A curious thing: the superintendent’s deck is interrupted, like a commercial break, by marketing material from FloWater. It’s a bad look, emphasizing just how much of OUSD’s “response” is about image (and apparently about massively increasing FloWater’s coffers?) rather than substantive remediation. VP Bachelor mentioned this during the last meeting but it is euphemized in the report, probably because it's a stinker: taking from the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials block grant to fund lead remediation. Exactly the kind of zero-sum thinking that we urge district leadership to move away from. Another thing we didn't ask for and that'll help no one: the new FloWater and filtration dashboard. What we wanted, and what we were promised would be in place by January, was a dashboard with real time information about what water fixtures are poisoning students and staff, not the ratio of students to possibly poisonous fixtures. OUSD's plan to bet the house on FloWater is no plan at all.
A curious thing: the superintendent’s deck is interrupted, like a commercial break, by marketing material from FloWater. It’s a bad look, emphasizing just how much of OUSD’s “response” is about image (and apparently about massively increasing FloWater’s coffers?) rather than substantive remediation. VP Bachelor mentioned this during the last meeting but it is euphemized in the report, probably because it's a stinker: taking from the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials block grant to fund lead remediation. Exactly the kind of zero-sum thinking that we urge district leadership to move away from. Another thing we didn't ask for and that'll help no one: the new FloWater and filtration dashboard. What we wanted, and what we were promised would be in place by January, was a dashboard with real time information about what water fixtures are poisoning students and staff, not the ratio of students to possibly poisonous fixtures. OUSD's plan to bet the house on FloWater is no plan at all.