skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Too many retroactive DOE sole-source contracts and other problems with proposals to be voted on tonight
Retroactive sole-source contracts
For
the contracts to be voted upon March 23 at the PEP, fully half of the proposed
contracts (17 of 35) are retroactive -- with some starting as early as last
May; which prompts the question what the point of a vote is, if it is held
months after the money has been paid and the services delivered. Sole
source retroactive contracts for this month include:
Item
6 (page 20) Bard College. Inexplicable why this is retroactive. The
relationship with Bard has been in place for years.
Item
7 (page 23) Measure Excellence
Item
11 (page 33) Teachers College professional development for conferences
Item
12 (page 36) Teachers College professional development for writing instruction
Item
13 (page 39) Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative: consulting to develop tests
to measure teachers for performance reviews.
Insufficient information on consulting project to rate
teachers with student tests
Item
13 (page 39) Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative is a consulting engagement
to develop tests to measure teachers for performance reviews. This work is
controversial in light of 1) the thorough discrediting of value-added
measurement models by the academic community and 2) action to eliminate state
tests in rating teachers. The contract should be presented with more
information including the RFP and statement of work. It should be
presented for approval before it's done, not after.
Contracts presented for approval without any prior
information
There
are eight Head Start or pre-K contracts that have no information: Items 15, 16,
17, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. One (item 16 on page 46) is for "lead teacher
incentives". That sounds like something that would require a
discussion. DOE continues to present contracts for approval with no names
or amounts reported despite the promise of DOE to reveal this information at
least a month ahead of the votes.
Lack of any assessment of quality of services delivered
DOE
spends vast amounts of money on professional development -- $70 million has
been approved since October of 2105 -- without any assessment of the efficacy
of this spending. This month the requested funding is another $500,000.
For
numerous textbook and online program contracts, there are no comparative
evaluations of quality or market research as to why these particular vendors
were chosen; with less analysis offered than in the detailed description of why
a particular vendor for snow tire chains was selected.
Rationale for Bard College funding is unclear
The
proposal to pay Bard College nearly a million dollars for additional services
to the two Bard High schools, which are both highly selective schools with
comparatively few high-needs students, does not appear to be aligned with their
Fair Student Funding system.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment