Thank you to SPS parent for the tip about the blurb in Seattle Magazine about Dr. Goodloe-Johnson (she's in there as one of Seattle's most influential people). Here's the blurb and it's pretty funny:
"Focused on goals and always on message, Maria Goodloe-Johnson appears most concerned with making a difference, and achievement is clearly her bottom line
Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson [ Superintendent, Seattle Public Schools ]
No one would say it’s been an easy ride for Goodloe-Johnson, 51, who took the helm of the often beleaguered Seattle Public Schools in 2007. Described variously as brisk, decisive, lacking warmth but focused on goals and always on message, the district’s top official appears less concerned about making friends than with making a difference. To date, she’s crafted a strategic plan for the district, announced school closures and leaped over controversy in getting a new math curriculum approved. Her biggest surprise? The amount of focus given to a change in school starting times. The school-bell issue, she says, “is not what really impacts achievement.” And achievement is clearly her bottom line. “Academic gains for all of our students,” she says, is her top goal for the coming year."
I think there are other descriptors for her but clearly, Seattle Magazine went with the softball lob ones. "Always on message'? Well, sure if you could actually get anything of substance out of what she says. Also, I love how they say "she crafted a strategic plan". I'll bet staff loves that: what are they - chopped liver? (I know, she had no control over what the magazine says but you'd think people who work as a group would give credit to everyone.)
And bell times? That's what she has found the most surprising? Not that out here alternative schools aren't all re-entry? Parents fight back? She can try all she likes to control the message but no, it's not possible?
And that goal for this year? How specific, how ....strategic.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Rest In Peace, Office Brenton
I got up and stood in the rain (and then, the sun) to watch the procession of police cars, fire trucks and motorcycles for the funeral of slain SPS police officer, Timothy Brenton. It was very moving.
I did a 6-month stint as a volunteer investigator for the Public Defenders office. I had the opportunity to interview many police officers. They are an interesting group and while I'm not sure I agree with how every suspect gets handled, I found them all to be professionals.
It's not like firefighters where everyone says all the time, "Oh good, here come the firefighters." People are not always happy to see cops.
This incident is particularly chilling because the two officers, Brenton and Sweeney, were not investigating a crime nor had they stumbled on a crime in progress. Someone looked for a police car, found it and fired into it. This murderer(s) are still at large. (I have faith that people who are this low are also stupid and will brag. I predict it won't be finding the car or the weapon; it will be someone's big mouth that will bring him to justice.)
Thank you Officer Brenton and Officer Sweeney.
I did a 6-month stint as a volunteer investigator for the Public Defenders office. I had the opportunity to interview many police officers. They are an interesting group and while I'm not sure I agree with how every suspect gets handled, I found them all to be professionals.
It's not like firefighters where everyone says all the time, "Oh good, here come the firefighters." People are not always happy to see cops.
This incident is particularly chilling because the two officers, Brenton and Sweeney, were not investigating a crime nor had they stumbled on a crime in progress. Someone looked for a police car, found it and fired into it. This murderer(s) are still at large. (I have faith that people who are this low are also stupid and will brag. I predict it won't be finding the car or the weapon; it will be someone's big mouth that will bring him to justice.)
Thank you Officer Brenton and Officer Sweeney.
Last Day to Propose Program Placements
Today is the last day to submit a program placement proposal. You can submit it by email.
Here is the form.
Folks in the Sand Point and McDonald areas should seriously consider using this opportunity.
Here is the form.
Folks in the Sand Point and McDonald areas should seriously consider using this opportunity.
Audit and Finance Committee mtg 11/5/09
The Audit and Finance Committee met yesterday afternoon and the first order of business was a review/explanation of the concerns raised in Meg Diaz's analysis of central administration expenses. The meeting was very well attended. The three members of the Committee were there: Steve Sundquist, Peter Maier, and Michael DeBell. No other Board members were in attendance. Neither of the two Board members-elect were there. Duggan Harman did most of the talking for the staff, but there was a whole lot of other staff people in the room. I saw Phyllis Fletcher from KUOW, Dick Lilly from Crosscut, and Lynne Varner from the Seattle Times. There were at least two other members of the media present. There were also a lot of community members at the meeting including Meg Diaz, myself, Mel, Joanna Cullen, and Dorothy. Please chime in if you were there. There were a couple of guys from the State Auditor's office there as well.
For every concern that Meg raised in her analysis, the district staff had an excuse that made it a non-issue. To his great credit, for every new excuse Michael DeBell found a new concern. I wish that everyone who doubts Michael DeBell's interest in the job could have seen him at this meeting.
The budget categories shown to the board were not the same as those shown to the OSPI. Mr. Harman acknowleged the difference, gave some historical reason for it (claiming that it gave the Board a truer sense of how the money is being spent), and then said that according to a newly adopted Superintendent's Procedure (adopted in October) the Board will get an OSPI-compliant budget statement in future. There was no suggestion that this Superintendent's Procedure change had anything to do with Meg's report; it was as if they were making this change all on their own anyway. He did confirm and emphasize that the bottom line and all of the line items were the same, just the categorizations were different.
The District spends inordinate amounts of money on teacher supervision. Mr. Harman explained that the District had been reporting the cost of the teacher coaches as teacher supervision - an administrative expense - but that they will change to reporting it as teaching. That will shift enough money out of administrative costs to bring the District's administrative costs into line with state averages. There was some discussion as to whether teacher coaches should be categorized as a teaching activity or as a teacher supervision activity. Mr. Harman's contention was that it was legitimate to call them teachers because most of them spend most of their time in classrooms and they sometimes model teaching. Mr. Harman said that is was not appropritate to list them as teacher supervisors because they do not hire, fire, or evaluate the teachers. Director DeBell didn't accept that rationale. He wanted to know how other Districts classify teacher coaches. He wanted to know how much time the teacher coaches spent teaching. He wanted to know what direction the District got from the OSPI on how to categorize the cost of teacher coaches. BEST OF ALL, Director DeBell, upon seeing that Seattle Public School spends about $10.3 million a year on 111.5 teacher coaches - about $92,000 per coach and a coach for every thirty teachers - WAY more than any other district, asked the right question. He said that we have clearly taken coaching as a major strategy for improving student achievement and he wanted to know if it was proving effective. It wasn't a question that could be answered in the Finance Committee, but it is the big question for students. Director DeBell was ready. He had called over to Bellevue and asked how they categorized teacher coaches and why. He called the OSPI and asked them how they think that teacher coaches should be categorized (they said as teacher supervision). He did his own research. He asked if making hiring and firing decisions and writing evaluations were the determining characteristics of teacher supervision. He asked for data on the amount of time that teacher coaches spend modeling teaching technique. He was brilliant.
The District's central staff has doubled over the past ten years. Mr. Harman showed that once the 111 teacher coaches are removed from the count of central office staff the growth of the central office over the past ten years has been an extremely modest 2% and only 6 FTE. He showed that, after discounting for inflation, central office expense had grown by only 1.6% during that period. I'm curious about how much of that 1.6% is the superintendent's salary. I think it is about 1% of the 1.6%.
The District has too many supervisors and managers. Mr. Harman explained that a number of people in the central office are counted as managers or supervisors despite the fact that they don't manage or supervise anyone. Apparently there was some decision made in Human Resources that anyone with a paygrade level of 28 or higher would be counted as a manager. When these people are re-coded as non-managers the number of managers and supervisors in the central office drops down to an appropriate level. Mr. DeBell asked about the history of that decision in HR. Mr. Harman said that he asked around but could not find and documents only a vague oral history. Mr. DeBell asked about the pay range for the level 28 paygrade but neither Mr. Harman nor the person from HR at the meeting could say off the top of their head. Mr. DeBell said that he recalled that the District had to offer more money to IT professionals to retain them on staff and thought that they had to re-cast the jobs as management jobs to get them into the pay range necessary to be competitive in the job market. The HR guy then chimed in and said that was, in fact, the case. This made me wonder two things: 1. why didn't the guy from HR give that explanation to Mr. Harman when he was asking about it and 1. why didn't the guy from HR offer that explanation when Director DeBell asked about it and Mr. Harman said that he couldn't say. These jobs have now been re-coded as non-managerial jobs and the ratio of managers and supervisors in Seattle Public Schools is in line with other districts. According to another brand new Superintendent's Procedure that's how it will be done in future. Then Director DeBell stepped up with another great observation: why, when the State Auditor raised this issue didn't the District staff give them this explanation and correct the coding at that time? Why, instead, did the staff tell the State Auditor it was because our district is so big and complex and therefore we need more administrators, managers and supervisors? [crickets]
The rest of Mr. Harman's presentation was a recap of what he had already presented followed by a second recap all on one slide.
Director DeBell asked that both Mr. Harman's presentation and Meg Diaz's presentation be posted to the District web site.
Everyone - including Mr. Harman - thanked Meg profusely, but they did not allow her to speak.
For every concern that Meg raised in her analysis, the district staff had an excuse that made it a non-issue. To his great credit, for every new excuse Michael DeBell found a new concern. I wish that everyone who doubts Michael DeBell's interest in the job could have seen him at this meeting.
The budget categories shown to the board were not the same as those shown to the OSPI. Mr. Harman acknowleged the difference, gave some historical reason for it (claiming that it gave the Board a truer sense of how the money is being spent), and then said that according to a newly adopted Superintendent's Procedure (adopted in October) the Board will get an OSPI-compliant budget statement in future. There was no suggestion that this Superintendent's Procedure change had anything to do with Meg's report; it was as if they were making this change all on their own anyway. He did confirm and emphasize that the bottom line and all of the line items were the same, just the categorizations were different.
The District spends inordinate amounts of money on teacher supervision. Mr. Harman explained that the District had been reporting the cost of the teacher coaches as teacher supervision - an administrative expense - but that they will change to reporting it as teaching. That will shift enough money out of administrative costs to bring the District's administrative costs into line with state averages. There was some discussion as to whether teacher coaches should be categorized as a teaching activity or as a teacher supervision activity. Mr. Harman's contention was that it was legitimate to call them teachers because most of them spend most of their time in classrooms and they sometimes model teaching. Mr. Harman said that is was not appropritate to list them as teacher supervisors because they do not hire, fire, or evaluate the teachers. Director DeBell didn't accept that rationale. He wanted to know how other Districts classify teacher coaches. He wanted to know how much time the teacher coaches spent teaching. He wanted to know what direction the District got from the OSPI on how to categorize the cost of teacher coaches. BEST OF ALL, Director DeBell, upon seeing that Seattle Public School spends about $10.3 million a year on 111.5 teacher coaches - about $92,000 per coach and a coach for every thirty teachers - WAY more than any other district, asked the right question. He said that we have clearly taken coaching as a major strategy for improving student achievement and he wanted to know if it was proving effective. It wasn't a question that could be answered in the Finance Committee, but it is the big question for students. Director DeBell was ready. He had called over to Bellevue and asked how they categorized teacher coaches and why. He called the OSPI and asked them how they think that teacher coaches should be categorized (they said as teacher supervision). He did his own research. He asked if making hiring and firing decisions and writing evaluations were the determining characteristics of teacher supervision. He asked for data on the amount of time that teacher coaches spend modeling teaching technique. He was brilliant.
The District's central staff has doubled over the past ten years. Mr. Harman showed that once the 111 teacher coaches are removed from the count of central office staff the growth of the central office over the past ten years has been an extremely modest 2% and only 6 FTE. He showed that, after discounting for inflation, central office expense had grown by only 1.6% during that period. I'm curious about how much of that 1.6% is the superintendent's salary. I think it is about 1% of the 1.6%.
The District has too many supervisors and managers. Mr. Harman explained that a number of people in the central office are counted as managers or supervisors despite the fact that they don't manage or supervise anyone. Apparently there was some decision made in Human Resources that anyone with a paygrade level of 28 or higher would be counted as a manager. When these people are re-coded as non-managers the number of managers and supervisors in the central office drops down to an appropriate level. Mr. DeBell asked about the history of that decision in HR. Mr. Harman said that he asked around but could not find and documents only a vague oral history. Mr. DeBell asked about the pay range for the level 28 paygrade but neither Mr. Harman nor the person from HR at the meeting could say off the top of their head. Mr. DeBell said that he recalled that the District had to offer more money to IT professionals to retain them on staff and thought that they had to re-cast the jobs as management jobs to get them into the pay range necessary to be competitive in the job market. The HR guy then chimed in and said that was, in fact, the case. This made me wonder two things: 1. why didn't the guy from HR give that explanation to Mr. Harman when he was asking about it and 1. why didn't the guy from HR offer that explanation when Director DeBell asked about it and Mr. Harman said that he couldn't say. These jobs have now been re-coded as non-managerial jobs and the ratio of managers and supervisors in Seattle Public Schools is in line with other districts. According to another brand new Superintendent's Procedure that's how it will be done in future. Then Director DeBell stepped up with another great observation: why, when the State Auditor raised this issue didn't the District staff give them this explanation and correct the coding at that time? Why, instead, did the staff tell the State Auditor it was because our district is so big and complex and therefore we need more administrators, managers and supervisors? [crickets]
The rest of Mr. Harman's presentation was a recap of what he had already presented followed by a second recap all on one slide.
Director DeBell asked that both Mr. Harman's presentation and Meg Diaz's presentation be posted to the District web site.
Everyone - including Mr. Harman - thanked Meg profusely, but they did not allow her to speak.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Proposals on the Table for the MLK Building and Grounds
From the Central District News website, a story about 4 proposals for the use of the now-closed Martin Luther King, Jr. school and grounds. It looks like 2 private schools want it (Bush and Hamlin Robinson). Bush is offering use of the fields (they are non-lighted) to the community when Bush isn't using it. This is tempting because they are offering the highest price and the offer of field usage. The other two offers are community-based. One is from a community group (Citizens for a Community Center at MLK) and the other from the First AME church. The two community groups were trying to work together to present one offer but it didn't work out. A decision is expected in January.
So this is one of the first buildings to really have bidders. As I have mentioned previously, when I worked on the CAC, we had many e-mails about what to do with closed buildings. It fell into the two camps above. Sell to the highest bidder or give preference to the community. Given there is no community center there, I might lean towards the latter. But Bush is offering a lot of money and even made an offer for leasing the space.
So what's the right thing to do and/or what's the best thing to do? I have not seen that the district, despite this being public land, has solicited public input about the decision. Anyone else?
So this is one of the first buildings to really have bidders. As I have mentioned previously, when I worked on the CAC, we had many e-mails about what to do with closed buildings. It fell into the two camps above. Sell to the highest bidder or give preference to the community. Given there is no community center there, I might lean towards the latter. But Bush is offering a lot of money and even made an offer for leasing the space.
So what's the right thing to do and/or what's the best thing to do? I have not seen that the district, despite this being public land, has solicited public input about the decision. Anyone else?
School Board Elections
I dithered on whether to post a link to this editorial about the Seattle School Board elections results. That's because the first two paragraphs are, to me, breathtaking in the unkind words directed at Director Mary Bass. The editorial is completely silent on Cheryl Chow (which could be a ding at her because they didn't even thank her for all her years of service - I did even if I disagreed with her).
Okay Times - we - get - it. You don't like Mary Bass. Maybe they are feeling the sting of so many of their editorial endorsements going down with this election so pointing out that the ones they got right makes them feel better.
This editorial should have started with the third paragraph which is far more accurate and rational. That the editors at the Times read this and thought it fair to run is appalling.
Okay Times - we - get - it. You don't like Mary Bass. Maybe they are feeling the sting of so many of their editorial endorsements going down with this election so pointing out that the ones they got right makes them feel better.
This editorial should have started with the third paragraph which is far more accurate and rational. That the editors at the Times read this and thought it fair to run is appalling.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Alliance for Education Head Resigns
A big news day. Patrick D'Amelio, the President of the Alliance for Education, resigned today. He is returning to his previous job as head of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Puget Sound. It takes effect on Dec. 4th.
From the Puget Sound Business Journal:
"As head of Big Brothers Big Sisters, D’Amelio takes over for Tina Podlodowski, who resigned her post in September to head Joe Mallahan's campaign for Seattle mayor."
Word on the street is that the acceptance of his resignation was somewhat terse "thank you for your good work" from the Board of Directors.
I feel sad because Patrick had great personal appeal. I felt engaged when I spoke with him and he was able to really work a room. He just seemed like he had a great skill set for the job. I'm sure his staff will miss him.
Of course there is speculation as to why he is leaving. Part of that job is being able to work with/appease many powerful people.
From the Puget Sound Business Journal:
"As head of Big Brothers Big Sisters, D’Amelio takes over for Tina Podlodowski, who resigned her post in September to head Joe Mallahan's campaign for Seattle mayor."
Word on the street is that the acceptance of his resignation was somewhat terse "thank you for your good work" from the Board of Directors.
I feel sad because Patrick had great personal appeal. I felt engaged when I spoke with him and he was able to really work a room. He just seemed like he had a great skill set for the job. I'm sure his staff will miss him.
Of course there is speculation as to why he is leaving. Part of that job is being able to work with/appease many powerful people.
Boundary Work Session Notes - Part 2
Not too much more as I ended up covering some of it in the Enrollment thread. I am going to put the notes in italic as I have made a lot of comments here.
Tracy mentioned a group of parents joining together around Sand Point (she called it a PTA but that's not really possible at this point). She also mentioned community support around McDonald from neighbors who live around it and who have been working on its playground.
Michael brought up the issue of not having many Options for the NW and where would all the kids on the Old Hay option school go for middle school?
When Sherry had explained her visit to McDonald, she was careful to explain that some of the money was for desks, etc. so that's why the cost is so high.
Well, wait a minute. Don't we have a lot of desks left over from closed buildings? No, oh, so this is one perk from having your building renovated or remodeled; you get new desks. It's kind of like moving into a newly-built house and wanting new furniture. I'm supposing that it's true. The leftover desks from all the closed schools are all now in other schools or unusable. But could we at least see the evidence? I mean, Sherry got to see the evidence that McDonald, despite being an "emergency" building, was in complete disarray and horribly maintained. Could we see the warehouse where all the extra furniture is kept? (And question: did Jane Addams get all new furniture before it moved in? Didn't think so.)
Steve chimes in that desks are part of capital issues and aren't they about a third of the cost of reopening a building? So Kathy Johnson of Facilities say oh, that cost for McDonald includes the portables.
What? Turns out that there are two old portables on the McDonald site. It is unclear to me if they are talking about buying new ones for the site or what.
BUT, then Tracy says that with the shortage of capacity over the next 4 years, they will need portables for other schools. Really?
So the truth here is that for both McDonald and Sand Point (and who knows where else?), they need portables to have the capacity they want. We are reopening small buildings like Sand Point and adding the capacity they need with portables.
Portables are something the district alleges to hate. I'll go dig out the notes but I think I have Kathy Johnson on record as saying they are a bad thing. Until you need them.
Heck, this district is on record saying last year they didn't want to reopen any schools? Remember that?
Then Mary Bass brings up...John Marshall. Lots of backpedaling here. Why can't we use John Marshall?
Oh, it has too much capacity. No elevator. Too near the freeway for children (and too small a playground). Mary pointed out TOPS is right next to the freeway. Kathy said oh, they have triple pane windows and John Marshall doesn't.
It's called money. Throw enough of it at a problem and it'll all work out. Look at McDonald. (The district has other ideas for John Marshall but I don't know what they are.)
Mary said she would like to see the issue of program placement such as putting a foreign language program at McDonald looked at system-wide.
Sherry also brought up that McDonald has an extra large gym and had accommodated TOPS during their rebuild and so could possibly be a ....K-8.
Don Kennedy, our COO, brought up the VAX and that (1) they are running behind schedule to migrate off it and (2) they would be giving the Board a new timetable soon. Uh oh.
Dr. Goodloe-Johnson talked a bit about program placement and said all decisions would be made before the March Enrollment started.
There was mention that AP offerings were up by 30% from last year.
And we ended with apropos of nothing Cheryl said that there was no APP in high school. And you can read about that in Charlie's thread on the subject. But it was quite amazing to sit there and hear Cheryl, who had been principal at Garfield, say this. And then Michael say something about it being a K-12 program (it's not; it's 1-12) and then having not one Director correct or even try to say anything about it even though, as directors, they all sign off on the 1-12 APP program every single year.
Tracy mentioned a group of parents joining together around Sand Point (she called it a PTA but that's not really possible at this point). She also mentioned community support around McDonald from neighbors who live around it and who have been working on its playground.
Michael brought up the issue of not having many Options for the NW and where would all the kids on the Old Hay option school go for middle school?
When Sherry had explained her visit to McDonald, she was careful to explain that some of the money was for desks, etc. so that's why the cost is so high.
Well, wait a minute. Don't we have a lot of desks left over from closed buildings? No, oh, so this is one perk from having your building renovated or remodeled; you get new desks. It's kind of like moving into a newly-built house and wanting new furniture. I'm supposing that it's true. The leftover desks from all the closed schools are all now in other schools or unusable. But could we at least see the evidence? I mean, Sherry got to see the evidence that McDonald, despite being an "emergency" building, was in complete disarray and horribly maintained. Could we see the warehouse where all the extra furniture is kept? (And question: did Jane Addams get all new furniture before it moved in? Didn't think so.)
Steve chimes in that desks are part of capital issues and aren't they about a third of the cost of reopening a building? So Kathy Johnson of Facilities say oh, that cost for McDonald includes the portables.
What? Turns out that there are two old portables on the McDonald site. It is unclear to me if they are talking about buying new ones for the site or what.
BUT, then Tracy says that with the shortage of capacity over the next 4 years, they will need portables for other schools. Really?
So the truth here is that for both McDonald and Sand Point (and who knows where else?), they need portables to have the capacity they want. We are reopening small buildings like Sand Point and adding the capacity they need with portables.
Portables are something the district alleges to hate. I'll go dig out the notes but I think I have Kathy Johnson on record as saying they are a bad thing. Until you need them.
Heck, this district is on record saying last year they didn't want to reopen any schools? Remember that?
Then Mary Bass brings up...John Marshall. Lots of backpedaling here. Why can't we use John Marshall?
Oh, it has too much capacity. No elevator. Too near the freeway for children (and too small a playground). Mary pointed out TOPS is right next to the freeway. Kathy said oh, they have triple pane windows and John Marshall doesn't.
It's called money. Throw enough of it at a problem and it'll all work out. Look at McDonald. (The district has other ideas for John Marshall but I don't know what they are.)
Mary said she would like to see the issue of program placement such as putting a foreign language program at McDonald looked at system-wide.
Sherry also brought up that McDonald has an extra large gym and had accommodated TOPS during their rebuild and so could possibly be a ....K-8.
Don Kennedy, our COO, brought up the VAX and that (1) they are running behind schedule to migrate off it and (2) they would be giving the Board a new timetable soon. Uh oh.
Dr. Goodloe-Johnson talked a bit about program placement and said all decisions would be made before the March Enrollment started.
There was mention that AP offerings were up by 30% from last year.
And we ended with apropos of nothing Cheryl said that there was no APP in high school. And you can read about that in Charlie's thread on the subject. But it was quite amazing to sit there and hear Cheryl, who had been principal at Garfield, say this. And then Michael say something about it being a K-12 program (it's not; it's 1-12) and then having not one Director correct or even try to say anything about it even though, as directors, they all sign off on the 1-12 APP program every single year.
Enrollment Questions (Some Thoughts from the Boundaries Work Session)
There have been quite a few questions about enrollment especially as pertains to students coming in at a non-entry grade. I think we do have to wait for the transition plan for some answers.
Clearly, they can't give a seat to every child at their attendance area school especially in the NE. I'm sure they will try to find a school in your region at elementary level. As for middle and high school, I can see where someone coming in at 7th would have to go out of region for middle school (unless they chose a space at an Option school that had room).
It's an interesting discussion as well historically. The issue of new students who move here after the school year has always been an issue. It is quite shocking to many parents who move to Seattle only to find out that they can't get into their neighborhood school. But we are in a very transitional time so it will be hard on people in that situation.
As well, I recall that when Don Nielson was on the Board, he had put forth an amendment to the SAP to give preference to students who had 2 or more continuous years in SPS over someone coming in from private school. He felt parents should be rewarded for their commitment to public school. The amendment did not past but I remember a lively discussion. (I see both sides but at the time I thought it would be hard to be a long-time supporter of public schools only to see someone come back from private school and your child not get into the school he/she wanted and the private school student did.) But it would be one more thing to put into the system.
From the Boundaries Work Session:
Clearly, they can't give a seat to every child at their attendance area school especially in the NE. I'm sure they will try to find a school in your region at elementary level. As for middle and high school, I can see where someone coming in at 7th would have to go out of region for middle school (unless they chose a space at an Option school that had room).
It's an interesting discussion as well historically. The issue of new students who move here after the school year has always been an issue. It is quite shocking to many parents who move to Seattle only to find out that they can't get into their neighborhood school. But we are in a very transitional time so it will be hard on people in that situation.
As well, I recall that when Don Nielson was on the Board, he had put forth an amendment to the SAP to give preference to students who had 2 or more continuous years in SPS over someone coming in from private school. He felt parents should be rewarded for their commitment to public school. The amendment did not past but I remember a lively discussion. (I see both sides but at the time I thought it would be hard to be a long-time supporter of public schools only to see someone come back from private school and your child not get into the school he/she wanted and the private school student did.) But it would be one more thing to put into the system.
From the Boundaries Work Session:
- as mentioned, extension of early enrollment to January 15th
- Tracy brought up...the Barnhart/Waldman amendment. Yes,really. (For those who don't know, it was an amendment created by previous Board directors that allowed you to list your choices but still rank them differently depending on if you got in or not at your first choice). She said that they CANNOT take it out of the system during the VAX migration so it would still be in play during at least the transition period. So, it might be quite the game to figure out how to put choices down for the next couple of years.
- Wednesday, December 16 will be a Board Work Session for the Transition Plan. This is our first notice of when we might see the plan. So you get to see the plan and then stew over it during the holidays.
- Somewhere in January will be the Open House tours.
- Late February assignment letters will be mailed to all early enrollment K, 6th and 9th graders. So between the Work Session on Dec. 16th to the Jan. 15th deadline for early enrollment and then the assignment letters to early enrollment students in late February, the transition plan should be done by ....early January? Does it seem to you that they need to get it done BEFORE early enrollment ends?
- Late February letters will be mailed to ALL parents about the new SAP and enrollment
- March 1-31 is Open Enrollment
- Late May - assignment letters mailed
Boundary Work Session Notes - Part 1
To note again here: I was mistaken about next week's Public Hearing speaking time. It IS 3 minutes as it is at the Board meetings so they will have room for 40 speakers.
Please note: I may go out of order of what was said when to group like items.
Dr. Goodloe-Johnson went over a lot of backstory on the SAP but did say a couple of interesting things about "first implementation steps".
Director Sundquist asked about Spectrum being added at Madison and if that meant Spectrum additions elsewhere and Dr. G-J said yes with no embellishment.
Tracy said they had received 1000s of suggestions for the boundaries. Tracy explained that out of the 58 elementary schools, 48 had boundary modifications.
Dr. Enfield said, from the academic side, they were looking at 3 quality issues.
Michael De Bell said that he wanted to give a shout-out to staff for their volunteer hours at the boundary meetings. He said that he found the feedback more valuable than much Board testimony (not dissing the testimony but he liked the feedback at these meetings).
Tracy addressed a common concern from input from the community about walk zones. Why am I assigned School A when School B is closer? She said that because the City was discontinuing funding for the crossing guards in Fall 2010 that they had to create the safest boundaries they could. (Whether they did is open for question depending on where you live.) The district hopes to find funding for crossing guards but until then, they had to try to create the safest walk zones.
Steve S. suggested calling them smaller or retracted walk zones rather than "conservative" walk zones for clarity.
Sherry came back to the issue of the shrinkage of Hale's area. She kept asking, "What changed?" Tracy said it wasn't done artificially for a program but for balance. Sherry said she thought she might get some positive feedback from some on this but not others. (And I agree. It looks very odd. Also, kids on the west side of Green Lake won't be walking around Green Lake to get to school.)
Sherry also asked Tracy about a rumor that the 10% of Open Choice seats at Ingraham would be for IB students. Tracy said there is no distinction about who gets Open Choice seats by any program.
Steve S. offered thanks for the support for the co-location of Denny and Sealth and alignment of those boundaries.
Tracy got asked about including the capacity at Option Schools in the plan and said they had done that for Option schools across the district.
Peter brought up the issue of the changes for Sand Point saying that walking is difficult on Sand Point Way. Tracy said the new boundaries accounted for that issue.
Then Harium brought up the point about people being concerned about the F/RL percentage at Sand Point. (Tracy said the new boundaries would lower it but didn't say by how much.) He said that there is UW married student housing in that area and so that is a sometimes changing population. As well he said that there are many other schools in our district with far higher F/RL populations.
I would gently refute his points. One, that married graduate housing population will always be there. Yes, those grad students will have different incomes but that housing will always be there. Also, the issue isn't really what the reality is throughout the district in terms of higher F/RL than 30%. The reality is that you are trying to create a new school and get people to want to be there. If the population has a F/RL size that is totally out of whack with the rest of the NE elementaries, you handicap that school from the start in both perception and reality.
It seems, from Tracy's remarks, that Old Hay is definitely going to be an Option School. I make this point because some in the community had suggested a regular K-5 and I don't think that is an option from the district's standpoint because of the nearness of Coe.
So then they got into the McDonald question which was an interesting discussion. Clearly, very clearly, the district wants McDonald open at all costs. And I think the Board is drinking the Kool-aid so I would call this one done.
Tracy said they got "new" data on increased growth in the McDonald area. (This is after Director Carr, at the BTA III levy work session, said that she didn't see reopening the school for 135 kids. And now, voila! more kids. Interesting.) It seems like her argument is to open McDonald to ease pressure, now and in the future, on the other schools.
Tracy said that having McDonald would ease crowding elsewhere and, as a topper, that it could (might) allow grandfathering of siblings. Really? I'm hoping she means this as grandfathering siblings is now really on the table. She said opening McDonald would open up 90 more seats for out of attendance students at JSIS.
Then Sherry gave a long talk about her walk through McDonald with Kathy Johnson and other facilities staff. She said it is beautiful old building but that she was quite taken aback at its poor interior condition. She said the paint is peeling, the boiler bad, the elevator sketchy, etc. She said the work to be done is not extravagant but really needed. However, she said she was startled that this was considered an "emergency" school because she could not imagine putting kids into it as is.
(Yes and this is all part of that big Maintenance puzzle I keep harping on for the BTA III. So if there was an emergency at a school that necessitated moving out a population, where would they go? As it turns out, not to McDonald which is completely undermaintained. That would have been a terrible thing to find out if there were an emergency and what would the district say then? Sorry. We claim to maintain the buildings but really we don't?)
Oddly, Sherry then said that the case is not "overwhelming" to reopen McDonald BUT there is not a clear idea where to put these kids (about 135 I believe). That's when she waxed on about McDonald becoming a foreign language school and that the idea had been to have at least 2 feeder elementary language schools for each middle language school. Great, fine but where is the vision? Where do they go and what do they get in high school? No questions asked here and mute silence when they do get asked from the staff. Don't create more of these schools if you have no vision for the entire program. (See APP.)
Please note: I may go out of order of what was said when to group like items.
Dr. Goodloe-Johnson went over a lot of backstory on the SAP but did say a couple of interesting things about "first implementation steps".
- She said that they need to gather information about incoming kindergarten siblings. I'm guessing that means how many there are for next year and possibly after.
- They have to "complete transportation eligibility analysis". Again, figuring out who gets transportation where. (Someone asked about an analysis of how we save any money on transportation under the new SAP but it will take several years to realize it. I can't see how they could anytime soon.)
- Fall 2010 opening Sand Point, McDonald and Old Hay with Rainier View and Viewlands to follow. This is a bit of a change because it seemed they wanted to open all of them at once from previous timelines. So I'm a bit confused about RV and Viewlands still being on the map.
- Program placement decisions (although as Charlie pointed out, elsewhere in the document, it says "program placement process is changing" without any discussion). Again, danger William Robinson!
- Early registration is extended to January 15th
Director Sundquist asked about Spectrum being added at Madison and if that meant Spectrum additions elsewhere and Dr. G-J said yes with no embellishment.
Tracy said they had received 1000s of suggestions for the boundaries. Tracy explained that out of the 58 elementary schools, 48 had boundary modifications.
Dr. Enfield said, from the academic side, they were looking at 3 quality issues.
- investing and sustaining strong principals
- quality instruction
- quality materials and programs
Michael De Bell said that he wanted to give a shout-out to staff for their volunteer hours at the boundary meetings. He said that he found the feedback more valuable than much Board testimony (not dissing the testimony but he liked the feedback at these meetings).
Tracy addressed a common concern from input from the community about walk zones. Why am I assigned School A when School B is closer? She said that because the City was discontinuing funding for the crossing guards in Fall 2010 that they had to create the safest boundaries they could. (Whether they did is open for question depending on where you live.) The district hopes to find funding for crossing guards but until then, they had to try to create the safest walk zones.
Steve S. suggested calling them smaller or retracted walk zones rather than "conservative" walk zones for clarity.
Sherry came back to the issue of the shrinkage of Hale's area. She kept asking, "What changed?" Tracy said it wasn't done artificially for a program but for balance. Sherry said she thought she might get some positive feedback from some on this but not others. (And I agree. It looks very odd. Also, kids on the west side of Green Lake won't be walking around Green Lake to get to school.)
Sherry also asked Tracy about a rumor that the 10% of Open Choice seats at Ingraham would be for IB students. Tracy said there is no distinction about who gets Open Choice seats by any program.
Steve S. offered thanks for the support for the co-location of Denny and Sealth and alignment of those boundaries.
Tracy got asked about including the capacity at Option Schools in the plan and said they had done that for Option schools across the district.
Peter brought up the issue of the changes for Sand Point saying that walking is difficult on Sand Point Way. Tracy said the new boundaries accounted for that issue.
Then Harium brought up the point about people being concerned about the F/RL percentage at Sand Point. (Tracy said the new boundaries would lower it but didn't say by how much.) He said that there is UW married student housing in that area and so that is a sometimes changing population. As well he said that there are many other schools in our district with far higher F/RL populations.
I would gently refute his points. One, that married graduate housing population will always be there. Yes, those grad students will have different incomes but that housing will always be there. Also, the issue isn't really what the reality is throughout the district in terms of higher F/RL than 30%. The reality is that you are trying to create a new school and get people to want to be there. If the population has a F/RL size that is totally out of whack with the rest of the NE elementaries, you handicap that school from the start in both perception and reality.
It seems, from Tracy's remarks, that Old Hay is definitely going to be an Option School. I make this point because some in the community had suggested a regular K-5 and I don't think that is an option from the district's standpoint because of the nearness of Coe.
So then they got into the McDonald question which was an interesting discussion. Clearly, very clearly, the district wants McDonald open at all costs. And I think the Board is drinking the Kool-aid so I would call this one done.
Tracy said they got "new" data on increased growth in the McDonald area. (This is after Director Carr, at the BTA III levy work session, said that she didn't see reopening the school for 135 kids. And now, voila! more kids. Interesting.) It seems like her argument is to open McDonald to ease pressure, now and in the future, on the other schools.
Tracy said that having McDonald would ease crowding elsewhere and, as a topper, that it could (might) allow grandfathering of siblings. Really? I'm hoping she means this as grandfathering siblings is now really on the table. She said opening McDonald would open up 90 more seats for out of attendance students at JSIS.
Then Sherry gave a long talk about her walk through McDonald with Kathy Johnson and other facilities staff. She said it is beautiful old building but that she was quite taken aback at its poor interior condition. She said the paint is peeling, the boiler bad, the elevator sketchy, etc. She said the work to be done is not extravagant but really needed. However, she said she was startled that this was considered an "emergency" school because she could not imagine putting kids into it as is.
(Yes and this is all part of that big Maintenance puzzle I keep harping on for the BTA III. So if there was an emergency at a school that necessitated moving out a population, where would they go? As it turns out, not to McDonald which is completely undermaintained. That would have been a terrible thing to find out if there were an emergency and what would the district say then? Sorry. We claim to maintain the buildings but really we don't?)
Oddly, Sherry then said that the case is not "overwhelming" to reopen McDonald BUT there is not a clear idea where to put these kids (about 135 I believe). That's when she waxed on about McDonald becoming a foreign language school and that the idea had been to have at least 2 feeder elementary language schools for each middle language school. Great, fine but where is the vision? Where do they go and what do they get in high school? No questions asked here and mute silence when they do get asked from the staff. Don't create more of these schools if you have no vision for the entire program. (See APP.)
Rainier Beach High School and Books
"I am intentionally being OT here to point out that the thread for helping ot purchase textbooks for Rainier Beach seems to have been forgotten or at least neglected."
Fun fact: Charlie and are not being paid for either blogging or attending multiple SPS meetings. Wanted to make sure that was understood.
I haven't forgotten about RBHS and the book issue. I haven't neglected it either. I've exchanged e-mails and phone calls with Mr. Gary, the Alliance and a couple of RBHS teachers.
Please understand. Any of you can write a check and send it to RBHS anytime you would like. However, there are nuances to doing this correctly. I would like to do my best to make sure that any money sent is easy for RBHS staff to access and that it is used for the stated purpose for which it is given.
If anyone doesn't like how I am handling this, I will pass this project onto you.
Fun fact: Charlie and are not being paid for either blogging or attending multiple SPS meetings. Wanted to make sure that was understood.
I haven't forgotten about RBHS and the book issue. I haven't neglected it either. I've exchanged e-mails and phone calls with Mr. Gary, the Alliance and a couple of RBHS teachers.
Please understand. Any of you can write a check and send it to RBHS anytime you would like. However, there are nuances to doing this correctly. I would like to do my best to make sure that any money sent is easy for RBHS staff to access and that it is used for the stated purpose for which it is given.
If anyone doesn't like how I am handling this, I will pass this project onto you.
APP issues at Boundary meeting
There were two items from the Board's discussion of the assignment boundaries that referenced APP and I think it would be best if we tried to contain the discussion of those two items to this thread specifically for discussing those two points and off the main thread discussing the meeting.
First, Director Chow went off - why isn't she gone already? - on how there is no high school APP so why should APP students get assigned to Garfield ahead of neighborhood kids? Here are some fun facts: despite what Director Chow may think, APP DOES continue through high school. The District has always said so, both in its public documents, in its annual reports to the State (which Director Chow has voted to approve four times), and in its annual grant application (which Director Chow has voted to approve four times). Let's not forget that Cheryl Chow was the principal at Garfield for a time. It's no surprise that the program was not well-supported during her administration.
That was bad enough. Worse, however, is that neither CAO Susan Enfield nor Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson would correct Director Chow's misstatement of the facts.
Worse still, when I asked Dr. Enfield why she didn't correct Director Chow, she asked me "Which classes are the APP classes at Garfield?" In fact, Dr. Enfield appears to support the idea that as we near parity for AP and IB classes at all of our high schools there will be no more need for high school APP, which she appears to regard as a fiction.
In the discussion, Director Carr said that as more high schools offer more AP classes, APP students will just naturally choose their neighborhood high schools anyway, without any need for the District to discontinue the pathway to Garfield.
All in all a very disturbing conversation. It shows how little the Board - or even the CAO - knows or understands about APP or Garfield.
Second point. There was some very pointed talk about program placement and it was clearly stated by Dr. Libros that it is imperitive that programs be placed where the students live. I don't understand how the District leadership can continue to spout this line while obstinantly keeping north-end elementary APP at Lowell.
First, Director Chow went off - why isn't she gone already? - on how there is no high school APP so why should APP students get assigned to Garfield ahead of neighborhood kids? Here are some fun facts: despite what Director Chow may think, APP DOES continue through high school. The District has always said so, both in its public documents, in its annual reports to the State (which Director Chow has voted to approve four times), and in its annual grant application (which Director Chow has voted to approve four times). Let's not forget that Cheryl Chow was the principal at Garfield for a time. It's no surprise that the program was not well-supported during her administration.
That was bad enough. Worse, however, is that neither CAO Susan Enfield nor Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson would correct Director Chow's misstatement of the facts.
Worse still, when I asked Dr. Enfield why she didn't correct Director Chow, she asked me "Which classes are the APP classes at Garfield?" In fact, Dr. Enfield appears to support the idea that as we near parity for AP and IB classes at all of our high schools there will be no more need for high school APP, which she appears to regard as a fiction.
In the discussion, Director Carr said that as more high schools offer more AP classes, APP students will just naturally choose their neighborhood high schools anyway, without any need for the District to discontinue the pathway to Garfield.
All in all a very disturbing conversation. It shows how little the Board - or even the CAO - knows or understands about APP or Garfield.
Second point. There was some very pointed talk about program placement and it was clearly stated by Dr. Libros that it is imperitive that programs be placed where the students live. I don't understand how the District leadership can continue to spout this line while obstinantly keeping north-end elementary APP at Lowell.
Program Placement Proposals due Nov 6
The Program Placement web page has been updated. With only a few days notice it provides an updated Program Placement Proposal form and a deadline of November 6 for program placement proposal submission. The form was created on 11/2/09 - just four days before the deadline. Nice.
Get those proposals written and submitted without delay.
Also, according to slide 26 of the presentation made to the board on November 3:
Program placement process is changing
There was no discussion about how it was changing or even why.
Get those proposals written and submitted without delay.
Also, according to slide 26 of the presentation made to the board on November 3:
Program placement process is changing
There was no discussion about how it was changing or even why.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Smith Blum and Patu Have Big Leads in Early Returns
It looks like Kay Smith Blum and Betty Patu will be joining Michael De Bell on the Seattle School Board. The Times reports that both candidates have large leads over their challengers.
I will note that the only candidates (both former) at the Work Session today were Charlie Mas and Joanna Cullen who I always see at these things. It will be interesting to see if the newly-elected candidates show for tomorrow's Board meeting. Or maybe one of the Informational Boundaries meetings. Or the Public Hearing for the Boundaries. Considering they will have the job of helping to figure out the transition plan, it might be a good idea to show up.
I will note that the only candidates (both former) at the Work Session today were Charlie Mas and Joanna Cullen who I always see at these things. It will be interesting to see if the newly-elected candidates show for tomorrow's Board meeting. Or maybe one of the Informational Boundaries meetings. Or the Public Hearing for the Boundaries. Considering they will have the job of helping to figure out the transition plan, it might be a good idea to show up.
New Boundary Maps
I'll do a separate thread on the Work Session itself. So I'm sure some people have poured over the maps so point out anything I miss. (As well, the Work Session presentation gave some reasoning for changes but not in-depth. The only way at this point I can find it is at the Board website - clink on the link for the plan.)
Please note: for whatever reason, staff did NOT use the same coloring or streets on the two different maps. They said by tomorrow they will have up side by side comparisons but it is not easy to clearly see what changed.
High Schools -
Please note: for whatever reason, staff did NOT use the same coloring or streets on the two different maps. They said by tomorrow they will have up side by side comparisons but it is not easy to clearly see what changed.
High Schools -
- They shifted Ingraham's NE boundary further east past the Jackson Golf Course. The reasoning is that it provided more of a walk area.
- Ballard did NOT shift north of 85th but did lose the area of North Green Lake and west of Green Lake to Phinney/Greenwood Ave and lower West Woodland. All that area went into Roosevelt.
- Roosevelt, for some strange reason, gained north area now moving to 85th as well as the area around Green Lake that Ballard lost. Now I get the Green Lake area because it is walking distance but I do not understand the movement north. This was NOT lost on the directors as Hale now has quite a smaller area as a couple of them pointed out. Tracy claims it is because the high school cohort is getting smaller over the next several years and quickly said it wasn't program issue but boy, it looks like it.
- Chief Sealth and West Seattle switched some areas. West Seattle has a long arm down into SW Seattle to about SW Cloverdale while Chief Sealth rises up to the NE to just under the West Seattle Golf Course. (Steve Sundquist seemed glad to see this change but wasn't sure if everyone in SW/West Seattle would like it.)
- Obviously with the changes at Sealth and West Seattle, Madison and Denny changed to mirror them.
- Aki Kurose looked about the same to me (except that they have changed Brighton's area somewhat and the NE corner for Brighton has gone to Van Asselt. That means that little area now changes from going to Aki to Mercer.
- John Muir's north boundary line changed upward.
- Kimball took some of Beacon Hill's northeast boundary. They also lost some east boundary to Maple.
- Thurgood Marshall's northern boundary appears, to me, to have headed north somewhat. Anybody?
- The NE part of Stevens boundary (Volunteer Park area) has moved over to the Lowell area.
- Coe has dropped its southern boundary down further south, just under McClure. Additionally, its eastern boundary shifted west towards McClure.
- BF Day got a bit of its area clipped off just NW of Woodland Park. Additionally, its northern border has dropped down to along N 50th.
- Adam's northern boundary went slightly higher.
- Loyal Heights took a west piece of Whittier that had jutted into its area.
- Whittier/Greenwood; it's a little unclear to me where Whittier's southern boundary is. I think it may be a little further south on the west side.
- It looks like a northern part of Greenwood is now into Viewlands and a northern part of Bagley has gone into Viewlands. It gains a NE portion of West Woodland. And that little bit that was to go to Hamilton is now in going to Whitman because of that change.
- Olympic View's southern border has dropped taking in more of Maple Leaf.
- View Ridge has taken the southeast corner of Sand Point. Sand Point now dips about half-way down into the previous northeast boundary of Laurelhurst.
- Bryant has taken in a small piece of northwest Laurelhurst.
- The UW campus was split between Laurelhurst and JSIS and now Laurelhurst takes all of UW.
- JSIS now pops up a bit in ts NW border into McDonald.
- Green Lake no longer has any of North Green Lake (which went over to Bagley).
- Wedgwood's eastern boundary has shifted to mostly 35th Avenue NE (with View Ridge taking its lost part). Wedgwood and Bryant have shifted an area - Wedgwood's NW border has shifted south and Bryant's NE border has shifted north.
Election Day
I know this might be a silly reminder, but nonetheless.
Please make sure your mail-in ballot gets postmarked by 12:00 midnight today!!!
Many (most?) of the readers are unhappy with the current school board. Today is your day to make your voices heard!
Please Vote.
Please make sure your mail-in ballot gets postmarked by 12:00 midnight today!!!
Many (most?) of the readers are unhappy with the current school board. Today is your day to make your voices heard!
Please Vote.
FYI
UPDATE: For the Public Hearing on the Boundaries, each speaker will have 3 minutes so there will be only 40 speakers.
The new boundary maps will be released today. Here is the exact wording from the School Board meeting agenda:
"Map will be attached to this report, Tuesday afternoon, November 3rd"
Not sure if that means at noon, 1 p.m. or right before the Work Session starts at 4. I'll keep checking and update this thread if something comes up before the Work Session.
Also, to keep in mind for next week's Public Hearing on the SAP Boundaries:
At the public hearing scheduled for Monday, November 9, 6:00-8:00pm, you may sign up to testify at the public hearing starting Thursday, November 5, 8:00am, by e-mailing hearing@seattleschools.org or by calling (206) 252-0042.
In my experience, the Public Hearing has about 5 minutes of introductions. They are legally obligated to read an official statement and state which Board members are present.
The new boundary maps will be released today. Here is the exact wording from the School Board meeting agenda:
"Map will be attached to this report, Tuesday afternoon, November 3rd"
Not sure if that means at noon, 1 p.m. or right before the Work Session starts at 4. I'll keep checking and update this thread if something comes up before the Work Session.
Also, to keep in mind for next week's Public Hearing on the SAP Boundaries:
At the public hearing scheduled for Monday, November 9, 6:00-8:00pm, you may sign up to testify at the public hearing starting Thursday, November 5, 8:00am, by e-mailing hearing@seattleschools.org or by calling (206) 252-0042.
In my experience, the Public Hearing has about 5 minutes of introductions. They are legally obligated to read an official statement and state which Board members are present.
Monday, November 02, 2009
SAP Updates
Someone had provided a link to the South Shore parent newsletter where the principal discusses some issues with the SAP. It was interesting; here are a few excerpts:
Question: What does this plan mean to us as an OPTION SCHOOL?
A: Students can apply from all over the district upsetting the ethnic, language and socioeconomic balance we have worked so hard to attain. We want to keep our current demographics and need to be vocal about it. Ways to be heard: Comment Cards, board meetings, Getting involved in Political Advocacy Committee.
(Join the club. Many school communities, with the new SAP, will find their diversity changed. I recall that Roosevelt students came down to a Board meeting in large numbers about 5 years ago complaining that changing the SAP would change the diversity there. TOPS was very worried during school closures that their diversity would change under a new SAP. It's an issue for many schools but I don't think it's an argument for one school.)
Question: How will this impact our class size?
A: We currently buy-down classroom size. Class sizes are increasing because the union agreement reports that a teacher can take up to 28 kids in the classroom. This union agreement supersedes the Agreement of Understanding between the foundation and district. There is nothing we can do about the class size. The NS foundation is most interested in keeping class rooms small in the pre-k-3 grade bands and duplicating this model nationally.
(Not sure if they bought down class size via the school budget, New School money or PTA. I think the issue is they have a big new building - sized at about 750 for Pre-K-8 or 1,000 for middle school - and a good program so naturally people want in. Remember our thread on class size? Apparently the New School Foundation thinks class size matters AND they want to spread the word nationally. Hello Dr. Goodloe-Johnson!)
Question: How do we get our Title 1 status back?
A: 50% free-reduced lunch rate. We were at 42% last year. We believe we are higher this year but do not yet know current rate. Important to have families to fill out form if they even think they may qualify.
What I did want to point out in the South Shore newsletter is something the principal said because other principals may be saying this as well:
"School Board Vote on 11/18 on the new assignment maps only. Whole plan to be voted on in January. "
I was confused because I know the general outlines of the SAP have been voted in. The vote on November 18th is to settle the boundaries. But vote the whole plan? I called the Board office and what the principal said was in error.
The SAP plan will be done November 18th as a plan. The next step is for the Board to direct the Superintendent to craft the transition plan. I'd like to think we'd see it by mid-December but maybe it won't see the light of day until early January. Then there will probably be a couple of public meetings on it and then a vote by the Board to accept it in mid-January. So if you hear of other votes for the SAP after November 18th, they are probably talking about the transition plan.
Also to keep in mind: by tomorrow night we will likely know who the newly-elected (or re-elected) Board members are. They are to take their oath on Dec. 2 at a Special Board meeting just for their installation. So those new people will be the ones to lobby for the transition plan. If you have ideas about what that transition plan should be, then get on it as soon as you know who the new Board directors are.
Question: What does this plan mean to us as an OPTION SCHOOL?
A: Students can apply from all over the district upsetting the ethnic, language and socioeconomic balance we have worked so hard to attain. We want to keep our current demographics and need to be vocal about it. Ways to be heard: Comment Cards, board meetings, Getting involved in Political Advocacy Committee.
(Join the club. Many school communities, with the new SAP, will find their diversity changed. I recall that Roosevelt students came down to a Board meeting in large numbers about 5 years ago complaining that changing the SAP would change the diversity there. TOPS was very worried during school closures that their diversity would change under a new SAP. It's an issue for many schools but I don't think it's an argument for one school.)
Question: How will this impact our class size?
A: We currently buy-down classroom size. Class sizes are increasing because the union agreement reports that a teacher can take up to 28 kids in the classroom. This union agreement supersedes the Agreement of Understanding between the foundation and district. There is nothing we can do about the class size. The NS foundation is most interested in keeping class rooms small in the pre-k-3 grade bands and duplicating this model nationally.
(Not sure if they bought down class size via the school budget, New School money or PTA. I think the issue is they have a big new building - sized at about 750 for Pre-K-8 or 1,000 for middle school - and a good program so naturally people want in. Remember our thread on class size? Apparently the New School Foundation thinks class size matters AND they want to spread the word nationally. Hello Dr. Goodloe-Johnson!)
Question: How do we get our Title 1 status back?
A: 50% free-reduced lunch rate. We were at 42% last year. We believe we are higher this year but do not yet know current rate. Important to have families to fill out form if they even think they may qualify.
What I did want to point out in the South Shore newsletter is something the principal said because other principals may be saying this as well:
"School Board Vote on 11/18 on the new assignment maps only. Whole plan to be voted on in January. "
I was confused because I know the general outlines of the SAP have been voted in. The vote on November 18th is to settle the boundaries. But vote the whole plan? I called the Board office and what the principal said was in error.
The SAP plan will be done November 18th as a plan. The next step is for the Board to direct the Superintendent to craft the transition plan. I'd like to think we'd see it by mid-December but maybe it won't see the light of day until early January. Then there will probably be a couple of public meetings on it and then a vote by the Board to accept it in mid-January. So if you hear of other votes for the SAP after November 18th, they are probably talking about the transition plan.
Also to keep in mind: by tomorrow night we will likely know who the newly-elected (or re-elected) Board members are. They are to take their oath on Dec. 2 at a Special Board meeting just for their installation. So those new people will be the ones to lobby for the transition plan. If you have ideas about what that transition plan should be, then get on it as soon as you know who the new Board directors are.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Meetings This Week
Tuesday, Nov. 3rd from 4-6 p.m., Board Work Session on SAP boundaries.
This is the last Work Session before the final vote on November 18th AND the first look at any changes to the boundaries. I would expect the most changes for high schools given that Tracy Libros said that they were not "well-balanced" from the initial release of the boundaries. I am hoping to see the Sand Point Elementary boundaries redrawn as well due to the oddities of how large its F/RL population would be relative to all the other NE elementaries as well as how it doesn't include the Windermere neighborhood. I know the Board has heard from several neighborhoods about issues of boundaries that split neighborhoods (or the perception of) but it is difficult to say how hard the Board will push for any changes here.
It is VITAL for any and all of you who look at the new boundaries and are unhappy (and feel it is a good reason) to go to your PTAs/CPPS rep and get going now. The Board needs to here from communities as a group (not just a couple of parents here and there). There needs to be a valid reason for your concern (not "my house's value will go down"; that won't work for them). Keep in mind, the district and Board are looking district-wide so you have to as well in putting forth an argument.
Also, if you feel, as several parents have put forth, that high school assignment should continue to be open, speak up now. I have a hard time understanding how the district can segregate academic programs without some sort of mention in the SAP about putting in more of them if the current ones fill. Just having AP is not the same thing. If Ingraham and Sealth's programs fill, the SAP should reflect that the district will open another IB program elsewhere. (They can make the argument that Roosevelt's drama program and its jazz program -along with Garfield's-are "extra-curricular" activities but the IB programs and the Biotech program ARE academic programs.) What specialty academic programs do West Seattle, RBHS, Hale and Franklin have available to their students?
Wednesday, Nov. 4th - School Board meeting starting at 6 p.m.
Introduction of the SAP boundaries as well as the BTA III levy and Operations levy. The complete levy language for both is part of Introduction items. Interestingly, the BTA II levy is termed an "emergency". However, the Operations levy, which many of us would consider completely vital, is not. Here's the wording from the BTA III levy:
"It is hereby found and declared that an emergency exists requiring the submission to the qualified electors of the District of the proposition whether the District shall make the Capital Projects Fund levies for their ratification or rejection at a special election to be held on February 9, 2010. "
The levy is listed now at $270M which I know is lower than the staff wanted. The project list seems to be changed somewhat and I'll have to compare the old list with this new one.
Thursday, Nov. 5th Audit and Finance Committee Meeting from 3:30-5:30 p.m. (This is in the Board conference room but they have contingency plans to move it should the crowd be more than the usual couple of visitors.)
This is the meeting where staff will answer to the Board about Meg Diaz' report.
Then, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Roosevelt, there is an SAP Informational meeting on Boundaries.
However, Tracy Libros assured me that ALL these meetings are for feedback so yes, you can put forth your ideas and opinions. I, for one, am not going to be corralled into any small group discussion. If that happens, I'm roaming the room listening to others. I think this should be an open discussion for whoever shows up and frankly, I refuse to go along with any other format.
This is the last Work Session before the final vote on November 18th AND the first look at any changes to the boundaries. I would expect the most changes for high schools given that Tracy Libros said that they were not "well-balanced" from the initial release of the boundaries. I am hoping to see the Sand Point Elementary boundaries redrawn as well due to the oddities of how large its F/RL population would be relative to all the other NE elementaries as well as how it doesn't include the Windermere neighborhood. I know the Board has heard from several neighborhoods about issues of boundaries that split neighborhoods (or the perception of) but it is difficult to say how hard the Board will push for any changes here.
It is VITAL for any and all of you who look at the new boundaries and are unhappy (and feel it is a good reason) to go to your PTAs/CPPS rep and get going now. The Board needs to here from communities as a group (not just a couple of parents here and there). There needs to be a valid reason for your concern (not "my house's value will go down"; that won't work for them). Keep in mind, the district and Board are looking district-wide so you have to as well in putting forth an argument.
Also, if you feel, as several parents have put forth, that high school assignment should continue to be open, speak up now. I have a hard time understanding how the district can segregate academic programs without some sort of mention in the SAP about putting in more of them if the current ones fill. Just having AP is not the same thing. If Ingraham and Sealth's programs fill, the SAP should reflect that the district will open another IB program elsewhere. (They can make the argument that Roosevelt's drama program and its jazz program -along with Garfield's-are "extra-curricular" activities but the IB programs and the Biotech program ARE academic programs.) What specialty academic programs do West Seattle, RBHS, Hale and Franklin have available to their students?
Wednesday, Nov. 4th - School Board meeting starting at 6 p.m.
Introduction of the SAP boundaries as well as the BTA III levy and Operations levy. The complete levy language for both is part of Introduction items. Interestingly, the BTA II levy is termed an "emergency". However, the Operations levy, which many of us would consider completely vital, is not. Here's the wording from the BTA III levy:
"It is hereby found and declared that an emergency exists requiring the submission to the qualified electors of the District of the proposition whether the District shall make the Capital Projects Fund levies for their ratification or rejection at a special election to be held on February 9, 2010. "
The levy is listed now at $270M which I know is lower than the staff wanted. The project list seems to be changed somewhat and I'll have to compare the old list with this new one.
Thursday, Nov. 5th Audit and Finance Committee Meeting from 3:30-5:30 p.m. (This is in the Board conference room but they have contingency plans to move it should the crowd be more than the usual couple of visitors.)
This is the meeting where staff will answer to the Board about Meg Diaz' report.
Then, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Roosevelt, there is an SAP Informational meeting on Boundaries.
However, Tracy Libros assured me that ALL these meetings are for feedback so yes, you can put forth your ideas and opinions. I, for one, am not going to be corralled into any small group discussion. If that happens, I'm roaming the room listening to others. I think this should be an open discussion for whoever shows up and frankly, I refuse to go along with any other format.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Class Size in Seattle Public Schools
Several requests have been made to have a thread on class size.
Here's what I think is out there about this issue. There was a study called Project Star done in Tennessee in 1985 over 4-years which did find that class size did matter. And, from a op-ed from Oregon Live by an Oregon state professor:
"Interestingly, the studies of the Tennessee experiment have found a clear rejection of the notion that a teacher aide can offset the effect of a large class: test results were statistically equivalent across large classes with and without an aide."
Also:
"A second study by the same team revealed that the positive effects from small classes in K-3 remained pervasive two full years after students returned to regular-size classes."
From ClassSizeMatters.org;
Since 2000-2001, the Montgomery County Public School District in Maryland has reduced class size in grades K-3 to no more than 15 students. When children who had been in smaller classes since kindergarten reached 2nd grade, they scored at some of the highest levels seen in the nation, according to the district’s accountability office. The district’s high-needs students saw the greatest improvements, with “consistent and, in some cases, extraordinary gains by African American students, Hispanic students, poor students, special education students, and those learning English as a second language.”
Here is a good article from the Department of Education on this issue.
Another article shows a map of class sizes throughout the country.
A professor from Northwestern University found that children did do better in smaller classes overall but that high achievers did the best and so the achievement gap did continue to exist.
I remember that when my kids were at Whittier that we used money in the budget (there was no I-728 then) to keep K-2 at about 20-21 kids (Helen S, is that your recollection as well?). I thought this was a great idea especially for little kids with their first school experience and that it was the crucial learning to read time.
I have always had it on the back burner to get the the root of the I-728 money. I know that it comes and goes in size and that it gets used for all kinds of things. Clearly, voters and parents thought we would get smaller class sizes out of it but here in Seattle, at least, it hasn't. I'll have to try to get this figured out.
For me, the bottom line is reality. A good teacher can handle a bigger class, sure. A bigger class for a mediocre or poor teacher is likely a disaster.
But c'mon, studies aside, we're all human beings. We know, without being a teacher, that having a smaller class allows the teacher to know the students better (especially their learning styles) and be able to help them more easily. It has got to be a lot less likely for the kid who is quiet and behaves to fall through the cracks. Overall, it just has to be easier for a teacher to do his or her best job with fewer students.
I don't care what Dr. Goodloe-Johnson says. Class size does matter (or it sure does to parents and I bet it will matter to her once her own child starts school). But it's all about money. Article after article talks about the difficulty of finding the money. And I have no idea how to solve that issue.
Here's what I think is out there about this issue. There was a study called Project Star done in Tennessee in 1985 over 4-years which did find that class size did matter. And, from a op-ed from Oregon Live by an Oregon state professor:
"Interestingly, the studies of the Tennessee experiment have found a clear rejection of the notion that a teacher aide can offset the effect of a large class: test results were statistically equivalent across large classes with and without an aide."
Also:
"A second study by the same team revealed that the positive effects from small classes in K-3 remained pervasive two full years after students returned to regular-size classes."
From ClassSizeMatters.org;
"Class size reduction has now been successfully implemented in 30 states across the country, according to Education Week, and many localities.
Here is a good article from the Department of Education on this issue.
Another article shows a map of class sizes throughout the country.
A professor from Northwestern University found that children did do better in smaller classes overall but that high achievers did the best and so the achievement gap did continue to exist.
I remember that when my kids were at Whittier that we used money in the budget (there was no I-728 then) to keep K-2 at about 20-21 kids (Helen S, is that your recollection as well?). I thought this was a great idea especially for little kids with their first school experience and that it was the crucial learning to read time.
I have always had it on the back burner to get the the root of the I-728 money. I know that it comes and goes in size and that it gets used for all kinds of things. Clearly, voters and parents thought we would get smaller class sizes out of it but here in Seattle, at least, it hasn't. I'll have to try to get this figured out.
For me, the bottom line is reality. A good teacher can handle a bigger class, sure. A bigger class for a mediocre or poor teacher is likely a disaster.
But c'mon, studies aside, we're all human beings. We know, without being a teacher, that having a smaller class allows the teacher to know the students better (especially their learning styles) and be able to help them more easily. It has got to be a lot less likely for the kid who is quiet and behaves to fall through the cracks. Overall, it just has to be easier for a teacher to do his or her best job with fewer students.
I don't care what Dr. Goodloe-Johnson says. Class size does matter (or it sure does to parents and I bet it will matter to her once her own child starts school). But it's all about money. Article after article talks about the difficulty of finding the money. And I have no idea how to solve that issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
