Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glendora Unified trustees split over consultant for staff PD; board pauses then votes to reconsider
Summary
Trustees expressed differing views about hiring consultant Dr. Barbiera for four professional‑development sessions, citing concerns over cultural framing and limited vetting. An initial 2–2 tie left the motion without effect; trustees then voted to reconsider after staff provided additional information.
The Glendora Unified Board on July 29 debated whether to approve a $7,200 consultant contract with Dr. Barbiera to provide four professional‑development sessions focused on data‑driven connections and multi‑tiered systems of support.
President Clifford said he had reviewed some of Dr. Barbiera’s published work and was not comfortable approving the contract without more vetting. “I just didn't like it,” he said, explaining he had received feedback and materials he found concerning and would therefore vote no with the information available that evening.
Other trustees urged caution about moving forward without seeing the presentation and emphasized the distinction between internal data analysis and outside expertise. Trustee Garcia described the sessions as “data driven professional development based on our Glendora data” and said neighboring districts that had used the consultant recommended her. Trustee Lopez asked for clarity about how cultural material would be presented to teachers and whether the sessions would be balanced and appropriate for the district’s staff.
Because the vote initially resulted in a 2–2 split, nothing was adopted on the motion at that time. The board took a short recess so staff could print an outline of Dr. Barbiera’s presentation and gather additional background. After reconvening, Trustee Reuter moved to reconsider item 9.4; the motion carried (one trustee voiced opposition but the reconsideration passed) and the board agreed staff should provide more documentation or schedule a special session before final PD planning if necessary.
Why it matters: The debate highlights trustee concerns about vetting external presenters, how cultural topics are framed in staff training, and timing for professional development ahead of Aug. 12. Trustees pressed staff for an outline and references before approving the contract.
Outcome and next steps: The initial motion to approve the contract did not pass because of the tie; the board then voted to reconsider 9.4 and asked staff to supply additional materials and, if needed, consider a special session prior to the scheduled PD.
