Will Math Changes Reduce Student Options?

As many PCA readers know, the Piedmont Unified School District is developing its responses to California’s new “Common Core” standards for math.  These standards are intended to make math more “rigorous” and “real world” — which will require significant changes within individual courses, and may lead to restructuring of the overall K-12 progression of math classes.  After several listening sessions, the District staff recently shared its first partial draft of proposed changes.  Unfortunately, these could leave many students worse off than under existing sequences.

How Does Piedmont Math Work Now?

Students stay together for math in grades K through 5.  Individual teachers offer varying degrees of in-class “differentiation” to recognize different readiness and abilities, and there are some pull-outs for either enrichment or extra support.  Although the District has moved to increase uniformity, students’ experiences still vary depending on their teachers.

During grades 6-12, the approach changes, to create different multi-year “pathways:”

• Students who’ve done particularly well so far, and do well on a special test right after 5th grade start an “accelerated pathway,” taking 7th grade pre-algebra in 6th grade, with the option of staying on that pathway through  Calculus BC in 12th.  This year 36 6th graders (out of roughly 200) started this pathway.

• Other students take 6th and 7th grade math together.  Most take Algebra 1 in 8th grade and continue through Calculus AB.  Those who need more time and support can decelerate by taking Introduction to Algebra in 8th, Algebra 1 in 9th grade, and then can progress as far as Math Analysis.  This year’s 8th graders are split 85 in Algebra 1 and 75 in Intro.

Numbers vary year to year, but the percentages are roughly 35:45:20.  Students can move up to a faster pathway by taking summer school (or doubling up Geometry with Algebra 1 or 2), or down by delaying a course.

How Does Common Core Change Math Courses?

Common Core’s designers intend that no student should skip any course, since they’ve designed each course to have less review material and more new material than some of the present courses.  Instead, they suggest that students’ progress can be adjusted by “compressing” or “expanding” courses to vary the pace of instruction: compressing to provide 3 years’ worth of information in 2 years, or even 2 in 1; or expanding to stretch 1 year into 2, or 2 years into 3.  The designers leave states and schools to decide when and if to create these pace-based pathways.

What’s Being Proposed for Piedmont?

Piedmont staff have issued their first draft of a proposal to phase in changes to Piedmont’s math offerings, beginning with 6th grade changes during next school year (2014-15).  In this draft:

• 6th grade – all students would stay together (no acceleration/compression), with additional effort to offer in-class differentiation, enrichment and support

• 7th grade – higher-readiness students might start a compressed track (e.g., 7th, 8th, and Algebra 1 in 2 years), or compression might be delayed until high school while all students stay together

• 8th grade – higher-readiness students might or might not be on a compressed track; presently there’s no proposal to replace Intro to Algebra for students who need more time and support, so all students may stay together

• High School – generalized commitment for faster track to reach Calculus BC, and to develop appropriate pathway for slower track.  No firm proposal, but latest example compresses 2:1 in 11th grade (Algebra 2 and Math Analysis) and/or in 12th grade (compress Calculus AB and BC into one year)

What’s Risky About This Proposal?

Although there’s no way to be certain how a new program will work until it’s implemented, the draft proposal has several risky features:

• None of us have found any national, statewide, or Piedmont data supporting the suggestion that deferring “pathways” helps math outcomes.  In contrast, we know that Piedmont’s accelerated pathway students have achieved very high results every year (grades, test scores, and some reporting by graduates about their college experiences), middle pathway students have done well, and students on the slower pathway have struggled to meet statewide standards.

• Every year without pathways is another year when students at all readiness levels share the same classroom – so teachers must not only revamp their courses to meet Common Core standards, but would have to differentiate their intsruction to meet the widest possible range of math readiness and learning styles.  And students would have to accommodate classmates with readiness levels very different from their own.  This isn’t impossible, but math differentiation in Piedmont’s existing courses is still problematic after years of efforts, and it’s likely to be harder rather than easier next year.

• Delayed compression means that less-ready students would not receive “expanded” courses until spending more years trying to keep up, and accelerated students would be taking 2-for-1 math in 11th grade, which is already the toughest year for most Piedmont students

Parents are working with the District and each other to reduce these risks by continuing to improve the staff proposal.  To learn more, you can visit the District’s Common Core webpage at http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/curriculum/common-core, or the latest version of a presentation used in public meetings, atwww.piedmont.k12.ca.us/communications/common-core-math-implementation-faq.    In addition, the Piedmont Advanced Learners Program Support group has also accumulated information, and is distributing on online petition (which attracted 130 e-signatures in its first 3 days) asking the District to reconsider its options – athttp://piedmontalps.org/math-petition.

Please take the time to learn more, offer your views through the online petition, or write the School Board or Assistant Superintendent Randy Booker.  As of this writing the Board has provided no guidance on this important issue, so your views can help the process.

Jon Elliott, Piedmont Resident

Editor’s Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Annually, the Piedmont Board of Education is required to hold two public hearings on levying the Measure A parcel tax. The March 26 hearing is the first of the two hearings. The second hearing is scheduled for April 9.

The Measure A Subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee has recommended to the Board that the maximum amount be levied. Consequently, for fiscal year 2014-15 a 2% increase on the $2,406 parcel tax amount is expected. The public hearing will begin at approximately 8:10 p.m., following the 7 p.m. start of the Board meeting.

Comments on the tax levy can be addressed to all Board Members via aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us.  Below is the School District’s announcement.

“At their regular Board meeting of Wednesday, March 26, 2014, the Board of Education will discuss the levying of Measure A to be assessed for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014. In compliance with Government Code Section 6061 and ballot language, the Board will hold a public hearing and take action on the taxes at the Board meeting of April 9, 2014, which will be held in the Council Chambers of the Piedmont City Hall at 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, California. The public is invited to provide comment at either Board meeting or by email at the Board of Education at aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us“

Do you have an issue or concern that might be addressed in the current contract negotiations with Piedmont teachers?  Between March 12 and March 26, submission of comments to your elected school board members and staff will be timely for the negotiation process.

Read the current teacher contract here.

The public will have an opportunity to provide input to the Board at public hearings on March 12 and March 26, 2014.  The current contract expires on July 1, 2014.   Feedback is also accepted during the entire sunshine period between the March Board meetings by email, mail or phone messages to the Superintendent at chubbard@piedmont.k12.ca.us or (510) 594- 2614.   

Any person wishing to provide information concerning the articles in the contract to be opened may communicate with members of the Board of Education and the Superintendent via email, phone or in writing. Board member email addresses are listed below:

Rick Raushenbush, Board President, rraushenbush@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Andrea Swenson, Board Vice President, aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Sarah Pearson, Board Member, spearson@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Amal Smith, Board Member, amalsmith@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Doug Ireland, Board Member, direland@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Constance Hubbard, Superintendent, chubbard@piedmont.k12.ca.us

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The 2011-14 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the District and the
California School Employees Association (CSEA) expires on June 30, 2014. The expiration of a contract means that all articles are open for discussion. The public was given notice at the October 23, 2013 Board meeting of the negotiations timeline. It included an opportunity to provide feedback to the Board as to which articles/topics to discuss as part of the process. In keeping with the Interest Based Bargaining (IBB) process, at the end of a contract period it is in everyone’s interest to condense the number of articles to open for discussion.

The negotiating teams for the District and CSEA met to discuss interests and to identify those articles to open for consideration and those that will remain closed for discussion. The collective bargaining process requires that the Board provide at least two opportunities for a public hearing to allow the community to comment on the issues to be discussed. The period is called “sunshining” of the topics under consideration for negotiations. The information provided by the public during the sunshine period is used by both parties as part of the process. After the completion
of the sunshine period, negotiations become confidential. Upon mutual agreement during negotiations, articles that were not opened can be opened for discussion.

“The District and CSEA have agreed to leave the following articles closed as part of the discussions for the contract to take effect on July 1, 2014:

(The bargaining parties have agreed to not consider the following contract issues.)  

Article 2 Check Off & Organizational Security
Article 3 Organizational Rights
Article 5 Grievance Procedures
Article 6 Allowances
Article 7 Safety Conditions
Article 10 Transfer or Promotion
Article 11 Leaves
Article 13 Longevity
Article 14 Weekend/Holiday Employment
Article 16 Legal and Other Holidays
Article 20 Employer-Employee Relations Committee
Article 21 Retirement
Article 22 Savings Clause

CSEA and the District have mutually agreed to open the following articles: (The following articles are appropriate for public comment.)

Article I – Recognition
The interest is to update classifications, new job titles, and recent legislation
Article 4 – Evaluation
Review and clarify section on public charges
Article 8 – Employee Rights/Personnel Files
Update process
Article 9 – Layoff and Reemployment
Clarify process and update per legislative changes
Article 12 and 19 – Salaries and Health Benefits
Compensation is a priority for the negotiations team. Discussions will include the salary schedule, health and dental benefits, and updating contract language
Article 15 – Workday/Week/Year
Clarify work year provisions, work calendar, and provisions for staff assigned to multiple sites
Article 17 – Part-Time Employees
Clarify the article as it relates to Noon Duty Supervision
Article 18 – Vacation
The interest is to clarify provisions for earned vacation for all unit members,
including employees working less than full-time
Article 23 – Duration of Contract
Update per new agreement

Memoranda of Understanding
Review for ongoing inclusion
Appendix B – Professional Growth
Review and update
Appendix D – Salary Schedule
Update”

Read the full March 12, 2014 Board meeting agenda here. Go to page 13 for the staff report on teacher contract negotiations.

The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) has announced a BOARD WORKSHOP on Friday, February 28, 2014  12:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. in the PUSD Administrative Office Board Room, 760 Magnolia Avenue, Piedmont. A majority of the Governing Board must be present in order to establish a quorum allowing the Board to conduct business. Due to the location of the meeting, broadcasting of the meeting is not expected. The first part of the meeting is open to the public.

BOARD ORIENTATION:

Staff will review Board roles and procedures with newly elected and continuing Board members.

CLOSED SESSION:

At  2:00 p.m. the Board will adjourn to  a closed session.

Conference with District Negotiator Constance Hubbard Regarding 2014-15 Negotiations with the Association of Piedmont Teachers (APT) (Government Code Section 54956.6)

Members of the public may speak to all agenda items including the Closed Session item. 

Below is the PUSD notice regarding procedures:

“Please be advised that any communication sent to the Board of Education is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and can be viewed by the public, unless it is of a confidential issue covered under the Brown Act.

Board Agenda Material (in compliance with Senate Bill 343): The entire Board agenda packet may be accessed on the Piedmont Unified School District web site at: www.piedmont.k12.ca.us Click on “Board of Education” Click on “Agendas and Minutes” Supporting agenda documentation of a non-confidential nature that has been distributed to the Board less than 72 hours before a meeting can be viewed in the Superintendent’s Office at the District Administration Building, 760 Magnolia Avenue, Piedmont, CA between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and at the District web site:  www.piedmont.k12.ca.us;  click on “Board of Education”; click on “Agendas and Minutes”

Public Comment: Individual speakers are asked to limit their comments for any item on the agenda to not  more than three minutes in order to allow everyone who wishes to speak the opportunity to do so.  Groups are asked to limit comments to a total of ten minutes.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Superintendent’s Office at (510) 594-2614.  Notification by Monday noon preceding the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.  The scheduling of time for agenda issues is approximate.”

In springtime, a School Board’s fancy turns to thoughts of next year’s budget…

Here in Piedmont, a significant piece of that budget is funded by our local “School Support Tax.” The current version of that tax is the Measure A parcel tax approved last spring by 76% of Piedmont voters.  In response to court decisions, this tax was converted from its traditional graduated structure to a flat tax that has been $2,406 per parcel in 2013-14.  Measure A authorizes the School Board to increase the tax by up to 2% per year (lower than the 5% annual cap in earlier parcel taxes).  It also provides for an independent citizen oversight and advisory group — presently an independent Support Tax Subcommittee of the District’s Budget Advisory Committee, which replaced an earlier Citizens’ Advisory Committee.  I serve on the current Subcommittee, and served on the earlier Committee as well.

At last week’s School Board meeting, I presented this year’s Support Tax Subcommittee report (approved unanimously by our members, who also included Peter Freeman and Amal Smith).  We recommended that the District:

(1)   levy Measure A taxes at their maximum level in 2014-2015, including the maximum permissible increase of 2%;

(2)   deposit the $188,160 increase in a parcel tax reserve account, and spent as necessary during the life of Measure A (through 2020-2021).

If accepted, these changes would increase total Measure A revenues from this year’s$9,408,025 to $9,596,185.  For each individual property owner, that would mean an increase of $48, from $2,406 to $2,454.

Our Subcommittee report notes that state revenue support for local schools is improving (for the first time in years), but still below levels before the Great Recession.  We also note that the current discussion in Sacramento calls for funding increases — but that state revenues themselves are subject to big swings:  Prop 30 tax surcharges expire in 4 and 7 years, before the end of local Measure A’s 8 year term; and state personal income taxes are at a high point this year, because of IPOs by Facebook and other companies.  It seemed to us that the District can’t afford to take Sacramento’s hints of growing support at face value, and needs to continue to work its way out of deficit spending, and to rebuild its reserves.  Our full report is available online atwww.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2-12-14-packet.pdf (in pages 10-14 of the Board meeting agenda packet), and my presentation is on KCOM.

The School Board will consider our report over the next several months while it prepares its parcel tax levy decision and budget for 2014-15.  I hope PCA’s readers will consider these questions, and develop and submit their own views.  While you’re doing so, you should also consider City parcel taxes, and property taxes associated local bond measures (including the pending vote on bonds to modernize the Alan Harvey Theater at Piedmont High School).

Jon Elliott, Member School Support Tax Subcommittee

Editors Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

–  Voter approved school parcel tax requires a tax review committee to evaluate annual school needs for the tax. All meetings of the committee are currently held outside of public view. – 

When Piedmont taxpayers voted to approve the annual parcel tax of $2,406, the ballot measure called for a property owner committee composed of three members to annually review the School District’s need for levying the parcel tax and the level of the tax prior to School District action to impose the tax.
Questions prior to the election concerned whether the appointed  committee would be independent in its evaluation of School District fiscal matters.

Implementation of the approved school parcel tax requires a subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC), an amorphous group of individuals composed of teachers, community members, school administrators, and typically a member of the Board of Education.  The Tax Review Subcommittee (TRS), a subcommittee of the much larger BAC, does not open their meetings to the public.  The currently selected subcommittee  members are John Elliott, Peter Freeman, and School Board Member elect Amal Smith.

Jon Elliott, representing the Subcommittee (TRS), noted at the February 12, 2014 School Board meeting, that the structure of the tax reviewing committee avoids the Brown Act. The meetings are not broadcast or recorded, no agendas are created for public review and meetings of the Subcommittee are not open to the public.  Elliott, who had been concerned about the independence of the review committee prior to approval of the parcel tax, voiced his current approval of the process noting his participation on the Subcommittee.

Referring to the Tax Review Subcommittee (TRS),  Superintendent Constance Hubbard stated the School District was relieved of producing agendas, scheduling public meetings and complying with Brown Act deadlines because the TRS is a subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee.

The Subcommittee’s recent extensive report recommended levying the full $2,406 per parcel plus an increase of 2% for the 2014-15 tax period.  The report also notes an action to confirm the prior  year’s tax levy. The following are excerpts from the report:

The School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee recommends that the District levy the Measure A School Support Tax (Parcel Tax) at its maximum level in 2014-15, including assessment of the maximum two percent (2%) increase above the rate in 2013-14. This amounts to $9,408,025 (2013-14 amount) million plus $188,160 (2%) for a total of $9,596,185. Based on the latest available budget projections — including indications that state funding will improve significantly for at least this next year — the Subcommittee recommends that the $188,160 raised by the 2% increase be directed to a parcel tax reserve account to be available during subsequent years during the term of Measure A (through 2020-21). Although financial trends presently are positive, considerable uncertainties cloud these projections, and the District has drawn down its reserves in recent years close to statutory minimum levels.

Review of 2013-2014 Parcel Tax Levy

In order to levy Measure A taxes in 2013-2014, the School Board was required to approve the levy before July 1, 2013. Although this Subcommittee was not formed until October 2013, we reviewed 2013-14 budgeting, revenue and expenditure documentation from the District. The District adopted a budget assuming $31,733,656 in revenue from all sources (including $9,408,025 from Measure A and $1,550,000 in community contributions), and expenditures of $32,630,183, for a deficit of $896,527. This budget continues to include cost- containment and program preservation priorities. As of the First Interim report in December 2013, actual revenues and expenditures are close to these adopted amounts. After this review, the Subcommittee confirms the appropriateness of the Measure A levy for 2013-14.

Read the full report of the Tax Review Subcommittee found on page 10 of the February 12, 2014 School Board agenda packet.  

Article updated February 23, 2014.  Changes are noted in blue lettering.

At the February 12, School Board 7 p.m.meeting in City Hall, the Board will consider how to comply with the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP).  Compliance correlates with funding for the School District.

“The Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) is a critical part of the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Each school district must engage parents, educators, employees and the community to establish their LCAP. The plan will describe the school district’s overall vision for students, annual goals and specific actions the District will take to achieve the vision and goals. The LCAP must focus on eight areas identified as state priorities, demonstrate how the district’s budget will help achieve the goals, and assess each year how well the strategies in the plan were able to improve outcomes.”

The state’s eight priority areas required in the LCAP are:

• student achievement;
• student engagement;
• other student outcomes;
• school climate;
• parent involvement;
• implementation of academic standards with a focus on English learners; course access;
• facilities,  qualified teachers and instructional materials.

Read the Fact Sheet on the State funding priorities.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union:

“The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) increases school funding and directs more resources to CA’s highest-need students.  It requires districts to develop Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) that establish annual goals for all students,describe what actions will be taken to achieve these goals, and detail how funds will be spent to increase or improve services.”

Read the Board packet.

Read the  agenda.

– Late night ad for loading up on debt – 

I just listened to the portion (from hour 2 to 2:30) of the Piedmont Unified School District January 22, 2014 Board meeting recording where Mr. Gautam Wadhwani, Financial Officer for the Piedmont Arts Center and a Finance professional, gives advice to the Board about which bond option to select for financing the Alan Harvey Theater (AHT) renovation.

The speech reminded me of 2007 late night TV advertisements encouraging homeowners to load up on debt and take second mortgages or interest-only first mortgages with balloon payments.

“I will encourage you to borrow as much as you can in a low interest environment.”
“We should not worry about debt being a bad thing.”
“Educated voters are a minority of the populace.”
“If you agree that we are in a low interest environment, you want to borrow for as long as you can.”
“It is always better to defer taxes.”
“Every dollar that I save in not paying taxes, I can use … to make my wife happy.”
“You want to borrow interest only.”
“It is good economics and good finance for everybody.”

During the Board meeting, Hari Titan made an appeal to modify the text of the June ballot measure to exclude the use of creative financing instruments. I do not know if the Board adopted his suggestions, but I strongly urge it to do so if there is still time. Please join me in doing so.

Am I alone in suspecting that the whole AHT project has been approached upside down? “What is the maximum amount of money the District can borrow? Get that money from the voters. Design a project that spends the money.”  We all know that every education dollar counts! Think what one million three hundred thousand dollars (the additional amount saved downsizing from a $14 to $13 million project – slide 9 KNN Consultants December 11, 2013 Presentation) would do to improve education in Piedmont classrooms?

Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  

Discussion of School Parcel Tax Levy for 2014- 15 – 

The School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee is recommending that the School Board levy the full property tax approved by voters in March 2013 of $2,406 plus the allowed 2% increase per parcel for the 2014-15 tax year. The School Board will consider the report and recommendations at the February 12 Board meeting. There will be public hearings on the matter prior to final Board action.

The required Measure A Subcommittee of the Budget Advisory Committee is composed of Jon Elliott, Peter Freeman, and School Board member elect Amal Smith.

“(1) levy Measure A taxes at their maximum level in 2014-2015, including the maximum permissible increase of 2%;

(2) deposit the $188,160 increase in a parcel tax reserve account. ”

“ Actual revenues may rise or fall compared to projections. The terms of the LCFF are still being debated, and changes in formulae may change Piedmont’s allocations. The Governor’s latest proposals may yield additional revenues, although leaders in the Legislature seem to have different priorities. And, of course, the School Board may decide to change the Measure A levy.

 Actual expenses may rise or fall. Ongoing contract negotiations are private, so this Subcommittee has no ability to predict changes in personnel costs that may result from the new contracts. However, employee representatives have been clear about their desire for increases in compensation.”

The report explains the Subcommittee’s after the fact confirmation* of the 2013-14 parcel tax levy:

“Review of 2013-14 Parcel Tax Levy

In order to levy Measure A taxes in 2013-14, the School Board was required to approve the levy before July 1, 2013.  Although this Subcommittee was not formed until October 2013, we reviewed 2013-14 budgeting, revenue and expenditure documentation from the District.  The District adopted a budget assuming $31,733,656 in revenue from all sources (including $9,408,025 from Measure A and $$1,550,000 in community contributions), and expenditures of $32,630,183, for a deficit of $896,527.  This budget continues to include cost-containment and program preservation priorities.  As of the First Interim report in December 2013, actual revenues and expenditures are close to these adopted amounts.  After this review, the Subcommittee confirms the appropriateness of the Measure A levy for 2013-14.”

The full report is available. See School Board packet for the February 12 meeting :*Review Report and Recommendations of the School Support Tax Advisory Subcommittee for Levying for Fiscal Year 2014-15 and Review of Fiscal Year 2013-14 .

The February 12 Board meeting begins at 7 pm in City Hall and will be broadcast live on KCOM Channel 27 with live streaming from the city website.

The full agenda of the meeting. 

*Updated 2/24/14

What bond payment plan should the School Board approve? Residents have another opportunity to provide input on Wednesday, January 22 at the 7 pm School Board meeting in City Hall. 

At the January 8, 2014 School Board meeting, lengthy consideration was given to how the bond proposal scheduled for the June 2014 ballot will be structured. It is intended to raise $13.5 million for renovating and enlarging the high school auditorium known as the Allen Harvey Theater. School Board determination of bond terms is on the January 22 Board meeting agenda.

Some community comments reflect concern that the School District has already overly obligated Piedmont property owners with bonds to pay for recent Seismic Safety improvements, including the Havens Elementary School rebuild, and the sports facility at Witter Field.  Piedmont teeters on the edge of the amount of money Piedmont can borrow under State laws.

In contrast to concern for additional property owner debt obligations, others place a priority on creating a state of the art theater to serve not only the School District, but the community as well. Calls for more modest upgrades rather than the extensive renovation have been met with vocal support for the proposed $13.5 million plan.

Whether to pay less to borrow the money now or delay payment at greater cost is faced by the School Board, whose members want the proposed bonds to be approved by voters in June.  Theater plans were previously approved by the Board, making the plans and money to be borrowed no longer at issue.

The School District has provided the following information on the ballot measure to approve the $13.5 million school bonds,  which will have a final cost between $15.5 million to $19.5 million, depending on interest rates and term of the bonds:

http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/2012_13/012214_packet.pdf   Scroll down to page 29 to see how prior monies have been spent.

Agenda for Jan. 22 meeting.

Prior PCA article.

Members of the School Board are:

Richard (Rick) Raushenbush – President –rraushenbush@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Andrea Swenson –Vice President –aswenson@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Ray Gadbois – rgadbois@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Sarah Pearson – spearson@piedmont.k12.ca.us

Roy Tolles (E. Leroy) – rtolles@piedmont.k12.ca.us