Responses to Piedmont Post Questions

By June Monach

On February 4, 2008, the Piedmont Post posed the following questions to School Board candidates in anticipation of the League of Women Voters, Piedmont Asian American Club, and Piedmont African American Coalition sponsored Candidates Forum on February 11, 2008. Included in the full text are the questions posed and my responses.

1) Do you support the set-aside of $23 million to rebuild Havens school under the proposed Becker plan?

"At this time, I support, as the Board recommended at its meeting on January 29, 2008, that $23 million be designated for the Havens Elementary School project. The Board awaits staff investigation and a recommendation on whether Mr. Becker's proposal would be viable using an alternative delivery mechanism where the district would enter into a contract with a builder at a fixed price cap. I do not want to pre-judge the issue prior to hearing the staff's findings and recommendation, further board deliberations and public comment. Of the current viable options recommended to the Board, I favor the hybrid plan, estimated to cost $23 million. My question in response would be: Why would we spend $23 million for the hybrid plan if we could achieve a dramatically better outcome for the community at the same cost?"

2) If so, how do you justify spending half of Measure E funds on one school?

"As part of a comprehensive district-wide assessment of school facilities, I believe that Measure E spending should be based on the relative magnitude of safety deficiencies at each school. The district's structural engineering and architecture consultants have confirmed that Havens is the school with the most extensive and expensive deficiencies. This is consistent with the preliminary analysis disclosed to the public prior to the passage of Measure E."

3) If a new bond measure were proposed for a Havens rebuild, would you support that? Could you then guarantee that the balance of Measure E funds not spent would be set aside for post-earthquake repair?

"This seems like an unnecessary step that would require further expense and delay, and could jeopardize our chances to complete the proposed work at the estimated costs, and to obtain available State matching funds to help pay for Piedmont's projects. In passing Measure E, citizens authorized bond funds to be used, "to repair, reconstruct, or replace Piedmont public school buildings to reduce dangers from earthquakes and to meet state and federal seismic safety standards, provide safe classrooms and facilities and to improve the likelihood of Piedmont schools qualifying for state matching funds," not for a post-quake repair fund."

4) How well does the current board handle complex decision-making processes like the Measure E bond program? Please comment on what's right or wrong with the board's current handling of decision-making, public input and transparency, and any improvements you'd like to make.

"In my opinion, the current Board has worked hard to develop a collaborative decision-making model in anticipation of the complex decisions that need to be made on the bond program. Public engagement is necessary for informed decisions to be made. Citizen participation in the Technical Advisory Committee, Bond Steering Committee, Citizens Oversight Committee, at School Board Meetings, and at the December 8, 2007 Community Workshop are all good examples of beneficial public engagement. As with any public process, no system will satisfy everyone. One person's "full discussion" may be another's "unconscionable delay." As a Board we must strike a reasonable balance. One consequence of transparency and participation in a community with educated and articulate citizens holding strong yet divergent views, is that at the end of the day, not everyone's suggestions will be implemented."

5) The district is engaged in yearly review of its curriculum. Is the process working, or would you make changes? Any thoughts on what points need to be included in next year's curriculum review of English?

"I am very excited by recent enhancements that have been made to the curriculum review process under the leadership of the Curriculum Director, Dr. Jamie Adams, and the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, Dr. David Roth. The discussions at Curriculum Council meetings among teachers, parents, and administrators provide opportunities for participants to learn about current practices and explore avenues for continuous improvement. If the results of the K-12 science and math curriculum review are any indication, I am confident that the English Language Arts review will be equally informative, inclusive, and research-based. Although the Board has not embarked on developing district goals for next year, I will encourage that professional development be focused, as it was this year, on the curricular areas that are being reviewed."

6) There has been much discussion and some criticism of the process by which the instructional calendar is formulated each year. Do you agree with critics who say the process is not transparent enough? If so, what would you propose to increase transparency/improve the process?

"No, I strongly disagree. The instructional calendar is subject to many factors, including state requirements, collective bargaining, efficient management of scarce resources, and teacher, administration, and community input. It is virtually impossible to tailor a public school instructional calendar to satisfy all of these factors and interests. First and foremost it must be educationally sound. This year, in response to feedback from some parents that the calendar development process was not transparent enough, with added help from staff and the Associated Parent Clubs of Piedmont, there was greater communication to parents about the process, as well as additional opportunity for public input in the form of a survey. In addition, an educational forum was organized and televised on KCOM to inform people of the process and the many factors that go into developing a calendar. The outcome: The 2008-09 instructional calendar incorporates several key interests expressed by parents, including starting school later than in previous years (Monday, August 25, 2008), and ending in time for participation in summer activities (Thursday, June 11, 2009). With the understanding that the instructional calendar is an APT/District negotiated issue, for those who are interested in providing suggestions or preferences for the 2009-10 Instructional Calendar to the District, please e-mail comments to the District at: parcom@piedmont.k12.ca.us. The deadline for providing comments is May 31, 2008. Please keep in mind that it is impossible to implement every suggestion in a town with a wide range of opinions, as some of them will contradict one another."