhanced resources, interact with APSRC staff and each other, and to purchase new products from teaching and learning, charter, legal, technology, finance and communications.
(communications goals to be met in stages by June 2019)
*Fully functioning website with analytics gathered monthly on the amount of social media contacts generated by APSRC which will include publication of the first digital resources with an examination rate of at least 1,200 hits per month for a 3 month pilot trial and
feedback results from over 1,000 visitors.
*The number of videos and products will increase by 5% annually as they are made available on the new website and promoted on social media
*The purchases of videos and other products created by APSRC made available on the new website and promoted on social media will generate at least $2,500 during year one.
By June of 2020, these incentives and expected communications outcomes were planned:
APSRC will increase earned revenue by $2,500 during year one and increasing
that by 10% annually while making members better aware of existing resources, as well as by creating new formats that allow for purchase of videos and/or other products created and developed by APSRC staff in the areas of teaching and learning, legal, technology, charter, finance and communications.
Pilot will include publication of the digital resources with an examination rate of at least 1,200 hits per month for a 3 month pilot trial and feedback results from over 1,000 visitors.
Goal: Communications: 2. In order to assist rural school districts and charter schools in dealing with crisis situations and to improve community engagement regarding their schools, APSRC will provide trainings to rural district and charter schools in the areas of Crisis Communications and Improving Community Engagement via a combination of onsite trainings and virtual courses.
The Communications Director (CD) will identify eight (8) pilot schools that would
benefit from trainings in crisis communications and/or community engagement.
By November 1, 2018 Pilot schools will be selected based on responses to a General Interest Survey developed by CD and sent to members of APSRC.
The eight pilot schools will complete two full day trainings developed for dissemination during the 2018-2019 school year.
Due by June 30, 2018 and annually Documentation of training with an 85% satisfaction rating on the PD survey and PD certificates provided to attendees.
Information and trainings will be offered to all members of APSRC regarding crisis
communications and/or community engagement resulting in twenty (20) schools participating in trainings.
Due by June 30, 2019 Twenty additional schools participating in training that includes an 85% satisfaction rating on the PD survey
By June, 2020 these goals and outcomes were expected to have been met.
APSRC’s member schools will have access to high quality professional development resulting in the identifying of communication contacts who are trained in Crisis Communications and Improving Community Engagement at 25 or more member districts. The trained staff will be better equipped to address crises and also to work with the local, state and national media to engage parents and communities and to promote innovative practices as shown by their response to pre and post survey data on the effectiveness of the professional development with 85% documenting changes in their
communication practices.
Publication of the training materials will be converted into a digital resource and placed on the new online website for use and sale to generate revenue as well as sharing the pre and post survey data on effectiveness of the training.
Goal: Charter: 2. APSRC will help support charter school incubation in the state by providing unique programs and opportunities for aspiring educational entrepreneurs.
The goal was to hire advocates – called aspiring entrepreneurs – who would be to achieve specific goals – mainly technology based goals – including online learning – and have these adopted and integrated into a specified number of schools – by specific dates. It included expanding the pipline of their model for adoption by charters public schools and the creation of new schools. Memorandums of Understanding requirements to identify and requit “fellows” was part of the plan.
Goal: Charter: 3. APSRC will aid in the promotion of school redesign and provide charter authorization support to school districts in the state.
Advertising & the creation of minimum of 8 basecamps needed to be established by end of 2017.
By the end of 2019, the following was due:
Creation and dissemination of School Design Almanac to entire membership.
Calculation annually of success rate with charter authoring panel of over 90%.
Documentation of redesign from at least fifteen (15) schools.
By July, 2020 the expectiations should result in:
At least one (1) independent aspiring leader selected from the innovative school design competition will have been named a Fellow of the Charter Leadership Institute and will have been approved by the authorizer to establish at least one (1) new grassroots charter.
APSRC will have assisted at least twenty (20) schools—whether open-enrollment
charters, district conversion charters, or traditional public schools—with the
redesign of their existing educational model to meet 21st century needs.(Documentation of redesign from at least fifteen (15) schools was required)
Goal: Communications: 3. The Communications Director will seek and complete training on grant writing and proposal development in order to assist ten (10) APSRC members in the grant application development process which will include proposal development, writing and/or editing.
Goal: Charter: 4. APSRC will develop internal processes to better assist with open-enrollment and conversion charter schools throughout the regulatory processed mandated by the state.
APSRC will maintain a three-year average success rate of 90% or higher on all supported charter authorizer action items relating to initial applications, amendment requests, renewal applications, and punitive proceedings.
It looks like they are now at this step of their FINANCING PLAN:
Goal: Finance: 4. Provide Procurement Services to public schools
….. unable to find a direct link. I have the document.
Doc two sounds like what is described above.
LAUSD – LACOE + LA County Dept of Mental Health – signed with District in 2019
“LACOE has entered with an MOU with the Department of Mental Health
(DMH) through which LACOE will operate the Community Schools Initiative (CSI), included as Exhibit 1, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Community Schools Initiative is to build equity for
students by highlighting areas of need and leveraging community resources so that students are healthy, prepared for college, and career and civic ready; and
WHEREAS, using public schools as hubs, the CSI shall offer a range of supports and
opportunities to children, youth, families, and communities to improve student outcomes, support trauma and resiliency-informed practices, and strengthen community partnerships by building new alliances and networks; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this MOU is for District to participate in the CSI, to provide
the CSI’s supports and opportunities to the District’s community; and
WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge and agree that without District’s commitment to
the terms and conditions set forth herein, LACOE will not include the District in the CSI.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and mutual covenants contained herein, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
Basis of Agreement
This MOU sets forth the District’s rights and responsibilities as a participating member of the CSI, including the facilities and services made available by the District in support of the CSI and data sharing necessary for implementation of the CSI. The District and LACOE agree to work collaboratively to ensure the effective implementation of the CSI. The facilities to be utilized by LACOE are indicated on Exhibit 2, attached hereto and made a part hereof. These facilities are to be used only during the pendency of the CSI and solely for those purposes.
Term of MOU.
Subject to the availability of funds, this MOU is effective from July 1, 2019 and shall remain in effect through June 30, 2022 and may be amended only by mutual written consent of the parties.
a. If LACOE receives written notice from DMH that DMH will not be renewing its
agreement (Exhibit 1) for the next fiscal year, or if the agreement between DMH
and LACOE is terminated upon a date prior to the end of a fiscal year, LACOE
shall provide written notice to the District of such non-renewal or termination,
within fifteen (15) days of LACOE receiving notice of the termination/nonrenewal.
b. District shall notify LACOE in writing at least one hundred and twenty (120) days
in advance of the end of the fiscal year if District will not renew the MOU for the
next fiscal year.
c. LACOE shall notify District in writing at least one hundred and twenty (120) days
in advance if LACOE will not renew the MOU for the next fiscal year, if the nonrenewal is for reasons other than unavailability of funds or other than as set forth
in Section 2(a).
No Cost to Either Party
The services provided by LACOE to District under this MOU shall be without cost to the
District. The facilities and services provided by District to LACOE under this MOU shall be without cost to LACOE.
Facilities
District shall provide the following at the facilities indicated on Exhibit 2:
a. Custodial Services – District shall provide custodial service at the same level as
the District provides to regular office space not occupied by LACOE or CSI staff.
b. Normal Building Maintenance – District shall be responsible for maintaining the
facilities provided under this MOU in a manner generally accepted for office use.
District shall immediately correct any and all deficiencies noted by LACOE, or
shall provide suitable, acceptable alternative facilities.
c. Utilities – In addition to customary utilities, District shall provide telephone
service and internet access, including Wi-Fi, at the same level as the District
provides to regular office space not occupied by LACOE or CSI staff.
Los Angeles County 2 C-19603:19:22
Office of Education
d. Other expenses inherent in the rental of office space.
Use of Facilities by Community Based Organizations
LACOE’s CSI staff shall be permitted to allow District-approved Community Based
Organizations (CBOs) to provide and deliver appropriate services at the District school site, as identified by school needs assessments. District, in its sole discretion, shall determine which CBOs shall be permitted to provide and deliver services to District students. In accordance with Education Code § 45125.1, District shall determine whether a CBO’s employees will have more than limited contact with District pupils in the performance of work under the CSI. District shall fingerprint in compliance with Education Code section 45125.1 any CBO employees who are determined to have more than limited contact with District pupils.
Indemnification
a. LACOE’s Indemnification
LACOE agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless District from and against any
and all demands, debts, liens, claims, losses, damages, liability, cost, expenses (including, but not by way of limitation, attorneys fees and costs actually incurred, whether or not litigation has commenced), judgments or obligations, actions, or causes of action whatsoever, for or in connection with injury or damage (including, but not limited to death) to any person or property to the extent that such injury or damage results from negligent acts by LACOE or LACOE’s officers, employees, contractors or agents. LACOE shall have no obligations under this section for any acts of CBOs on District property, and such CBOs shall not be considered officers, employees, contractors or agents of LACOE.
b. District’s Indemnification
District agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless LACOE from and against any
and all demands, debts, liens, claims, losses, damages, liability, cost, expenses (including, but not by way of limitation, attorneys fees and costs actually incurred, whether or not litigation has commenced), judgments or obligations, actions, or causes of action whatsoever, for or in connection with injury or damage (including, but not limited to death) to any person or property to the extent that such injury or damage results from negligent acts by District or District’s officers, employees, contractors, agents or Districtapproved CBOs.
Insurance
Both LACOE and District shall maintain programs of insurance including general liability,
property damage, workers’ compensation, and automobile protection in amounts adequate to protect LACOE and District as their interests may appear. Insurance may be by a self-insurance program. District’s insurance policy under this section shall name LACOE as additional insured, and LACOE’s insurance policy under this section shall name District as additional insured.
Data Sharing
District agrees to provide LACOE with personally identifiable information from student
education records. For purposes of implementing the CSI, LACOE shall be considered a school official with legitimate educational interests performing an institutional service or function for which the District would otherwise use employees, allowing the District to disclose personally identifiable information from education records of students without the consent required by 34 C.F.R. § 99.30 and Education Code § 49076(a). Data will be shared between District and LACOE via the Educational Passport System (EPS), in addition to other mutually agreed upon methods. An amendment to the EPS is attached as Exhibit 3.
Sharing of Student Data by LACOE with Third Parties
LACOE shall provide DMH with de-identified information and shall assign unique identification numbers to participating students to allow program monitoring. LACOE shall only share District-provided student data with other third-party entities if LACOE first determines that such disclosure is permissible under state and federal law, or a specific release form from the educational rights holder is presented via EPS.
District to Obtain Parental Consent
District shall obtain written consent from the parent or education rights holder of each student who shall participate in the CSI program. Such consent shall authorize the disclosure of data as provided in this MOU.
Confidentiality of Student Data
Other than as otherwise specified in this MOU, the Parties will maintain the confidentiality of any and all student data exchanged by each as a part of this MOU. The confidentiality requirements under this paragraph shall survive the termination or expiration of this MOU or any subsequent agreement intended to supersede this MOU. To ensure the continued confidentiality and security of the student data processed, stored, or transmitted under this MOU, the Parties shall establish a system of safeguards that will at minimum include the following:
a. Procedures and systems that ensure all student records are kept in secured facilities and access to such records is limited to personnel who are authorized to have access to said data under this section of the MOU.
b. All designated staff at the educational institutions involved in the handling, transmittal,
and/or processing of data as part of this MOU are bound under this MOU to maintain the confidentiality of all student related personally identifiable information.
c. Assurances that each Party shall comply with the access log requirements of Education Code section 49064.
d. Procedures and systems shall require the use of secured passwords to access computer databases used to process, store, or transmit data provided under this MOU.
e. Procedures and systems, such as good practices for assigning passwords, shall be
developed and implemented to maintain the integrity of the systems used to secure
computer databases used to process, store, or transmit data provided under this MOU.
f. Procedures and systems that ensure that all confidential student data processed, stored,and/or transmitted under the provisions of this MOU shall be maintained in a securemanner that is reasonably designed to prevent the interception, diversion, or otherunauthorized access to said data.
g. The right of access granted shall not include the right to add, delete, or alter data without the written permission of the agency holding the data.
h. The procedures and systems developed and implemented to process, store, or transmit data provided under this MOU shall ensure that any and all disclosures of confidential student data comply with all provisions of the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act” and California law relating to the privacy rights of students, such as but not limited to, the Information Practices Act and the California Public Records Act insofar as such laws are applicable to the parties to this MOU.
Independent Contractor Status of LACOE
LACOE is an independent entity and not an agent or representative of the District. LACOE and its staff performing work under this MOU shall not at any time or in any manner represent that LACOE or any of its officers, employees, or agents are employees of the District. LACOE shall have sole responsibility for supervising and assigning work to LACOE employees performing work under this MOU, and for complying with all applicable labor laws. LACOE may, at its own expense, employ consultants or additional support staff as LACOE deems necessary toperform the services required by this agreement.
Independent Contractor Status of District
District is an independent entity and not an agent or representative of LACOE. District and its staff performing work under this MOU shall not at any time or in any manner represent that District or any of its officers, employees, or agents are employees of LACOE. District shall have sole responsibility for supervising and assigning work to District employees performing work under this MOU, and for complying with all applicable labor laws.
District Assistance in Hiring Local CSI Staff
LACOE and the District agree that CSI staff must have a unique understanding and knowledge of each participating District’s local community. As such, District feedback shall be sought and provided in the evaluation of each CSI candidate’s local knowledge, but all CSI staff shall be employees of LACOE, LACOE shall be solely responsible for determining whether to hire a specific candidate, and District shall not be considered a joint employer of CSI staff. Prior to LACOE hiring, District shall inform LACOE of non-private information regarding any previous or existing employment relationship between a candidate and District.
Role of CSI Staff in Developing and Implementing District CSI Model
CSI staff assigned to support the CSI shall support the District’s development and
implementation of the CSI model. CSI staff shall be supervised by LACOE’s Director of
Community Schools, and the primary duty of CSI staff is to perform CSI-related work. District shall have no authority to assign other duties to CSI staff or to direct the performance of CSI staff.
Local Trainings
As described in LACOE’s master agreement with DMH, CSI staff shall support District in
developing staff training that is applicable to each District host school site based on the needs of the school community and awareness around the community schools framework.
Local Services
A variety of services may be delivered at the community school site, which shall be identified through a needs-based assessment and subject to approval by the District Superintendent or designee. Examples of services that may be provided include, but are not limited to:
• Transcendental Meditation
• Crisis Prevention
• Family Therapy
• Family Counseling
• Family Engagement
• Arts Education
• Mental Health
District Notification of CSI Staff Absence
All LACOE staff assigned to this initiative will participate in professional development trainings and meetings. LACOE may also require CSI staff to attend and/or present at trainings, meetings, or other events. LACOE will, in a timely manner, notify the District school site administrator of dates that CSI staff will be absent from the District site to participate in such trainings, meetings, or other events.
Outcome Measuring Tools
Ongoing assessment and monitoring of the CSI project is essential to determine the impact of its services in reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors for participating children and families. CSI staff will review information collected from teachers, students, and parents/guardians, as well as LACOE reports to evaluate and track program outcomes. District input shall be sought and provided for purposes of evaluating the local CSI program, including outcomes, and CSI staff.
District Cooperation with CSI Reporting
District acknowledges that per the master agreement between LACOE and DMH, LACOE must submit reports and data to meet specific DMH deadlines. When applicable, District shall provide LACOE with information and assistance to allow LACOE to meet those deadlines.
Communication Regarding CSI
It is expected that participating schools and Districts will support LACOE in communication around the CSI. District support may be requested, such as by adding links to a school’s website, displaying banners associated with the CSI, and providing support with the use of established school communication systems. LACOE shall submit any such requests to the school site administrator for review in accordance with District policy.
School Climate Survey
To measure school climate change, LACOE will utilize a Climate Survey that allows the District to document, track, and advance District quality and sustainability improvement goals, and assess trauma responsiveness. Any surveys administered will comply with all legal obligations under state and federal law. The survey will be administered at both the beginning and end of the school year to educators, students, and parents.
Community School Advisory Boards
Each community school site will create a Community School Advisory Board that will meet at least bi-monthly. The Advisory Board will support the work and the integration of the community school practices. The Advisory Board will collaborate, by being actively involved in the work and vision of the school community. Membership will include but not be limited to the following: host school site administrator (or designee), CSI staff, parents, school staff and students, as well as members of the local community. The Advisory Board will work to contribute to the Initiative, in supporting and ensuring program messaging, program integration and program success, while advising on the needs of the school community. Ongoing program data and outcomes will be provided to the Advisory Board on a regular basis to help the Advisory Board assess community school needs and review program implementation. LACOE’s Community Schools Program, with the support of the school site administration, shall identify
Community School Advisory Board Members.
Dispute Resolution/Attorneys’ Fees
The Parties agree to submit to binding arbitration to address any controversy or claim rising out of, or relating to this MOU. The arbitration award shall be binding upon the Parties and shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction. Both Parties shall share the cost of the dispute resolution process equally although attorneys and witnesses or specialists and their fees and expenses shall be the direct responsibility of each party who calls them and/or retains their services. Each party shall bear their own attorneys’ fees. This MOU shall be governed by the laws of the State of California with venue in Los Angeles County.
Entire Agreement
This document states the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes any previous and contemporaneous or oral representations, statements, negotiations, or agreements.
Execution
Each of the persons signing this MOU on behalf of a party or entity other than a natural person represents that he or she has authority to sign on behalf and to bind such party. If governing board ratification is required to bind District, District shall provide evidence of such ratification to LACOE.
Severability
If any provision of this MOU is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction, or under present or future laws effective during the term of this MOU, such provision shall be fully severable. This MOU shall remain in full force and effect unaffected by such severance, provided that the severed provision(s) are not material to the overall purpose and operation of this MOU.
Waiver
Waiver by any signatory to this MOU of any breach of any provision of this MOU or warranty of representation set forth herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. The failure to exercise any right under this MOU shall not operate as a waiver of such right. All rights and remedies provided for in this MOU are cumulative.
Modification and Amendments
This MOU may be amended or modified at any time by written mutual agreement of the
authorized representatives of the signatories to this MOU. LACOE and the District further agree to amend this MOU to the extent amendments are required by an applicable law or policy issued by an appropriate regulatory authority if the amendment does not materially affect the provisions of this MOU. However, if new laws, policies, or regulations applicable to the educational institutions are implemented which materially affect the intent of a provision of this MOU, the authorized representatives of the signatories to this MOU shall meet within a reasonable period of time, e.g. 20 business days from the date of notice of such change of law, policy, or regulations, to confer regarding how and/or if those laws, policies, or regulations will be applied
or excepted.