CACIEE is dead
It has been over a year since the CACIEE final report was delivered. There has been no status report on implementation from the District since the one in May - nine months ago - which not only reported little progress but expressed a lot of doubt about the potential for implementation. There is very little discussion of the CACIEE recommendations these days. So what's up with that? Has the effort been abandoned? If so, shouldn't there be an annoucement to that regard? What other large scale efforts have been abandoned? Is the Five Year Plan still in effect?
I suggest that you review the Strategic Implementation Team's May 3 status report. You can see it here:
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/main/Public_Affairs/06_may_report.pdf
The District no longer offers a link to it from any of their web pages, but you can still reach it through the PTSA pages. Pay special attention to the spreadsheet at the end that purports to show the status of each recommendation (many of them are mischaracterized). Note how many of them were supposed to have shown concrete progress by now. I have my own table (see below).
It has also been some time since the "Community Conversations" that followed the State of the District address in September. The District put forward sets of academic goals, operational goals, and community engagement goals at these events. Although there were promises of further Community Conversations, none have followed. Has there been any report on progress towards the goals announced in these conversations?
The District adopted a School Family Partnership Plan, but has failed to implement all but a tiny part of it. Forgive me if I question the District's commitment to this effort. The person the District put in charge of promoting family involvement, Caprice Hollins, regards family involvement as an indicator of White Privilege. The Board bemoans the lack of dialog with the public but takes no steps to allow dialog. They haven't held any Community Conversations since their one and only over a year ago.
Seattle Public Schools is very good at setting goals and announcing plans, but they have not proven effective at implementing plans or achieving goals. This disconnect is rarely explored in the Seattle Times, the P-I or any of the major local media. No one with a voice louder than mine ever goes back and checks on implementation and achievement. No one with a voice louder than mine ever tries to hold the District accountable.
I hear people talk all the time about Superintendent Manhas' integrity, but I have to say that I have never seen it. I have never seen him follow through on anything that he said he would do. I have never seen him hold anyone accountable - least of all himself. I'm begining to think that everyone else has some other definition of the word "integrity" than the one I have.
I would really love to see someone at the Seattle Times or the P-I do a report on progress the District has made towards implementing plans and achieving goals made during Mr. Manhas' administration. It may be a fruitless exercise, however, because I suspect that the new Superintendent will not be expected to fulfill any of these commitments. This highlights another specific dysfunction of the Seattle Public Schools culture - it does not operate like an institution. The District's policies, practices, and promises are all personal and all expire when the person who set the practice or made the commitment leaves the job. So long as the District keeps changing personnel - and the turnover is dizzying - they never have to fulfill ANY of their promises. Institutions aren't supposed to work that way. Institutions are supposed to maintain continuity DESPITE changes in personnel.
So, presuming that the CACIEE report and recommendations will expire with Mr. Manhas' tenure as Supeirntendent, maybe it doesn't matter if the District implements their recommendations or not. Just the same, I would like to see a major local media outlet make mention of the report and the implementation status just one more time - if only to acknowledge that it is dead.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CACIEE Final Report recommendations:
Governance and Leadership Capacity
1. The Superintendent must show strong, decisive leadership to move the District forward on an aggressive reform agenda. True reform includes organizational culture change and will require clear direction, strategic decision-making, and a no-excuses approach. It is the Superintendent's responsibility to act boldly and lead the charge to align the agendas of the District, the School Board and outside groups with a laser-like focus on academic achievement.
---I don't think anyone would claim this was done. No culture change, no clear direction fromt he District leadership, no strategic decision-making, no bold acts of leadership, no focus on academic achievement. The evidence for the lack of culture change is abundant. The only strategy level decisions I have seen since then were the school closures and the project list for BEX III. Were they strategic? The closest thing to a bold act leadership from Mr. Manhas was his resignation. ---
2. We recommend the School Board more clearly define its roles and responsibilities relative to District staff through the review and adoption of a governance model such as the Carver Policy Governance model or a comparable board governance model
---Not done. The Board is incapable of governance because they have no means for holding anyone accountable.---
3. Creating a new, 3-year executive team position charged with implementing the full package of restructuring actions recommended in this Committee's final report and serving as an integrating function across all District departments;
---This they did. There is a Strategic Implementation Team. Of course, they haven't implemented anything, haven't issued a report for nine months, and that report was essentially a surrender---
4. Creating a new, permanent executive team position with responsibilities for marketing, communications and community outreach and responsiveness
---Not done. This recommendation was rejected.---
5. Establishing an executive search process aimed at recruiting outstanding talent to the District (including principals), which, among other activities, would consider retaining executive search firms for senior level positions
---Not done. No process.---
6. Establishing an ongoing commitment to leadership training for senior and mid-level managers (including principals)
---The District is doing something and calling it leadership training, but it either may or may not be legitimate. They were doing something called leadership training BEFORE this recommendation as well.---
7. Clarifying roles and responsibilities at the senior management level, especially with regard to principals and Education Directors.
---Not done. The lines of authority and accountability are just as tangled as ever.---
8. We recommend the creation of a new, permanent position exclusively responsible for developing the highest quality Principal Corps in the country, including coordinating hiring, training, growing and retaining these critical leaders.
---Not done.---
Strategic Planning
9. Develop and implement a rigorous, system-wide, annualized strategic planning process driven by academic priorities (vs. funding) and projected out at least five years at a time. This process would be owned by the Superintendent and would include:
---Not done. There is no process and no strategic plan.---
9A. Development of a sharper mission statement;
---Not done.---
9B. A thorough review of future demographics and financial realities;
---Not done.---
9C. A concise overview of the District's priorities and the strategies to achieve the goals;
---Not done.---
9D. Data to support the priorities (including past results, long- term forecasting, stakeholder input, and education research);
---Not done.---
9E. Stakeholder outreach and buy-in;
---Not done.---
9F. Measurable, year-to-year targets to assess progress against goals;
---Not done.---
9G. Ownership for each priority at the executive level;
---Not done.---
9H. Changes to normal operating procedure that will support the long- term success of the plan;
---Not done.---
9I. An on-going feedback loop with regular updates to the plan.
---Not done.---
Budgeting
10. Implement a priorities-based budgeting process that clearly aligns financial decisions with academic priorities in which:
---Not done. The budget was done this year without any discussion of academic priorities at all.---
10A. Activities and programs are ranked by the District's senior leadership team according to their importance to the core priorities of the District;
---Not done.---
10B. Activities and programs are required to have clearly articulated goals and success metrics;
---Not done.---
10C. The costs to produce any given activity are re-estimated and justified anew annually;
---Not done.---
10D. Programs that are deemed not to align with District priorities, or are deemed ineffective relative to established success metrics, are eliminated and those resources are redirected;
---Not done.---
10E. Reviews of spending against budget are conducted on a quarterly basis;
---Not done.---
10F. Weighted Student Formula is carefully evaluated to determine if it is indeed meeting its strategic objectives and is benchmarked against other districts to determine where opportunities exist to significantly simplify the administration process and reduce costs.
---This was done. I don't know how careful the evaluation was, or if the WSF was judged on these criteria, but it was weighed and found wanting. It is being replaced.---
Accountability
11. Ensure consistent quality across the system by implementing a rigorous accountability plan that:
---Not done. There is no accountability plan. I STRONGLY recommend that everyone read the Superintendent's original Accountability Plan. It is, without a doubt, the funniest official government document I have EVER read. The irony is so thick you could pave a street with it.---
11A. Establishes clear lines of accountability for every District employee;
---Not done.---
11B. Is rooted in the concept of earned autonomy;
---Not done.---
11C. Puts in place common success metrics for schools, including an annual assessment process that carries consequences, both positive and negative;
---Not done.---
11D. Focuses central office functions on continuous quality improvement and the elimination of inefficiencies.
---Not done.---
Marketing
12. Expand and enhance District communication and marketing capability by:
---Not done. The May status report from the Strategic Implementation Team essentially acknowledged that this recommendation was dead on arrival.---
12A. Creating a new, permanent executive team position with responsibilities for marketing, communications and community outreach and responsiveness;
---Not done. The Communications Director quit. He was an honest man who wouldn't participate in the District's misinformation campaigns.---
12B. Enhancing public engagement through professional and objective research and the use of statistically valid marketing surveys, including regular parent satisfaction surveys. Such an enhanced effort should extend particularly to communities of color, immigrants, refugees, those with special needs, and the poor;
---Not done.---
12C. Providing support to local school marketing committees, parents and community groups to help attract students through the powerful tool of parent-to-parent marketing and to encourage parental involvement;
---Not done.---
12D. Enhancing and improving the media outreach capability of the District with expanded staff and updated systems, including regular direct communication with parents and all stakeholders;
---Not done.---
12E. Hiring a professional communications/marketing firm with expertise in public education;
---Not done.---
12F. Investing in limited yearly budget for paid media to communicate the accomplishments and attractions of Seattle Public Schools.
---Not done.---
Data-Based Decision Making
13. Prioritize the use of student data to aide District-wide and school-based decision making, inform instructional practices and foster greater parental involvement. Specifically:
---Not done---
13A. Implement periodic student assessments in core subjects. Use data to improve instruction and to gauge student progress;
---Not done---
13B. More accurately disaggregate student data for bilingual, immigrant and refugee students;
---Not done---
13C. Complete full implementation of The Source, an excellent on- line information system whereby parents and teachers can obtain information about students' coursework, attendance, grades and other assessments; ---This has been done. The Source is really great.---
13D. Perform a uniform kindergarten readiness assessment to all incoming students. Communicate data to Seattle-area early learning providers.
---Not done---
Teaching and Hiring Development
14. Aggressively recruit, develop and retain quality teachers by:
---Not done---
14A. Providing competitive compensation, including pay and benefits (i.e., funding the current negotiated contract); ---This was done before the CACIEE report.---
14B. Placing special emphasis on potential teachers with particular expertise and content knowledge in the areas students are struggling most (i.e., math and science), teachers of color and bilingual teachers;
---Not done---
14C. Increasing stability by reducing turnover at high-need/low-performing schools by providing incentives to teach in these schools, including strong and ample support to staff, small class size, quality leadership, and active and productive professional learning communities;
---Not done. There are no real incentives to teach at these schools. I'm not aware of any special effort to support the staff at these schools. There is no special effort to reduce class sizes at these schools. There is no special effort to change the leadership at these schools. The only concrete effort to reduce turnover is the suspension of seniority rules on lay-offs for teachers at "flight" schools.---
14D. Funding the Flight One incentive pay provision included in the current negotiated agreement. The Committee recommends a thorough, regular analysis of all policy changes - such as this one - to ensure they have the desired result;
---The incentive pay may have been done, as the District committed to doing before the CACIEE report, but the thorough regular analysis was and is not done---
14E. Retooling recruitment and hiring procedures to enable the District to hire teachers earlier in the process and making it easier for candidates to apply;
---Not done---
14F. Targeting professional development to training that supports teachers' ongoing learning in a way that is aligned with the District's top instructional priorities (e.g., training on the new math curriculum, AP courses, college readiness assessments, grade level coordination, etc.). This could also include targeted use of subject specialists (e.g., math and science coaches) to work with teachers to improve instruction;
---Not done---
14G. Providing incentives and support for teachers who earn a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certificate.
---This was done before the CACIEE report---
14H. Developing and implement a rigorous teacher evaluation program to assess performance, encourage and support professional growth, create and recognize excellence and remove poor performers at all levels.
---Not done---
Curriculum Enhancements
15. Establish system-wide consistency and rigor within the curriculum that first emphasizes mastery of reading, writing, mathematics and science as foundational skills and then extends beyond to expand dual language opportunities and system-wide K-12 music offerings. This could include:
---Not done---
15A. Aligning all actions, policies and investments with strategies aimed at ensuring all students meet or exceed grade level standards set for reading, writing, math and science.
---Not done---
15B. Developing aligned curriculum for all core subjects for all schools. The curriculum must align with state learning standards for each grade level.
---Not done---
15C. Implementing the planned math curriculum adoption and ensuring adequate funding of implementation and early evaluation.
---Not done. There has been a middle school math adoption, but I don't know anyone who is happy with it. There has yet to be any adoption for elementary or high school. The new middle school curriculum does not integrate with the existing high school curriculum.---
15D. Stating in clear terms that science is considered a core part of K-12 offerings. This would include moving rapidly to complete the implementation of a high-quality science program K-12 – with special focus on middle school and high school science.
---Not done---
15E. Developing a comprehensive approach to implementing and evaluating professional development. All investments should be aimed at successful implementation of the laser-like focus on mastery of the basics and the new curriculum adoptions.
---Not done---
15F. Providing access for all elementary and middle school students to the District's award-winning instrumental music program as well as other arts offerings.
---Not done---
Targeted Class Size Reductions/Improved Student-Teacher Ratios
16. Reduce student-teacher ratios for core subjects in the early grades and for struggling students to:
---Not done---
16A. 20:1 in grades K-3; and
---Not done---
16B. 15:1 for very low-income and/or academically challenged K-3 classrooms;
---Not done---
16C. Please see section on remedial assistance for an additional class size reduction recommendation specifically related to remediation.
---Not done---
High School Rigor
17. Strengthen high schools and better prepare students for college and work through:
---Not done---
17A. A series of curriculum reforms aimed to setting appropriately high expectations and ensuring all Seattle
---Not done---
17B. Public School students have access to a college-prep curriculum including a) funding six periods per day of relevant coursework for all high school students; b) enacting a higher course-load requirement for graduation; and c) expanding offerings of and access to Advanced Placement, honors and International Baccalaureate classes;
---Something close to six periods has been funded, but there was no change in the graduation requirements and no noticable expansion of AP, Honors, or IB since the CACIEE report---
17C. Increased graduation requirements to include, at a minimum, four years of English, three years of math, and two years of foreign language;
---Not done---
17D. Examining and adequately funding the "foundation" needed for high school administration at the school level.
---Not done---
Remedial Assistance
18. Provide adequate remedial assistance to students in need through:
---Not done---
18A. Partnerships with community colleges, four-year institutions and OSPI to establish a Summer College program for high school students who do not meet the WASL standard.
---Not done---
18B. Beginning in the 2006-07 school year, increase learning opportunities for the classes of 2008 and 2009, such as providing double doses of math and literacy/reading for students struggling in these areas.
---Not done---
18C. Shift toward a preventative strategy of identifying incoming middle and high school students who are at-risk of not meeting standards, and providing extra learning opportunities (i.e., more time on task) to keep those students on track with college- and workforce-preparatory requirements.
---Not done---
18D. Carry out OSPI's Project Graduation 9th Grade Transitions and Extra Help Program:
---Not done---
18E. Place the most highly-qualified high school teachers in 9th grade. Criteria for high-quality teachers should include past student performance and the teacher's area of study.
---Not done---
18F. Lower teacher-student ratios to 20:1 in 6th and 9th grades, on a targeted as-needed basis.
---Not done---
Pre-Kindergarten & Full-Day Kindergarten
19. Serve as a partner (rather than an administrator) of early learning programs, and establish procedures to better coordinate existing early learning programs:
---Not done. The District could have done this at T T Minor and chose to go in the other direction.---
19A. Work with pre-K providers to ensure curricula are aligned with the skills students need to enter kindergarten;
---Not done---
19B. Place pre-K programs in elementary schools, especially in areas with high-need populations, to ensure smooth kindergarten transitions and reduce the "preparedness" gap that often contributes to the achievement gap;
---Not done. Again, see the T T Minor example.---
19C. Perform a school readiness assessment for all incoming kindergarten students. This will provide feedback to pre-K administrators on the impacts of their programs;
---Not done---
19D. Assign one point-person to oversee and coordinate the District's partnership in early learning;
---Not done---
19E. Work with other early learning partners to coordinate and streamline the multiple early learning programs in Seattle to create a true system that will prepare all children for kindergarten.
---Not done---
Family Involvement & Community Partnerships
20. Better leverage the time, skills and decision-making power of parents, community organizations and community volunteers to help students, especially at-risk students, to achieve. Specifically:
---Not done. In fact, aggressively not done.---
20A. Create additional Family Resource Centers to be located in strategic geographic areas (this may be best accomplished by partnering with the City's existing Family Support Centers program);
---Not done---
20B. Better coordinate communication between staff teams within the district who are points of contact for parents and community;
---Not done---
20C. Develop community partnerships with nonprofit groups to maximize District resources and finances.
---Not done---
Facilities
21. Re-size the District's physical capacity to accurately fit current student and enrollment and projected future enrollment by:
---This was partly done, but done clumsily and without strategic vision---
21A. Closing a number of active schools to eliminate underutilized space by 1.0 to 1.5 M square feet;
---Partly done, but done clumsily and without strategic vision---
21B. Developing sensible school closure criteria and a decision- making process that supports academic goals;
---Not done. The connection between the closures and academic goals was never properly established---
21C. Implementing an immediate moratorium on committing new capital expenditures aimed at improving existing school facilities (i.e., water quality improvements or building remodels) or building new school facilities until this activity is completed.
---Not done---
Real Estate Management
22. Generate a new, ongoing revenue stream to support academic strategies through improved stewardship of Seattle Public Schools' vast real estate holdings, including under-utilized and non-school based real estate assets.
---Not done---
Transportation
23. Reduce the gap between transportation services provided by Seattle Public Schools and transportation funding allocated by the state.
---Partly done---
Centrally-Run Functions (Non-Academic)
24. Reduce central office infrastructure expenses through aggressive changes in processes and systems. This would include:
---Not done---
24A. Thorough examination in each area for the most cost effective way to deliver the given service;
---Not done---
24B. An approach that prioritizes the elimination of unnecessary work and inefficiency and a culture of continuous improvement with direct employee involvement. Some examples include:
---Not done---
24B1. Reducing the considerable staff time spent on analysis and recommendations for the Board and senior management by making such work more efficient, strategic and actionable. We recommend engaging the staff to solicit their suggestions on how to streamline this process.
---Not done---
24B2. Breaking down barriers between different functions to reduce the incidence of organizational silos, which often lead to duplicative or uncoordinated work.
---Not done---
24C. Consideration in many areas for alternative ways of delivering a given service than by the District itself, including school security, facilities and grounds maintenance, payroll administration, warehousing and purchasing. In some cases this may entail outsourcing; in others it may entail seeking other entities to provide the service.
---Not done---
24D. Benchmarking against other districts' methods for delivering services as a means of identifying possibilities.
---Not done---
Centrally-Run Programs (Academic)
25. Analyze all central office academic expenditures and reprioritize for the '06-07 budget based on the District's top academic priorities to realize savings and eliminate inefficiencies wherever possible.
---Not done---
Special Education
26. Close the gap between special education funding and expenditures.
---Not done---
Bilingual Support
27. Restructure bilingual support services to better serve bilingual students while improving program efficiencies. Specifically:
---Not done---
27A. Develop and Integrate a Quality Instructional Delivery Model – Align all resource allocation with a deliberate and strategic instructional model grounded in research. After a thorough review of the bilingual department's service models, resource allocation and staffing patterns, the District should create an overall strategy and implementation plan for all bilingual education programs. Program decisions should be guided by and measured against the plan, and the plan should be benchmarked and evaluated annually for progress and modification. Until a program evaluation is completed, all new program development should be halted.
---Not done---
27B. Bilingual Orientation Center (BOC) Programs – Perform a professional evaluation of current Bilingual Orientation Center (BOC) programs. Examine future academic achievement levels of BOC students against their non-BOC bilingual peers and alternate service delivery models where staffing is reduced and service delivered in neighborhood schools. Also examine possible savings associated with closing or relocating underutilized BOC facilities.
---Not done---
27C. Grouping Language Services – Consider grouping language services within clusters at individual schools. This would allow more precise matching of language-specific Instructional Assistant (IA) staff with the predominant languages of students in each building, and reduce transportation costs.
---Not done---
27D. Consolidate Program Management – Consolidate program management between Title I/Learning Assistance Program (LAP)/Migrant and TBE and fully integrate bilingual programs with Title I/LAP programs. Program planning should be conducted as part of the District's academic plan and integrated with Title I and LAP planning.
---Not done---
27E. Evaluate and Clarify IA Roles – The current IA staffing ratios should be evaluated to ensure that the costs associated with current and future funding requirements are aligned with increased academic achievement. The evaluation should also include professional development and cultural competence challenges and opportunities. Estimated annual savings of $1.5M, beginning in '09-'10.
---Not done---
27F. Bilingual Immersion – Considerable research supports bilingual immersion programs as a highly effective strategy for closing the achievement gap for bilingual students. Bilingual immersion programs are also wildly popular with parents who want their children to learn a second language. If bilingual immersion programs are indeed the best instructional model and may increase market share, restructure the bilingual program to support expansion and integration of this model.
---Not done---
Alternative School Configurations
28. Support alternative schools while managing operations to bring cost into par through:
---Not done---
28A. Eliminating free transportation to alternative school students (except for those eligible for FRL). Please see the Committee's recommendation on transportation for details.
---Not done---
28B. Co-locate compatible learning programs.
---Not done---
I suggest that you review the Strategic Implementation Team's May 3 status report. You can see it here:
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/main/Public_Affairs/06_may_report.pdf
The District no longer offers a link to it from any of their web pages, but you can still reach it through the PTSA pages. Pay special attention to the spreadsheet at the end that purports to show the status of each recommendation (many of them are mischaracterized). Note how many of them were supposed to have shown concrete progress by now. I have my own table (see below).
It has also been some time since the "Community Conversations" that followed the State of the District address in September. The District put forward sets of academic goals, operational goals, and community engagement goals at these events. Although there were promises of further Community Conversations, none have followed. Has there been any report on progress towards the goals announced in these conversations?
The District adopted a School Family Partnership Plan, but has failed to implement all but a tiny part of it. Forgive me if I question the District's commitment to this effort. The person the District put in charge of promoting family involvement, Caprice Hollins, regards family involvement as an indicator of White Privilege. The Board bemoans the lack of dialog with the public but takes no steps to allow dialog. They haven't held any Community Conversations since their one and only over a year ago.
Seattle Public Schools is very good at setting goals and announcing plans, but they have not proven effective at implementing plans or achieving goals. This disconnect is rarely explored in the Seattle Times, the P-I or any of the major local media. No one with a voice louder than mine ever goes back and checks on implementation and achievement. No one with a voice louder than mine ever tries to hold the District accountable.
I hear people talk all the time about Superintendent Manhas' integrity, but I have to say that I have never seen it. I have never seen him follow through on anything that he said he would do. I have never seen him hold anyone accountable - least of all himself. I'm begining to think that everyone else has some other definition of the word "integrity" than the one I have.
I would really love to see someone at the Seattle Times or the P-I do a report on progress the District has made towards implementing plans and achieving goals made during Mr. Manhas' administration. It may be a fruitless exercise, however, because I suspect that the new Superintendent will not be expected to fulfill any of these commitments. This highlights another specific dysfunction of the Seattle Public Schools culture - it does not operate like an institution. The District's policies, practices, and promises are all personal and all expire when the person who set the practice or made the commitment leaves the job. So long as the District keeps changing personnel - and the turnover is dizzying - they never have to fulfill ANY of their promises. Institutions aren't supposed to work that way. Institutions are supposed to maintain continuity DESPITE changes in personnel.
So, presuming that the CACIEE report and recommendations will expire with Mr. Manhas' tenure as Supeirntendent, maybe it doesn't matter if the District implements their recommendations or not. Just the same, I would like to see a major local media outlet make mention of the report and the implementation status just one more time - if only to acknowledge that it is dead.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CACIEE Final Report recommendations:
Governance and Leadership Capacity
1. The Superintendent must show strong, decisive leadership to move the District forward on an aggressive reform agenda. True reform includes organizational culture change and will require clear direction, strategic decision-making, and a no-excuses approach. It is the Superintendent's responsibility to act boldly and lead the charge to align the agendas of the District, the School Board and outside groups with a laser-like focus on academic achievement.
---I don't think anyone would claim this was done. No culture change, no clear direction fromt he District leadership, no strategic decision-making, no bold acts of leadership, no focus on academic achievement. The evidence for the lack of culture change is abundant. The only strategy level decisions I have seen since then were the school closures and the project list for BEX III. Were they strategic? The closest thing to a bold act leadership from Mr. Manhas was his resignation. ---
2. We recommend the School Board more clearly define its roles and responsibilities relative to District staff through the review and adoption of a governance model such as the Carver Policy Governance model or a comparable board governance model
---Not done. The Board is incapable of governance because they have no means for holding anyone accountable.---
3. Creating a new, 3-year executive team position charged with implementing the full package of restructuring actions recommended in this Committee's final report and serving as an integrating function across all District departments;
---This they did. There is a Strategic Implementation Team. Of course, they haven't implemented anything, haven't issued a report for nine months, and that report was essentially a surrender---
4. Creating a new, permanent executive team position with responsibilities for marketing, communications and community outreach and responsiveness
---Not done. This recommendation was rejected.---
5. Establishing an executive search process aimed at recruiting outstanding talent to the District (including principals), which, among other activities, would consider retaining executive search firms for senior level positions
---Not done. No process.---
6. Establishing an ongoing commitment to leadership training for senior and mid-level managers (including principals)
---The District is doing something and calling it leadership training, but it either may or may not be legitimate. They were doing something called leadership training BEFORE this recommendation as well.---
7. Clarifying roles and responsibilities at the senior management level, especially with regard to principals and Education Directors.
---Not done. The lines of authority and accountability are just as tangled as ever.---
8. We recommend the creation of a new, permanent position exclusively responsible for developing the highest quality Principal Corps in the country, including coordinating hiring, training, growing and retaining these critical leaders.
---Not done.---
Strategic Planning
9. Develop and implement a rigorous, system-wide, annualized strategic planning process driven by academic priorities (vs. funding) and projected out at least five years at a time. This process would be owned by the Superintendent and would include:
---Not done. There is no process and no strategic plan.---
9A. Development of a sharper mission statement;
---Not done.---
9B. A thorough review of future demographics and financial realities;
---Not done.---
9C. A concise overview of the District's priorities and the strategies to achieve the goals;
---Not done.---
9D. Data to support the priorities (including past results, long- term forecasting, stakeholder input, and education research);
---Not done.---
9E. Stakeholder outreach and buy-in;
---Not done.---
9F. Measurable, year-to-year targets to assess progress against goals;
---Not done.---
9G. Ownership for each priority at the executive level;
---Not done.---
9H. Changes to normal operating procedure that will support the long- term success of the plan;
---Not done.---
9I. An on-going feedback loop with regular updates to the plan.
---Not done.---
Budgeting
10. Implement a priorities-based budgeting process that clearly aligns financial decisions with academic priorities in which:
---Not done. The budget was done this year without any discussion of academic priorities at all.---
10A. Activities and programs are ranked by the District's senior leadership team according to their importance to the core priorities of the District;
---Not done.---
10B. Activities and programs are required to have clearly articulated goals and success metrics;
---Not done.---
10C. The costs to produce any given activity are re-estimated and justified anew annually;
---Not done.---
10D. Programs that are deemed not to align with District priorities, or are deemed ineffective relative to established success metrics, are eliminated and those resources are redirected;
---Not done.---
10E. Reviews of spending against budget are conducted on a quarterly basis;
---Not done.---
10F. Weighted Student Formula is carefully evaluated to determine if it is indeed meeting its strategic objectives and is benchmarked against other districts to determine where opportunities exist to significantly simplify the administration process and reduce costs.
---This was done. I don't know how careful the evaluation was, or if the WSF was judged on these criteria, but it was weighed and found wanting. It is being replaced.---
Accountability
11. Ensure consistent quality across the system by implementing a rigorous accountability plan that:
---Not done. There is no accountability plan. I STRONGLY recommend that everyone read the Superintendent's original Accountability Plan. It is, without a doubt, the funniest official government document I have EVER read. The irony is so thick you could pave a street with it.---
11A. Establishes clear lines of accountability for every District employee;
---Not done.---
11B. Is rooted in the concept of earned autonomy;
---Not done.---
11C. Puts in place common success metrics for schools, including an annual assessment process that carries consequences, both positive and negative;
---Not done.---
11D. Focuses central office functions on continuous quality improvement and the elimination of inefficiencies.
---Not done.---
Marketing
12. Expand and enhance District communication and marketing capability by:
---Not done. The May status report from the Strategic Implementation Team essentially acknowledged that this recommendation was dead on arrival.---
12A. Creating a new, permanent executive team position with responsibilities for marketing, communications and community outreach and responsiveness;
---Not done. The Communications Director quit. He was an honest man who wouldn't participate in the District's misinformation campaigns.---
12B. Enhancing public engagement through professional and objective research and the use of statistically valid marketing surveys, including regular parent satisfaction surveys. Such an enhanced effort should extend particularly to communities of color, immigrants, refugees, those with special needs, and the poor;
---Not done.---
12C. Providing support to local school marketing committees, parents and community groups to help attract students through the powerful tool of parent-to-parent marketing and to encourage parental involvement;
---Not done.---
12D. Enhancing and improving the media outreach capability of the District with expanded staff and updated systems, including regular direct communication with parents and all stakeholders;
---Not done.---
12E. Hiring a professional communications/marketing firm with expertise in public education;
---Not done.---
12F. Investing in limited yearly budget for paid media to communicate the accomplishments and attractions of Seattle Public Schools.
---Not done.---
Data-Based Decision Making
13. Prioritize the use of student data to aide District-wide and school-based decision making, inform instructional practices and foster greater parental involvement. Specifically:
---Not done---
13A. Implement periodic student assessments in core subjects. Use data to improve instruction and to gauge student progress;
---Not done---
13B. More accurately disaggregate student data for bilingual, immigrant and refugee students;
---Not done---
13C. Complete full implementation of The Source, an excellent on- line information system whereby parents and teachers can obtain information about students' coursework, attendance, grades and other assessments; ---This has been done. The Source is really great.---
13D. Perform a uniform kindergarten readiness assessment to all incoming students. Communicate data to Seattle-area early learning providers.
---Not done---
Teaching and Hiring Development
14. Aggressively recruit, develop and retain quality teachers by:
---Not done---
14A. Providing competitive compensation, including pay and benefits (i.e., funding the current negotiated contract); ---This was done before the CACIEE report.---
14B. Placing special emphasis on potential teachers with particular expertise and content knowledge in the areas students are struggling most (i.e., math and science), teachers of color and bilingual teachers;
---Not done---
14C. Increasing stability by reducing turnover at high-need/low-performing schools by providing incentives to teach in these schools, including strong and ample support to staff, small class size, quality leadership, and active and productive professional learning communities;
---Not done. There are no real incentives to teach at these schools. I'm not aware of any special effort to support the staff at these schools. There is no special effort to reduce class sizes at these schools. There is no special effort to change the leadership at these schools. The only concrete effort to reduce turnover is the suspension of seniority rules on lay-offs for teachers at "flight" schools.---
14D. Funding the Flight One incentive pay provision included in the current negotiated agreement. The Committee recommends a thorough, regular analysis of all policy changes - such as this one - to ensure they have the desired result;
---The incentive pay may have been done, as the District committed to doing before the CACIEE report, but the thorough regular analysis was and is not done---
14E. Retooling recruitment and hiring procedures to enable the District to hire teachers earlier in the process and making it easier for candidates to apply;
---Not done---
14F. Targeting professional development to training that supports teachers' ongoing learning in a way that is aligned with the District's top instructional priorities (e.g., training on the new math curriculum, AP courses, college readiness assessments, grade level coordination, etc.). This could also include targeted use of subject specialists (e.g., math and science coaches) to work with teachers to improve instruction;
---Not done---
14G. Providing incentives and support for teachers who earn a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certificate.
---This was done before the CACIEE report---
14H. Developing and implement a rigorous teacher evaluation program to assess performance, encourage and support professional growth, create and recognize excellence and remove poor performers at all levels.
---Not done---
Curriculum Enhancements
15. Establish system-wide consistency and rigor within the curriculum that first emphasizes mastery of reading, writing, mathematics and science as foundational skills and then extends beyond to expand dual language opportunities and system-wide K-12 music offerings. This could include:
---Not done---
15A. Aligning all actions, policies and investments with strategies aimed at ensuring all students meet or exceed grade level standards set for reading, writing, math and science.
---Not done---
15B. Developing aligned curriculum for all core subjects for all schools. The curriculum must align with state learning standards for each grade level.
---Not done---
15C. Implementing the planned math curriculum adoption and ensuring adequate funding of implementation and early evaluation.
---Not done. There has been a middle school math adoption, but I don't know anyone who is happy with it. There has yet to be any adoption for elementary or high school. The new middle school curriculum does not integrate with the existing high school curriculum.---
15D. Stating in clear terms that science is considered a core part of K-12 offerings. This would include moving rapidly to complete the implementation of a high-quality science program K-12 – with special focus on middle school and high school science.
---Not done---
15E. Developing a comprehensive approach to implementing and evaluating professional development. All investments should be aimed at successful implementation of the laser-like focus on mastery of the basics and the new curriculum adoptions.
---Not done---
15F. Providing access for all elementary and middle school students to the District's award-winning instrumental music program as well as other arts offerings.
---Not done---
Targeted Class Size Reductions/Improved Student-Teacher Ratios
16. Reduce student-teacher ratios for core subjects in the early grades and for struggling students to:
---Not done---
16A. 20:1 in grades K-3; and
---Not done---
16B. 15:1 for very low-income and/or academically challenged K-3 classrooms;
---Not done---
16C. Please see section on remedial assistance for an additional class size reduction recommendation specifically related to remediation.
---Not done---
High School Rigor
17. Strengthen high schools and better prepare students for college and work through:
---Not done---
17A. A series of curriculum reforms aimed to setting appropriately high expectations and ensuring all Seattle
---Not done---
17B. Public School students have access to a college-prep curriculum including a) funding six periods per day of relevant coursework for all high school students; b) enacting a higher course-load requirement for graduation; and c) expanding offerings of and access to Advanced Placement, honors and International Baccalaureate classes;
---Something close to six periods has been funded, but there was no change in the graduation requirements and no noticable expansion of AP, Honors, or IB since the CACIEE report---
17C. Increased graduation requirements to include, at a minimum, four years of English, three years of math, and two years of foreign language;
---Not done---
17D. Examining and adequately funding the "foundation" needed for high school administration at the school level.
---Not done---
Remedial Assistance
18. Provide adequate remedial assistance to students in need through:
---Not done---
18A. Partnerships with community colleges, four-year institutions and OSPI to establish a Summer College program for high school students who do not meet the WASL standard.
---Not done---
18B. Beginning in the 2006-07 school year, increase learning opportunities for the classes of 2008 and 2009, such as providing double doses of math and literacy/reading for students struggling in these areas.
---Not done---
18C. Shift toward a preventative strategy of identifying incoming middle and high school students who are at-risk of not meeting standards, and providing extra learning opportunities (i.e., more time on task) to keep those students on track with college- and workforce-preparatory requirements.
---Not done---
18D. Carry out OSPI's Project Graduation 9th Grade Transitions and Extra Help Program:
---Not done---
18E. Place the most highly-qualified high school teachers in 9th grade. Criteria for high-quality teachers should include past student performance and the teacher's area of study.
---Not done---
18F. Lower teacher-student ratios to 20:1 in 6th and 9th grades, on a targeted as-needed basis.
---Not done---
Pre-Kindergarten & Full-Day Kindergarten
19. Serve as a partner (rather than an administrator) of early learning programs, and establish procedures to better coordinate existing early learning programs:
---Not done. The District could have done this at T T Minor and chose to go in the other direction.---
19A. Work with pre-K providers to ensure curricula are aligned with the skills students need to enter kindergarten;
---Not done---
19B. Place pre-K programs in elementary schools, especially in areas with high-need populations, to ensure smooth kindergarten transitions and reduce the "preparedness" gap that often contributes to the achievement gap;
---Not done. Again, see the T T Minor example.---
19C. Perform a school readiness assessment for all incoming kindergarten students. This will provide feedback to pre-K administrators on the impacts of their programs;
---Not done---
19D. Assign one point-person to oversee and coordinate the District's partnership in early learning;
---Not done---
19E. Work with other early learning partners to coordinate and streamline the multiple early learning programs in Seattle to create a true system that will prepare all children for kindergarten.
---Not done---
Family Involvement & Community Partnerships
20. Better leverage the time, skills and decision-making power of parents, community organizations and community volunteers to help students, especially at-risk students, to achieve. Specifically:
---Not done. In fact, aggressively not done.---
20A. Create additional Family Resource Centers to be located in strategic geographic areas (this may be best accomplished by partnering with the City's existing Family Support Centers program);
---Not done---
20B. Better coordinate communication between staff teams within the district who are points of contact for parents and community;
---Not done---
20C. Develop community partnerships with nonprofit groups to maximize District resources and finances.
---Not done---
Facilities
21. Re-size the District's physical capacity to accurately fit current student and enrollment and projected future enrollment by:
---This was partly done, but done clumsily and without strategic vision---
21A. Closing a number of active schools to eliminate underutilized space by 1.0 to 1.5 M square feet;
---Partly done, but done clumsily and without strategic vision---
21B. Developing sensible school closure criteria and a decision- making process that supports academic goals;
---Not done. The connection between the closures and academic goals was never properly established---
21C. Implementing an immediate moratorium on committing new capital expenditures aimed at improving existing school facilities (i.e., water quality improvements or building remodels) or building new school facilities until this activity is completed.
---Not done---
Real Estate Management
22. Generate a new, ongoing revenue stream to support academic strategies through improved stewardship of Seattle Public Schools' vast real estate holdings, including under-utilized and non-school based real estate assets.
---Not done---
Transportation
23. Reduce the gap between transportation services provided by Seattle Public Schools and transportation funding allocated by the state.
---Partly done---
Centrally-Run Functions (Non-Academic)
24. Reduce central office infrastructure expenses through aggressive changes in processes and systems. This would include:
---Not done---
24A. Thorough examination in each area for the most cost effective way to deliver the given service;
---Not done---
24B. An approach that prioritizes the elimination of unnecessary work and inefficiency and a culture of continuous improvement with direct employee involvement. Some examples include:
---Not done---
24B1. Reducing the considerable staff time spent on analysis and recommendations for the Board and senior management by making such work more efficient, strategic and actionable. We recommend engaging the staff to solicit their suggestions on how to streamline this process.
---Not done---
24B2. Breaking down barriers between different functions to reduce the incidence of organizational silos, which often lead to duplicative or uncoordinated work.
---Not done---
24C. Consideration in many areas for alternative ways of delivering a given service than by the District itself, including school security, facilities and grounds maintenance, payroll administration, warehousing and purchasing. In some cases this may entail outsourcing; in others it may entail seeking other entities to provide the service.
---Not done---
24D. Benchmarking against other districts' methods for delivering services as a means of identifying possibilities.
---Not done---
Centrally-Run Programs (Academic)
25. Analyze all central office academic expenditures and reprioritize for the '06-07 budget based on the District's top academic priorities to realize savings and eliminate inefficiencies wherever possible.
---Not done---
Special Education
26. Close the gap between special education funding and expenditures.
---Not done---
Bilingual Support
27. Restructure bilingual support services to better serve bilingual students while improving program efficiencies. Specifically:
---Not done---
27A. Develop and Integrate a Quality Instructional Delivery Model – Align all resource allocation with a deliberate and strategic instructional model grounded in research. After a thorough review of the bilingual department's service models, resource allocation and staffing patterns, the District should create an overall strategy and implementation plan for all bilingual education programs. Program decisions should be guided by and measured against the plan, and the plan should be benchmarked and evaluated annually for progress and modification. Until a program evaluation is completed, all new program development should be halted.
---Not done---
27B. Bilingual Orientation Center (BOC) Programs – Perform a professional evaluation of current Bilingual Orientation Center (BOC) programs. Examine future academic achievement levels of BOC students against their non-BOC bilingual peers and alternate service delivery models where staffing is reduced and service delivered in neighborhood schools. Also examine possible savings associated with closing or relocating underutilized BOC facilities.
---Not done---
27C. Grouping Language Services – Consider grouping language services within clusters at individual schools. This would allow more precise matching of language-specific Instructional Assistant (IA) staff with the predominant languages of students in each building, and reduce transportation costs.
---Not done---
27D. Consolidate Program Management – Consolidate program management between Title I/Learning Assistance Program (LAP)/Migrant and TBE and fully integrate bilingual programs with Title I/LAP programs. Program planning should be conducted as part of the District's academic plan and integrated with Title I and LAP planning.
---Not done---
27E. Evaluate and Clarify IA Roles – The current IA staffing ratios should be evaluated to ensure that the costs associated with current and future funding requirements are aligned with increased academic achievement. The evaluation should also include professional development and cultural competence challenges and opportunities. Estimated annual savings of $1.5M, beginning in '09-'10.
---Not done---
27F. Bilingual Immersion – Considerable research supports bilingual immersion programs as a highly effective strategy for closing the achievement gap for bilingual students. Bilingual immersion programs are also wildly popular with parents who want their children to learn a second language. If bilingual immersion programs are indeed the best instructional model and may increase market share, restructure the bilingual program to support expansion and integration of this model.
---Not done---
Alternative School Configurations
28. Support alternative schools while managing operations to bring cost into par through:
---Not done---
28A. Eliminating free transportation to alternative school students (except for those eligible for FRL). Please see the Committee's recommendation on transportation for details.
---Not done---
28B. Co-locate compatible learning programs.
---Not done---
Comments
What isn't there is covered in the Moss-Adams report. The two overriding things that a new superintendent would learn from reading the Moss-Adams report are (1)that district staff have a bad habit of saying "it's for the kids" to justify anything they do - Moss-Adams staff were quite surprised on this point and could not fathom how this could justify not following procedures, moving money around, falsifying documents, etc, and (2) that nothing will change - really change - if the culture of the bureaucracy at district headquarters doesn't change. Director Butler-Wall has told me, repeatedly, that the staff is moving towards less of a "siege" mentality whenever they get critizized but that's hard to discern from the outside. Why they cannot see that they make the same mistakes over and over again is beyond me.
As to Charlie's long list, I add/comment on the following:
-School Board role - true. How many of you think it is part of a director's job to intervene for individual parents? You might be surprised to learn that isn't their role even though they run from a specific district. They are not supposed to run interference for parents but to direct their problems to the appropriate staff person. How many believe that when the Board makes policy it means business? Well it would if there were any way to enforce it but there isn't.
-Principals - a little better than it used to be but not much. Example; Roosevelt is seeking a new principal and we on the search committee find out that there is no specific job description for Roosevelt on the district's website(even though it was promised)and that it was not advertised in all the major newsletters for secondary principals. In short, the district didn't bother to cast the widest net for a principal for the biggest high school with some of the top programs in the district. One good thing; if our search committee doesn't find 3 candidates we find equally good (we aren't allowed to put them in any kind of order), we can reject the candidates and start over.
-strategic planning - we have all sorts of Faciltiies Master plans, 5-Year plans, etc. Where is the overarching vision and laser focus on goals? I know Carla Santorno did state some at the long-ago Community Conversations but I have no idea what happened from there.
-Science - again, when I argued about the capital bond list, I said that it wasn't supporting schools affected by closures and consoldiations. Orca K-5 is to become a K-8 but they are moving to an elementary building. To teach middle school science you need labs and Orca won't have them. The principal told me, very diplomatically, that they were told there would be some changes to the school building in order to accomodate middle schoolers but nothing on a big scale. It is not enough to put in some lockers and call it a middle school (which is also going to be the problem for Pathfinder which I expect to displace Cooper in the next couple of years). There has to be a commitment from the district to make sure every school is equipped to teach science if it is part of the WASL.
-high school rigor - Let's see, Hale is busy phasing out separate AP and Honors classes (they are pretty sure they can deliver that curriculum in a regular class setting). West Seattle also wants to have fewer of those classes and apparently is telling touring parents that they are more a "technical" high schoool rather than a college prep. If you want prep in the SW you should go to Sealth with its new IB program. I'm not seeing the rigor in high schools expanding any time soon.
-I do give the district credit for expanding the bilingual offerings. I believe there will be some sort of part-time Chinese program in a couple of south end schools by next year.
I have to wonder about why the district and Board aren't implementing the CAIEE report. I know the Board wasn't very pleased with it and as it was the Superintendent's committee, maybe they felt they had no vested interest in it. Maybe district staff are doing a "with all deliberate speed" kind of method in getting it implemented.
I can only hope that whoever is our superintendent will read the Moss-Adams and CAIEE reports before he/she begins work.
What bothers me is how the Board and the Staff act as if listing the recommendation were the same as implementing it, how everyone expresses optimism about these committee recommendations when everyone knows that they won't get implemented, and how no one EVER goes back and notes that these recommendations aren't implemented.
Thanks, Charlie, for pointing us to this report. It’s a helpful discussion of some of the challenges that the district faces, and some possible remedies. Upon reading it, however, it’s clearly an unrealistic prescription for reform. As the report states, it takes no account of the politics of reform in the Seattle schools. The politics, are in the end, the only thing that can make any of this happen.
I understand the frustration that many have expressed on this blog about the slow pace of change. I share that frustration at one level, in the sense that I want the best education for my children, and I want it now. But in addition to writing to you as Seattle Schools parent, I also write to you with my analytical hat. I have a background in the social sciences, which I mention not to impress, but because the scholarship in that field describes the plight of Seattle schools very clearly.
In essence, experts agree, large organizations like school districts (or Microsoft, Starbucks, or the U.S. Army) are very slow to change. This is usually not caused by incompetence, laziness, or hostility to the organizational mission. What tends to cause it is the scale of these organizations, the varying constituencies within the organizations, and their differing understandings of how things should be done best. A famous article from 1959 calls this “The Science of Muddling Through.” People in large organizations tend to try to do their jobs the best way they know how, and the result, strangely, is sometimes very dysfunctional organizations, and an entrenched resistance to change.
Another key insight from the study of large organizations is the very limited power at the executive level, even for top executives. Richard Neustadt’s definitive study of presidential power concludes that the President of the United States has power primarily through the power to persuade. The president can order people to do things by virtue of his constitutional authority, to be sure, but making those orders actually realized in public policy is quite another question. To be really effective, the president needs to persuade his cabinet secretaries, the heads of other key agencies, and Congress. Even then, the ability to reform government is circumscribed by the logic of large organizations. Think of when Clinton tried to change the rules barring gays from the military. He was Commander-in-Chief, but he couldn’t get it done. Our school board and superintendent face the same challenges. They can persuade people to bring about change, but only in very rare cases can they change anything based solely on their own authority and power.
This has all been very abstract. Probably pedantic. For that, I apologize. Let’s look at some of the meat of what the report actually recommended:
1. Take on the Special Ed community, including parents, administrators, and faculty (revising the funding formula and criteria for assigning kids, and centralizing authority for assigning kids)
2. Take on district unions (begin outsourcing key central office functions)
3. Take on alternative schools (remove funding for transportation to many of these)
4. Take on a range of parents across the district (close schools)
5. Take on bilingual parents, students, and teachers (by reorganizing and centralizing curriculum)
6. Take on the central office staff (revise hiring, planning, and budgeting policies)
7. Get more money (to pay teachers, and support many report reforms)
8. Reorganize district organization and lines of accountability
I think it’s fair to say that the school board got pretty mired down just with school closures, and some minor changes to transportation for high school students. If they had tried to achieve all of the recommendations in the report, the chaos and controversy would probably have brought the entire district to a screeching halt. If you thought things were bad last summer and fall, imagine a mess three or four times that bad.
But, you say, if they just had courage and leadership, they could have gotten much more done. In the end, they probably couldn’t have, for the reasons I describe above. Change in large organization takes a level of agreement and consensus, and time.
What’s more, the limited ability to impose sweeping changes is probably a GOOD thing. "Are you crazy," you ask? Perhaps. But even if you agree with the conclusions of the report, it’s still probably NOT a good idea to try to make it all happen at once.
This is because many of the recommendations are at odds with each other. If, for example, you try to outsource central office functions, you’re going to get no cooperation at all when you try to revise your planning and budgeting processes. And if you take on Special Education parents, alternative school parents, and the parents at schools targeted for closures, you’ll probably wind up making reforms in none of those areas. And you’d certainly have no political capital left to change bilingual programs.
There’s another reason sweeping reforms can be a bad idea. I know many involved in this blog had some role in the school closure discussions. You’ll know more than most what a time-consuming and difficult process it was. To enable a meaningful public discussion about all these recommendations means there simply isn’t time to do them all at once. Indeed, if the district tried to pile them on all at once, I would suspect them of trying to use the big controversial issues as a screen for less public but equally important issues (like Special Ed assignment criteria.)
This doesn’t mean the situation is hopeless. Far from it. Change is slow and difficult. When it comes to educating our kids, there may be some virtues in that. Come rain or shine, the teachers have to show up and teach the kids. That, they have been doing. There is hope in identifying the key problems that the district faces, and tackling those. Funding would be at the top of my list. And in the last few years, they have improved the cash flow situation substantially.
I still feel like I’m being obtuse. It’s really a bad idea to reason by analogy. But one might help illustrate the larger point I’m trying to make. Imagine that you’re trying to physically rebuild a single school, tearing down classrooms, building new ones. At the same time, you decide to change student assignments, staffing, and budgeting policies. All this, while the kids are still using the classrooms every day. That would be madness. But that’s pretty much the recommendation that the report makes.
Are the district leaders and board incompetent, lazy, stupid, and resistant to change? I don’t know. From the many board meetings I’ve attended, I’ve heard a lot of reasonable opinions and a handful of strange comments. But most of the strange stuff came from the public testimony, not the board or the district staff. And certainly the overwhelming weight of the scholarship on institutional change suggests that even the most motivated, united, and talented leadership is always limited to making incremental changes when engaging a large existing organization.
I think the new superintendent needs to see this report, and all the others that Charlie mentions. But having a report and putting it in place are very different things, as Charlie suggests. My argument is that the slow pace of change is likely to continue no matter who runs the shop. The history of school reform is littered with people who thought they could do it all at once, and failed dramatically. A recent book calls this “Tinkering Toward Utopia.”
My plea: Let’s focus on the big stuff as we tinker.
And to the anonymous person who said that marketing and communication (in another thread)are not as important as educating kids; they are vital. I'm not just saying this, the district has said this. And yet, they just can't communicate clearly (or don't want to)and we lose so much money from students going to private schools.
“One might assume that superintendents possess significant authority since their job descriptions say they oversee central office staff, school principals, and teachers. In reality, superintendents
reveal that they have little authority over district employees who have tenure. Other groups can challenge superintendents and exercise greater influence over schools:
• School Board: 61 percent of superintendents described school board micromanagement as a problem, as it causes them to stray from policy oversight and budget development into the
“nuts and bolts” of administration.
• Teacher Unions: 47 percent of superintendents reported that relationships with unions are a barrier to progress and expressed concern about union rigidity when implementing reforms.
• Central Office Staff: While only 1/3 of superintendents labeled central office staff as an obstacle to reform, some interviews revealed concerns about central office infighting and staff reluctance to change.”
On parent groups and other activists, the study concludes:
“External school district players also put pressure on superintendents to which they must try to respond. Both superintendents from traditional, and non-traditional, backgrounds report struggling
with the following issues:
• Half of superintendents surveyed report that it is difficult to address public demands, as they often shift. Also, conflicting interests make it difficult, superintendents report, to pursue goals focused on improving student learning and craft a coherent district plan.
• Pressure from community groups can be a blessing or a curse according to superintendents. In either case, a superintendent must manage community support and work strategically to gain support for his/her agenda. Although superintendents wrestle daily with political pressures, they also see political crises as an ally of reform. Threatened takeovers, independent audits, and federal and state mandates may help free leaders to take actions that are unacceptable in the ordinary course of events.”
https://www.crpe.org/pubs/introImpossibleJob.shtml
Melissa, I think most of the changes in the CACIEE report may seem incremental, but if they affect your family or your job, they are huge. Outsourcing the central office, changing bilingual ed or special ed, all of these could have a huge impact on people's lives.
I don't know whether I like this board or not. I just don't have enough information. But taking on issues like school closures and the student funding formula are hardly micro.
My larger point is that the risk we take as parents and activists, is that by pushing for sweeping change, we will actually achieve LESS than if we make very targeted efforts on the most important issues.
Given this knowledge, am I less disappointed by the lack of reform?
Alas, no. Becuase I am painfully aware of how little either the Board or the Superintendent worked to persuade anyone to reform.
Here's an analogy: Have you ever tried to move a pile of sand? It is, without a doubt, one of the most discouraging tasks I know. You can work with shovel and wheelbarrow for hours and hours and not make any perceptable dent in the pile. So what do you do? You work at it diligently and consistently. A friend of mine once asked "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time." The trick to these sort of tasks, such as moving a sand pile, or elephant consumption, or cultural change, is to get to work on them immediately and STAY RELENTLESSLY ON TASK UNTIL IT IS DONE.
Turning the Queen Mary is another common analogy. Okay, so it doesn't turn on a dime. I get that. Isn't that all the more reason to grap the wheel early and spin it for all you're worth?
I don't mind the lack of results. I DO mind the lack of effort.
For example, the Board complains, rightly, that they have little or no means to hold the staff accountable. The Board can write policy but they can't enforce policy. The staff are free to violate Policy at will. Consequently, can it truly be said that the Board actually sets policy? I don't think so.
So you would think that when the Board actually gets a chance to enforce Policy they would exercise the opportunity - well, you would be wrong. The Board gets lots and lots of opportunities to compel the staff to adhere to policy, but they never exercise those opportunities.
Such an opportunity is coming this week in the Student Learning Committee. The Committee is making a review of the decision to add Hamilton as an APP site (as required by Policy D12.00). The addition of Hamilton as an APP site is not only in clear violation of the Policy (APP cannot be expanded without substantial district wide enrollment growth and, as we all know, district wide enrollment has shrunk), it is also in clear violation of a number of Board values (equity, sustainability, academic effectiveness, etc.). Yet the Student Learning Committee will approve the expansion. It is a foregone conclusion.
They will approve it because they lack the will to oppose the staff. They value their ongoing working relationship with the staff more than they value their efficacy as a Board and a whole lot more than they value any reason to direct the Superintendent to pick another means for relieving the overcrowding at Washington than transferring it to Hamilton.
1. The Superintendent puts together a high profile panel to provide guidance. Thousands of dollars and hours are expended on the effort and the report is delivered.
2. Charlies Mas does a very thorough analysis that suggests that it's being ignored.
3. Compared to many other posts on seemingly smaller issues few posts, challenges, concerns or questions are raised.
Question: What does this say about our ability as activists to play our role and hold the district accountable? It seems like we want accountability....but if we are not willing to demand it, why should we expect it?
How can we, as activists - or just as citizens - hold the District leadership accountable for their performance? We DO want accountability, but what tools do we have to get it?
We have, frankly, none. We have no direct input to the District's operation and no indirect input to the District's operation. The District is not in the habit of considering public input as a factor in their decisions. There may be Building Leadership Teams or site councils, but in the end they are only advisory bodies and the decisions are all made by the principals.
Short of a general strike in which we either take our children out of school for a day or opt them out of the WASL, we have no tool to influence the District staff. Seattle Public Schools is not a democracy.
We can, every four years, vote out the Board, but how fair is it to hold the Board accountable for the District's actions?
The Board can write Policies but they can't enforce them. The Board talks about "directing" the Superintendent to do this or do that, but they are essentially limited to asking the Superintendent to do things. Pretty please with sugar on top. Unless they are willing to fire him, they have no real way to hold him accountable. He can simply choose to ignore their directives - and he frequently does.
So what can we do?
A perfect example of all of these failures will occur this afternoon. The Student Learning Committee will meet at 4:30 and they will refuse to take the opportunity to hold the District staff accountable or to enforce Policy. They will allow the staff to move forward with their plan to split the middle school APP cohort - despite the fact that this is the one thing that the community has begged the District not to do.
The APP community will then have to determine a response. Will they just write passioned but ineffective letters of protest? Or will the APP community take some organized action - such as a WASL boycott or general strike?
Consider the impact on Washington Middle School if all of the APP students (and probably a significant number of the Spectrum students) didn't come to school during the WASL. Not only would their scores be lost - and you should see Washington's pass rates without APP and Spectrum! (37% Reading, 55% Writing, and 18% Math compared to 74%, 81%, and 65% for the school as whole) - but the student funding would be lost. Schools don't get funded for students who don't attend. The school would be in an financial crisis. There is no way that the school would meet AYP and there is a possibility that the District's chances of making AYP would be doomed.
Would the community take such an action? Would it bring the District to the table? Stay tuned!
Perhaps. My point is that people here don't even take much interest in what you have pointed out. Why are they not taking Brita to coffee and talking about his? Why are they not asking Raj? Where is the press interest (and where is our pressure on the press to take an interest?). This is not about protests...it is about public pressure. Public pressure begins with public interest. If the public is not interested- and, indeed, if even the public at Save Seattle Public Schools can not be roused- then, why bother?
Mel has said she is going to give the new superintendent the CACIEE report along with the Moss-Adams Audit as key documents to pay attention to. I have added links to both from this blog. And Brendan has discussed why slow incremental change along the lines suggested by the report might be necessary and even desirable.
What topics generate discussion and what topics don't is a complicated issue with many variables. Mention "race" or "gifted" in a post, and you are almost certain to generate lively discussion. Other topics, while of great interest, may not lead to as much discussion.
I think you ask a really valid question. I think I have a really valid answer.
People DO take an interest. That interest usually doesn't result in any direct action because, usually, there isn't any direct action to take. Unless someone organizes a pulbic protest, the only action is a few inboxes full of easily ignored email. Unless the protest is visual, the TV stations aren't interested. Unless the protest is creative (such as when Brita handcuffed a Coke machine), none of the press is interested. The press is an entertainment medium - not an educational one.
People DO take Brita to coffee or meet with her during her office hours or before or after meetings. Of course, just because you explain your perspective to Brita with conviction and supporting facts, doesn't mean that she is going to agree with you. Even if she agrees with you, that doesn't mean that the action you are advocating will outweigh other, equally legitimate, concerns.
People DO ask Raj these questions and more, but just because you ask Raj a question doesn't mean that he is going to answer it. Have you ever written to him? Did you get a response? He is not in the habit of responding to email from citizens.
Just so you know, I write to Raj about eight times a year - much less than I once did. He just doesn't write back. Mr. Manhas has not communicated directly with me for about three years. He will not meet with me, speak to me, or send me an email.
The press IS interested. They wrote a TON of stories about CACIEE and about closures and about District Governance. They may not publish a story about the struggle over community input in principal selection at a specific school, but that's because they don't believe that story to be of broad interest. Yes, it is of interest to people with a direct interest in that specific school, but they don't believe anyone else would care. String together a bunch of them and you can get a story - one story. What are you expecting? A front page investigative series?
Finally, the District has such a long and successful record of squashing public input and public action that a lot of people who may be interested are put off from taking action by the futility of action. Let's say that we all do get it together and protest. So what? They're just going to go ahead and do whatever they were planning to do anyway. It's not like public action delivers the desired effect.
Deidre
Six months later, however, none of the promises were fulfilled and Mr. Manhas denied responsibility for them. His actual quote: "Well, you know, I didn't write that letter." The promises remain unfulfilled to this day.
The District is about to make a decision that will be EXTREMELY unpopular with APP families. This is a tight community of highly involved families. It may just be the village that Deidre wrote of.
What would be the District's response to 1,300 of the highest scoring students opting out of taking the WASL and possibly staying out of school for a week?
And what if they were joined by a significant number of the 1600 Spectrum students?