.

School Board Election is Over, On to Governance!

The School Board must make sure every student learns by ensuring conditions for learning are equal at every school.
The School Board must make sure every student learns by ensuring conditions for learning are equal at every school.
The School Board election took place almost two months ago on November 5, 2013.   The new School Board was installed on December 12, 2013 and UPCC mightily celebrated the success of their endorsed candidates.

And it makes sense that after the election, candidates and community members reflected on the results (here is my reflection).  Yet, once the new Board Members are installed, the much harder process begins - that of governance. While some are still talking about the results of the election, it's time for the rest of us to welcome the New Year with a focus on the future.

Elections are by nature divisive. To move forward, when it's over, we all must accept that the electorate has decided who should represent the community.  And, Board members must also accept that they must represent the interests of the entire community, whether community members voted for them or for another candidate - or didn't even vote. 

Say, for example, Steve Levin.  He was the Farragut Volunteer of the Year, and President of the Farragut Fan Club for years, so naturally he has many supporters at that school.  Yet, as Board member, he must also represent the students, the families, and the community of all schools, including La Ballona Elementary, which is his neighborhood school.

The two schools couldn't be more different.  

In the years Levin led the Farragut Fan Club, the earnings increased considerably. Their 2009 tax return shows that in the prior year, the Club raised 'only' $100,005.  The 2011 tax return shows the booster club raised $209,934. This doesn't seem that surprising when you see that in their website, they suggest you can become a Platinum or Diamond Fox by making contributions of $1,000 or $2,500 (and above) per year, which only represent the average monthly cost of a private school.  These contributions allow students at Farragut Elementary to enjoy: Visual Arts Instruction at All Grade Levels, Music, Drama, and Dance Instruction, Computer Lab Aides, Instructional Supplies and Equipment, iPads, Computers, and Other Innovative Classroom Technology.

In contrast, La Ballona Education Partners reports $19,403 in 2009 and $27,769 in 2010. Their donation request is $250 per year per student. Perhaps this is because in 2012-13, 364 of its 556 students or 65%, were reported to be socioeconomically disadvantaged (Source: Data Quest).

This stark difference between the ability of these two schools to raise funds from parents to supplement that which the public provides, points to a larger challenge.  When there are children facing more hardship at home who then attend a school that has less enhancements than the school that is literally down the street, where parents are able to raise funds to pay for a learning experience that rivals a private school... the community and the School Board MUST take notice.  It is one thing for Steve Levin to have been a founding member of UPCC, and for UPCC to have helped elect him, but neither Steve Levin, nor Sue Robbins, nor Kathy Paspalis can ignore these facts.  For that matter, Laura Chardiet and Nancy Goldberg cannot ignore these facts, either.  The School Board is responsible for making sure every student learns, and to ensure that conditions for learning are equal at every school. 

This is the job of governance, and difficult as it may be to wade through the issues that inequities in funding create, they must seek to understand what has led to this situation, and what can be done to correct it.


This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Alan Elmont January 03, 2014 at 01:24 PM
Perhaps a bit of tribal knowledge is appropriate to the discussion. Back when El Marino was re-opened as the CCUSD elementary immersion school a goal was put forth to have each of the four other elementary schools have their own "focus". Farragut was initially deemed to have a "technology" focus due to the Fan Club's formation to purchase computers, which led to the computer lab, which led to computer labs throughout the district. 10 years later, parents and the administrator, Kelly Karnes, at Farragut then embarked on embedding an Arts program within Farragut approved by the board (but not funded) as a self sustaining (funded) pilot. Parents like Bonnie Wacker and Roger Maxwell along with many others (apologies for not remembering the names of all) were instrumental in getting this off the ground. When it gained enough momentum and funding was necessary the Arts Committee at Farragut was then folded into the Fan Club so fund raising could occur. This pilot led to CCUSD being on the forefront of adopting an Arts integrated curricula! El Rincon has the science lab, a donation from a community company. Linwood Howe championed the chess program and mathematics. La Ballona Scott addresses above. Even our nationally acclaimed immersion program began due to parents driving the programs. I believe this is equity as it clearly is not equality in offerings. The challenge at the board level is how to allow parents to enroll in a school offering the focus they desire. The expanded immersion program at La Ballona was the outgrowth of that very discussion! Funding remains the biggest restriction followed by facilities, teacher training and community interest for CCUSD to be able to roll out all programs to all schools. Technology and Arts are on the forefront, but so should science (the full ability to utilize the El Rincon science lab is incredibly important). AND this is just some history on the primary school level, someone else should address middle and high schools! And Claudia, I'm still interested in reading your thoughts on approaches and solutions to the very questions and issues you pose! :)
James Province January 03, 2014 at 02:13 PM
Odd that there is such a defensive tone to some of these responses. Also, I'm not clear why this is so controversial. Saying we need to strive for equity should be the goal of every school board member, parent and Culver City community member, and it needn't diminish what we are achieving in other schools who have benefitted from having parents who have the time to fundraise. Kudos also to those working hard to bring additional funding to La Ballona, El Rincon and Linwood Howe. I applaud Ms. Vizcarra for keeping her eye on the prize of equity for ALL students.
Claudia Vizcarra January 03, 2014 at 02:41 PM
Thank you James. I'm also a bit surprised at the tone of the responses.
Claudia Vizcarra January 03, 2014 at 02:51 PM
Thank you Alan for presenting the history behind the current situation at Farragut. I believe that part of the energy behind these efforts was the fact that the language programs at El Marino were drawing active parents from their neighborhood schools and that many parents who heard that El Marino was the 'best' school were disappointed that they could not get in, so they turned to their own school. Since I have lived in Culver City for 14 years, this is what I heard from parents, over those years. I clearly remember hearing from many parents that Farragut was becoming the school to send your kids if you couldn't get into El Marino. I have heard parents tried to permit out of El Rincon because their child was 'into the arts' and that was the focus at Farragut. A kindergartener, mind you! I don't know about you - but I believe every elementary school should have a strong arts program, a strong science program, adequate technology. That's what every child needs. Making sure that every school has this I believe, is every community member's concern.
Alan Elmont January 03, 2014 at 03:24 PM
My motivation occurred the year before Japanese Immersion was moved from Farragut to El Marino. I along with 2 other parents recognized the need for computers at the elementary level. There were no computers in Farragut at that time so we started the fan club to raise money to buy computers the district couldn't afford! The Arts program was driven by parents and an administrator who shared your views of the benefit of art in education. There was a perception that CCUSD favored certain schools at various times and new parents are particularly influenced by those perceptions. There has been much improvement in balancing those perceptions over the years with much more to be done. We agree all schools should have strong programs as you stated! Next...from where do we get the money? THAT is the challenge! As more money becomes available, how will it be allocated? CCUSD has appropriately allocated increases in compensation to its employees first. But what next? Bring back positions eliminated when money was cut and reduce class sizes OR spend more on teacher training? Build out new science labs in the other 4 schools over other facility needs OR build a multimedia technology center OR properly roll out technology for all schools necessary to implement the new curricula? How would you make these allocations? What other revenue sources can you recommend?
Claudia Vizcarra January 03, 2014 at 03:39 PM
As you know, the parcel tax is due to be reauthorized. I'd like to find out how our School Board feels about that. Then there is the LCFF which will generate conversations and decisions that should address the issue of how best to meet the needs of our most vulnerable students. But, these are public sources, they contain, within them, an equity agenda. My opinion in this blog post relates to private (parent) fundraising and the inequities it exacerbates. Simply put, by definition, schools with large concentrations of less affluent parents can never raise as much as schools that attract the parents who 'invest' in programming that will benefit their own children. That logic is acceptable in a private school setting, but not in a public school setting.
Alan Elmont January 03, 2014 at 04:14 PM
Good point, good question.....So, again, what do you suggest?
Kathy Paspalis January 03, 2014 at 04:52 PM
Actually, the parcel tax is NOT due to be "reauthorized," although it IS due to expire. No decision has been made as of yet regarding when or even IF a parcel tax will be brought forward to the voters. The CA economy is in a much different position now than when we urged CC voters to pass EE in '09. On the other hand, Laura, I and the rest of the new Board have been working very hard on getting a bond on the next possible ballot - the capital needs of the District are great and obvious to anyone paying attention. (And if you haven't been paying attention, ask a teacher or a PTA leader; they certainly know!) The Board - and the community, speaking loud and clear on Nov. 5th - recognizes that there are learning conditions and working conditions that need our immediate attention. Indeed, Claudia noted as much in her election post mortem blog last month. ("...the underlying story is that the campaign to bring the bond forward seems to have gained a huge boost with this election.") There are a lot of equity issues that can and will be addressed with passage of a bond. Perhaps afterward we can take a look at the efficacy of a second parcel tax. Or not; depending upon how much more Sacramento does in terms of restoring our public school budgets back to what they should be, so all our children can move forward.
Kelly Weil January 03, 2014 at 04:56 PM
So by your logic should we just shut down La Ballona now because those parents are "never" going to raise enough money to have a good school? Should we start a campaign to shame Farragut and El Marino parents from donating too much time and money? I continue to find your arguments about "equality in fundraising" insulting and denigrating to our community because, among other things, they invariably pit one school's children, parents, faculty and staff, against another school's (today's example Farragut v. La Ballona), and they feed (outdated) negative perceptions about the ability to receive a quality education at all of our schools. We can't change the fact that Culver City is economically diverse, and we can't predict how much time or money parents at any given school can or will donate over the course of their children's school years. It is also disingenuous to suggest that the new Board members have the power to level the private fundraising field - they don't. What we can do as a community to help the schools that are farther behind in fundraising is to reach out to the business community, foundations, etc. to help supplement. What we can do is pass a bond to help improve the learning environment at all our schools. What we can do is try to unite the parents, teachers and staff across the community in these efforts. What we can do is stop making some of us feel lesser than others and stop asserting that we can "never" level the playing field.
Debbie Hamme January 03, 2014 at 05:10 PM
Alan, I think the better question is what measures will the new board take in order to create equity in our schools. As community members, it falls to us to make our views and concerns known to the board. After that, it is their responsibility to prioritize the spending of monies appropriately to make equity a reality throughout our school district. Claudia has shared legitimate concerns with us and now it is our turn to respond with our own solutions. One can raise an issue without having a ready solution--solutions can be found through the ensuing discussion. I, for one, am very supportive of the Santa Monica/Malibu Unified School District Board of Education's approach--despite the reaction of the parents in Malibu. You state that Claudia raised a "good point, good question", so let me ask, what possible solutions would you suggest?
Claudia Vizcarra January 03, 2014 at 05:22 PM
Kelly, I have never suggested shaming anyone, closing any school or any of the things you suggest. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have the right to express my opinion that this is a problem and you have the absolute right to disagree. It is not my intention to make anyone feel lesser than or anyone greater than. In my opinion, the ability of a school community to raise funds has nothing to do with merit (how hard they work, or how much they care for their children), it is simple economics. You can raise more in a community where you have more resources. There is no shame in that. I also never ascribe intention - in other words, I don't think the Farragut parents are intentionally attempting to do anything but make sure their children have what they need - equally as La Ballona parents do. There are just fewer resources in some communities than there are in others. Public funding of schools attempts to equalize the playing field. Private funding of schools, as in this example, does not achieve this goal, but makes the distance greater.
Claudia Vizcarra January 03, 2014 at 05:31 PM
Kathy, it appears by your clarification you are supportive of the idea of letting the parcel tax expire. It is true that the election supported the notion of the bond measure, but I don't think it spelled disapproval of a parcel tax. What you suggest as Board's commitment to only a bond measure for now implies that the school community only has facility needs now, that other needs, such as increased funding of arts programs or reduced class sizes, will either be met through other funding, or perhaps need not be met for now. Am I wrong to assume this?
Michael Hersh January 03, 2014 at 06:32 PM
This has been an interesting dialogue, so thanks for starting it, Claudia. As the parent of a former El Marino student who has since graduated from CCHS, and as a staff attorney for the California Teachers Association who on occasion provides assistance to Culver City's classified union, I understand these issues from many perspectives. My son benefited greatly from the efforts of the private groups who provide additional funding for school programs and after-school programs and do volunteer work to help all our students. My wife was a founder of the AVPA Foundation, and we have contributed to many such private efforts. It is great when parents pull together to strengthen our schools and provide opportunities to students, but their contributions do not relieve the school district governing board from its constitutional duty to provide equal protection to all students (Serrano v Priest (1976) 18 Cal.3d 728) or to cede its legal responsibilities to non-elected persons. The Board has a legal responsibility to follow the law, not just some laws. Concerning classroom aids, the District is ultimately responsible for their activities in the classroom, regardless of who claims to be their employer, and parents should expect nothing less for the safety of our kids and to have a consistent educational program. By law, instructional aides are classified employees of the district. (Education Code, Section 45347). Nor can "volunteers" be used to displace classified employees or do work that classified employees typically do. (Ed Code sections 35021 & 45349) I expect that the newly elected Board will fulfill its constitutional and legal responsibilities and I hope that parent-activists will focus their efforts on raising money to support our schools and students, not to dictate school policy or violate workers' rights. There is no contradiction here between allowing parents to raise money and do great work with the need of the governing board to ensure that students' education is not impaired by economic discrimination or policies determined by non-elected persons. Parents should do the work of parents, and governing board members should do the job they have chosen to do. If the vitriol of the election is to continue, which I sincerely hope it does not, that will not be good for our students or schools. I don't know who created this ridiculous false opposition between classified employees and private support for our schools, but as Claudia has said, it is time for governance. Happy New Year. Michael Hersh
Kathy Paspalis January 03, 2014 at 07:25 PM
Good news: Governance has been happening! for me, for the past 4 years. for Laura and Nancy, for the past 2 years. our new board members are 2 very smart people who're hustling to learn, lead and act. it's all goooood stuff folks! yea!! Doomsayers, find something else to fret about, and community members, take a look at our school sites, and then help out with the bond when it comes along. Thank you. That is all for now.
Claudia Vizcarra January 03, 2014 at 08:05 PM
Kathy, Let me get this right. Speaking up about the need for all students to have access to strong arts programs, strong science programs, adequate technology in every school is being a doomsayer. Speaking up for the responsibility that Boards have to abide by the Constitution and all applicable laws is being a doomsayer. Funny definition. I certainly hope that that other School Board members will be more open and respectful of a dialogue on the important issues that constituents raise.
Claudia Vizcarra January 03, 2014 at 09:54 PM
Alan, You might have missed the last paragraph in my post. Here it is again: This is the job of governance, and difficult as it may be to wade through the issues that inequities in funding create, they must seek to understand what has led to this situation, and what can be done to correct it.
Alan Elmont January 03, 2014 at 10:10 PM
Debbie, the solution I believe is an endowment. CCEF would be the ideal organization through which to foster an endowment, but they struggle each year to raise all that they spend. I believe if all parties, CCUSD, CCEF, All Booster Clubs, PTA's, Parents and Community could come together under a single banner we could raise $20+ million dollars and create a self funding endowment. I do not have such expertise, but there are those who do. It will take a true states"person" to champion such an effort. Absent that, the struggle for funding will remain until our legislature corrects public school funding (snort, hysterical laughter). Claudia, your post above regarding legal challenges, if taken, will more likely result in dismantling school booster 501c organizations and diminish much that has been accomplished in CCUSD. So, lets reframe this discussion to posts suggesting real solutions. I've posted mine. Claudia, Debbie, Michael, Kelly, Scott, Kathy...others...post yours.
Michael Hersh January 03, 2014 at 10:54 PM
I think that Alan's endowment suggestion is one that is worth exploring as it has the potential to broaden the impact of successful projects throughout the District, unite the electorate, lessen the uncertainties of unpredictable fund raising, and does not intrude upon the school board's exercise of its appropriate policy making powers and legal responsibilities for our kids education and school employees rights. My earlier reference to Ed Code statues was an attempt to ground the discussion over aides that had been mis-framed in the lead up to the election as a struggle between parents and the union. If there are private donors who would not donate if the district complied with its legal responsibilities, that would be quite tragic, but should not stop people who actually put schools and students at the top of their concerns from continuing the great work that has been done. I hope Claudia is wrong about the role or need for legal challenges, and I have been writing here as a concerned citizen, not a union lawyer. Neither ACE nor CTA has suggested such litigation nor am I, but we also expect workers' legal and bargaining rights to be respected. ACE and CTA want to work with all parties who work to bring more resources into our schools so long as workers' rights and equal protection are respected. Those who can't play nice can take their ball and go home; they'll come around when they're done sulking - if they care about the things they claim to care about.
Claudia Vizcarra January 03, 2014 at 10:56 PM
Alan, I appreciate your post and willingness to work on solutions. Let me clarify something. I was referring generally to the fact that equity has been brought about in cases through legal challenges, as Michael referred to the Serrano v. Priest lawsuit, which addressed inequities between districts in the State of California. I don't think that a legal challenge is needed when the Board of Education takes its responsibility of ensuring all students have access to equal education seriously, which is all that I am suggesting. As to your point that our legislature has not taken steps to correct public school funding, I believe this is exactly what the Local Control Funding Formula is designed to do. And voters approved Proposition 30, and state revenues appear to have increase, so we MAY see increased funding. Additionally, our good District has been quite prudent fiscally, so a healthy reserve exists. If the Board and the Superintendent believe that there is no need for additional funding as a result of all of this (that the only needed funding is for facilities improvement)- then there should be sufficient funding to make sure that La Ballona has the same level of arts programming and technology as Farragut has, wouldn't you think? - to make sure all students are equally served, regardless of their families ability to donate to the school. In essence, proper administration of the District's resources and adherence to the principles of equal protection, would suggest that the degree of variability between resources in schools is monitored and that efforts are made to diminish this variability. That is the solution I propose.
Alan Elmont January 04, 2014 at 01:11 AM
Claudia, No, I do not believe it is necessarily true there is sufficient funds to provide from District coffers what you suggest nor do I trust the State funding formula any more under it's new configuration than it's last no more than I trust the whims of state legislature, executive or state school administration. That being said, it might not serve the community to endure both a parcel tax and a bond...or it might. That's why parcel taxes are of limited duration whereas a bond is limited in debt proportion. Nor do I believe the various booster clubs should engage in "pooling" resources to supplement other schools or groups. The High School has two 501c groups each funding distinct programs albeit, all students can benefit who attend CCHS but funds remain insular from each other as is true between PTA's and booster clubs. Farragut funds the computer lab and art programs (what else I cannot speak to any longer) ALLEM funds their unique language aids plus..., each elementary campus has their own funding needs or desires, with different levels of parental/community involvement. I liked the idea of each elementary having its own "focus" be it science, art, math, whatever.. I believe technology needs to be level as that will also be required for proper implementation of the Common Core curricula. I believe art should be integrated within the program, but I do not see the need for each campus to have a separate arts instructor as all do not need separate language instructors, although I support parents funding similar instructors at La Ballona as has El Marino for their immersion program. My concept of an endowment is not to "pool" the funds currently raised or donated, but is separate and apart possibly taking years to achieve lest someone bequeath to us as happens in the University setting. Some parents might wish their children be in a true science focused campus but others art and others language...a magnet school concept, and there might also remain the need for a more "traditional" neighborhood school without such singular focus. Core curricula and instruction is supported across the district as the API scores attest. Challenges will always remain and continually change based on the needs of the students who present themselves to our district. But I am neither a socialist nor communist in my fiscal or educational attitudes and dislike the thought that parents at one school site or another might be limited, restricted or otherwise have the fruit of their efforts be thwarted or taken to support other than those for whom they intended, their children at their attending school.
Debbie Hamme January 04, 2014 at 02:59 PM
Alan, I didn't realize that wanting equity for all students made one a socialist or a communist. That being said, I suppose that is the way you view the solution that they arrived at in Santa Monica/Malibu USD. You previously mentioned an endowment--how do you envision that working in Culver City? Your comments in the final paragraph of your last post, above, basically means that your solution, apparently, is to maintain the status quo which will perpetuate the inequities, not solve them. We have had elementary schools that have each had their own "focus" for years now--how has that changed the problems we face regarding the undeniable inequities that exist between them?
Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin January 04, 2014 at 03:55 PM
To the above posters: Please name the exact inequities. Be specific and not anecdotal. Thanks.
Kathy Paspalis January 04, 2014 at 04:18 PM
wow. lots going on here since Claudia posted a couple of comments/questions my way. first one: "Am I wrong to assume this?" yes; never assume. and furthermore, I'm not entirely certain which "this" you mean, making it impossible to respond to in any other fashion. second: re the "Kathy, Let me get this right." you did not get it right. you leaped bounds away from what i said to conclude things that i never said or never intimated. again, don't assume. Claudia, you texted me midweek that you wanted to get together for tea; i replied that i'm available this weekend, and then i've gotten no further response. how about that tea date?? :)
Debbie Hamme January 04, 2014 at 05:37 PM
Jeannine: El Rincon has a total of 3 general education Instructional Assistants for a student population of 567 students. We used to have 4, but when one was transferred to another site, we didn't have enough funds in either our School Improvement or Title I budgets to fund a replacement. We have been talking for the last 2 or more years about the possibility of funding a part-time assistant to work in our Science Lab to help the teachers with the experiments and presentations they do in the lab, but we can't afford it. We have been using old, donated PCs in our classrooms for the last several years because we don't have the money to replace them. Our IT department can no longer repair them, so when they break, they are recycled and the teacher is down a computer in the classroom. A few of our teachers have brought their own printers from home because we don't have the funding to replace every printer that is not repairable. We don't have the number of volunteers in our classrooms that other schools with larger populations of stay-at-home parents enjoy because our demographic is very different and most of our parents are working parents (and many of them are single parents, as well). Our booster club and PTA parents work EXTREMELY hard and sponsor many of the same activities ALLEM and the booster clubs at other schools sponsor, but with lesser results. Why do you think that is, Jeannine? We cheer when our annual raffle/silent auction raises $8,000, which is a drop in the bucket at other schools. And we don't have the demographic at our school that can afford to chip in $500.00 per year, per child (or donate hours upon hours of volunteer time in place of that) to help pay for an instructional assistant in every classroom. I think that through voluntary donations to our booster club at the beginning of this school year we raised about $3,000 (maybe less). Shall I go on? Yet, despite these inequities, we are a wonderful school with an excellent principal and fine teachers and staff who care about every single one of our students. We want to see them be successful in life and this means providing them with all of the advantages and extracurriculars that the students at the other elementary schools enjoy. Should they be denied this because we don't have the fund raising power that other schools do?
Claudia Vizcarra January 04, 2014 at 06:26 PM
Jeannine, It seems to me that you do not perceive the fact that one school community can raise many thousands of dollars more than another school community as an inequity. Because I didn't share anecdotal data, I shared very specific factual information, supported by tax returns. Ultimately, I don't think it serve any purpose to pretend that there aren't differences between schools caused by parents' ability to raise funds, especially for someone who heads an organization that seeks to represent all parents.
Alan Elmont January 04, 2014 at 06:52 PM
Debbie brings forth some good information that should be exposed and reviewed. Jeannine speaks to the need for comparative data and Claudia appears to state that site based fund raising ability makes a qualitative difference. All reasonable. So, what to do? Which is the correct forum to take these concerns. How can relevant data be collected and analyzed? AND then, how should district funds be allocated to address appropriate issues? Kathy Paspalis has been reading and contributing although I would not suggest a response to my musings...but we know there is now an outlet to the District to investigate if they do not already have most of the answers to these questions. Debbie is a member of CBAC as is Scott Kecken, another forum in which to address district funding allocations and Jeannine is president of UPCC, another group who can research and advocate effectively for appropriate funding allocations. And Debbie, YOU succeed in my withdrawal from this conversation with your contemptuous comments directed at me "Alan, I didn't realize that wanting equity for all students made one a socialist or a communist." How DARE you make such a blatantly misstatement of my comments! When did you decide it was your mission to insult me rather than engage in true discourse. Nevermind, I'm out of this blog.
Claudia Vizcarra January 04, 2014 at 06:54 PM
Finally, Jeannine, this is why it matters: all of our children end up learning together at CCMS and CCHS. I assume parents invest in supports for their schools because they believe this improves achievement. So, doesn't it make sense that all parents have an interest in all children having all the supports they need, so when they come together, they all have the same opportunity to learn? Who is served by some students not having adequate supports and others having ample supports? No one. That is why we send our children to public and not private school, or at least I do. I believe that by providing the same experience, public schools level the playing field, making sure every parent and every student's aspiration for a bright future can be met.
Kim Miller January 04, 2014 at 06:58 PM
Number one is break up the Big teachers union, secondly choice off students . Peace , Kim
Debbie Hamme January 04, 2014 at 08:23 PM
Jeannine: Volunteer data is tracked only by each volunteer signing in at the front desk when they arrive on campus. We ask that they simply sign in upon arrival and sign out when they leave. I am not sure what specific information you are looking for, but as the president of the UPCC, I am sure that the information you seek could be easily gathered for you by the parent site reps you have at each of our schools.
Claudia Vizcarra January 06, 2014 at 01:09 AM
Dear Readers, this has been an interesting dialogue, but it's time to end it. Any further comments will be deleted. Thank you.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »