"Where Olmsted County News Comes First"
Online Edition
Wednesday, June 19th, 2013
Volume ∞ Issue ∞
- 5:21:43, Jun 12th 2013 - johnnyb - a pinto? i thought first a piano. ... [Read More]
- 7:04:12, Jun 11th 2013 - Frank Hawthorne - Response to Bruce Kaskubar: And I--in of course choosing not to ar ... [Read More]
- 11:46:57, Jun 11th 2013 - Frank Hawthorne - Excellent commentary--Thank you Ms. Reisner! ... [Read More]
- 5:02:49, Jun 10th 2013 - Bruce Kaskubar - Frank, History tells me that arguing with you is pointless so I put ... [Read More]
- 11:42:58, Jun 3rd 2013 - Frank Hawthorne - Colonel Stan's twisted, conservative "genius" is to see every poten ... [Read More]
- 1:58:25, May 30th 2013 - Garden happy - This should be a great event for all ages!! I can't wait. ... [Read More]
- 11:30:35, May 29th 2013 - - Good job, Kaylee! ... [Read More]
- 5:36:49, May 15th 2013 - Frank Hawthorne - Though I hated to see you reference Glenn Beck by name [Three Times ... [Read More]
- 11:42:07, May 10th 2013 - yenken - I feel very sorry for those who have commented do far, as when you stand fa ... [Read More]
- 12:10:25, Apr 26th 2013 - Frank Hawthorne - Mr. "Cabtrom's" garbage-out[burst]--in response to Ms. Reisner's w ... [Read More]
33
Do you think the use of all fireworks should be legal in the state of Minnesota for all consumers?
Rochester Schools iPad funding denied
Mon, Sep 24th, 2012
Posted in Rochester Education
Posted in Rochester Education
Comment(1)
Rochester School District’s request to the Commissioner of Education for levy authority to lease $7 million for purchase of student technology (including several thousand iPads) was denied August 27th on account of the Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) inability to determine “that the expenditures contribute to the implementation of the desegregation plan.”
The desegregation plan evoked by Commissioner Cassellius refers to Minnesota Rules, part 3535.0110, subpart 4 which states that districts must detail how their desegration plan translates financially. Specifically, how expenditures will “support increased and sustained racial contacts and improved educational opportunities and outcomes designed to close the achievement gap between white students and protected students.”
The Integration Plan generated by the District’s Technology Committee and submitted to MDE clearly includes the intention to “ensure equal access to technology for all students.” Technology would be distributed equally to school sites as it was purchased over a three year period. Where this apparently fails the stipulations of desegregation criteria, as discussed with the Commissioner, is that the one-to-one pilot initiative does not exclusively target students who are on the underside of the academic achievement gap.
A plan that would benefit everyone equally was not considered “integration”—the technology, resources, and funding needed to be preferentially allocated to schools with higher minority populations those on the disadvantaged side of the gap.
Previous Commissioners have not interpreted the statutes in the same way as Cassellius, and the School Board was frustrated by the unexpected setback to the progress of the Technology Plan at the Rochester School Board meeting September 18th.
Though frustrated, the Board plans to continue working to expand student access to technology, but it will require their finding another source of funding. There are plans to resubmit to MDE a stripped down version of the plan, a $3 million proposal, so that some implementation can begin in the schools while officials sleuth for new funding options to cover the purchase of iPads.
The desegregation plan evoked by Commissioner Cassellius refers to Minnesota Rules, part 3535.0110, subpart 4 which states that districts must detail how their desegration plan translates financially. Specifically, how expenditures will “support increased and sustained racial contacts and improved educational opportunities and outcomes designed to close the achievement gap between white students and protected students.”
The Integration Plan generated by the District’s Technology Committee and submitted to MDE clearly includes the intention to “ensure equal access to technology for all students.” Technology would be distributed equally to school sites as it was purchased over a three year period. Where this apparently fails the stipulations of desegregation criteria, as discussed with the Commissioner, is that the one-to-one pilot initiative does not exclusively target students who are on the underside of the academic achievement gap.
A plan that would benefit everyone equally was not considered “integration”—the technology, resources, and funding needed to be preferentially allocated to schools with higher minority populations those on the disadvantaged side of the gap.
Previous Commissioners have not interpreted the statutes in the same way as Cassellius, and the School Board was frustrated by the unexpected setback to the progress of the Technology Plan at the Rochester School Board meeting September 18th.
Though frustrated, the Board plans to continue working to expand student access to technology, but it will require their finding another source of funding. There are plans to resubmit to MDE a stripped down version of the plan, a $3 million proposal, so that some implementation can begin in the schools while officials sleuth for new funding options to cover the purchase of iPads.
Comments:
441
7:22:48, Oct 10th 2012
EmptyPockets says: