BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING

Crenshaw High School Library

5010 11^th Ave.   Los Angeles, California 90043

May 7, 2012, 6:OO PM

                                                   (Regular Board Meeting)                                                  

Mission Statement

The mission of the Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership (GCEP) is to actively generate and support unity of efforts among teachers, parents, administrators and the community in assuming responsibility for rigorous teaching, learning, and outstanding citizenship for all students in our community.

1. A.    CALL TO ORDER/APPROVAL OF AGENDA            

1. B.     PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1. C.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 13 & April 9, 2012

1. D.    EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT
   1. Filing IRS Tax Form 990, California Form 199 and California Attorney General Form RRF-1
   2. Program Audit
   3. Synergy Works Consultant Services
   4. Report on the A T & T Grant
   5. Nomination and Application Panel: CHS Principal Selection
   6. Crenshaw High School Principal’s Report

1. E.     PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ACTION ITEM

1. F.     THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL DISCUSS AND/OR TAKE ACTION

ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS

1.  Green, Hasson & Janks (Accountants and Business Advisors) to prepare Tax Form 990, California Form 199 and California Attorney General Form RRF-1

1. Green, Hasson & Janks (Accountants and Business Advisors) to prepare the 2012 Program Audit

1. G.    COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

1. H.    PUBLIC COMMENTS

1. I.       ADJOURNMENT

Three (3) minutes will be allotted to each speaker. A maximum of 20 minutes will be allocated to each major agenda item.

MINUTES OF THE

REGULAR MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

GREATER CRENSHAW EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, INC

February 13, 2012

The Board of the Directors of the Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership (GCEP) held a Regular Meeting on Monday, February 13, 2012 at Crenshaw High School, 5010 11^th Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90043.  The following directors, constituting a quorum, were present:

• Dean Karen Gallagher, Vice President
• Dr. Lewis King, Secretary/Treasurer
• Ms. Eunice Grigsby, Parent
• Mr. Miguel Abarca, Parent
• Ms. Monique Sutton, Parent
• Mr. Charles Franklin, Honda Corporation

Absent (Excused):

• Blair H. Taylor, President
• Dr. Marilyn Flynn, Dean USC School of Social Work

Others present were the following:

• Dr. Pamela Powell, GCEP Interim CEO
• Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, Principal of Crenshaw High School
• Mr. Alex Caputo-Pearl, Faculty member and SLC lead
• Mr. Maynard Brown, Faculty Member and SLC lead
• Ms. Dawn Purnell
• Mr. George Bartleson, Director, LAUSD iDesign Program
• Ms. Rochelle Hardison, USC Rossier School of Education(minutes)

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Dean Karen Gallagher, GCEP Board Vice President, called the meeting to order at 6:11pm.  Dr. Gallagher entertained a motion to approve the agenda.

On a motion by Dr. Lewis and second by Mr. Franklin the agenda was approved unanimously.

The Board went into Closed Session at 6:15 and reported out at 6:45.  Direction was given to staff on two personnel items.

Executive Directors Report

Dr. Powell asked Ms. Purnell of Pre K¹² Collaborative to brief board on College Readiness Program and their involvement with the GCEP. The CHS collaborative started in 2007 with a group of stakeholders both on and off campus focused on achievement outcomes with specific concern on what comes in to CHS, and looks at feeder schools.  Pre K¹² Collaborative has various programs and advocacy efforts.  Programs include:  1) an Algebra program focused on middle school; 2) a Peer Mentoring/Support program focused at CHS looking; and 3) a Parent component focused on finesse and integration of programs.  Model needed refinement after a year 1; Collaborative approached subsequent year more aligned to common theme.  New focus is College Going culture within CHS. Students are at the center of their effort. The Collaborative worked with Mr. Caputo-Pearl on achievement outcomes for students and helping each to understanding A-G requirements, how to populate GPAs and units.  Information rolled out to Youth Empowerment Council on academic empowerment and how to develop their peers and develop a college going culture at CHS.  YEC ran campaign to represent students in the collaborative and model an ideal college going behavior.  In the first year, 500 students participated in a 22-item survey created by students of the YEC. Six of 7 SLCs represented and 379 of 500 surveys were calculated.  Information analyzed and used in Year 2 campaign.  Y2 outreached to over 700 students, two rallies, and a college center kickback to bring focus to College Center, and classroom presentations.  Over 2,000 pieces of Collaborative materials developed, designed and disseminated by students (t-shirts, wristbands, buttons, brochures) on how to be great.  Slogan “I will be Great.  College is my option, make it yours.” At close of Y2 (last year), got 90 students to come in at bequest of peers to set short and long term academic and social goals. This year’s focus is to work with students to support a college going culture but now includes parents with hope to galvanize them.  This year Collaborative is reaching out to social service agencies, local government and city agencies, local districts, principals, teachers, deans, local businesses, community organizations to support students and parents.

Future Meetings: March 14, May 16 and June 20

Handouts:

1) Crenshaw Pre-K12 Collaborative: Knowledge. Action. Achievement.

2) Save the Date: March 14, 2012

State Conference: California Association of African American Superintendents and Administrators (CAAASA)

Dr. Powell circulated handout on upcoming state conference, “Sounding the Alarm” February 22-24, 2013.  Both Dr. Powell and Dr. Rousseau will be in attendance with Dr. Rousseau doing segment on ELA.

Principals Report

Dr. Rousseau requested the Board to focus on four things between now and June:

1)      WASC (March 27)

2)      CAHSEE (March 12-13)

3)      CST (Early May)

4)      Graduation (June 15)

Dr. Rousseau presented information on how Crenshaw is looking at data. Considering CAHSEE, standards based assessment; CHS is not teaching to the test, rather analyzing what tests are made of and identifying important elements of the test.  Presented handout on indicators of what is being taught well and what is not.  She analyzed data from CAHSEE and charted results in handout.  Handout illustrates student performance, strengths, and weaknesses. Goals for the school year also included.

Dr. Rousseau emphasized importance of Periodic Assessment and three areas students are weakest in:

1)      Automaticity

2)      Geometry and Measurement

3)      Algebra

Key areas focused on in day-to-day instruction and Saturday boot camps.

Seniors:  Administrators have had several meetings with parents of seniors, and continually monitor weekly progress of seniors with counselors. Current senior class has worst attendance level as of December and Dr. Rousseau has tied attendance and progress to prom participation.  Trend is shifting.

Handouts:

1)      Date Analysis, CAHSEE and CST Preparation Strategies PowerPoint briefing

2)      Date Analysis, CAHSEE and CST Preparation Strategies (School Targets)

3)      Item Response Report (Math Report)

4)      DATA! DATA! Report

Public Comments

Under public comments, Dean Gallagher asked for any public comments with the hiring of Carol Cobb to work with the Board and GCEP and look for grants and support the work Dr. Rousseau mentioned.  No public comments made and Ms. Sutton moved to approve the motion to hire Ms. Cobb.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Abarca and unanimously approved. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU between GCEP and LAUSD)

Dean Gallagher acknowledged the Addendum to the MOU has not been assigned.  The MOU is in its 4^th year.

Dr. Powell added that the Addendum was not being signed due to feeder school patterns and Superintendent Deasy’s expectations and concerns that CHS had not met their academic and graduation goals.  Dr. Powell met with Mr. Bartleson (iDesign Director) and shared data on how CHS plans to meet their goals and perform.  LAUSD doesn’t want the MOU to include other schools besides CHS until it has proven successful.  However, this delay doesn’t preclude GCEP from approaching Audubon, Mann and Obama Middle Schools and engaging in professional development to help teachers prepare the students to be “high school ready’.

Mr. Franklin voiced concerns about protecting Crenshaw High School, if through the partnership with feeder schools and getting students highs school ready, the students attend charter schools or some other higher ranked school?  How do we protect GCEP, our energy and effort?

Dr. King suggested we focus on CHS and make what we do work.  Make CHS the most attractive high school.

Dr. Rousseau offered ways to accomplish this:

1)      STEMS (w/emphasis on math and science)

2)      Teacher Training Magnet

3)      Small Magnet

4)      Arts Program

She also mentioned need for funds, grant writers, highlighting SLCs, keeping class sizes down, creating brochure, assembling task force to look at data, and getting into churches and inviting community organizations see what the school is doing.  Dr. Rousseau would like to get message out to parents about SLCs (goal to keep them at 220) and HBCUs doing onsite acceptances at CHS.

Dr. Franklin offered to print and mail brochures and suggested highlighting stats on our successes.  Last year some students went to Ivy League schools.  On March 1^st a brochure should be printed.

Dr. Powell shared that the bulk of CHS students come from Mann and Obama MS, while Audubon students go on to magnet and other schools.  Also suggested we obtain list and target the 500 students going to magnet schools and share the good things CHS is doing.

Ms. Sutton suggested parents mobilize and share their experiences with other parents.  Dr. Rousseau suggested in-home, parent hosted coffee klatches.  Dean Gallagher suggested having parents talk to larger audience and bringing alums back to talk.

Dr. King suggested use of local media who have expressed interest in doing story on CHS.

Mr. Brown featured on PBS the month of February for their American Graduate Series and runs 3-4 minutes segments.  Focus is primarily Mr. Brown and his work, but PBS has a lot of footage on the school which could be used as recruitment tool for CHS. 

Mr. Bartleson added that ALL schools now have the same autonomy as Charter schools. 

Principal Search for CHS

Dr. Powell presented data on the process of what’s involved in a Principal Search.  Process must honor Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Superintendent has final say before taking to School Board. Search will be conducted at national level.  Identify stakeholders i.e., GCEP Board Members and staff, CHS faculty and staff, CHS students, parents and community organizations.  Recommendation will be sent to Superintendent who then reviews and upon approval takes to the School Board for final approval.

Dr. King offered opposition to the process because it used the traditional model for selecting a new principal when CHS is on new pathway in which CHS is being driven by teachers and parents.  Suggests that that the GCEP Board is ill prepared and expressed need to develop a set of core principals based on criteria to identify what type of leader is needed in selecting the principal.  He suggested adding an additional month to the process for GCEP to do their due diligence and exercise their authority.

Dr. Powell added that adding the creation of a stakeholder committee (parents, faculty and community)

Is not a part of an old model.

Dean Gallagher shared that at the last GCEP Board meeting LAUSD appointed Dr. Rousseau as CHS’s full time principal through June 2012. LAUSD has stated there isn’t money available and that anything that cost money, the District will not fund.  GCEP Board will have to raise the money.  Stated search will go through the spring at minimum and will be a long process.

Dr. Powell is examining supplemental costs to defray costs to District.  GCEP could potentially pick-up relocation if candidate is out of state. 

Dean Gallagher shared that once the position is posted the Board will be notified so professional and personal networks can be exercised.  Position was previously posted twice (internally).

Mr. Brown speaking on behalf of the CHS’s SSC’s Ad Hoc Selection Committee:

1)      Echoes Dr. King’s concern in moving so hasty

2)      Feels strongly that Dr. Rousseau be allowed to remain at CHS

3)      Would like clarity from GCEP on School Site’s role in the process

4)      Would like clarity on LAUSD’s role is in the process

5)      Given defunding of public schools, what does the organizational structure look like for a school of this type?

6)      Administrative function: what does that look like as we move beyond our current position?

7)      Encourages GCEP to take step back, develop guiding principle, identify the work and the construct before identifying someone to “fail.” 

Mr. Caputo-Pearl offered the following:

1)      Echoes Dr. King’s sentiments

2)      Need to properly articulate model is key.

3)      Dr. Rousseau should stay as long as she is willing to stay and community supports it.

Dr. Rousseau stated that the Board needs to be clear about what the work means and what is valued in it.  If it is good work, how does the Board sustain it and be clear with what is working and what students need.  She is willing to stay until GCEP is clear about what they want including the team around the principal.

Dr. King asked that the GCEP Personnel Committee develop the criteria for what a CHS principal should be regarding the selection process.  Dr. Gallagher is the chair of the GCEP Personnel Committee.

Dean Gallagher and Dr. Powell suggested adding an agenda item: “What do we want in a Principal?” and develop a plan on what we bring to the board at the next meeting on March 12, 2012. 

Comments from Members of the Board

Dr. King: For next meeting, would like the issue of Resource Limitations of Front Office addressed.

Ms. Grisby: We know what our Principal looks like—in the form of Dr. Rousseau.

Mr. Abarca: Dr. Rousseau will be at CHS for the next 3 years.

Dean Gallagher: Last year you asked for resources, and USC has responded (Dean Gallagher presented check to the Board).

Mr. Franklin: How do I get with the school to develop the brochure? (Dr. Rousseau will make contact with you.)

Public Comments

Mr. Caputo-Pearl: Two items.

1)      Ms. Smith, Urban League, she’d look into other partners that had teachers on their board, is there a report back

No report on that as yet.  Dr. Powell will check on that. 

2)      New issue under Prop 39, several classrooms on CHS campus being offered to Charter schools on February 1, 2012.  Charter has to make decision by March 1.  Would be disruptive to have charter on campus. 

We have not discussed this and are unable to discuss it because it is not an agenda item. 

Adjournment

Dean Gallagher entertained motion to adjourn meeting.  Mr. Abarca moved to adjourn meeting.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Sutton.  Meeting adjourned at 8.43pm.

MINUTES OF THE

REGULAR MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

GREATER CRENSHAW EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, INC

The Board of the Directors of the Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership (GCEP) held a Regular Meeting on Monday, April 9, 2012 at Crenshaw High School, 5010  11^th Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90043.  The following directors, constituting a quorum, were present:

• Mr. Blair H. Taylor, President
• Dean Karen Gallagher, Vice President
• Dr. Lewis King, Secretary/Treasurer
• Ms. Eunice Grigsby, Parent
• Mr. Miguel Abarca, Parent

Also present were the following:

• Dr. Pamela Powell, GCEP Consultant
• Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, Principal of Crenshaw High School
• Ms. Sybil Harris, Faculty Member, Crenshaw High School
• Ms. Renita Smith, Urban League
• Ms. Sonya Young, Urban League
• Ms. Rochelle Hardison, USC Rossier School of Education (minutes)

Absent (Excused):

• Dr. Marilyn Flynn, Dean USC School of Social Work
• Mr. Charles Franklin, Honda Corporation
• Ms. Monique Sutton, Parent

Mr. Blair Taylor, GCEP Board President, called the meeting to order at 6:30pm.  Mr. Taylor suggested we consider moving our regular meetings to another location within CHS to avoid late starts due to late adjournment of School Site Council meetings that precede GCEP board meetings.  He then welcomed everyone and acknowledged quorum of the board of directors, and stated it was good to be back from his sabbatical.

Mr. Taylor entertained a motion to approve the agenda.  Dean Gallagher moved to approve the agenda.  Mr. Abarca seconded the motion, and the motion unanimously approved.

There weren’t any minutes to approve for the March meeting due to lack of quorum; and thus no minutes approved.

Mr. Taylor asked for any public comments on the action items listed on the agenda; and there were no public comments.

1. Criteria for CHS Principal Selection: Dr. Powell disseminated a handout on the principal selection and briefed the board on a newly developed criterion for CHS Principal selection which is a result of recent input and suggestions from CHS faculty and staff, and a synthesis of her research of the MOU, Business Plan and Strategic Plan to secure information on such process at the request of Dr. King during the February 13 regular meeting of the board of the directors.  The new set of criterion differs from the earlier iteration and delineates the most recent reforms and the work that has been done over the past few years, more pointedly within the last year.

Dr. Powell spoke with Mr. George Bartleson, iDesign, during the February meeting regarding the next phase of the principal selection and working with LAUSD’s HR dept. to ensure GCEP’s criteria matches the format for LAUSD.  Upcoming meetings will include meetings with administrators to determine how the criteria will be posted.

Dr. King is anxious not to put constraint in terms of time within the process.  He wants to avoid having someone repeat same mistakes and we need to be able to drill further and talk about the nature of urban education.  We must remain cognizant that he problem in public high schools is a twin monster of administration and educational practice, pedagogy.  He would like to see a document that talks to the principal being effective in managing an urban high school.  Referring to handout 1; e.g. 5^th bullet he feels is irrelevant—having experience with these constituency groups doesn’t speak to compelling issue of education.  The document needs to talk about a person having 1 of 2 strengths—either instructional or administration.  GCEP needs to be comfortable with how candidates could manage the flow of what is now taking place and developing within CHS, and movement into SLCs.  He would like to see someone who has creative capacity in managing an urban high school.

Dean Gallagher sought clarification on the criterion in terms of its internal or external use of such document, and Dr. Powell clarified that the document is for an internal use to for GCEP to select among a pool of candidates.  Criterion is for us; not something LAUSD uses or requires.  This document is in addition to LAUSD’s requirements.

Mr. Taylor added that he would like to see not only experience as a high school principal or urban principal, but experience as a high school principal in a challenging environment added to the criterion, under bullet 3.  Would like to see candidate with ability on build an effective team or team building capability both internally at CHS and within GCEP—but first internally.  And some demonstrated track record of such an accomplishment

Dean Gallagher offered that the board can’t expect every candidate who applies will have both instructional leadership AND administrative management experience, and recognized that the principal will bring in a team that complements the principal to create an effective team.  One person isn’t coming in to do all the work

Dr. King expressed both requirements be listed as either/or and GCEP then free to select one or the other.  Let’s identify these are the two major strengths and then build complementary team.

Emphasis should be placed on issue of leader having capacity to understand and interpret assessment; data driven decision making; should have capacity to understand all forms of assessment.

Dr. Powell suggested the following verbiage be added to the criterion: Demonstrated and effective experience in working in an inner city/urban high school with students of color as an instructional leader, facilitator, and working towards building a team. Along with some qualification that denotes the candidate must understand WASC.

Dr. Rousseau added that the candidate should have ability to garner and interpret related data as important indices of progress; similar to bullet 6.  Add: Experience to generate and use data.

Dean Gallagher addressed correction to page two of document; 4^th bullet from bottom.  Add ability to “work” or “collaborate” with and marshall…; and Mr. Taylor asked for correction on page two of document, bullet 5 to make interprets singular. 

Mr. Taylor offered that bullet 3, page one, and doesn’t adequately capture the true need at CHS.  He asked for something that would connote the complexities of a school that’s historically underperforming, and experience working in reforming in an underperforming school.  Dr. Rousseau added to include a person with demonstrated ability and track record.

Dean Gallagher asked that the list be prioritized. And noted bullet 12 on page two is critical and should be moved to the first page as a bullet early on.  Mr. Taylor suggested Group A and Group B categories:  the “must haves” and the “would likes”.

Dr. King urged the changing of verbiage and wording and wanted concept of qualifications.  Commitments are not qualifications.  Qualifications should be measurable by some sort of indices.

Dr. Powell suggested the board allow her and Dr. Rousseau to look at LAUSD’s class description for secondary principal, and substitute language in criterion so to ensure criterion is aligned to our vision using LAUSD’s document as a guide.  Illustrate what GCEP wants versus LAUSD’s requirements.  LAUSD’s requirements come before GCEP’s criterion, and there is some overlap.

Notably on page three: under knowledge, skills and personal characteristics, ours is more specific, but language can be changed to match LAUSD’s.

Mr. Taylor noted that it is important to illustrate that we care and have an idea of what this person looks like regardless of how our criterion may be reconstituted.  It’s important we show we have what we feel we need captured in this document.    Ms. Grigsby noted she is comfortable with the criterion and the changes expressed, and Dr. Rousseau mentioned that other partnerships have had similar document. 

Ms. Harris suggested we put in place an “ad hoc committee” to conduct site visits and various due process and due diligence to ensure candidates have proven success.

There was some discourse surrounding next steps in modification of principal search document in interest of time.  It was concluded that stakeholder input was mandatory, and the process not a document be approved at this time.  Dr. Powell expressed that the document was borne out of collaboration and input from faculty and staff (over 100+ present) after the WASC report and this document is reflective of their input and thought.  The goal of modification of the document includes points made within this section and including: prioritization of bulleted points, improved language for better fit with respect to bullet #3: not just urban environment, but high school.

Dr. Rousseau express that a process of approving a group of people getting together i.e., Dr. Powell, GCEP Interim Director, Dr. Rousseau, CHS Interim Principal (and stakeholder), and Dr. Abarca, GCEP Board of Director and Parent (and stakeholder) to work on crafting a new document could be considered.  Mr. Abarca agreed to work with Dr. Powell to amend the document.

Dean Gallagher moved that the board directs Dr. Powell to take the input and suggestions provided tonight and work with a committee made up of Mr. Abarca and Dr. Rousseau to take this information and prioritize and modify selection criteria so that a document can be presented to LAUSD as GCEP’s input into the selection of the next principal for CHS.  Ms. Grigsby seconded the motion, and the motion unanimously approved.

Handouts:

1)      The Interview Panel would be developed and decided by GCEP

2)      LAUSD Human Resource Division, Class Descriptions, Principal, Secondary School

1. Timeline for selection of Principal: Dr. Powell disseminated a handout on the timeline for selection of principal and briefed the board on the document that she developed in alignment with LAUSD’s selection process.   There were two iterations of this document—one developed with the staff, which was sent earlier by email, and a second, the latest iteration with the GCEP header, was disseminated during this meeting.  Dr. Powell noted a couple of important caveats in this latest iteration: 1) Inadvertent omission of Plan B, whereas if Plan A doesn’t yield a viable candidate as principal for CHS, GCEP recommends Plan B: where an interim principal would be put in place; and the process for a principal search starts over; 2) 3/12 entry on document lists board meeting, when in fact this was an informational meeting only due to lack of quorum; and 3) 4/11 entry should be moved further into the future.

Dr. Powell clarified a few concerns with the document.

1)      The Interview Panel would be developed and decided by GCEP

2)      GCEP to define Panels and goal of each

3)      GCEP will conduct interviews; not just LAUSD

4)      LAUSD has separate process for interviews (both informal and panel)

5)      Could be LAUSD or Local Districts—T (iDesign) or 4

6)      GCEP will identify panel members

7)      GCEP should ensure a Personnel committee is in place to field applicants wishing to serve on the panel.

1. Applicants can self select, but should include why they want to be on panel

Dean Gallagher expressed a process for candidates where each candidate undergo the same process; same set of questions, and be required to close the process with a Town Hall style presentation delineating “vision” and “here’s why I want to be here” and open to all stakeholders.  Panels should not be mixed i.e. parents and teachers and community intermingled. There should be four panels

1)      Teacher and Staff panel

2)      All Student panel

3)      Parent panel

4)      GCEP panel (Dr. Powell to ensure proper compliance under the Brown Act)

Drs. Powell and Rousseau stated that LAUSD’s process requires that the same set of questions be asked in fairness to the candidates.  They also suggested a set of framed questions and six set of questions, and a set number of spaces per panel.

Mr. Taylor suggested a slight change to Dean Gallagher’s suggestion in that the community/town hall session occurs at the opening of candidate visits so as to lay the framework of their vision.  He also expressed need to develop set of protocol for what GCEP wants accomplished from each panel; and how do we fill 6 panel spots with 52 applicants.  Dean Gallagher said GCEP would need to develop criteria and include things like the importance that they understand SLCs, metacognition so stakeholders can assess what candidates are saying.  Mr. Taylor asked that the next board meeting create a draft criterion. 

Panels should include like-minded groups with similar expertise who have experience and knowledge of what the criterion is, and has depth and breadth to go deep into interview.  Each panel should be diverse in that Parent panels represent students across all grade levels, all SLCs and ethnicities.  Teachers are not all tenured, etc.  Panel members would be trained; establish document to help guide the panel with data driven evidence.  All members must commit to completing a candidate assessment and rating.

Dr. Powell suggested developing a Rubric after panel selection.  Teachers should understand SLCs, metacognition; Parents must understand SSC, homework policy, and etc.  

Dr. King suggested the site visit be moved before final interview that would occur near end of May/early June.  Dr. Rousseau noted that this is a period when appointments are being made; downsizing, budget cuts and reorgs are occurring within schools and may pose a challenge. Ms. Harris also noted that “must places” are placed during this time, and urged that GCEP meet with Superintendent Deasy ASAP to signal to him we are working toward this goal.

Amendments to the document include the above as well as the following changes here: 1) add 4/10-4/25 period: Criteria for panelists need to be developed and circulated to the board by the GCEP director by the next board member; 2) include the criteria for the selection of the panel and to include an interim principal position in event a principal is not selected; 3) move 4/11 date to 4/9-4/16 and over-communicate with LAUSD to indicate that criteria is forthcoming; 4) notate that dates are desired and change date header to include the word “approximate”; 5)  interviews will take place across two days if GCEP deems that fit.

Mr. Taylor moved to approve the timeline with the modifications captured in minutes, and noted above.  Dean Gallagher seconded the motion, and the motion unanimously approved.

Handouts:

1)      Time line for Selection of Principal

1. Rochelle Hardison, Consultant: Dr. Powell introduced Rochelle Hardison to the board and recommended she be hired as a consultant to record minutes of both regular board meetings and special meetings.  She acknowledged that Rochelle has been assisting GCEP since February 2012 in this capacity.

Dean Gallagher moved to approve the hiring of Rochelle Hardison.  Mr. Abarca seconded the motion, and the motion unanimously approved. 

Dr. Rousseau disseminated two handouts and provided a brief overview of the budget. 

Budget: Notable highlight include (per the CHS budget allocations proposal handout):  1) PPF based on projected enrollment (13027), $3.6M is what CHS expects to receive from district for 12-13 budget.  Largest part of budget allocated to teachers—with 25 FTE (12-13) vs. 32 FTE (11-12) and translates to district raising class sizes in the coming year.  Program improvement for parent involvement cut and thus CHS will not be hiring a parent representative for the parent and/or community representative.  The budget is complied based on input from faculty and staff.  Budgets from district include categorical funding and per pupil funding. 

SIG Grant: SIG grant was written in December for $1.8M per year; doesn’t compensate for the $3M loss of KEA funding.  KEA primarily dedicated to CSR; enabled hiring of 13 additional teachers in addition to 32 FTE for a 27:1 teacher/student ratio.  As of now, there are 26 FTE; 3 FTE under Title 1 and up to 5 out of SIG grant; still 10-12 teachers under what CHS had.  27:1 in core subjects; others subjects have gone up to 32/35:1.  Class size in core will now match those numbers; non-core will likely go up to 40:1 ratio.

When asked about class size and impact, Dr. Rousseau noted that class sizes are a factor, but not a determining factor for classroom instruction.  She is more concerned with next year in that many of the teachers that are long-term subs will be gone automatically; they never got contracts so had to sub; and 12 teachers loss due to RIFs.  These teachers, at heart of reform and impact on student learning, from  MfA and Ford Foundation grant and those with extensive professional development will be gone. 

Point of intervention for the Board and possible action items include: 1) under a certain piece of legislation, only a certain percentage of faculty can be reduced (this needs to be researched), and 2) work with UTLA on relief of waivers to determine how firm the union will hold the district to this.  This was an instrumental part of the strategy last year.

Outlook next year frightening: 1) new principal; 2) no veteran vice principals; 3) people at heart of the major instructional reform will be gone.  This all coupled with Governor Brown’s new weighted pupil formulas where Title 1 money will be taken away and put into one pot for use at district’s discretion. This will directly impact professional development resources.

Mr. Taylor suggests a strategy be crafted around a one-on-one with Superintendent to formalize position in writing.  All the board members sign on and use levers to work in positive favor for CHS.

Ms. Young suggested the board set fundraising priorities to defray costs and bring money into school; while Dean Gallagher noted that Foundations will not give operating money.  Funding has to be specific with measurable impact, i.e., Math or STEM.  It was noted that one of Honda Foundation’s key objectives is STEM; and UPS reached out the school about a year ago to invest in a STEM program. Costs for STEM are about $80-85k per teacher or approximately $1M per year.

STEM’s academy collapsed two years ago.  CHS will reinstitute STEMS Academy; teachers will be proportioned across the academy and SLCs evenly.  Existing SLCs will see reduction in students who transition to STEM.  Another consideration given the phasing out of the teacher training magnet program is possible consideration of development of a Teacher Training SLC attached to Rossier School of Education for appeal to possible funders.  There will be carryover money in the Academies and possibility of access to funds by CHS.

Dr. Rousseau added that she would like to see teachers who have demonstrated the capacity to move students forward (through periodic and interim assessment) and those seriously involved in the reform effort retained by CHS.  She stressed the severe impact to CHS and its reforms to-date; and the notion that CHS would be taken back to square one if these teachers lose their positions due to RIFs; must retain those teachers who assist in critical areas that keep CHS in a program improvement status.

WASC Report Update: Dr. Rousseau discussed the recent visit by WASC and the report, which she was unable to disseminate given its current informal/draft status.  She provided insight on the report and the goals that were set two years ago: 

1)      Raise 10^th grade CAHSEE and Kappa in English Language Arts to 54%-(Failed to meet);

2)      Raise Math to 45%-(Failed to meet);

3)      Increase participation rate of state assessment to 95% rate- (Goal met);

4)      Increase scores of English learners within performance range- (Goal partially met);

5)      Increase number of SDC students who are mainstreamed into general education- (Goal partially met);

6)      Facilitate and foster greater communication between network partners and community and parents- (Goal met);

7)      Create master schedule that responds to student needs for access to appropriate courses including Honors and AP- (Goal met);

8)      All students provided to equitable assess to counseling service and development of individualized graduation plan- (Goal met);

9)      Improve school management by improving administration and fiscal transparency (Goal met). 

10)  Several other goals reporting have been met.  

Some commendations included that everyone at CHS should be proud of the progress made under the 11-12 school year under guidance of interim principal, and there’s a united focus on the classrooms.  The evaluator states that despite budget cuts the campus remains clean and safe. 

Recommendation to the district highlighted significant instability at CHS having over 35 administrative changes in the last 7 years, and noted none of the administrative staff that participated in the WASC visit two years ago remain at CHS.

CHS was awarded a 3-year accreditation pending a one-day site visit two years ago.  This was the one-day site visit; and accreditation is good for another 1 year plus additional year in preparation for next visit. Next visit is likely 2014.

Other comments: Ms. Harris suggested creating a parallel fiscal plan outlining GCEP’s priorities.  Dr. Powell suggested GCEP’s next phase may be to look into money, i.e., budgets, SIG, Single Plan.  Dr. Rousseau suggested look to the Ford Foundations and seeds sewn within that grant.

No comments.

Mr. Taylor entertained motion to adjourn meeting.  Dean Gallagher moved to adjourn meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Abarca.  Meeting adjourned at 8.20pm.

ITEM    ACTION ITEMS

1        Tax Form 990, California Form 199, California Attorney General Form rrf-1

BACKGROUND

IRS tax forms are used for taxpayers and tax-exempt organizations to report financial information to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States. They are used to report income, calculate taxes to be paid to the federal government of the United States, and disclose other information as required by the Internal Revenue Code. Form 990 provides the public with financial information about an organization, and is often the only source of such information. It is used by government agencies to prevent organizations from abusing their tax-exempt status. In addition to Form 990, tax-exempt organizations are also subject to a variety of disclosure and compliance requirements through various schedules that are attached to Form 990. Filing of schedules by organizations supplements, enhances, and further clarifies disclosures and compliance reporting made in Form 990.  The deadline for filing is May 15.

California Form 199 must be filed for tax-exempt organizations if the gross receipt is over $25,000. “Gross receipts are the total amounts received by the organization during the annual accounting period from all sources before subtracting costs or expense.”

“Every charitable nonprofit corporation, unincorporated association or trustee holding assets for charitable purposes that is required to register with the Attorney General’s Office and is also required to annually file Form RRF-1 regardless of whether the corporation files Form 990s annually or is on extended reporting.  Charities with total gross revenue or assets of $25,000 or more must file a copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990- PF and attachments with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts.”

IMPLICATIONS

By approving this request, GCEP will be in compliance with the IRS, California State Laws and the California Attorney Generals Office regarding tax returns.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve payment to Green, Hasson & Janks

to provide services to GCEP which include preparing tax returns Form 990, California Form 199, and California General Attorney Form RRF-1.

FISCAL IMPACT

The cost will not exceed $3000.  (If additional forms are required, such as Form 990-T, Form CT-694 or Additional States, a separate fee will be charged.  Any additional fees will be brought to the Board’s attention at another Board meeting.)

2

Program Audit

BACKGROUND

An audit of the Scheduled Expenditures of GCEP for the year that ended June 30, 2011, will be conducted to examine all accounting records, documentary evidence supporting transactions recorded, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the Scheduled Expenditures. The audit will obtain reasonable assurances about whether the Scheduled Expenditures is free of material misstatements and if U.S. generally accepted accounting principles were used. 

IMPLICATIONs

By approving this request, GCEP will provide public disclosure and transparency to the validity in its financial transactions and procedures involving such and determine if the Scheduled Expenditures is free of material misstatements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve payment to Green, Hasson & Janks

to provide services to GCEP which includes performing an audit of the Schedule of Expenditures.

FISCAL IMPACT

The cost will not exceed $4000.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING

Crenshaw High School Library

5010 11^th Ave.   Los Angeles, California 90043

April 9, 2012, 6:OO PM

Mission Statement

The mission of the Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership (GCEP) is to actively generate and support unity of efforts among teachers, parents, administrators and the community in assuming responsibility for rigorous teaching, learning, and outstanding citizenship for all students in our community.

1. A.    CALL TO ORDER/APPROVAL OF AGENDA            

1. B.    PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1. C.   EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
   1. Crenshaw High School Principal’s Report

1. D.   PUBLIC COMMENT ON ACTION ITEMS

1. E.    THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL HAVE DISCUSSION AND TAKE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
   1. Criteria for Crenshaw High School Principal Selection
   2. Timeline for Principal Selection Process
   3. Rochelle Hardison, Consultant

1. F.    COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

1. G.   PUBLIC COMMENT

1. H.   ADJOUNMENT

Three 3 Minutes will be allotted to each speaker. A maximum of 20 minutes will be allocated to each major agenda items.

Background Action Items

MINUTES OF THE

REGULAR MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

GREATER CRENSHAW EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, INC

The Board of the Directors of the Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership (GCEP) held a Regular Meeting on Monday, April 9, 2012 at Crenshaw High School, 5010  11^th Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90043.  The following directors, constituting a quorum, were present:

• Mr. Blair H. Taylor, President
• Dean Karen Gallagher, Vice President
• Dr. Lewis King, Secretary/Treasurer
• Ms. Eunice Grigsby, Parent
• Mr. Miguel Abarca, Parent

Also present were the following:

• Dr. Pamela Powell, GCEP Consultant
• Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, Principal of Crenshaw High School
• Ms. Sybil Harris, Faculty Member, Crenshaw High School
• Ms. Renita Smith, Urban League
• Ms. Sonya Young, Urban League
• Ms. Rochelle Hardison, USC Rossier School of Education (minutes)

Absent (Excused):

• Dr. Marilyn Flynn, Dean USC School of Social Work
• Mr. Charles Franklin, Honda Corporation
• Ms. Monique Sutton, Parent

Mr. Blair Taylor, GCEP Board President, called the meeting to order at 6:30pm.  Mr. Taylor suggested we consider moving our regular meetings to another location within CHS to avoid late starts due to late adjournment of School Site Council meetings that precede GCEP board meetings.  He then welcomed everyone and acknowledged quorum of the board of directors, and stated it was good to be back from his sabbatical.

Mr. Taylor entertained a motion to approve the agenda.  Dean Gallagher moved to approve the agenda.  Mr. Abarca seconded the motion, and the motion unanimously approved.

There weren’t any minutes to approve for the March meeting due to lack of quorum; and thus no minutes approved.

Mr. Taylor asked for any public comments on the action items listed on the agenda; and there were no public comments.

1. Criteria for CHS Principal Selection: Dr. Powell disseminated a handout on the principal selection and briefed the board on a newly developed criterion for CHS Principal selection which is a result of recent input and suggestions from CHS faculty and staff, and a synthesis of her research of the MOU, Business Plan and Strategic Plan to secure information on such process at the request of Dr. King during the February 13 regular meeting of the board of the directors.  The new set of criterion differs from the earlier iteration and delineates the most recent reforms and the work that has been done over the past few years, more pointedly within the last year.

Dr. Powell spoke with Mr. George Bartleson, iDesign, during the February meeting regarding the next phase of the principal selection and working with LAUSD’s HR dept. to ensure GCEP’s criteria matches the format for LAUSD.  Upcoming meetings will include meetings with administrators to determine how the criteria will be posted.

Dr. King is anxious not to put constraint in terms of time within the process.  He wants to avoid having someone repeat same mistakes and we need to be able to drill further and talk about the nature of urban education.  We must remain cognizant that he problem in public high schools is a twin monster of administration and educational practice, pedagogy.  He would like to see a document that talks to the principal being effective in managing an urban high school.  Referring to handout 1; e.g. 5^th bullet he feels is irrelevant—having experience with these constituency groups doesn’t speak to compelling issue of education.  The document needs to talk about a person having 1 of 2 strengths—either instructional or administration.  GCEP needs to be comfortable with how candidates could manage the flow of what is now taking place and developing within CHS, and movement into SLCs.  He would like to see someone who has creative capacity in managing an urban high school.

Dean Gallagher sought clarification on the criterion in terms of its internal or external use of such document, and Dr. Powell clarified that the document is for an internal use to for GCEP to select among a pool of candidates.  Criterion is for us; not something LAUSD uses or requires.  This document is in addition to LAUSD’s requirements.

Mr. Taylor added that he would like to see not only experience as a high school principal or urban principal, but experience as a high school principal in a challenging environment added to the criterion, under bullet 3.  Would like to see candidate with ability on build an effective team or team building capability both internally at CHS and within GCEP—but first internally.  And some demonstrated track record of such an accomplishment

Dean Gallagher offered that the board can’t expect every candidate who applies will have both instructional leadership AND administrative management experience, and recognized that the principal will bring in a team that complements the principal to create an effective team.  One person isn’t coming in to do all the work

Dr. King expressed both requirements be listed as either/or and GCEP then free to select one or the other.  Let’s identify these are the two major strengths and then build complementary team.

Emphasis should be placed on issue of leader having capacity to understand and interpret assessment; data driven decision making; should have capacity to understand all forms of assessment.

Dr. Powell suggested the following verbiage be added to the criterion: Demonstrated and effective experience in working in an inner city/urban high school with students of color as an instructional leader, facilitator, and working towards building a team. Along with some qualification that denotes the candidate must understand WASC.

Dr. Rousseau added that the candidate should have ability to garner and interpret related data as important indices of progress; similar to bullet 6.  Add: Experience to generate and use data.

Dean Gallagher addressed correction to page two of document; 4^th bullet from bottom.  Add ability to “work” or “collaborate” with and marshall…; and Mr. Taylor asked for correction on page two of document, bullet 5 to make interprets singular. 

Mr. Taylor offered that bullet 3, page one, and doesn’t adequately capture the true need at CHS.  He asked for something that would connote the complexities of a school that’s historically underperforming, and experience working in reforming in an underperforming school.  Dr. Rousseau added to include a person with demonstrated ability and track record.

Dean Gallagher asked that the list be prioritized. And noted bullet 12 on page two is critical and should be moved to the first page as a bullet early on.  Mr. Taylor suggested Group A and Group B categories:  the “must haves” and the “would likes”.

Dr. King urged the changing of verbiage and wording and wanted concept of qualifications.  Commitments are not qualifications.  Qualifications should be measurable by some sort of indices.

Dr. Powell suggested the board allow her and Dr. Rousseau to look at LAUSD’s class description for secondary principal, and substitute language in criterion so to ensure criterion is aligned to our vision using LAUSD’s document as a guide.  Illustrate what GCEP wants versus LAUSD’s requirements.  LAUSD’s requirements come before GCEP’s criterion, and there is some overlap.

Notably on page three: under knowledge, skills and personal characteristics, ours is more specific, but language can be changed to match LAUSD’s.

Mr. Taylor noted that it is important to illustrate that we care and have an idea of what this person looks like regardless of how our criterion may be reconstituted.  It’s important we show we have what we feel we need captured in this document.    Ms. Grigsby noted she is comfortable with the criterion and the changes expressed, and Dr. Rousseau mentioned that other partnerships have had similar document. 

Ms. Harris suggested we put in place an “ad hoc committee” to conduct site visits and various due process and due diligence to ensure candidates have proven success.

There was some discourse surrounding next steps in modification of principal search document in interest of time.  It was concluded that stakeholder input was mandatory, and the process not a document be approved at this time.  Dr. Powell expressed that the document was borne out of collaboration and input from faculty and staff (over 100+ present) after the WASC report and this document is reflective of their input and thought.  The goal of modification of the document includes points made within this section and including: prioritization of bulleted points, improved language for better fit with respect to bullet #3: not just urban environment, but high school.

Dr. Rousseau express that a process of approving a group of people getting together i.e., Dr. Powell, GCEP Interim Director, Dr. Rousseau, CHS Interim Principal (and stakeholder), and Dr. Abarca, GCEP Board of Director and Parent (and stakeholder) to work on crafting a new document could be considered.  Mr. Abarca agreed to work with Dr. Powell to amend the document.

Dean Gallagher moved that the board directs Dr. Powell to take the input and suggestions provided tonight and work with a committee made up of Mr. Abarca and Dr. Rousseau to take this information and prioritize and modify selection criteria so that a document can be presented to LAUSD as GCEP’s input into the selection of the next principal for CHS.  Ms. Grigsby seconded the motion, and the motion unanimously approved.

Handouts:

1)      The Interview Panel would be developed and decided by GCEP

2)      LAUSD Human Resource Division, Class Descriptions, Principal, Secondary School

1. Timeline for selection of Principal: Dr. Powell disseminated a handout on the timeline for selection of principal and briefed the board on the document that she developed in alignment with LAUSD’s selection process.   There were two iterations of this document—one developed with the staff, which was sent earlier by email, and a second, the latest iteration with the GCEP header, was disseminated during this meeting.  Dr. Powell noted a couple of important caveats in this latest iteration: 1) Inadvertent omission of Plan B, whereas if Plan A doesn’t yield a viable candidate as principal for CHS, GCEP recommends Plan B: where an interim principal would be put in place; and the process for a principal search starts over; 2) 3/12 entry on document lists board meeting, when in fact this was an informational meeting only due to lack of quorum; and 3) 4/11 entry should be moved further into the future.

Dr. Powell clarified a few concerns with the document.

1)      The Interview Panel would be developed and decided by GCEP

2)      GCEP to define Panels and goal of each

3)      GCEP will conduct interviews; not just LAUSD

4)      LAUSD has separate process for interviews (both informal and panel)

5)      Could be LAUSD or Local Districts—T (iDesign) or 4

6)      GCEP will identify panel members

7)      GCEP should ensure a Personnel committee is in place to field applicants wishing to serve on the panel.

1. Applicants can self select, but should include why they want to be on panel

Dean Gallagher expressed a process for candidates where each candidate undergo the same process; same set of questions, and be required to close the process with a Town Hall style presentation delineating “vision” and “here’s why I want to be here” and open to all stakeholders.  Panels should not be mixed i.e. parents and teachers and community intermingled. There should be four panels

1)      Teacher and Staff panel

2)      All Student panel

3)      Parent panel

4)      GCEP panel (Dr. Powell to ensure proper compliance under the Brown Act)

Drs. Powell and Rousseau stated that LAUSD’s process requires that the same set of questions be asked in fairness to the candidates.  They also suggested a set of framed questions and six set of questions, and a set number of spaces per panel.

Mr. Taylor suggested a slight change to Dean Gallagher’s suggestion in that the community/town hall session occurs at the opening of candidate visits so as to lay the framework of their vision.  He also expressed need to develop set of protocol for what GCEP wants accomplished from each panel; and how do we fill 6 panel spots with 52 applicants.  Dean Gallagher said GCEP would need to develop criteria and include things like the importance that they understand SLCs, metacognition so stakeholders can assess what candidates are saying.  Mr. Taylor asked that the next board meeting create a draft criterion. 

Panels should include like-minded groups with similar expertise who have experience and knowledge of what the criterion is, and has depth and breadth to go deep into interview.  Each panel should be diverse in that Parent panels represent students across all grade levels, all SLCs and ethnicities.  Teachers are not all tenured, etc.  Panel members would be trained; establish document to help guide the panel with data driven evidence.  All members must commit to completing a candidate assessment and rating.

Dr. Powell suggested developing a Rubric after panel selection.  Teachers should understand SLCs, metacognition; Parents must understand SSC, homework policy, and etc.  

Dr. King suggested the site visit be moved before final interview that would occur near end of May/early June.  Dr. Rousseau noted that this is a period when appointments are being made; downsizing, budget cuts and reorgs are occurring within schools and may pose a challenge. Ms. Harris also noted that “must places” are placed during this time, and urged that GCEP meet with Superintendent Deasy ASAP to signal to him we are working toward this goal.

Amendments to the document include the above as well as the following changes here: 1) add 4/10-4/25 period: Criteria for panelists need to be developed and circulated to the board by the GCEP director by the next board member; 2) include the criteria for the selection of the panel and to include an interim principal position in event a principal is not selected; 3) move 4/11 date to 4/9-4/16 and over-communicate with LAUSD to indicate that criteria is forthcoming; 4) notate that dates are desired and change date header to include the word “approximate”; 5)  interviews will take place across two days if GCEP deems that fit.

Mr. Taylor moved to approve the timeline with the modifications captured in minutes, and noted above.  Dean Gallagher seconded the motion, and the motion unanimously approved.

Handouts:

1)      Time line for Selection of Principal

1. Rochelle Hardison, Consultant: Dr. Powell introduced Rochelle Hardison to the board and recommended she be hired as a consultant to record minutes of both regular board meetings and special meetings.  She acknowledged that Rochelle has been assisting GCEP since February 2012 in this capacity.

Dean Gallagher moved to approve the hiring of Rochelle Hardison.  Mr. Abarca seconded the motion, and the motion unanimously approved. 

Dr. Rousseau disseminated two handouts and provided a brief overview of the budget. 

Budget: Notable highlight include (per the CHS budget allocations proposal handout):  1) PPF based on projected enrollment (13027), $3.6M is what CHS expects to receive from district for 12-13 budget.  Largest part of budget allocated to teachers—with 25 FTE (12-13) vs. 32 FTE (11-12) and translates to district raising class sizes in the coming year.  Program improvement for parent involvement cut and thus CHS will not be hiring a parent representative for the parent and/or community representative.  The budget is complied based on input from faculty and staff.  Budgets from district include categorical funding and per pupil funding. 

SIG Grant: SIG grant was written in December for $1.8M per year; doesn’t compensate for the $3M loss of KEA funding.  KEA primarily dedicated to CSR; enabled hiring of 13 additional teachers in addition to 32 FTE for a 27:1 teacher/student ratio.  As of now, there are 26 FTE; 3 FTE under Title 1 and up to 5 out of SIG grant; still 10-12 teachers under what CHS had.  27:1 in core subjects; others subjects have gone up to 32/35:1.  Class size in core will now match those numbers; non-core will likely go up to 40:1 ratio.

When asked about class size and impact, Dr. Rousseau noted that class sizes are a factor, but not a determining factor for classroom instruction.  She is more concerned with next year in that many of the teachers that are long-term subs will be gone automatically; they never got contracts so had to sub; and 12 teachers loss due to RIFs.  These teachers, at heart of reform and impact on student learning, from  MfA and Ford Foundation grant and those with extensive professional development will be gone. 

Point of intervention for the Board and possible action items include: 1) under a certain piece of legislation, only a certain percentage of faculty can be reduced (this needs to be researched), and 2) work with UTLA on relief of waivers to determine how firm the union will hold the district to this.  This was an instrumental part of the strategy last year.

Outlook next year frightening: 1) new principal; 2) no veteran vice principals; 3) people at heart of the major instructional reform will be gone.  This all coupled with Governor Brown’s new weighted pupil formulas where Title 1 money will be taken away and put into one pot for use at district’s discretion. This will directly impact professional development resources.

Mr. Taylor suggests a strategy be crafted around a one-on-one with Superintendent to formalize position in writing.  All the board members sign on and use levers to work in positive favor for CHS.

Ms. Young suggested the board set fundraising priorities to defray costs and bring money into school; while Dean Gallagher noted that Foundations will not give operating money.  Funding has to be specific with measurable impact, i.e., Math or STEM.  It was noted that one of Honda Foundation’s key objectives is STEM; and UPS reached out the school about a year ago to invest in a STEM program. Costs for STEM are about $80-85k per teacher or approximately $1M per year.

STEM’s academy collapsed two years ago.  CHS will reinstitute STEMS Academy; teachers will be proportioned across the academy and SLCs evenly.  Existing SLCs will see reduction in students who transition to STEM.  Another consideration given the phasing out of the teacher training magnet program is possible consideration of development of a Teacher Training SLC attached to Rossier School of Education for appeal to possible funders.  There will be carryover money in the Academies and possibility of access to funds by CHS.

Dr. Rousseau added that she would like to see teachers who have demonstrated the capacity to move students forward (through periodic and interim assessment) and those seriously involved in the reform effort retained by CHS.  She stressed the severe impact to CHS and its reforms to-date; and the notion that CHS would be taken back to square one if these teachers lose their positions due to RIFs; must retain those teachers who assist in critical areas that keep CHS in a program improvement status.

WASC Report Update: Dr. Rousseau discussed the recent visit by WASC and the report, which she was unable to disseminate given its current informal/draft status.  She provided insight on the report and the goals that were set two years ago: 

1)      Raise 10^th grade CAHSEE and Kappa in English Language Arts to 54%-(Failed to meet);

2)      Raise Math to 45%-(Failed to meet);

3)      Increase participation rate of state assessment to 95% rate- (Goal met);

4)      Increase scores of English learners within performance range- (Goal partially met);

5)      Increase number of SDC students who are mainstreamed into general education- (Goal partially met);

6)      Facilitate and foster greater communication between network partners and community and parents- (Goal met);

7)      Create master schedule that responds to student needs for access to appropriate courses including Honors and AP- (Goal met);

8)      All students provided to equitable assess to counseling service and development of individualized graduation plan- (Goal met);

9)      Improve school management by improving administration and fiscal transparency (Goal met). 

10)  Several other goals reporting have been met.  

Some commendations included that everyone at CHS should be proud of the progress made under the 11-12 school year under guidance of interim principal, and there’s a united focus on the classrooms.  The evaluator states that despite budget cuts the campus remains clean and safe. 

Recommendation to the district highlighted significant instability at CHS having over 35 administrative changes in the last 7 years, and noted none of the administrative staff that participated in the WASC visit two years ago remain at CHS.

CHS was awarded a 3-year accreditation pending a one-day site visit two years ago.  This was the one-day site visit; and accreditation is good for another 1 year plus additional year in preparation for next visit. Next visit is likely 2014.

Other comments: Ms. Harris suggested creating a parallel fiscal plan outlining GCEP’s priorities.  Dr. Powell suggested GCEP’s next phase may be to look into money, i.e., budgets, SIG, Single Plan.  Dr. Rousseau suggested look to the Ford Foundations and seeds sewn within that grant.

No comments.

Mr. Taylor entertained motion to adjourn meeting.  Dean Gallagher moved to adjourn meeting.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Abarca.  Meeting adjourned at 8.20

Mission Statement
The mission of the Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership (GCEP) is to actively generate and support unity of efforts among teachers, parents, administrators and the community in assuming responsibility for rigorous teaching, learning, and outstanding citizenship for all students in our community.
AGENDA
•    CALL TO ORDER/APPROVAL OF AGENDA

•    PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

•    APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 13, 2012

•    EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT
1.   Principal’s Report
•    PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ACTION ITEM

•    THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL DISCUSS AND/OR TAKE ACTION
ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
•    Criteria for CHS Principal Selection         Alignment to MOU
•    Timeline for Principal Search/Action Item    Alignment to MOU

•    COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

•    PUBLIC COMMENTS

•    ADJOURNMENT
Three 3 Minutes will be allotted to each speaker. A maximum of 20 minutes will be allocated to each major agenda item.

MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
GREATER CRENSHAW EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, INC
February 13, 2012

The Board of the Directors of the Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership (GCEP) held a Regular Meeting on Monday, February 13, 2012 at Crenshaw High School, 5010 11th Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90043.  The following directors, constituting a quorum, were present:
•    Dean Karen Gallagher, Vice President
•    Dr. Lewis King, Secretary/Treasurer
•    Ms. Eunice Grigsby, Parent
•    Mr. Miguel Abarca, Parent
•    Ms. Monique Sutton, Parent
•    Mr. Charles Franklin, Honda Corporation
Absent (Excused):
•    Blair H. Taylor, President
•    Dr. Marilyn Flynn, Dean USC School of Social Work

Others present were the following:
•    Dr. Pamela Powell, GCEP Interim CEO
•    Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, Principal of Crenshaw High School
•    Mr. Alex Caputo-Pearl, Faculty member and SLC lead
•    Mr. Maynard Brown, Faculty Member and SLC lead
•    Ms. Dawn Purnell
•    Mr. George Bartleson, Director, LAUSD iDesign Program
•    Ms. Rochelle Hardison, USC Rossier School of Education(minutes)

Welcome and Opening Remarks
Dean Karen Gallagher, GCEP Board Vice President, called the meeting to order at 6:11pm.  Dr. Gallagher entertained a motion to approve the agenda.
On a motion by Dr. Lewis and second by Mr. Franklin the agenda was approved unanimously.
The Board went into Closed Session at 6:15 and reported out at 6:45.  Direction was given to staff on two personnel items.
Executive Directors Report
Dr. Powell asked Ms. Purnell of Pre K12 Collaborative to brief board on College Readiness Program and their involvement with the GCEP. The CHS collaborative started in 2007 with a group of stakeholders both on and off campus focused on achievement outcomes with specific concern on what comes in to CHS, and looks at feeder schools.  Pre K12 Collaborative has various programs and advocacy efforts.  Programs include:  1) an Algebra program focused on middle school; 2) a Peer Mentoring/Support program focused at CHS looking; and 3) a Parent component focused on finesse and integration of programs.  Model needed refinement after a year 1; Collaborative approached subsequent year more aligned to common theme.  New focus is College Going culture within CHS. Students are at the center of their effort. The Collaborative worked with Mr. Caputo-Pearl on achievement outcomes for students and helping each to understanding A-G requirements, how to populate GPAs and units.  Information rolled out to Youth Empowerment Council on academic empowerment and how to develop their peers and develop a college going culture at CHS.  YEC ran campaign to represent students in the collaborative and model an ideal college going behavior.  In the first year, 500 students participated in a 22-item survey created by students of the YEC. Six of 7 SLCs represented and 379 of 500 surveys were calculated.  Information analyzed and used in Year 2 campaign.  Y2 outreached to over 700 students, two rallies, and a college center kickback to bring focus to College Center, and classroom presentations.  Over 2,000 pieces of Collaborative materials developed, designed and disseminated by students (t-shirts, wristbands, buttons, brochures) on how to be great.  Slogan “I will be Great.  College is my option, make it yours.” At close of Y2 (last year), got 90 students to come in at bequest of peers to set short and long term academic and social goals. This year’s focus is to work with students to support a college going culture but now includes parents with hope to galvanize them.  This year Collaborative is reaching out to social service agencies, local government and city agencies, local districts, principals, teachers, deans, local businesses, community organizations to support students and parents.
Future Meetings: March 14, May 16 and June 20
Handouts:
1) Crenshaw Pre-K12 Collaborative: Knowledge. Action. Achievement.
2) Save the Date: March 14, 2012

State Conference: California Association of African American Superintendents and Administrators (CAAASA)
Dr. Powell circulated handout on upcoming state conference, “Sounding the Alarm” February 22-24, 2013.  Both Dr. Powell and Dr. Rousseau will be in attendance with Dr. Rousseau doing segment on ELA.
Principals Report
Dr. Rousseau requested the Board to focus on four things between now and June:
•    WASC (March 27)
•    CAHSEE (March 12-13)
•    CST (Early May)
•    Graduation (June 15)
Dr. Rousseau presented information on how Crenshaw is looking at data. Considering CAHSEE, standards based assessment; CHS is not teaching to the test, rather analyzing what tests are made of and identifying important elements of the test.  Presented handout on indicators of what is being taught well and what is not.  She analyzed data from CAHSEE and charted results in handout.  Handout illustrates student performance, strengths, and weaknesses. Goals for the school year also included.
Dr. Rousseau emphasized importance of Periodic Assessment and three areas students are weakest in:
•    Automaticity
•    Geometry and Measurement
•    Algebra
Key areas focused on in day-to-day instruction and Saturday boot camps.
Seniors:  Administrators have had several meetings with parents of seniors, and continually monitor weekly progress of seniors with counselors. Current senior class has worst attendance level as of December and Dr. Rousseau has tied attendance and progress to prom participation.  Trend is shifting.
Handouts:
•    Date Analysis, CAHSEE and CST Preparation Strategies PowerPoint briefing
•    Date Analysis, CAHSEE and CST Preparation Strategies (School Targets)
•    Item Response Report (Math Report)
•    DATA! DATA! Report
Public Comments
Under public comments, Dean Gallagher asked for any public comments with the hiring of Carol Cobb to work with the Board and GCEP and look for grants and support the work Dr. Rousseau mentioned.  No public comments made and Ms. Sutton moved to approve the motion to hire Ms. Cobb.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Abarca and unanimously approved.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU between GCEP and LAUSD)
Dean Gallagher acknowledged the Addendum to the MOU has not been assigned.  The MOU is in its 4th year.
Dr. Powell added that the Addendum was not being signed due to feeder school patterns and Superintendent Deasy’s expectations and concerns that CHS had not met their academic and graduation goals.  Dr. Powell met with Mr. Bartleson (iDesign Director) and shared data on how CHS plans to meet their goals and perform.  LAUSD doesn’t want the MOU to include other schools besides CHS until it has proven successful.  However, this delay doesn’t preclude GCEP from approaching Audubon, Mann and Obama Middle Schools and engaging in professional development to help teachers prepare the students to be “high school ready’.
Mr. Franklin voiced concerns about protecting Crenshaw High School, if through the partnership with feeder schools and getting students highs school ready, the students attend charter schools or some other higher ranked school?  How do we protect GCEP, our energy and effort?

Dr. King suggested we focus on CHS and make what we do work.  Make CHS the most attractive high school.
Dr. Rousseau offered ways to accomplish this:
•    STEMS (w/emphasis on math and science)
•    Teacher Training Magnet
•    Small Magnet
•    Arts Program
She also mentioned need for funds, grant writers, highlighting SLCs, keeping class sizes down, creating brochure, assembling task force to look at data, and getting into churches and inviting community organizations see what the school is doing.  Dr. Rousseau would like to get message out to parents about SLCs (goal to keep them at 220) and HBCUs doing onsite acceptances at CHS.
Dr. Franklin offered to print and mail brochures and suggested highlighting stats on our successes.  Last year some students went to Ivy League schools.  On March 1st a brochure should be printed.
Dr. Powell shared that the bulk of CHS students come from Mann and Obama MS, while Audubon students go on to magnet and other schools.  Also suggested we obtain list and target the 500 students going to magnet schools and share the good things CHS is doing.
Ms. Sutton suggested parents mobilize and share their experiences with other parents.  Dr. Rousseau suggested in-home, parent hosted coffee klatches.  Dean Gallagher suggested having parents talk to larger audience and bringing alums back to talk.
Dr. King suggested use of local media who have expressed interest in doing story on CHS.
Mr. Brown featured on PBS the month of February for their American Graduate Series and runs 3-4 minutes segments.  Focus is primarily Mr. Brown and his work, but PBS has a lot of footage on the school which could be used as recruitment tool for CHS.
Mr. Bartleson added that ALL schools now have the same autonomy as Charter schools.
Principal Search for CHS
Dr. Powell presented data on the process of what’s involved in a Principal Search.  Process must honor Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Superintendent has final say before taking to School Board. Search will be conducted at national level.  Identify stakeholders i.e., GCEP Board Members and staff, CHS faculty and staff, CHS students, parents and community organizations.  Recommendation will be sent to Superintendent who then reviews and upon approval takes to the School Board for final approval.

Dr. King offered opposition to the process because it used the traditional model for selecting a new principal when CHS is on new pathway in which CHS is being driven by teachers and parents.  Suggests that that the GCEP Board is ill prepared and expressed need to develop a set of core principals based on criteria to identify what type of leader is needed in selecting the principal.  He suggested adding an additional month to the process for GCEP to do their due diligence and exercise their authority.

Dr. Powell added that adding the creation of a stakeholder committee (parents, faculty and community)
Is not a part of an old model.

Dean Gallagher shared that at the last GCEP Board meeting LAUSD appointed Dr. Rousseau as CHS’s full time principal through June 2012. LAUSD has stated there isn’t money available and that anything that cost money, the District will not fund.  GCEP Board will have to raise the money.  Stated search will go through the spring at minimum and will be a long process.

Dr. Powell is examining supplemental costs to defray costs to District.  GCEP could potentially pick-up relocation if candidate is out of state.

Dean Gallagher shared that once the position is posted the Board will be notified so professional and personal networks can be exercised.  Position was previously posted twice (internally).
Mr. Brown speaking on behalf of the CHS’s SSC’s Ad Hoc Selection Committee:
•    Echoes Dr. King’s concern in moving so hasty
•    Feels strongly that Dr. Rousseau be allowed to remain at CHS
•    Would like clarity from GCEP on School Site’s role in the process
•    Would like clarity on LAUSD’s role is in the process
•    Given defunding of public schools, what does the organizational structure look like for a school of this type?
•    Administrative function: what does that look like as we move beyond our current position?
•    Encourages GCEP to take step back, develop guiding principle, identify the work and the construct before identifying someone to “fail.”

Mr. Caputo-Pearl offered the following:
•    Echoes Dr. King’s sentiments
•    Need to properly articulate model is key.
•    Dr. Rousseau should stay as long as she is willing to stay and community supports it.

Dr. Rousseau stated that the Board needs to be clear about what the work means and what is valued in it.  If it is good work, how does the Board sustain it and be clear with what is working and what students need.  She is willing to stay until GCEP is clear about what they want including the team around the principal.

Dr. King asked that the GCEP Personnel Committee develop the criteria for what a CHS principal should be regarding the selection process.  Dr. Gallagher is the chair of the GCEP Personnel Committee.

Dean Gallagher and Dr. Powell suggested adding an agenda item: “What do we want in a Principal?” and develop a plan on what we bring to the board at the next meeting on March 12, 2012.

Comments from Members of the Board
Dr. King: For next meeting, would like the issue of Resource Limitations of Front Office addressed.
Ms. Grisby: We know what our Principal looks like—in the form of Dr. Rousseau.
Mr. Abarca: Dr. Rousseau will be at CHS for the next 3 years.
Dean Gallagher: Last year you asked for resources, and USC has responded (Dean Gallagher presented check to the Board).
Mr. Franklin: How do I get with the school to develop the brochure? (Dr. Rousseau will make contact with you.)

Public Comments
Mr. Caputo-Pearl: Two items.

•    Ms. Smith, Urban League, she’d look into other partners that had teachers on their board, is there a report back

No report on that as yet.  Dr. Powell will check on that.

•    New issue under Prop 39, several classrooms on CHS campus being offered to Charter schools on February 1, 2012.  Charter has to make decision by March 1.  Would be disruptive to have charter on campus.

We have not discussed this and are unable to discuss it because it is not an agenda item.

Adjournment
Dean Gallagher entertained motion to adjourn meeting.  Mr. Abarca moved to adjourn meeting.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Sutton.  Meeting adjourned at 8.43pm.

TIME LINE FOR SELECTION OF PRINCIPAL 

Criteria EstablishedGCEP Personnel Committee & Dr. Powell3/12/2012

Discussion at Board Meeting on CriteriaGCEP Board

3/12-3/16

Criteria Refined based on Board input (Board Meeting 3/12/2012GCEP Personnel Committee & Dr. Powell

3/16Draft sent to GCEP Board for final approval and comments via BILGCEP Personnel Committee

Dr. Powell

3/19-3/23Criteria sent to LAUSD HR Division and iDesign Administration for approval and alignment to district criteria Posting Dates & Sites Determined

Including costDr. Powell3/26-5/11

Position PostedLAUSD HR

GCEP

4/1-4/13/2012Names submitted to GCEP for interview PanelsGCEP

Faculty

Stakeholders

4/9/2012Discussion at the GCEP Board Meeting on Interview Panels, dates for formal interviews & invitations to participate on panelGCEP Board

4/9-5/4Applications reviewed and candidates determined (Informal Process)LAUSD HR

5/14Board MeetingGCEP Board5/14-5/18

Formal InterviewsLAUSD HR

GCEP Representatives?

5/21-5/25Final InterviewGCEP

iDesign

5/28-6/4Site VisitGCEP Board and Representatives6/11

GCEP Board Meeting

Vote on Final Candidate and makes recommendation to Dr. DeasyGCEP

Mission Statement
The mission of the Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership (GCEP) is to actively generate and support unity of efforts among teachers, parents, administrators and the community in assuming responsibility for rigorous teaching, learning, and outstanding citizenship for all students in our community.
AGENDA
A. CALL TO ORDER/APPROVAL OF AGENDA 6:00 PM
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
C. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
Notice is hereby given that a closed session of the Board will be held under the general provisions of Government Code Section 54957. Topic of Discussion:
1. Personnel Two Items
2. Employment One Item
D. ADJOURNMENT OF CLOSED SESSION
E. RECONVENE TO PUBLIC SESSION 6:25 PM (Approx.)
F. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
G. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION TAKEN
H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I. EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT
1. Crenshaw PreK- 12 Collaborative
2. State Conference (California Association of African American Superintendents and Administrators [CAAASA])
3. Principal’s Report
J. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ACTION ITEM
K. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL DISCUSS AND/OR TAKE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
1. Approval of Dr. Carol Cobb, Consultant: Grants Writer (Discussion/Action)
2. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/GCEP and LAUSD (Discussion)
3. Process for Principal Search for CHS (Discussion)
L. COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
M. PUBLIC COMMENTS
N. ADJOUNMENT 8:30
(Three 3 Minutes will be allotted to each speaker. A maximum of 20 minutes will be allocated to each major agenda item.)

RESUME ATTACHED FOR COBB2

MINUTES OF THE

REGULAR MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

GREATER CRENSHAW EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, INC

February 13, 2012

The Board of the Directors of the Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership (GCEP) held a Regular Meeting on Monday, February 13, 2012 at Crenshaw High School, 5010 11^th Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90043.  The following directors, constituting a quorum, were present:

• Dean Karen Gallagher, Vice President
• Dr. Lewis King, Secretary/Treasurer
• Ms. Eunice Grigsby, Parent
• Mr. Miguel Abarca, Parent
• Ms. Monique Sutton, Parent
• Mr. Charles Franklin, Honda Corporation

Absent (Excused):

• Blair H. Taylor, President
• Dr. Marilyn Flynn, Dean USC School of Social Work

Others present were the following:

• Dr. Pamela Powell, GCEP Interim CEO
• Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, Principal of Crenshaw High School
• Mr. Alex Caputo-Pearl, Faculty member and SLC lead
• Mr. Maynard Brown, Faculty Member and SLC lead
• Ms. Dawn Purnell
• Mr. George Bartleson, Director, LAUSD iDesign Program
• Ms. Rochelle Hardison, USC Rossier School of Education(minutes)

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Dean Karen Gallagher, GCEP Board Vice President, called the meeting to order at 6:11pm.  Dr. Gallagher entertained a motion to approve the agenda.

On a motion by Dr. Lewis and second by Mr. Franklin the agenda was approved unanimously.

The Board went into Closed Session at 6:15 and reported out at 6:45.  Direction was given to staff on two personnel items.

Executive Directors Report

Dr. Powell asked Ms. Purnell of Pre K¹² Collaborative to brief board on College Readiness Program and their involvement with the GCEP. The CHS collaborative started in 2007 with a group of stakeholders both on and off campus focused on achievement outcomes with specific concern on what comes in to CHS, and looks at feeder schools.  Pre K¹² Collaborative has various programs and advocacy efforts.  Programs include:  1) an Algebra program focused on middle school; 2) a Peer Mentoring/Support program focused at CHS looking; and 3) a Parent component focused on finesse and integration of programs.  Model needed refinement after a year 1; Collaborative approached subsequent year more aligned to common theme.  New focus is College Going culture within CHS. Students are at the center of their effort. The Collaborative worked with Mr. Caputo-Pearl on achievement outcomes for students and helping each to understanding A-G requirements, how to populate GPAs and units.  Information rolled out to Youth Empowerment Council on academic empowerment and how to develop their peers and develop a college going culture at CHS.  YEC ran campaign to represent students in the collaborative and model an ideal college going behavior.  In the first year, 500 students participated in a 22-item survey created by students of the YEC. Six of 7 SLCs represented and 379 of 500 surveys were calculated.  Information analyzed and used in Year 2 campaign.  Y2 outreached to over 700 students, two rallies, and a college center kickback to bring focus to College Center, and classroom presentations.  Over 2,000 pieces of Collaborative materials developed, designed and disseminated by students (t-shirts, wristbands, buttons, brochures) on how to be great.  Slogan “I will be Great.  College is my option, make it yours.” At close of Y2 (last year), got 90 students to come in at bequest of peers to set short and long term academic and social goals. This year’s focus is to work with students to support a college going culture but now includes parents with hope to galvanize them.  This year Collaborative is reaching out to social service agencies, local government and city agencies, local districts, principals, teachers, deans, local businesses, community organizations to support students and parents.

Future Meetings: March 14, May 16 and June 20

Handouts:

1) Crenshaw Pre-K12 Collaborative: Knowledge. Action. Achievement.

2) Save the Date: March 14, 2012

State Conference: California Association of African American Superintendents and Administrators (CAAASA)

Dr. Powell circulated handout on upcoming state conference, “Sounding the Alarm” February 22-24, 2013.  Both Dr. Powell and Dr. Rousseau will be in attendance with Dr. Rousseau doing segment on ELA.

Principals Report

Dr. Rousseau requested the Board to focus on four things between now and June:

1)      WASC (March 27)

2)      CAHSEE (March 12-13)

3)      CST (Early May)

4)      Graduation (June 15)

Dr. Rousseau presented information on how Crenshaw is looking at data. Considering CAHSEE, standards based assessment; CHS is not teaching to the test, rather analyzing what tests are made of and identifying important elements of the test.  Presented handout on indicators of what is being taught well and what is not.  She analyzed data from CAHSEE and charted results in handout.  Handout illustrates student performance, strengths, and weaknesses. Goals for the school year also included.

Dr. Rousseau emphasized importance of Periodic Assessment and three areas students are weakest in:

1)      Automaticity

2)      Geometry and Measurement

3)      Algebra

Key areas focused on in day-to-day instruction and Saturday boot camps.

Seniors:  Administrators have had several meetings with parents of seniors, and continually monitor weekly progress of seniors with counselors. Current senior class has worst attendance level as of December and Dr. Rousseau has tied attendance and progress to prom participation.  Trend is shifting.

Handouts:

1)      Date Analysis, CAHSEE and CST Preparation Strategies PowerPoint briefing

2)      Date Analysis, CAHSEE and CST Preparation Strategies (School Targets)

3)      Item Response Report (Math Report)

4)      DATA! DATA! Report

Public Comments

Under public comments, Dean Gallagher asked for any public comments with the hiring of Carol Cobb to work with the Board and GCEP and look for grants and support the work Dr. Rousseau mentioned.  No public comments made and Ms. Sutton moved to approve the motion to hire Ms. Cobb.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Abarca and unanimously approved. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU between GCEP and LAUSD)

Dean Gallagher acknowledged the Addendum to the MOU has not been assigned.  The MOU is in its 4^th year.

Dr. Powell added that the Addendum was not being signed due to feeder school patterns and Superintendent Deasy’s expectations and concerns that CHS had not met their academic and graduation goals.  Dr. Powell met with Mr. Bartleson (iDesign Director) and shared data on how CHS plans to meet their goals and perform.  LAUSD doesn’t want the MOU to include other schools besides CHS until it has proven successful.  However, this delay doesn’t preclude GCEP from approaching Audubon, Mann and Obama Middle Schools and engaging in professional development to help teachers prepare the students to be “high school ready’.

Mr. Franklin voiced concerns about protecting Crenshaw High School, if through the partnership with feeder schools and getting students highs school ready, the students attend charter schools or some other higher ranked school?  How do we protect GCEP, our energy and effort?

Dr. King suggested we focus on CHS and make what we do work.  Make CHS the most attractive high school.

Dr. Rousseau offered ways to accomplish this:

1)      STEMS (w/emphasis on math and science)

2)      Teacher Training Magnet

3)      Small Magnet

4)      Arts Program

She also mentioned need for funds, grant writers, highlighting SLCs, keeping class sizes down, creating brochure, assembling task force to look at data, and getting into churches and inviting community organizations see what the school is doing.  Dr. Rousseau would like to get message out to parents about SLCs (goal to keep them at 220) and HBCUs doing onsite acceptances at CHS.

Dr. Franklin offered to print and mail brochures and suggested highlighting stats on our successes.  Last year some students went to Ivy League schools.  On March 1^st a brochure should be printed.

Dr. Powell shared that the bulk of CHS students come from Mann and Obama MS, while Audubon students go on to magnet and other schools.  Also suggested we obtain list and target the 500 students going to magnet schools and share the good things CHS is doing.

Ms. Sutton suggested parents mobilize and share their experiences with other parents.  Dr. Rousseau suggested in-home, parent hosted coffee klatches.  Dean Gallagher suggested having parents talk to larger audience and bringing alums back to talk.

Dr. King suggested use of local media who have expressed interest in doing story on CHS.

Mr. Brown featured on PBS the month of February for their American Graduate Series and runs 3-4 minutes segments.  Focus is primarily Mr. Brown and his work, but PBS has a lot of footage on the school which could be used as recruitment tool for CHS. 

Mr. Bartleson added that ALL schools now have the same autonomy as Charter schools. 

Principal Search for CHS

Dr. Powell presented data on the process of what’s involved in a Principal Search.  Process must honor Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Superintendent has final say before taking to School Board. Search will be conducted at national level.  Identify stakeholders i.e., GCEP Board Members and staff, CHS faculty and staff, CHS students, parents and community organizations.  Recommendation will be sent to Superintendent who then reviews and upon approval takes to the School Board for final approval.

Dr. King offered opposition to the process because it used the traditional model for selecting a new principal when CHS is on new pathway in which CHS is being driven by teachers and parents.  Suggests that that the GCEP Board is ill prepared and expressed need to develop a set of core principals based on criteria to identify what type of leader is needed in selecting the principal.  He suggested adding an additional month to the process for GCEP to do their due diligence and exercise their authority.

Dr. Powell added that adding the creation of a stakeholder committee (parents, faculty and community)

Is not a part of an old model.

Dean Gallagher shared that at the last GCEP Board meeting LAUSD appointed Dr. Rousseau as CHS’s full time principal through June 2012. LAUSD has stated there isn’t money available and that anything that cost money, the District will not fund.  GCEP Board will have to raise the money.  Stated search will go through the spring at minimum and will be a long process.

Dr. Powell is examining supplemental costs to defray costs to District.  GCEP could potentially pick-up relocation if candidate is out of state. 

Dean Gallagher shared that once the position is posted the Board will be notified so professional and personal networks can be exercised.  Position was previously posted twice (internally).

Mr. Brown speaking on behalf of the CHS’s SSC’s Ad Hoc Selection Committee:

1)      Echoes Dr. King’s concern in moving so hasty

2)      Feels strongly that Dr. Rousseau be allowed to remain at CHS

3)      Would like clarity from GCEP on School Site’s role in the process

4)      Would like clarity on LAUSD’s role is in the process

5)      Given defunding of public schools, what does the organizational structure look like for a school of this type?

6)      Administrative function: what does that look like as we move beyond our current position?

7)      Encourages GCEP to take step back, develop guiding principle, identify the work and the construct before identifying someone to “fail.” 

Mr. Caputo-Pearl offered the following:

1)      Echoes Dr. King’s sentiments

2)      Need to properly articulate model is key.

3)      Dr. Rousseau should stay as long as she is willing to stay and community supports it.

Dr. Rousseau stated that the Board needs to be clear about what the work means and what is valued in it.  If it is good work, how does the Board sustain it and be clear with what is working and what students need.  She is willing to stay until GCEP is clear about what they want including the team around the principal.

Dr. King asked that the GCEP Personnel Committee develop the criteria for what a CHS principal should be regarding the selection process.  Dr. Gallagher is the chair of the GCEP Personnel Committee.

Dean Gallagher and Dr. Powell suggested adding an agenda item: “What do we want in a Principal?” and develop a plan on what we bring to the board at the next meeting on March 12, 2012. 

Comments from Members of the Board

Dr. King: For next meeting, would like the issue of Resource Limitations of Front Office addressed.

Ms. Grisby: We know what our Principal looks like—in the form of Dr. Rousseau.

Mr. Abarca: Dr. Rousseau will be at CHS for the next 3 years.

Dean Gallagher: Last year you asked for resources, and USC has responded (Dean Gallagher presented check to the Board).

Mr. Franklin: How do I get with the school to develop the brochure? (Dr. Rousseau will make contact with you.)

Public Comments

Mr. Caputo-Pearl: Two items.

1)      Ms. Smith, Urban League, she’d look into other partners that had teachers on their board, is there a report back

No report on that as yet.  Dr. Powell will check on that. 

2)      New issue under Prop 39, several classrooms on CHS campus being offered to Charter schools on February 1, 2012.  Charter has to make decision by March 1.  Would be disruptive to have charter on campus. 

We have not discussed this and are unable to discuss it because it is not an agenda item. 

Adjournment

Dean Gallagher entertained motion to adjourn meeting.  Mr. Abarca moved to adjourn meeting.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Sutton.  Meeting adjourned at 8.43pm.

Conference Call-In Number: 1(605) 477-2100, Participant Code: 964091*

Agenda

I. Welcome & Acknowledgments (3 minutes)
o Administrative Update

II. GCEP Vision Review (2 minutes)

III. Principal’s Report: Dr. Sylvia Rousseau (30 minutes)
- Crenshaw High Vision Review
- SIG Grant Update
- WASC status
- The Single Plan
- CHASEE test planning
- School Site Council report
- On-Campus Employment Resources via LA Urban League Youth WorkSource Center

IV. GCEP Executive Director: Introduction (15 minutes)
Dr. Gallagher, Dr. King, Dr. Pamela Short-Powell
o Discussion Item: Early thoughts from Dr. Pamela Short-Powell

V. GCEP Board Retreat Update and Follow up (10 minutes)
Dr. King
o Discussion Item: Allocation of Resources
o Discussion Item: Rotation of Administrative Function
o Discussion Item: Vetting and process of grants/proposals/requests

VI. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) With LAUSD (5 minutes)
Mr. Taylor, Dr. King
o Discussion Item: Update on Letter Addendum submitted to LAUSD

VII. Update on LA Urban League Neighborhoods@Work (5 minutes)

VIII. Update on Resource Coordinating Team: Lynn Harris-Henderson (10 minutes)

IX. Public Comment (10 minutes)

X. Closing/Adjournment

FINAL DRAFT AGENDA – (From Drs. Rousseau and King)

Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors

Monday, November 14, 2011

6:00 pm –7:30pm

Conference Call-In Number:  1(605) 477-2100, Participant Code:  964091*

Agenda  

*  Welcome & Acknowledgments (5 minutes)

• Administrative Update

-          Minutes

*  Vision Review  (5 minutes)

*  Principal’s Report (40 minutes)

-          Including Educational Review and SIG Grant Update

*  GCEP Interim Executive Director Search:  Ad Hoc Committee Report (10 minutes)  ………………………….Dr. Gallagher, Dr. King

• Discussion Item: Process and Next Steps

-           Candidate Meetings with Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, Faculty, and Stakeholders
v  Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) With LAUSD (10 minutes)…………….Mr. Taylor, Dr. King

• Action Item: Approve MOU Renegotiation Document by Recommendation of Ad Hoc Committee on MOU Renegotiation

*  Permanent Principal Search (5 minutes)

• Discussion Item: Principal Position Announcement
• Action Item: Establishment of Ad Hoc Committee on Principal Search

*  GCEP Strategy Retreat (5 minutes)

• Discussion Item: Agenda (Scheduled for Saturday, November19th 9:00am-3:00pm)

*  Public Comment (10 minutes)

*  Closing/Adjournment

For DISCUSSION AT NOVEMBER 14, 2011 MEETING WITH A VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO FINALIZE AGREEMENT WITH LAUSD

GCEP-LAUSD MOU RENEGOTIATION

PROPOSED (DRAFT) LETTER OF AGREEMENT:

ADDENDUM TO THE GCEP-LAUSD MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

October 14, 2011

The following proposed letter serves to capture a renegotiation of specific principles in our current Memorandum of Understanding with LAUSD.  This draft letter served as a framework for our discussion of the overall scope and direction of negotiations in a meeting with LAUSD on October 6th.  The language was discussed in a School Site Council meeting on Monday, October 10, and in a subsequent meeting of the full GCEP Board on Monday, October 17, 2011.

Dear Superintendent Daisey:

Please find attached XXXXX (the salutations for Daisey are independent of the MOU)

Date:

PROPOSED (DRAFT) LETTER OF AGREEMENT:

LAUSD MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

ADDENDUM TO THE Greater Crenshaw Educational Partnership- (GCEP) November 8, 20011

Preamble:

This is an Addendum to an original MOU between LAUSD and GCEP signed (original Date).

The MOU remains faithful to the intent of the original agreement to utilize the services of a local community network of stakeholders of the Crenshaw community (GCEP) to advance the performance and academic achievement of all children in the Crenshaw community specifically starting with Crenshaw High School. Nothing in this Addendum violates the existing authority of the Superintendent or the School Board. Abbreviated language constructs  in the Addendum are operationalized as follows:

1. Primary authority: the authority only abridged by the Superintendent or School Board and not restricted or undermined by Local District or I Design 2. Granted the Authority: the responsibilities as defined by the Superintendent in professional consultation with I Design and Local District 3. Data-driven decisions: to mean that actions are informed by prevailing and defensible evidence or standards emerging from performance indices or National practices 4. Key metrics and performance standards: Seven predefined measurable indices with base line performance standards to include (but not limited to) the following:

a. AYP or API scores – 20% improvement

b. Graduation rates – 25% improvement over the rates of the prior year

c. xx% increase in advanced placements

d. etc

The Content:

1. GCEP is granted the authority to to ensure performance system standards and stability at all levels of CHS operations so as to permit sustainability of actions as necessary to meeting annual ‘key metrics and performance standards’. This authority will include in particular: evaluation and hiring of Principal etc

2. [We then continue to establish the other Addenda]

1.       GCEP will ensure that Crenshaw High School achieves the following outcomes in the 2011/2012 school year in academic performance (We are currently finalizing a focused set of metrics with Dr. Rousseau, which are likely to be some combination of attendance, AYP or API, and graduation rates and will be derived from the Single School Plan) and that we are granted the authority to ensure system stabilization and sustainability as necessary to accomplishing such outcomes.   This authority will include a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of the Local District.  Upon achievement of these outcomes, the current MOU will remain in effect. If targets are not met, GCEP will develop an action plan to address the issues over a mutually-agreed-upon time period.

2.       GCEP has the primary authority to make data-driven decisions on selecting and assigning the CHS Principal as well as prior review and assigning of all other administrators, with input from the stakeholder community through a collaborative process, based upon key metrics and performance standards set by GCEP.  The Selection Committee will include a member from the Superintendent’s Office, the process will be conducted in conjunction with the LAUSD Human Resources Office, and the Superintendent must confirm Principal selection.

3.       GCEP is granted the right to provide stipends or other resources to encourage and support CHS District employees . GCEP will carefully follow strict LAUSD guidelines in collaboration with the District.  GCEP can only provide such bonuses with advance notice prior to the beginning of the academic year.  All funds will be raised and provided by GCEP.

4.       We will gradually expand into the feeder pathway via a phased expansion based upon mutual agreement between the feeder school, the District, and GCEP.  Schools would be included in the GCEP Agreement, with an Addendum outlining terms that are specific to each school.  Inclusion in the GCEP MOU will require a vote by stakeholders (teachers, parents, students.) The phased expansion may include the following key stages, which would begin during the 2010-2011 school year:

a)      Assess needs of the feeder school(s)

b)      Determine how GCEP can best support the school by leveraging the resources of our Founding Partners, i.e. providing community support or academic intervention through Los Angeles Urban League’s Neighborhoods@Work program, instructional support through USC Rossier School of Education, or intentional civility/advocacy training through Tom and Ethel Bradley Foundation.

c)       After we have identified needs and established working relationship of support, initiate discussions on including the feeder school(s) in the GCEP family of schools, via mutual agreement.

Monday, October 17, 2011
6:00 pm –8:30 pm
Crenshaw High School – Library
5010 11th Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90043

Conference Call-In Number: 1(605) 477-2100, Participant Code: 964091*

Agenda

Welcome/Opening Remarks (5 minutes)…………………………… ………Blair Taylor, GCEP President

Administrative Update (10 minutes)……………………………………. Blair Taylor, GCEP President
• Discussion Item: GCEP Strategy Retreat: Proposed time, location, agenda: Sat, Nov 19, 2011

CHS Update: Interim Principal’s Report (30 minutes) …………….…………………….Dr. Sylvia Rousseau
• Ad Hoc Committee on Direction of School Transformation

Ad Hoc Committee on GCEP Executive Director (20 minutes)……………….Dr. Karen Gallagher, Vice President and Dr. Lewis King, Secretary
• Discussion: Stakeholder Question and Answer (follow up)(20 minutes)

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Letter of Agreement (50 Minutes)………………Mr. Blair Taylor
• Discussion: Stakeholder Input on Proposed MOU Letter of Agreement (45 minutes)
• Action Item: Approval of Direction of Letter of Agreement (5 minutes)

Permanent Principal Search (10 minutes) ………………………………………………………….. Mr. Blair Taylor
• Action Item: Formation of Ad Hoc Committee Permanaent Principal

Fundraising Committee Report (10 minutes)……………………………… Mr. Blair Taylor
• Action Item: Vote to Apply for SIG Grant (10 minutes)
• Discussion Item: Develop a protocol for CHS grant seeking & external fund development

Public Comment (10 minutes)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Any member of the public may sign in to address the Board on any topic within the jurisdiction of the Board. Individual presentations shall be limited to 3 minutes. The Board is legally prohibited from taking any action on presentations until a subsequent meeting.

Acknowledgments and Closing Remarks (5 minutes)………………………………… Mr. Blair Taylor

***Requests for disability-related modification or accommodation needed to participate in the meeting should be made to Jeri-Denalle Covington at (323) 299-9660 ext 207 by Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 12:00 p.m.***