Winter fundraising traditions

When my kids were little they attended Lafayette Elementary in West Seattle. Every year Lafayette held a craft fair in which the kids sold crafts they had made themselves. The range was amazing, the prices were impossible, and we absolutely loved it. Even after the kids left Lafayette we kept going back to the craft fair. Some of my favorite holiday and birthday gifts came from there. It will be on the evening of December 4 this year.

Coming soon is the NOVA craft fair, on Tuesday, December 8, from 6:00-8:30pm, at The NOVA Project (at Meany). It features handmade crafts for sale plus make-and-take craft projects that you do yourself. There will be food available and a non-perishable food drive. For more information, visit the NOVA PTSA web page.

What are the winter fundraising traditions at other schools?

Curriculum Alignment Meetings

There were two Curriculum Alignment meetings this week. If you attended, let us know what you were told and what you thought of them.

There are two more next week:

Monday, Nov. 30th from 6:30-8:00 p.m.
Ballard High School
1418 NW 65th St.

Tuesday, Dec. 1 from 6:30 - 8:00 p.m.
Garfield High School
400 23rd Avenue

Upcoming Meetings

Meetings for the week of November 30-December 5th

December 2nd - Board Work Session on Quarterly Strategic Plan Report 4-5:30 p.m.
New Board members Oath of Office 7:00 p.m.

December 3rd - Board Work Session about "Real Estate" - 3:30-5:00 p.m.
Likely to discuss Memorial Stadium. I can't attend so someone please go and report back.

December 5th Community Meetings with Board Members
Carr - 8:30-10 am
DeBell - 9-11 am
Maier - 10:30- noon

STEM meeting on Sat., December 5th at Cleveland High School from 9-10:30 am

Students, staff, and families of current and prospective students are welcome to attend. The meeting will include a presentation, opportunity to ask questions, and a small group discussion to include:
► the vision for the STEM program at Cleveland;
► the goals and benefits of STEM;
► course offerings and program structure;
► next steps for the STEM program and how to get involved; and
► how to determine if STEM is a good option for your student.

(There will also be an Open House/Recruiting Fair on Saturday, Jan. 23rd at Cleveland.)

If the District Messes This One Up...

The Times has an article this morning about the City and the School Board making planning to tear down Memorial Stadium. This is wrong on several counts.

First, to make clear the Seattle School District owns, outright, Memorial Stadium and the 9 prime acres of real estate it sits on. This is a very important piece of real estate if only because of the Memorial Wall. It is dedicated to those 700 Seattle high school students who went away to fight in WWII and did not come back. Some of their bodies were never found so that wall means a lot to their families. Moving away from the stadium really defeats the purpose. Now, has the district taken care of the wall properly? No. Have they really taken pains to make sure the athletes who use the stadium understand who came before them? No. They certainly can do better. Don't move the wall for design purposes.

It is the home field for both football and soccer for at least 4 of the high schools and is used for graduations. I recalled Mayor Nickels on KUOW one time saying it wasn't used that much. It is and we have nowhere else to go.

I appreciate that it is in the middle of Seattle Center but it existed in that spot long before Seattle Center came into being. I also appreciate that the City wants to do something, great. However, any deal should not cause us to lose any land and certainly not the revenue the district makes from the parking lot.

Apparently there is a preliminary MOU between the City and the District. Neither will talk about it at this point. There is to be a couple of meetings, December 3rd for the Board and December 7th for the Council, to discuss this issue.

What the City wants is more an amphitheater-style structure for concerts in the summer (the article doesn't say this but this is what was presented to the Board previously). That would be nice except that for the other 9 months when parents and other come to games either (1) the temporary seating for one side would be without shelter (it does rain a fair bit here) or (2) both sides' supporters would sit under one covered seating area. Ever been to a big football game? You don't want both sides seated next to each other. Again, to me with the district owning the stadium, the first and best use should go to the district's uses, not the City's.

Interestingly here's one thought:

"Rasmussen said the proposed agreement opens the possibility for a new high school where the Mercer Street Garage is now. The city hasn't had a large high school in the downtown/Queen Anne area since closing Queen Anne High atop Queen Anne Hill in 1981."

They could get rid of the Mercer Street Garage if they built an underground parking area under a new stadium structure. This new high school would be great news for Magnolia, Queen Anne AND Ballard (boy would that make some people very happy). However, where is that money coming from? What would happen to Center School (the City says with a new Seattle Center they could stay but I'd bet the lease price would go up)? I suspect Center School would go away.

I certainly think this could all be worked out. The stadium is decrepit and the money is not there anyway. But moving the wall should not be an option. There is a lot of history in that stadium and it should not be taken lightly.

Last thing: the person who manages buildings and their uses in this district? The same guy who help craft the contract that lost Queen Anne High. And guess who's working on this one?

Prospective Sand Point Parents (Urgent and Important)

I know someone who is now within the Sand Point boundaries. A group of these parents has organized and has a survey for parents who also live in those boundaries. They also have a Sand Point blog as well as a Yahoo group.

Here is a link to the parent survey. It is live until midnight Thursday, December 3rd. Please urge parents you know in that area to participate.

There is also another survey for parents in the newly drawn boundaries for Eckstein.


Here's info from the blog:

"Sand Point Elementary will reopen in the Fall of 2010. We are a group of parents who live in the Sand Point Elementary attendance area. We have been exchanging ideas on the Sand Point Parents Yahoo Group, and we are organizing to ensure that our concerns are communicated. To that purpose we created the "Sand Point Elementary Community Input Survey", which emerged with the help of the McDonald Community Group, and from several in-person gatherings held over the last few weeks.

Please complete the survey before it closes on December 3rd. at midnight.

Because we are mostly interested in the input from the community directly assigned to SPE's attendance area, we encourage you to only answer this survey if you are part of this community.

If you are not within Sand Point Elementary's attendance area, please consider answering the "Survey for Families Living in the New Eckstein Service Area" where you can voice your opinion of what you would like to see in Sand Point Elementary. The results of both surveys will be presented to the public in general and to the School Board Directors Michael DeBell and Harium Martin-Morris on:

Tuesday, December 8th
Center for Spiritual Living, 5801 Sand Point Way NE.

Copies of the results will be sent to all the important stakeholders. "

Curricular Alignment Meetings

If you go to a Curricular Alignment community meeting - and I encourage you to go - the question you should be asking is this one:

"We've tried this before without success. How will it be different this time?"

There are four necessary supports for curricular alignment which are NOT in place. The people who are responsible for curricular alignment do not have control over these elements, so they can't make them happen. We have tried for years without success to establish these four necessary supports, but have never been able to realize them. So the central questions to curricular alignment will be "What will be different this time that allows us to do what we have never been able to do before?"

Keep asking:

How can we be sure that the students are learning the curriculum? If students who are working below grade level do not get any intervention, then they will not be ready and able to succeed with the grade level curriculum. There will be no vertical alignment for them. They will continue to just get passed along and they won't do any better. Where are the interventions needed to make curricular alignment successful? You will be told that the District is working on them, but they are NOT in place. Without them, Curricular Alignment is doomed. Note that we have always needed these interventions. Needing these interventions is nothing new, yet we have not been able to reliably provide them. What has changed that assures us that we will be able to reliably do what we have never been able to do before? There will be references to the MAP testing to identify the under-performing students. Okay, good. But how can we be assured that the identified students will get the necessary services?

How can we be assured that the teachers are teaching the curriculum? If the teachers choose not to teach the curriculum then the whole effort is a non-starter. Where is the assurance that the teachers will teach the curriculum? You will be told that principals are supposed to observe classes and confirm that the curriculum is getting covered. Okay, good, but haven't principals always been responsible for that, yet they haven't actually been able to make it happen. You will be told that the MAP testing will reveal whether the curriculum has been covered. That's a start, but where's the effective action that creates the change following the collection of the data? The teachers, I suppose, could get less favorable evaluations, but so what? Is any teacher actually going to get fired or get paid less as a consequence of not teaching the curriculum? And, in the absence of these consequences, what has changed that assures us that teachers will teach to the curriculum?

How can we be assured that the teachers know what to do and how to do it? Will the teachers know the Standards? Will the teachers know how to differentiate instruction? Will the teachers know how to scaffold for students working below grade level? Will the teachers know how to stretch and accelerate for students working beyond grade level? Will the teachers know how to do both of these at the same time in the same classroom of thirty students? Where is that assurance that the teachers will know what they are supposed to be teaching? You will be told that there will be professional development. That's good, but we have had years and years of professional development on the Standards and on differentiation and none of it has been effective. What has changed that will make this professional development successful when all of the previous professional development has failed? And if we knew how to make the professional development effective, why haven't we done that before?

The focus is on college-readiness and getting students into college-prep courses. Where is the assurance that all of the schools - middle and high schools - will offer these advanced classes? Will the District require schools to provide access to some set of required classes including honors classes, advanced classes, and, at the high schools, AP and IB classes? Where is the assurance that college-prep classes will be available at all schools? You will be told that the District is working on this, but surely the District has been working on this for years and we still are not there. What has changed that will suddenly make the District able to guarantee access to advanced classes? How can they reconcile that assurance with the fact that the middle schools no longer allow students to take the highest level of math that they used to offer? The District is REDUCING access to that class - despite assurances that they would not.

And then, the biggest question of all, when the District fails to deliver authentic curricular alignment due to the failure to provide one or more of these necessary supports, where is the assurance that they won't substitute standardization for alignment in an effort to emulate alignment? How do know that they won't go all totalitarian (Bellevue style) in an effort to force it?

Thinking More About the New Gates Foundation Grants

[Here's a link to the Gates Foundation page with the links to each district.]

Just an update on the Gates Foundation's new grants for studying how teachers are evaluated and how they get tenure. Here's an article from the NY Times. From the article:

"The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on Thursday announced its biggest education donation in a decade, $290 million, in support of three school districts and five charter groups working to transform how teachers are evaluated and how they get tenure.

A separate $45 million research initiative will study 3,700 classroom teachers in six cities, including New York, seeking to answer the question that has puzzled investigators for decades: What, exactly, makes a good teacher effective?

The twin projects represent a rethinking of the foundation’s education strategy, previously focused largely on smaller grants intended to remake troubled American high schools. With these new, larger grants, the foundation is seeking to transform teacher management policies in four cities in hopes that the innovations can spread.

The foundation committed $100 million to the Hillsborough County, Fla., schools; $90 million to the Memphis schools; $40 million to the Pittsburgh public schools. Some $60 million will go to five charter management organizations based in Los Angeles: Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, Aspire Public Schools, Green Dot Public Schools, Inner City Education Foundation and Partnerships to Uplift Communities Schools."

Okay, the last sentence of the third paragraph jumped out at me. These are not just grants to study an issue - these are grants to find solutions. And allegedly, these are going to be "innovative" solutions. Is everything that has come before really not working? There are no districts, in the whole country, that have found a good system? I hope this study finds that there is and actually reports it because otherwise this report may already have its own ideas.

Who is being studied?

"The foundation committed $100 million to the Hillsborough County, Fla., schools; $90 million to the Memphis schools; $40 million to the Pittsburgh public schools. Some $60 million will go to five charter management organizations based in Los Angeles: Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, Aspire Public Schools, Green Dot Public Schools, Inner City Education Foundation and Partnerships to Uplift Communities Schools."

Okay but then there's this:

"Unions will be crucial to the project’s success. Teachers in the Hillsborough County, Pittsburgh and Memphis districts are represented by one of the two national teachers’ unions, both of which said their affiliates were cooperating enthusiastically with the project. Four of the five charter groups operate nonunion.

The foundation’s goal, its officials said, is to forge breakthroughs in how school systems recruit, retain and compensate teachers and how they assign them to schools.

“It’ll be difficult, once this work is finished, to say it can’t happen in other places, because this work is going to provide some compelling arguments,” said Vicki L. Phillips, an education director at the foundation."

I guess unions are crucial unless you don't have a union (and most of the charters don't). Will they study how a district that does operate without a teachers union would differ form one that does? I also hear bells with the "compelling arguments" line. Not because they might not find some good answers but again, education is local. The feds are now pushing from the top and here are the Gates pushing from another direction (both seeming to want charters and teacher regulation of some kind) so what is the takeaway for local officials? Is it, here's a great study with some good ideas that have been tested? Or is it, if you want money, do this.

And finding effective teachers?

"Most school districts give teachers tenure after three years of service and only cursory review of how much success they have had with students. The two-year, $45 million project will use cameras, student surveys and other tools to identify the characteristics of standout teachers."

This is interesting because if you want to use surveys (it could be parent rather than student except in high school) and cameras for figuring out what is an effective teacher, why wouldn't you use those tools for teacher assessment?

This may all be for the good. The Gates Foundation did not do well in pushing their small high schools idea (and have pretty much let that go) and they likely learned some lessons. I just worry that this isn't just about examining teacher effectiveness or how to assess teachers but about pushing an agenda.

Danny Westneat Weighs in on Sup's Bonus

In this morning's Sunday Times (which has a big audience), he wrote about Dr. Goodloe-Johnson's bonus that was an introduction item to the Board last Wednesday. They vote on it in two weeks and what can they do? They negotiated the contract. I think they did this because they truly thought they were hiring someone who really was going to get things done. More on this in a minute.

Danny referenced this blog and some of the posts about this issue. Happy to hear Danny checks in here sometimes. Here's what he said:

"It's hardly a Goldman Sachs-style bonanza. It's no AIG outrage. But a plan to give the chief of Seattle Public Schools a pay-for-performance bonus — albeit only $5,280 — had parental jaws hitting homework tables around the city last week."

He gives some background:

"I'm willing to take the heat on this," DeBell said. "Anytime you set goals and then attach money to them, it's going to shine a much brighter spotlight on whether those goals are being achieved."

True, money raises the stakes. I probably wouldn't be writing this column about how Seattle schools met only four of 20 goals if someone wasn't getting a dubious cash reward for it.

But schools are not widget factories. Texas just spent $300 million on merit bonuses for teachers and saw no effect on student achievement. Or on teacher retention."

And this:

"For instance, she is getting a $1,320 bonus because 2,254 out of 3,019 city sixth-graders passed the WASL reading test. That's 26 more kids than the goal set by the board. And about a hundred more than passed the same test last year.Pretty specific. But I wonder: Does a central administrator in the job only two years have much to do one way or another with such small swings in citywide reading scores?"

So I have been considering two things about this. Neither is about whether or not she gets the bonus: it's in the contract and she did what she is contractually obligated to do to get it. (Whether she really deserves it or should keep it is up for discussion.)

One, to the Board and the Superintendent - good luck with those teacher contract negotiations in the spring. You certainly can push for merit pay or teacher review standards but boy, have you dug yourselves a hole. At the end of the day, Dr. Goodloe-Johnson did give direction to those teachers who raised the WASL scores her bonus is based on but the teachers had to do the work. They will be able to say, based on value-added data, we want more money for what we do.

Two, and this is something I have been thinking about for awhile, is that Dr. Goodloe-Johnson has been a bit of a whirling dervish since she got here.

• audits (not all of them done yet, not all of them complete).
  

• curriculum review of core high school subjects to be followed by middle-schools

• Student Assignment Plan and everything that radiates out from that including Transportation, Capacity Management, facilities' maintenance and enrollment.

• opening a STEM high school. It is a huge undertaking because of the time and resources involved and the absolutely necessary outreach both to parents and to the scientific community who both need to buy-in and be a part of this effort.

• Strategic Plan - a huge, overarching vision for this district that has (too lazy to check right now) but about 30 different moving parts

• MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) in every single school

• One teacher contract negotiation with another one this spring

• closing schools and reopening schools with all the necessary planning and costs involved

All this in two years.

Plainly stated, I think our Superintendent and our district are overreaching. I think they are trying to take on too much, too fast. I do not believe that any of these things are necessarily being done well and with the thought that is needed. Some of this, of course, had to get done but not all of it.

Does that mean I think staff is incompetent? Absolutely not. Does that mean I think staff isn't trying? Quite the opposite. I think they have so much on their plates, they are barely keeping their heads above water. I think they likely are tired and worried about getting things done. I get the distinct feeling (not often but sometimes) that staff wished they could say something publicly but can't. (I think that is true about staff I've been able to communicate with easily and now get my e-mails forwarded to Joy Stevens, the Public Disclosure officer. There are a couple of holdouts and if you are reading this, thanks.)

Are we a wealthy district with the money and staff to carry this out? Not really. I suspect that is why the Broad residents were brought in. They are smart management people who know how to plan and enact broad-based plans (and hey, they're half-priced for two years). There is a huge amount of moving parts here.

So why would anyone do this to herself and her staff? Well, you would if you were ambitious. You would if you had your sights set higher than a small urban district. Your resume would look hugely padded out if you had this list that you could say you planned and were sending into motion. You could say you left the district with a lot "done".

Dr. Goodloe-Johnson is a professional who is out to cut a big swath through this district. I think she takes no prisoners and is certainly not out to make friends or have any emotional attachment to our district. I wouldn't really call her a superintendent because I don't think she truly cares about this district as the living, breathing organism that it is. (Contrast that with John Stanford who embraced this place from the minute he took the job. I don't think he was the saint many have made him out to be but I did like his style and I felt he reached staff, the powers that be AND parents better than any superintendent I've seen. It does matter.)

I think the Board thought "here's someone to get it done and we don't care if she's touchy-feely."(Again, I said previously that I don't have to like her to respect her ability to get things done. Problem is, I see a whole lot of churn and not a lot of good things coming out of it.) I think they are a little surprised to see they got a gun for hire. I think they are hoping positive, forward things will come from all this effort and action.

Despite her raise last year and bonus to come this year, I'm still waiting.

Bye, Bye Spectrum?

There is a Yahoo group for Spectrum/APP which is largely inactive but I do, from time to time, get an e-mail from it. Here's what I received today:

"Did you know that the Seattle School District says that "We anticipate that we will phase out the Spectrum program over time so that its closure will not affect current students."

http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/faq_advancelearn.html#al64<http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/faq_advancelearn.html#al64> (last question-and-answer)

(The writer also said she had e-mailed the AL office but no answer. I'll try on Monday.)

Okay, so here's the original Q&A:

If a school loses its Spectrum program under this plan, what will happen to the students currently enrolled at that school and in that program?

This situation will be addressed in the transition plan. We anticipate that we will phase out the Spectrum program over time so that its closure will not affect current students.

It's a little unclear because the question is about School X and the answer seems to cover all schools but maybe just School X.

What do you think?

Cleveland STEM update

I just wanted to bring everyone up to date on the Cleveland STEM program. I could have added this to the existing thread, but it's getting down there and harder for people to monitor.

To recap - our family is interested in Cleveland STEM as a possible high school choice for our daughter, who is now in the 8th grade. I looked for information on the program without much success. Then, on Monday, November 9, I sent a message to the email address for the program, stem@seattleschools.org. I also got the number for the STEM hotline, 252-0046, and left a message there. No response.

On Thursday, November 12, I sent an email to the principal of Cleveland asking for information. No response.

On Sunday, November 15, I sent a follow up message to the STEM email address. No response.

I wrote again on Tuesday, the 17th. I got a response to my message of the 15th from Dick Lee in the "Office of Partnerships" saying that either Princess Shareef or Susan Derse would "respond shorty". I wrote back to Mr. Lee asking him why HE couldn't answer me. What was the point, I asked, of someone who doesn't have the answers responding to the questions?

Three days later, on Friday the 20th, I wrote back to Mr. Lee and asked him if I should have heard from someone by then. I have yet to hear back from him.

I called the Communications department and asked about Cleveland STEM. I told them that no one was answering the email box and that no one was answering the hotline and I asked to speak to someone who had information about the program. I was connected to David Tucker.

I spoke with Mr. Tucker for about 15 minutes. He told me that there will be a community meeting about Cleveland STEM on the morning of Saturday, December 5. He said that there will also be an Open House on January 23rd. He said that there will also be events at the middle schools some time in December or January. He and I compared these community engagement efforts with those described in the presentation to the Board on September 16. The actual efforts will be much less and much later than what was promised. He had no explanation for that. Nor did he have any explanation for the lack of response from the hotline or the email. He said that he would have Susan Derse get in touch with me.

I also sent an email to Princess Shareef describing my difficulty in getting information about Cleveland STEM. She forwarded my message to Susan Derse, Michael Tolley and David Tucker. I got an answer from Ms Derse:

"I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiries about the new STEM High School program at Cleveland. Unfortunately, the high volume of correspondence precludes our being able to answer each question individually."

She also told me about the upcoming community meeting on December 5 and said that there would be a STEM web site posting on Wednesday, November 25. She did not, however, answer any of my questions.

I wrote back to Ms Derse: "If you are not able to answer email messages to the STEM email address and you are not able to answer calls to the STEM hotline, then what is the point of having them? I don't understand. Why invite people to contact you with questions if you have no intention of answering them? Are you trying to make people feel angry and alienated? Who benefits from this system?"

These people are so infuriating that I wonder if there is any point to trying to talk to them at all.

Dorn's recommendation to delay

State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Randy Dorn, is recommending that the legislature delay, yet again, the "pass the math test" requirement for high school graduation. See this news story in the Seattle Times.

The Times, in this editorial, complains that this delay "lowers the bar". Instead of delay, they write that "The Legislature must exchange Dorn's plan for one that does something for students. A better effort would include more experienced math teachers and up-to-date textbooks. After-school tutoring, summer school and other ways are needed to give students more lesson time. Science must be injected into core curricula with all the teacher training and other resources required to place science on par with reading, writing and arithmetic."

Ah, the idealism of the Seattle Times. It's refreshing, if naive. They are, of course, correct. But so what? The legislature is not going to pony up any money to pay for these proposals. So after all of the adults who are actually responsible for the education system fail to fulfill their responsibilities: the legislature, the OSPI, and the various district leaders, the Times believes that the solution is to hold the students accountable. The students, the only people in the system with absolutely NO power to influence it, are the only ones who are held responsible for the system's failure. The legislature underfunds the schools, the OSPI directs schools to miseducate students in math, the districts miseducate students in math and fail to implement early and effective interventions, and who pays? The students. Not only are they denied an education, they are denied diplomas.

If when it comes to graduation requirements Randy Dorn blinked, as the Times wrote, then he is willingfully squeezing his eyes shut when it comes to confronting the failures of the adults in the system.

Persona Non Grata

Okay, so I'm convinced now because it happened yet again. Every time I ask for information, basic information, from any staff member (usually people up the food chain), I get a polite message that my request has gone to Joy Stevens (the public disclosure person for the district). I'm thinking there's some e-mail saying, "Don't give this woman information or at least make it take a long time." I suspect Charlie's in the same boat.

This is basic stuff like terms (seismic diaphragm versus seismic upgrade versus seismic mitigation). Yes, I could look it up online but, as we discovered from Meg's work, the district sometimes has its own language and definitions.

I understand not having multiple people trying to answer the same question but I know who to direct a question to (and I try to ask if I have the right person if I am not sure).

I suspect that the pushback the State Auditor is getting from the district on BEX information isn't just inability to access it or find it but the district dragging its feet because they don't want the audit to come out before the levy election.

It's pretty frustrating.

Talk Among Yourselves

There are some education news items we could get to like Randy Dorn's idea of a two-tier diploma or the Gates Foundation and yet another education initiative (one part is $45M to study 3700 teachers to figure out what an effective teacher is which reminds me of the Supreme Court Justice Potter on a case about pornography said, "I know it when I see it"). I also have some interesting research on BTA III after going over the final project list.

However it is Friday so talk about anything.

If you aren't at Twilight Moon (I would be if I were a tween but frankly I don't care how dark Forks is, vampires can't go out in the daylight. First rule of being a vampire.), here's something to do with the kids under the category "now for something completely different". It's called Smash Putt, sort of a Rube Goldberg version of mini-golf (indoors). It's only open for families this weekend and next (they serve alcohol at other times). There clearly seems to be some physics involved so it could be called educational (and hence its appearance here).

I'm Humbled

I had heard that McDonald parents had a meeting with the head of International Instruction, Karen Kodama, on Saturday. And boy, I thought, how fair is that to these other reopening schools? Who knew you could just ask for a meeting? And mostly I thought it unfair to Sand Point who seems to have no real focus yet. (Rainier View and Viewlands aren't opening for awhile and McDonald seems in the lead for foreign language immersion and Old Hay has Montessori.)

Luckily, I have a friend who steered me straight.

The McDonald parents did set up a meeting with Ms. Kodama but they also had the courtesy to invite Sand Point parents. Ms. Kodama apparently did not talk about specifics but did talk about what an international school is and said she was there unofficially. She also said every elementary should have foreign language (she and Kay Smith Blum will get along well).

There was also a meeting with De Bell and Carr to go over McDonald's survey results about their school. Sand Point is also planning one and when it goes on-line, I'll post a link.

This is what I get for hanging around headquarters too long and being suspicious. These McDonald area residents have put my faith back into our parent-to-parent network. Bless them for their thoughtfulness.

Community Meetings for Curriculum Alignment

The district has announced public meetings to "share" information about curriculum alignment in our high schools. (I really doubt they will change their plan but you can try.) From the press release:

The high school curriculum alignment projects will result in aligning high school Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies and World Languages core classes to college-ready standards, revising course offerings in academic subjects to better prepare students for college, careers and life and providing professional development for teachers to support their delivery of the aligned curricula.

Seattle Public Schools instructional leaders will discuss our alignment work and provide more information about the upcoming instructional materials adoption for high school Language Arts courses, to be followed by adoptions for World Languages and Social Studies for 4th and 8th grades.

So there you elementary and middle school parents; it's coming your way as well.

Now don't laugh at the timing of the first two meetings but here's the list:

Monday, Nov. 23
6:30-8:00 p.m.
Rainier Beach High School
8815 Seward Park Ave. S.

Tuesday, Nov. 24
6:30-8:00 p.m.
West Seattle High School
3000 California Ave. S.W.

Monday, Nov. 30
6:30-8:00 p.m.
Ballard High School
1418 NW 65th St.

Tuesday, Dec. 1
6:30-8:00 p.m.
Garfield High School
400 23rd Ave.

I know, Thanksgiving week, who has anything else to do?

I Should Have Known

I ran down to the Board meeting to give my remarks and had to leave right afterwards. (I then went to the Roosevelt PTSA meeting to be the opposition side to Schools First support of the BTA III levy. More on this later as it was interesting and I may need your input.) But, I had set my Tivo to record the meeting. Silly me, the meeting ended at 11 and I only recorded 3 hours of what turned out to be a 5 hour meeting. They didn't get to the Action items until almost 2:45 minutes into the meeting (they did start late though). So I missed the SAP votes. So help me out.

Here's the story from the Times.

About the amendments, here's all that was said:

"The boundaries approved Wednesday reflect small adjustments in the lines around five pairs of elementary schools: Bryant/View Ridge, McDonald/Green Lake, Whittier, West Woodland, Loyal Heights/Adams, and Alki/Lafayette."

So I am thinking the Executive Board's passed, Harium's amendments passed, Mary's didn't and that Steve may have introduced one for Alki/Lafayette. According to the West Seattle Blog, the maps with new boundaries will be out sometime next week.

If you attended (or watched) the whole thing, do weigh in.

As far as the public testimony, there was some differing opinions about the boundary change around Ravenna Creek. Again, for some reason, people seem to think anything in print is concrete. There was unhappiness over these amendments being introduced at the last minute but they did say at the boundaries meetings that it could happen. (I know the district gives out timelines but they likely should say "here's what can happen at each point".)

The president of the West Seattle High PTSA along with Chief Sealth's both were not happy over the boundaries. They are quite worried about the loss of students projected for both Madison and WSHS.

A couple of parents spoke about grandfathering sibs. One offered that they wouldn't mind extra big classes for a couple of years to accommodate all sibs. That's an interesting take. He also said it could take 5 years. I have no idea if the district is thinking a 1-year or 5-year transition. That info has been pretty closely held. Again, if I had to guess, I'd say 1-2 years but frankly, I don't think it depends at all on what parents want. I think the driver is the VAX. If they can migrate off it and everything is working, I would predict a shorter transition period.

One speaker mentioned gathering sibling data now so that they have the best knowledge going forward on the transition plan.

Under next steps (a timeline sheet was available), there is this date, December 18th, as when design teams for opening schools will be established. The intro for the Transition Plan will be Jan. 6th and the final vote January 20th. This will come right on the heels of the start of tours for schools (mid-January) so folks will have to figure out what the transition plan means to them and then get out there and tour.

The Sharples naming of Old Hay brought a bit of family drama to the proceedings. We had a historian and several family members. It seems some family members feel that Old Hay is not an equal trade for a middle school (that was the original use of the name) but others are fine with it. I don't know what the final vote was on this one; I'll have to check with the Board office. I do wonder why they didn't just do the obvious which is to name South Shore for Sharples. South Shore is just a vague place name and putting the Sharples name on that shiny, new K-8 building might have been a good idea.

Dr. Goodloe-Johnson did acknowledge that she is on the NWEA Board but said it was a non-paid position on a non-profit board and that she in not involved in reading or receiving bids. There was a MAP presentation by staff. Harium asked how long, on average, it took to take and he was told 40-50 minutes. Steve asked if we did use multiple assessments so that we were not depending on just one and he was told yes although not all at once. The staffer also said the middle schools were hungry for this data and had the best completion rates. Peter asked about ELL and Special Ed kids taking MAP. He was told that they are trying to accomodate as much as possible. Apparently elementary kids take it using earphones and that those are available to both ELL and Special Ed students. SBOC is not taking MAP at the request of their principal until they can figure out its best use for them.

This was the last Board meeting for both Directors Chow and Bass. Both were acknowledged for their service and both gave remarks. Cheryl was funny saying she was looking forward to her free time and occasionally tuning in to the Board meetings in her PJs.

Steve Sundquist Weighs In

Thanks to reader Yumpears who linked us to the update from Steve Sundquist's last meeting before the vote tonight at the West Seattle Blog.

Steve said he was not "inclined" to change the boundaries except for one (far south end of California SW) and that there would be an amendment for that. (It's still not on the website but they can introduce them without them actually being on the agenda. At least that is what has happened in the past.)

He said some pretty interesting things about high schools. He was trying to make people feel better about their assigned high school saying that many kids from areas all over West Seattle/SW go to either high school. Here are the stats from the article:

SEALTH
1,000 students - 550 from its “drawing area,” 200 from northern West Seattle

WEST SEATTLE HS
More than half its 1100 students come from southern West Seattle (574)

DENNY
Most from its “drawing area,” 136 from north West Seattle

MADISON
Even split - 449 from north West Seattle, 423 from south

Here's what he said and pay attention because if this is what he thinks for WS/SW, well, it might be for other areas as well. (Note, bold mine.)

"For starters, he says, given the potential underenrollment at some West Seattle schools, he sees the potential to propose that the high schools set aside 20 percent of their seats for choice, rather than the 10 percent stipulated citywide in the assignment plan.

Second, Sundquist said, he’s also interested in grandfathering current middle-schoolers who are now at schools outside their new attendance areas, not just to be able to stay at those middle schools till they’re done there, but also to be able to follow the new tracks into high school - in other words, if a current Denny student’s home is going to be in the newly drawn Madison area, for that student not only to get to stay at Denny through 8th grade (which is already part of the plan), but also to be able to continue on to Chief Sealth High School.

Then he voiced a suggestion that had several people all but jump out of their chairs with excitement (and a smattering of applause): “I am also currently exploring - though I need help from staff, with possible legal implications, possible dual feeders for the middle three schools - Gatewood Elementary, West Seattle Elementary, Sanislo - to enable those parents to choose to take their kids either north (on the Madison/West Seattle HS track) or south (Denny/Chief Sealth). This would enable us to deal with the kind of imbalance I don’t think we could deal with on a map - and it’s getting to be a little eleventh-hour for major map changes.”

One rule change he said he’s not leaning toward is some kind of “distance tiebreaker” .

"...he said, an “additional high-rigor high-school option” for Southeast Seattle is under consideration."

Yes, I know. Very interesting. The problem is that he is viewing it from WS/SW. I can't see this working all over the city. WS/SW has a very individual situation because they are more isolated. I wish I had time to look up all the numbers for the high schools there because I suspect there aren't that many out of WS/SW students there simply because it is harder to get to.

I can't see the other directors signing on for the 20% open choice seats. Ballard, Roosevelt and Garfield areas would be very unhappy. I think it would take a lot of convincing of other directors.

Grandfathering middle schoolers? Again, a very individual situation because I would bet most middle school kids in that region probably go to either West Seattle High or Chief Sealth. I could see doing this for WS/SW but I also could see how the rest of the district saying, what about us? Ditto on the elementary/middle/high school feeder pattern. It makes sense for that region but is it what an overall SAP should do?

Additional rigor? Chief Sealth has an IB program already so maybe he means more honors/AP courses at West Seattle?

Board Meeting Tonight

The speakers list for the Board meeting tonight is full. (I'm speaking near the top of the list but it has me down for the SAP and I'm speaking on the BTA.) There are 5 of us on the list who are regulars and interestingly, there are 5 people from the Sharples family speaking, probably asking why their family name is being moved to another school and why there is a motion to postpone this vote.

Directors Bass and Martin-Morris will be introducing amendments. Here is Director Bass':

1. I move to amend that the attendance area boundary for Stevens Elementary School be those set forth in the attached.

Rationale: The current eastern boundary for Stevens Elementary School should be retained.
2. I move to designate Madrona K-8 as an option school.

I don't know enough whether number one is good. With number two, her rationale is all over the place. Here's the last paragraph:

"Our priority should be to serve the families at the school. Over half of the families live within a mile of the school. Some of the families are concerned that if it becomes an option school, neighborhood families won’t be able to attend. Some of the families are concerned that if it is an attendance area school, central area families who want a K-8 will not be served."

Families (obviously) can't have it both ways. So someone will be unhappy. Whatever the answer, we all know that Madrona would likely have even more neighborhood families if their program wasn't so rigid and the principal was more welcoming to new ideas.

Martin-Morris Amendment;

"I move to amend the Bryant and View Ridge attendance area boundaries to incorporate the area south of Northeast 68th Street between 34th Avenue Northeast and 40th Avenue Northeast into the Bryant attendance area. The north side of Northeast 68th Street will be in the View Ridge attendance area and the south side Northeast 68th Street will be in the Bryant attendance area, while the east side of 40th Avenue Northeast will be in View Ridge attendance area and the west side of 40th Ave Northeast will be in the Bryant attendance area.

Rationale: If passed, it is anticipated that the Executive Committee’s amendment to adjust the McDonald attendance area boundary will create additional projected capacity at Bryant. There are 19 students projected to live south of Northeast 68th Street between 34th Avenue and 40th Avenue North in 2015. A portion of this area is not in the walk zone for either View Ridge or Bryant. If this amendment and the Executive Committee’s amendment pass, it is projected that View Ridge will be at functional capacity and Bryant will be 5 students over functional capacity. It is anticipated that a projection of 5 students over functional capacity will likely have minimal impact."

I don't have much to say here because again, I don't know this area well. What do other parents think?

I guess I wish I could know what moved some Board members to create amendments while others didn't. Meaning, what swayed their thinking?

Superintendent Bonus Pay

Remember all of that talk about the Superintendent not getting a raise this year due to the tight budget and how inappropriate it would be for her to make more money while the District is laying off teachers?

Did you believe that? You did? You must be new.

Here it comes; item for introduction tonight: Incentive pay for the superintendent. Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson will receive performance based-incentive compensation of $5,280.00 for the 2008-09 academic year because the students in the District met four of the twenty academic goals. Man! If I met four of twenty goals at my job I'm not sure that I would be allowed to keep it, let alone get incentive pay. She is eligible for up to 10% of her pay in incentives based on twenty point system of 16 academic measures (three are double weighted, one is yet undetermined). She got four of the twenty points, one fifth, so her incentive pay is one fifth of the possible amount, 2% of her pay: $5,280.00.

The superintendent already makes more money than the governor or the mayor. Just how much do we have to pay this woman to get her best effort?

While this whole idea is a little whacked, there is a paragraph in the Board Action Report which makes no sense:

Seattle Public Schools has a rigorous five-year strategic plan, Excellence for All, to raise the academic quality of our schools and achievement for all our students. Excellence for All is focused on setting high expectations for every student, our teachers and school leaders. Performance Management is one of the key initiatives of our strategic plan. The Performance Management system aligns the District’s work at all levels with Excellence for All by using tools including the District Scorecard, School Reports and Individual Performance Evaluations for staff. The Performance Management system establishes clear expectations for the District, for each school, and for every individual.

Does this mean that the superintedent is already working under the Performance Management system before anyone else? Does that mean that she is now accountable?

Here's another wacky item: at her performance evaluation, I recall that the Superintendent got a C- in the area of curriculum and instruction. I can't confirm that because her report card isn't attached to the July 1, 2009 action that supposedly held her salary at the previous year's level. So she got a C- for curriculum and instruction, yet got incentive pay for student's academic achievement. How do those two match up?

A Minor Note (But It Should Be Noted)

Someone pointed this out to me even though I should have known it if I had thought about it enough.

I don't know where all the directors live (obviously within their districts). I do know where Director Carr lives. The first boundaries put her home within Ballard's boundaries. ( As you may recall, she has a child at Roosevelt as does Director Martin-Morris). So that map would have sent her second child to Ballard. (But under the 10% Open Choice seats, her second child would easily get into Roosevelt via that choice.)

The second map has her neighborhood in Roosevelt. And personally that is the way I thought it should have been for her neighborhood. (But part of that change was for west Green Lake and I'm still not sure why west Green Lake is in Roosevelt's area because no one from there is going to walk to Roosevelt which is the given reason for the change.)

I point this out because I have gone to many boundary meetings, large and small, and I never heard Director Carr point this out. (I don't believe any other director has younger children that will be affected by the boundaries - De Bell's last is at Ballard and I believe both of Sundquist's are already at Chief Sealth and Martin-Morris' youngest is at RHS.)

I think she should have in the interest of public disclosure.

HIring at SPS

Look, I am not a business person so I am probably wrong on this one so help me out.

Once again, while looking for one thing, I found another. I was looking for school maintenance information and found a link for a SPS job listing...at a headhunter firm called Waldron and Company (they cover the NW/SW). Now the listing I found is old but they currently they are looking for someone for another SPS job.

I do understand that higher-end people are harder to find but we have a bad economy (read, more people out there looking for jobs even high-end jobs) and SPS has no money. So how do we have money for a headhunting firm?

I went and looked at the SPS jobs listings and it was maybe 25 jobs. Maybe there's more openings that aren't advertised? I don't know. (The one that the Waldron group is working on is there as well.) Don't we have a Human Resources department?

Executive Board Amendments

Thanks to Central Mom for alerting us to the amendments made by the Executive Committee of the Board to the Superintendent for the SAP to be presented at the Board meeting on Wednesday. They include McDonald, Whittier, Alki/Lafayette and Loyal Heights. Here's a link.

Note that other individual amendments may surface. I think it unlikely but it is possible.

Also to note, Dr. Enfield, our CAO, is doing a presentation on MAP. Here is one bullet point:

• 100% of elementary & K-8 schools will share results with families during parent-teacher conferences

So okay, you heard it from her, all of you elementary/K-8 parents, if you attend a parent-teacher conference, will get results.

Middle and high school? A little less clear what will happen:

• Middle & high schools will share results in conferences (if applicable), send results home with report cards or designate one staff to share results with families.

Also, Dr. Enfield has hired 4 "data coaches" to train a MAP trainer for each school. I see the need for this but please tell me they aren't permanent because if MAP needs this much oversight after you have launched it, then it sure costs a lot. (We have to pay a fee to use it every year plus pay for updates. There is also $4M in the BTA III levy for computers to use for MAP.)

Lastly, I love Dr. Enfield's sense of humor. She has what is termed a triangulation to show how you would use the data to make decisions (and frankly I don't get it) but she chose to put the triangle over a ...glacier. Is that a message that she thinks MAP will melt away under global warming? Just an easy pick off Google? It's kind of funny (see page 10).

Policy on New Schools

There is a Capacity Management item on the Board agenda for Wednesday. Here is one of the new Superintendent Procedures about new schools. In total, it says:

"The new Capacity Management Policy (H 13.00) contemplates actions that might be taken to
address fluctuations in enrollment, including the possibility that new schools may need to be
opened to accommodate enrollment growth.

While all final decisions about a new school’s programmatic direction, budget, facilities
modifications and principal selection are the purview of the Superintendent, it is important to
gather community input on the new school. The level of public participation is defined as
“Involved” indicating the District will work directly with the public through the process to
ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.

If and when new schools are opened, the following actions shall occur:

• An Instructional Director will be appointed to guide the opening process
• A hiring process and timeline shall be established for hiring the principal and staff
• A Design Team will be created to help identify the school’s programmatic direction,
to establish the initial Parent-Teacher Association, and to participate in the various
decisions that must be made
o The Design Team will include the Instructional Director, representatives from
the budget and facilities departments, representatives from academic
departments as appropriate, and community members from the area that the
new school is expected to serve. After the principal and staff are hired the
design team shall be expanded to include the principal and representative staff
members.

The design team shall develop a communications plan, including how to keep the broader
community and School Board updated on the work. In addition, design team shall develop an
engagement plan to engage their anticipated community in the work."

"...to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered." And we'll know this how?

PSAT Update

As you may recall I was wondering how come the district had no results (by grade or school or district) for the PSAT given last fall to 9th, 10th and 11th graders. Bob Vaughn in Advanced Learning told me they had too much on their plate to get it done.

Joy Stevens, the Public Records officer said this:

I am writing in response to your email below requesting PSAT test results. In doing so, I learned that the test results that we receive are in a format that cannot be easily incorporated into our information, which would allow us to release statistical information without violating individual student confidentiality. I am looking into whether it would be possible to redact or remove student identification from the results we get from the College Boards and/or extract statistical totals.

I also placed a call to Boeing and got a very nice guy who was puzzled but said that they were expecting a report by Dec. 31. He got back to me on Friday and said he got a report and that the district said they would be releasing the results shortly.

I had also called the College Board to find out if the data was given to districts in such a way that they couldn't redact out students' names. The person at the College Board said she didn't know why the district would say that but that they are given raw data that they can use anyway they want so giving results by grade or school without any students' names shouldn't be a problem. Oh.

So we can see a baseline soon of where we are starting on the "more rigor in high schools". According to the district, giving the PSAT was providing rigor and identifying students who should be trying the harder classes. Since they did test the 9th graders, then a good check of how the district's efforts to put more rigor in all the high schools, should be showing some evidence by the time these students graduate in 2013.

(I just want to point out how ludicrious it is to have done all this work for an answer I already knew. I have no idea why people in the district don't get that some of us will follow-through so if you give me a BS answer, I won't just say "thanks" and go on with my day. Why can't they just tell us the truth? I don't really believe that they didn't put the results together earlier this year. It would be hard to believe they went to all this effort and then hadn't put the data together and were using it to form the basis of the push for rigor in high school. It would absolutely make no sense.)

School Violence: Students' Perspective

There is a fabulous story on the West Seattle Blog today that tells the story of a school violence incident from the perspective of the students.

Classroom interview: SWYFS students’ side of the stabbing story

Teachers Sell to Teachers

This article was in the Seattle Times today. It's about teachers selling lesson plans they have created to other teachers. It's an interesting idea but, as you can imagine, some issues.

"Thousands of teachers are cashing in on a commodity they used to give away, selling lesson plans online for exercises as simple as M&M sorting and as sophisticated as William Shakespeare.

While some of this extra money is going to buy books and classroom supplies in a time of tight budgets, the new teacher-entrepreneurs are also spending it on dinners out, mortgage payments, credit-card bills, vacation travel and home renovation, leading some school officials to question who owns material developed for public-school classrooms."

"Teachers Pay Teachers, one of the largest such sites, with more than 200,000 registered users, has recorded $600,000 in sales since it was started in 2006, $450,000 of that in the past year, said its founder, Paul Edelman, a former New York City teacher. The top seller, a high-school English teacher in California, has made $36,000 in sales.

"To the extent that school-district resources are used, then I think it's fair to ask whether the district should share in the proceeds," said Robert Lowry, deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents."

The two main issues are apparent. Who "owns" a lesson and shouldn't teachers just want to help other teachers without a cost benefit?

I can see a district trying to say that their professional development aided a teacher in being better and that the development helped the teacher create a lesson. But can they prove that? Many companies make employees sign a contract that has a clause about anything created during employment at place of employment. (Of course, you could work anywhere with a laptop so that's a problem as well. Should school districts?

I note that in the story several teachers talk about using the money in their classroom but some said they used it for themselves. I see neither crime nor sin in either use.

I'm not a teacher so I don't know how teachers feel. I think that anything that you create is yours unless you had specific training. And should these lesson plans be patented? I would think it possible for two teachers worlds apart could think up the same lesson plan but who thought of it first?

Thoughts?

Board Meeting on Boundaries and Levies

The School Board meeting for votes on both the new SAP boundaries and the levies is this Wednesday, the 18th at 6 p.m. You can sign up to speak starting tomorrow at 8 am by:

calling 252-0040 or e-mailing boardagenda@seattleschools.org

Here's we are, almost to zero hour. I don't want to disappoint anyone but I'm not sure I believe any amendments will come forward. I think only a broad-based one like the "soft" boundaries one (allowing anyone within a block of a school to have access even if it isn't their attendance area school) or the "one-time" option (which would allow anyone within, say, 3 blocks of a non-attendance area school to make the one-time choice to commit to that school). Those would not require moving boundaries. But I think the Board will say they just can't at this point. (And that's why I do not like staff saying, "Oh yes, the Board can do anything up until the vote.")

Please let us know if you attended Director Carr or De Bell's community meeting yesterday. I heard from someone who attended Director Carr's that there were a couple of issues. One, that when parents pressed about amendments, Sherry said it was too late because of staff issues. Two, that many parents were pressing for changes based on personal issues for their children. However, this person did end with this:

"Either way, we'll work to make our kids' school the best it can be."

The truth is that may be all that can be done. Of course, if it is either a brand-new school or a school with challenges that may be easy to say and hard to do.

If, after the vote, we do a post-discussion of the new SAP, we may all agree that despite thousands of types of input, the Board largely went with what staff created, and that maybe that means they don't listen. Or they listen but feel helpless to push back against staff. Or feel they can't challenge Dr. Goodloe-Johnson. But we might want to think about the changes from Boundary Maps 1 and 2 and see if they reflect parents' input or mistakes staff made (see Denny-Sealth).

As per the Agenda for the Board meeting on Wednesday, here's the Resolution for the SAP:

I move that the School Board approve the New Student Assignment Plan Attendance Area
Boundaries. I further move that the Superintendent be directed to: (1) develop a transition plan to begin implementation of the NSAP and these attendance area boundaries in the 2010-2011 school year, and (2) review existing policies to identify those which need to be eliminated, revised, or put on hold pending revision to bring them into alignment with the New Student Assignment Plan.

Hmm, "review existing policies to identify those which need to be eliminated, revised or put on hold.." That is a very broad-based statement. SAP policies or other? That certainly leave a wide-open space for staff to claim the need to change policies here and there.

Meg Diaz Report Follow Up

I was at the meeting of the Audit and Finance Committee and I heard, very clearly, the Board members ask that Meg Diaz's presentation and the District Staff response both be posted to the District web site. I heard, very clearly, Mr. Harman say that they would be. He looked right at Communications staff when he said it and they gave him the nod.

So... where are they?

Has anyone been able to find on the SPS web site? I couldn't find them on the Budget web pages, not on the page for the Operating Budget either. I couldn't find them on the Board web pages or attached to the agenda for the Audit and Finance Committee.

So where the heck are they?

I found them! They are in the District News section.

Here is the presentation by Duggan Harman and the one from Meg Diaz.

I notice that the link to Meg's report is an external link. That means that Meg can edit her report to respond to Mr. Harman's presentation - if she wants to - and the link from the District will take people to the updated version.

Public Hearing On Operations and BTA III Levies

(Update: I totally left out parent Bruce Taylor's great remarks about how we might be making a mistake opening Sand Point when the district projects more than 100 open seats at Laurelhurst in just a few years. He asked if it was worth spending $7M for 134 seats. Saying Sand Point will fail if Laurelhurst is a choice people can make because there's space at a good program, he urged them to put in an international program there. )

This was a quiet affair, 4 Board members, 7 staff and 7 speakers. We were in and out in 20 minutes. However, that didn't mean it wasn't interesting.

First of all, Peter Maier ran thru the pleasantries and it was announced that the other 3 Board members AND Dr. Goodloe-Johnson couldn't be there because of a commitment to attending a fundraiser at Chief Sealth. Good on Sealth for getting all these people to attend. However, this was a public hearing, a legal obligation, and Dr. Goodloe-Johnson couldn't be there? There were already 3 Board members at the function. (I mentioned this at the end of my remarks and said I thought it disrespectful of her. Do I believe Dr. G-J is going to listen to the audio of these remarks? I do not.)

So there was one speaker, Dora Taylor, worried about seismic issues at Meany (and rightly so except that the district's version of seismic is shoring things up, not necessarily bringing everything up to code - there are different levels of seismic safety allowed). And, some of the work at Meany wouldn't be done until 2014/2015 which is quite a long way off.

Chris Jackins mentioned numerous issues including oversight of BTA (there is none), green initiatives and yet the District still wants to cut down some of the grove of trees at Ingraham, an accounting of closure and reopening costs for Rainier View and Viewlands, the loss of Cleveland as a comprehensive high school, etc.

I spoke about my usual issue with BTA. I did include some new information so I'll just exerpt my remarks here:

"The BTA III levy will NOT get us out of this mess. It will barely make a dent and that’s because nearly about 18% of the $270M sought for the levy is for just 5 buildings, all of them over 50 years old, that aren’t even schools yet. One of these buildings, McDonald, was toured by Director Carr who said she was appalled and shocked at the condition of the building and couldn’t imagine its stated use as an emergency site.


Additionally, I note that the “B” in BTA spending is slowly going down. The first BTA was at about 65% for buildings and the second was 53% and now this one is down to 51%. With the lack of basic maintenance AND spending on buildings going down in this BTA, realistically, how do you expect to get ahead on maintaining our facilities?


I ask for two things BEFORE the levy election. One, a good faith measure by the Board to show that they will, in the next budget, put more money into basic maintenance by bringing spending up to 1%. That good faith measure could either be putting it in writing that you will bring up the spending in the next budget OR dipping into reserves slightly to prove you are serious about change. The second thing is a promise that there will be a bi-annual accounting report made available to the public that shows where the BTA and BEX money goes. Not a mere list of projects but actual accounting."

Heidi Bennett, who is the Legislative person for the Seattle Council PTSA, spoke about good things on the BTA list (and yes, there are lots of them) but interestingly, had issues with the Operations levy. She feels there isn't as much transparency in what happens to the money (although she said she just saw some newly-updated info at the SPS website).

Then, there was Betty Hogland. Betty is another long-time education activist and she is currently the president of Schools First which is the citizens group that runs the levy campaigns. Betty, like me, has been around a long time and is very knowledgable about the district.

So she came out first with her Schools First talk about BTA being the workhorse levy affecting every school, needing technology in every school, etc. Then, unbelievably, she took off that hat and put on a taxpayer's hat. She, too, said we have a huge backlog of maintenance that needs to be addressed. Yay, Betty!

She said, "We need to protect these investments." and it's a great point. What schools are at the very bottom of the basic maintenance list (besides the closed ones)? That would be the newly-remodeled schools. That makes sense, right? However, just like every building that is not being maintained, these spanking-new buildings will start looking shabby sooner. They will have issues long before they should. What will Roosevelt look like in 10, 15, 20 years? These are building that are supposed to be built for a 50-year cycle because we have poured tens of millions of dollars into them. Quite the investment to allow to decay quickly.

She had an interesting thought. She said that in the next BEX cycle (which will come up in 3 years and the list is forming now), they should NOT redo a school and take that entire sum of money (which could be anywhere from $55M to $100M depending on what type of school leaves the list) and use it towards basic maintenance. Very intriguing because that would be a HUGE amount to put towards getting things done and righting this ship. However, that is more than 3 years off (and things will only get worse) AND I'd have to see it in writing that the district/Board will do this.

My takeaway is that the district has a lot of dissent out there from many corners. It's not going to be enough to say, "It's for the kids." and think it will win the day.

Friday Funny (If You Like Teenagers)

Oh those kids! Turns out there's a high school in Danver, Mass. where the principal has banned a word from school. And the word is....meep. Yes, that's right - meep.

Now there is allegedly some character from the Muppet Show who said this word (but I seem to recall that on Sesame Street there were two alien-like characters who communicated with this word and I think it might have been what the Coneheads from SNL used to say when they touched cones).

The kids say it's just a greeting and it has no real meaning. Well, if you Google it (as a verb, meeping), the urban dictionary has quite the meaning and this being a family blog, I won't repeat it. (Really, don't be me and Google it - it's not good. This is the second time in a week I Googled a word and was sorry I did.)

But these kids, whether they mean it in a dirty fashion or just the cool greeting of the day, are teenagers pushing the envelope. I'm surprised the principal (who I'm thinking must spend a lot of time in his office instead of out in the halls) would react this way. Ignore them. It will go away and they will move onto the next thing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for civility and discipline in high schools. Anything does not go. But teens love to annoy/challenge/shock/(insert adjective here) so you have to pick your fights carefully.

Performance Management

The District has released a number of seriously overdue documents relating to Performance Management.

The first is the District Scorecard. There are a number of interesting points about this document. First, there is absolutely no reason in the world that the District could not have delivered this scorecard on time in December 2008. There's nothing here that reflects 18 months of design work. Second, the scorecard, while it does show the results for each year does not show the annual benchmarks. Are there no annual benchmarks? Moreover, it doesn't show if the District had growth or was on pace in previous years. That could have been done with some simple color-coding. I don't understand the reason that the AYP data box in the lower right was included. Do we care about that? Does that tell us anything that we want to know? I would much rather that they used the space to show how many students scored 1, 2, 3, or 4 on the WASL. Pass/fail isn't as meaningful.

The School Report Card, which is also dishearteningly late, is still incomplete. That's just shameful. I was curious by what they mean by "Students making gains on the state math test." Do they mean this year's fourth graders over last year's fourth graders? Do they mean students who got a level 1 last year and got a level 2 this year? Is it a net measurement; did they deduct for students who suffered losses? What the hell does this mean? I read the explanation, and I still don't know what the hell the number means. They still don't have measures for engagement? They still don't have measures for leadership instruction or environment? What the hell are these people working on? After nearly two years they still haven't got anything here! I'm happy to report that the average class size is based on class size as of the October 1 enrollment for the respective school year, for all scheduled homerooms and classrooms, excluding special ed and elementary BOCs.

On the Middle School Report Card I wondered how they would determine if 8th graders are leaving middle school ready for high school math? What's the measure for that? According the explanation, it is "8th graders earning a C or better in an on-track or advanced math course. Advanced math courses include any Integrated Math course, Selected Math Topics, Mesa Math 8, Mathematics 8H, Mathematics 8, Middle School Math, and Mathematics 8E." Wow. The people who wrote this thing don't know that integrated math has been replaced. And what are all of those other courses? Hasn't middle school math been aligned?

Donors Choose: You Could Help a Classroom By Shopping

I'm on the Donors Choose e-list and received this e-mail that I thought might be of some interest. I'm only posting because Donors Choose is a good organization that helps teachers fund projects. So, if for any reason you shop at The Gap, Banana Republic or Old Navy, you can get a good deal AND you will help teachers fund projects in their classrooms. (Gap owns BR and ON so you can shop at any of them and money will go to Donors Choose.) Note: it says in-store and not on-line.

From today through Sunday (November 12-15), you can receive 30% off any in-store purchase at the GAP, Banana Republic and Old Navy.

You'll be doing good at the same time -- the GAP will give 5% of what you spend to high-need classrooms through DonorsChoose.org.

Print the 30% off coupon and take it to the store with you.

What's Due and What's Overdue

Today's board work session on the District scorecard serves as an excellent reminder of all of the things that are either due or overdue. It also serves as an excellent reminder of how horribly slack the Board has been about holding the superitendent accountable for all of the things that are due or overdue.

The District scorecard was supposed to be ready by fall 2008. See page 45 of the Strategic Plan, "Excellence for All".


Other items from the Strategic Plan that appear overdue:

Math curriculum alignment - should be in place this year.
Science curriculum alignment - should be in place this year.
Common formative assessments K - 12 for math and reading - should be in place this year. We have the summative assessments (MAP).
Teacher training on analyzing MAP results - should be in place this year.
School performance framework - was supposed to be completed by December 2008, still absent.
The performance management system, including the school performance model - was supposed to now be operational across the District.
New hiring process - was supposed to be in place in the spring of 2009.
Expand the STAR mentoring system - no particular schedule
A detailed professional development plan - was supposed to be completed by fall 2008.
Expanded professional development programs - was supposed to be implemented in fall 2008.
Teacher evaluation processes - was supposed to be determined for the start of the 2009 school year.
Principal evaluation connected to the school performance framework and school-specific goals - implemented beginning in 2009
New performance evaluation for Central Office staff - implemented beginning in 2009.
eSIS Enhancements migration - was supposed to be complete by summer 2009.
Academic Systems data migration - was supposed to be complete by summer 2009.
A new budget process - was supposed to be fully implemented beginning in fall 2009 for the 2010-11 budget.
A proposal for a major Web site overhaul - was supposed to be complete by spring 2009.
The Communications team was supposed to work closely with the Family Engagement staff and the School Family Partnership Advisory Committee to evaluate what we learn in the engagement process for the Strategic Plan and propose recommended changes. They have not.
A more meaningful communication channel between the superintendent and the School-Family Partnership Advisory Committee was supposed to be established for the 2008-09 school year. It wasn't.
Develop a customer service protocol, including a measurement tool, and send two groups through training (beginning with Transportation - was supposed to be done by fall 2008.

Outside of the Strategic Plan there are plenty of other missed commitments:

Making Meany high school ready
An aligned, written, taught and tested curriculum for APP
A review of Policy D12.00
Development of the STEM program at Cleveland
A response to the APP review
Responses to the list of unmet commitments on Director Martin-Morris' blog


So when is the Board going to start holding the superintendent accountable for getting this stuf done and getting it done on time?

Public Hearing On Operations and BTA III Levies

The Public Hearing for the Operations and BTA III levies is tonight at 6 p.m. at the district headquarters. There are 40 spots and 5 people (including me) signed up to speak. (I'm thinking it'll be an early evening.) These levies have huge ramifications for our district so it's important to at least be thinking about them.

You are likely to be hearing from your PTA (or PTSA) soon on these levies. Many PTAs do donate to the levy fund, Schools First. I am hoping to be able to make a presentation to some PTAs on the BTA III levy so if you are a PTA leader, you might be hearing from me.

I am hoping that the Board does make some good faith efforts to show both parents and taxpayers that they ARE going to hold staff accountable for the state of our facilities and the capital money that is spent on them. If not, then it is likely that there is going to be active opposition to the BTA III levy. The district has many things going against them going into this levy so they have their work cut out for them. Just saying, "It's for the kids" is not going to work.

I would like nothing more than to tell the readers of this blog to vote for both levies. I absolutely endorse the Operations levy. I would like to do the same for the BTA III levy but I won't and I can't unless something changes before the levy election.

Rainier Beach Donations

After much back and forth and looking at various options, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to give money to Rainier Beach High School in support of any book needs (which are likely to be for AP books as it is not certain there is a shortage elsewhere) is to donate to RBHS via the Alliance for Education. One hundred percent of your donation goes to RBHS.

The one caveat is that the money is administered by the principal. There is not a way to designate the donation solely for books. Mr. Gary is a caring and enthusiastic principal and I don't have a real reason to doubt that if money comes in that he won't spend it for books. However, as the principal, he has sole authority over the money and if he really thought it was better spent elsewhere, he could do it. I did try to get Mr. Gary on record as promising to spend any donations on books but I wasn't able to get an answer from him.

The AP teacher, Mr. Moriarty, waved me off trying to go through the PTSA. He left me with the impression that they are small and struggling and it might be too much work for them. I also researched Donors Care and suggested to Mr. Moriarty that it might be a way for the money to go directly to his project (more AP classes) but he did not respond. (Only teachers can apply to start a project at Donors Care, not parents or administrators. I had thought it might be too much work for him to take on.)

However, I feel Mr. Gary is sincere and since he knows that Mr. Moriarty had asked for books for AP that he will indeed follow-thru and direct any donations to a book fund. (According to the Alliance, the RBHS fund at the Alliance has been largely inactive for quite awhile so any new donations would signal to Mr. Gary that it came from readers here.)

Here's how to donate. Be sure to in the appropriate area, either on your check if you mail it inor in the space designated through on-line donations, Rainier Beach High School. All donations are tax-deductible.

I personally cannot thank you enough for your caring and support on this issue. By helping a struggling school, you send into motion a number of things like getting more AP sooner, improving morale and sending a message to the district that parents are willing to step up in support of schools not their own. By making RBHS a better school, we make our district better for all of us.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Parents Divided or United

Once again, the district's "feedback" process has pitted families against families, neighborhoods against neighborhoods. Unfortunately, for every family that is unhappy about being assigned away from a popular school, there's usually another family happy to be assigned to it. So, how can we win?

The real problem is: The district has failed to convince us that they have a credible plan to improve the less popular schools. (Are they even trying to convince us?)

I applaud Melissa's "don't give up" sentiment and think everyone should continue to advocate for boundary changes they believe are necessary, but please ALSO advocate for developing a credible plan to improve more schools now. And I'm not talking about more "excellence for all" lip service -- I'm talking about specific steps they will take to improve schools.

Examples of specifics? We all have our own. We need more money from the state, but it's not just about funds. For me, I'm convinced it comes down to giving the schools more freedom to try. I didn't agree with everything Scott Oki had to say last night or in his book, but I did agree with a bunch of his proposals:

- Every school should have its own Board made up of community leaders, charged with actually listening to people who are served by the school. That Board should have the power to hire or fire the principal (just like the School Board should be holding the Superintendent accountable.)

- Every principal should have the freedom to do whatever it takes to improve their school -- including hiring and firing teachers, developing their own assessments, and finding innovative ways to make instruction relevant and fun. We don't need charter schools in Washington, but we do need schools that are not shackled by bureaucracy.

- We need more teachers, fewer central administrators. We have more non-teachers in SPS than teachers! What are we getting for that? In countries like Japan, they typically have a ratio of 4 teachers to every 1 administrator. The primary business of schools is teaching and that is where our dollars should be going.

- Let's work to get more volunteers (parents, business, organizations, even older kids) into all neighborhood schools. Together, we have to keep up high expectations for all students and schools. (That means rigor -- not D's to graduate.)

How can we get there? For one thing, we need the unions to work with us. There could and should be a win-win partnership between parents and the union -- once we agree to put kids first. If we fight for hiring more teachers and improving more schools, then the Teacher's Union benefits. And let the union lead the discussion for what defines a poor performer (teachers know which of their peers are struggling) and let peers review all teacher dismissals to ensure nobody is unfairly targeted for whistle-blowing or to free up salary.

If you disagree with me, I'd love to hear other suggestions for changes that don't pit parent vs. parent and neighborhood vs. neighborhood. If we want to fix things, we need to find more positions we can all agree on because right now parents don't have much a voice in the process. And at the end of the day, there just aren't enough seats in (insert popular school name here) for everyone who wants to go there.

Don't Give Up

There seems to be a feeling of resignation over the maps in this second round. Is it worth it to continue advocating for what you believe needs to be changed or modified?

Absolutely.

There's a couple of reasons. One, the Board needs to know that parents can and will stand up. If you won't stand up for your beliefs on the assignment plan, when will you? Otherwise, staff will be the louder voice (and the Board already gives them a bigger nod because of their knowledge base).

However, as I said in my remarks at the public hearing, parents are on the ground, every day, in their neighborhoods and schools. You walk in the walk zones, you know the rise and fall of streets and you know what makes your neighborhood tick. Staff CANNOT know this as you do and that is your strength. Use it.

If you (or a group) feel strongly, then lobby hard. Send e-mail every day (but have a different tweak on your message each time). Better yet, know what the Board rarely gets? Snail mail. If you are in a group, all send the same color envelope.

Also, Sherry Carr and Michael De Bell both have community meetings on Saturday. Show up in huge numbers. Do not let people around you say, "It's too late" or "They won't listen." There's also a Curriculum and Instruction Meeting at 4:30 on Monday. Show up at 4:00 p.m. in the lobby and grab the members (Chow, Carr and Martin-Morris) of that Committee and give them even more information.

Mary Bass. Mary is still a Board member for this vote and guess what? Get her in person and she listens.

BUT, don't make threats. Don't say you'll leave the district or sue; it never works.

Don't give up. It ain't over until it's over (ask Mike McGinn).

PSAT Results

It never hurts to ask.

So I had sent a Public Disclosure request for the PSAT results by grade at each school, school, grade level across the district and district overall. I had spoken to the head of Advanced Learning, Bob Vaughn, briefly about this and he said they had not had time to break out any results.

Then I called Boeing. (They paid for it.) Turns out they don't have those results either but are due a report by the end of the year from the district. The guy I spoke to said the results are public data.

The response I received from the district's Public Records was this:

"I am writing in response to your email below requesting PSAT test results. In doing so, I learned that the test results that we receive are in a format that cannot be easily incorporated into our information, which would allow us to release statistical information without violating individual student confidentiality. I am looking into whether it would be possible to redact or remove student identification from the results we get from the College Boards and/or extract statistical totals.

I anticipate being able to give you another response or update on or before December 4, 2009. Please let me know if you have any questions."

I really respect Joy Stevens (who the the district's senior legal assistant and handles public records). I'm sure she get plenty of requests and has her work cut out for her. But I find it hard to believe that they would have formatted them in such a tight fashion that you could not find results in different forms (grade, school, district) without revealing students' names. What use would they really be to the district except as an exercise in getting a large number of students to try this test? Hmmm.

Looking for the H1N1 Vaccine?

I've been searching for the H1N1 vaccine for my sons. I found a list of pharmacies (through King Country Health) that list availability. Call ahead if you can to make sure they still have it. The list is updated daily.

(Note: if you are against vaccinations, fine. I just put this here for those who are interested in getting the shot/mist for their child.)

Public Hearing on Boundaries

I attended and spoke at the Public Hearing for the SAP Boundaries last night. All the Board were in attendance as well as the Superintendent. The newly-elected Board members were not there and I saw no press that I recognized. The testimony was audio-taped. I would say there were roughly 50-60 people in attendance (not a big crowd at all).

I won't go thru every single person's speech (there were 40 including me). Here are some highlights:

• number one with a bullet (again); grandfathering of siblings. Parents just have such uncertainty about what to do and how they could handle two little children (or more) at two schools. I spoke to this issue in my remarks saying, on the subject of reopening Sand Point, Old Hay and McDonald that all should open as K-5s in order to give those parents the option to have their children in one school. The issue is quite pressing in the NE as many parents may not be able to move Child 1 from an out-of-attendance area school to their new attendance area school where Child 2 will be. There just isn't space. (I have a feeling that even if they grandfather siblings, there will be forced cases of people with children at two schools. I'm just not sure if the district could really guarantee all parents one school for two kids even if the parents are willing to move the older child.) However, this is indeed an issue over all the district as parents from the Ballard area and West Seattle weighed in as well.
  

• There was one advocate for Madrona being an Option school who made the point that ALL the other K-8 were option schools.
  

• There was a contingent from Loyal Heights. Apparently in the new version of the maps, the southern boundary was changed that leaves many people who live very close by Loyal Heights now unable to attend it. They brought signs.

• There was some advocacy for concentric circles and distance being used instead of lottery as a tie-breaker. (One person claimed that some elementaries have different holiday dates and early release dates. Really?)

• A guy from the group Friends of McDonald pointed out that his group had received grant money from $15K to $29K to renovate the play area. The irony is that the way the boundaries are drawn, those people are not in the McDonald area. (These are the kind of committed parents that the district wants; I'd rethink those boundaries.)

• Still issues over the boundaries in parts of West Seattle that people feel are going to unfairly influence socioeconomics in that area.

• There were a couple of speakers on the issue of the north boundary for Ballard High School. It is troubling that so many kids will have to take two buses to get to Ingraham when Ballard is so easy for many to get to on one bus. It's one thing to have to get up early to take a bus to school but waiting for two Metro buses (and Metro not always being on-time) is worrisome.

• A very interest take from a single mom with a teenager and an elementary student. She said she does her best to be involved at her children's schools but she worries for parents like herself who want their children at good schools. She said a good school is one with involved parents so that she knows, going in, that there are people there supporting the school.

• One woman got a lot of applause for what she terms "soft or bubble" boundary for those who live within 3 blocks of a school boundary. Under this overarching amendment (which would negate redrawing boundaries), if you live within 3 blocks of a school, you get a ONE time option to decide which one. After that, you are committed to that school for all your children. It's an intriguing idea because it would certainly make a lot of people who are unhappy over walk zones happier. I have no idea how doable this is in reality.

• One guy who lives in the Tangletown area (this is between Green Lake and Wallingford) noted (as I had as well) that Tracy referenced "new" data on McDonald that changed its boundaries. His question was "where is this data so we can review it?" Another speaker said that the new McDonald boundary really made no sense because NE 50th is such an obvious one for that area.
  

• One woman advocated for assignment news to come sooner so that parents can have more options on what they want to do. I agree but I doubt staff can do it because of the VAX. She said her school, John Hay, had done its own survey on how many people want to go where and could share the info with the staff. Which begs the question: will staff/Board listen to any data that isn't generated by the district?

• More than one complaint surfaced about the amount of time given to this round of maps versus the first round. (There were also people who claimed they had "no idea" the maps could change and were blindsided by the changes. C'mon. This process has been in motion and I suspect the talk of the parking lot/grocery store/playground. At some level you have to accept some responsibility to keep up.)
  

• Dr. Carol Simmons, a long-time educator, pointed out how skewed the diversity at the high schools was going to become under this plan. Ballard would now be 72% white versus Franklin's 92% students of color. Roosevelt would be 74% white versus Rainier Beach High's 92% students of color. It's a pretty solid point.

• Another example, Roxhill Elementary, would see their F/RL change and they would be almost 90%. As well, two of its boundaries are on the streets where the school sits. This one needs to be looked at for sure.

• One person pointed out a disparity in that some neighborhoods's 5th graders have the choice to move together to middle school and others have been separated. For example, Green Lake kids have been split, with some going to Eckstein and others to Hamilton while Laurelhurst has been kept together and can move as one to Hamilton. (I did ask a Laurelhurst parent why I hadn't heard more from that area about the Hamilton assignment. He shrugged and said, "We got Roosevelt" and that they feel Hamilton is on a quick rise up.
  

• There is worry in West Seattle elementaries that they are full now and will face the same issues as NE elementaries in just a couple of years. They asked about the plan if that happens and complained about Cooper being closed. (Yes, and there's that ripple I keep speaking of from previous events.)

• There was one speaker for Orca and grandfathering transportation. We haven't heard much about this but I suspect many people don't realize they may not get transportation to the school they are currently enrolled in.

Quotes

• "We need a rational and sensible sibling policy."
  
• "We are a victim of our own address."
• "Kids have a right to be with their friends." (That's an interesting social point; should it be part of the consideration for a SAP?)
• "We need to know the plan for future boundary changes; this is nerve-racking."

Lastly, I had a dad come to me at the end of the meeting with some interesting data about Laurelhurst. Bruce Taylor is another one of those number-crunching parents I love. He figured out that Laurelhurst is likely to come out of this plan way underenrolled. And, that if they invest money into Sand Point, it might be wasted as many parents, if they learn there is room at Laurelhurst, will not enroll at Sand Point. You could end up with Sand Point being at 150 or less and then it will simply not work. His premise is that even if you do open it, it should be an Option school to draw in students and parents.

From his research:

Under the pending boundary proposal, Laurelhurst Elementary’s enrollment will fall from 462 (current) to 305 in 2015 (according the distric’ts projection on page 8: http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/DataBook_11042009_Section3.pdf

And my research indicates that the 305-student estimate is far too high. I have checked every address in the 2009-10 Laurelhurst Elementary student directory against the current boundary proposal. (see attachment “Laurelhurst Enrollment.xls”) Looking only at published addresses, 45.6 percent of current Laurelhurst Elementary families (129/283 families, 168 children) live outside the proposed boundary for Laurelhurst Elementary.

The student directory does not include address data for 59 families. Even if all 59 no-address families live within the boundary, then Laurelhurst enrollment will fall by 37.7 percent. In the very-best-case scenario Laurelhurst would enroll only 288 students. In the more-likely case, Laurelhurst would enroll closer to 251 students.

Dr. Libros: I encourage you to look more closely at the assumptions underlying Laurelhurst’s projected enrollment. Perhaps the district’s enrollment model shows Laurelhurst exporting and importing equal numbers of students, which is not the case. Such an assumption could explain the 305-student figure. Very few students leave the neighborhood for other public elementary schools.

MAP (Measures of Academic Progress)

A thread was request on this subject. There are five previous threads on this subject to refer to as well.

(Sorry, I made a bad assumption that readers would know I meant the assessment tool and not new boundary maps. My apologies.)

Really? Still Open Spots?

I called this morning to get on the Speakers List for the Public Hearing on the BTA III levy for Thursday. I also asked about the list for tonight's hearing for the SAP Boundaries. There is room on the BTA III one and there may still be a few spots for tonight's.

Call 252-0042 to get on the list (it's an automated call).

I am quite surprised that the Public Hearing for tonight wasn't full as of Friday afternoon. People had seemed so unhappy with the format for the Boundaries meetings that I thought some would take the opportunity to address the Board for 3 full minutes.

Also, you can write to
hearing@seattleschools.org

Your comments will be part of the official record of the public hearing you are addressing. These are hearings that the district is legally obligated to have and ANY input - via phone, e-mail, in person or snail mail - has to be put into the legal record (as opposed to any comments made at the feedback/informational meetings).

In fact, this business of public comment at hearings is at the crux of a lawsuit brought by a group of people over the last round of school closures. They are saying that not all the comments given at the hearing are in the public record. (I saw a recent story on it and cannot find it again. If someone has the link, please put it in your post.)

Public Hearing

Two Public Hearings this week of note.

One is the Public Hearing on the Boundary Maps which is tomorrow, Monday the 9th from 6-8 p.m. at the Stanford Center. This is the LAST public input the Board will take (but e-mail/lobby them all you want privately). I didn't call to get on the list as I felt that it was important for continuing parents to have first dibs. I'll call tomorrow and see if it is full (they have room for 40 speakers). I will note that they will ONLY take 40 speakers; this hearing is a specific legal obligation and I have never seen a variation from even when people ask for time for all those who wish to speak.

I would advise going as your presence, your applause will count with the Board.

The other Public Hearing is on Thursday, the 12th for the BTA III and Operations levies. It is also from 6-8 p.m. I don't know if they have taken sign-ups for this hearing; I'll check tomorrow.

This is also important. I support the idea of both levies and will be voting for certain for the Operations levy. However, I will NOT vote for the $270M BTA III levy if I don't see some good faith measures from the Board in terms of their fiduciary responsibility for the use of capital funds in this district BEFORE the election.

I sincerely recommend you do the same. The hard cold facts:

• this district is $500M (half-a-billion dollars) in backlogged maintenance. A choice was made long ago to reduce basic maintenance spending and it continues to this day. So this responsibility truly DOES fall onto the Board and the Superintendent.

• We are not in line with what other districts spend (Hey Meg! Here's your next investigation.) for basic maintenance. The State Auditor has confirmed this to the district. Additionally, we spend a lot more on our renovations than do other districts.
  

• The BTA III levy will NOT get us out of this hole - nowhere near it.
  

• And, because nearly 20% of the $270M is going to reopen the 5 closed schools, fewer schools are getting what they need.
  

• The B in BTA is for Buildings and yet the amount being spend on actual building maintenance has gone down from the first two. Why? Because this "capital" measure is slowly getting hijacked by more technology and academic needs. I don't disagree that the technology is needed but I worry that we are putting technology ahead of safe, decent buildings. I don't agree that any academics should be on BTA (the "A" used to be for athletics but now has morphed to academic needs).
  

NOTHING will change until the district is put on notice. They won't magically wake up one day and change the basic maintenance funding. Do we wait until the figure gets to three-quarters of a billion? A billion?

It's a losing game. We need change now to help those in poor condition buildings AND protect the multi-millions we have spent on new buildings. If those nice, new, shiny buildings aren't maintained, do we honestly believe they will be decent buildings in 20, 25, 30 years? No.

West Blog Report on Sundquist Meeting

It's always good to keep up with what is happening in all parts of the district and our friends over at the super West Seattle blog went to the Saturday community meeting with Steve Sundquist. Some eye-opening stuff there that is valid for many other parts of the district. Here's what I found interesting:

- parents in West Seattle (well, some) are worried about the economic divide that is being created by schools with higher free/reduced lunch students all feeding into one middle school while the schools with less F/RL feed into the other. Since they are setting up the middle schools areas to almost "feed" into the high schools (even though that isn't technically what the SAP does), then you'll have that same divide continuing into high school.

-one parent has a very passionate plea about PTAs (she's talking about Concord). She said she knew going in that they were struggling and that she sees that not having a PTA system in place makes the struggle harder. This would be a great place for the Seattle Council PTSA to step in to mentor but the district (via the principal) needs to give parents support as they try to organize.

- several parents asked why Concord and Denny are not considered option schools if they are international schools (sound familiar?). Answer: "Sundquist said he’d wondered about that too and had asked the district’s chief academic officer to study it."

- Steve said a couple of interesting things. Here's what I wrote in the comments section:

“Sundquist took sharp issue with that, calling the money raised by PTSAs and other such efforts “a tiny tiny sliver of the funding” schools get..”

Really? He knows how much PTSA money is raised in every single school? And how much is raised by school foundations (yes, some schools have them) and booster groups? It’s a LOT of money. Likely more than he would like to admit. How does he think the Roosevelt and Garfield Jazz bands exist? The district? Please. Those programs exist because of the fantastic directors who are aided by the time and resources of parents (for decades). Also (and sadly), because this district spends so little on basic maintenance, PTAs are starting to pay for maintenance that should be under the district’s domain but hey, great if parents pay for it.

Also, he said that “no decisions on grandfathering are likely before January, Sundquist said, saying the district has to finalize the attendance maps first, then see how many families will be affected.”

The attendance maps will be final by vote on November 18th. The first time we see a transition plan will be December 16th at a Board Work Session. That’s where it will be revealed how much, if any, grandfathering of siblings will happen. The transition plan will be approved in January but we will see outlines of the transition plan in December. (This was verified at the recent Roosevelt meeting on the new boundary maps held this past Thursday. Steve was in attendance and this question was asked and answered.)

One mom, Kathleen, said this:

"During the meeting it was suggested that PTAs over-all effect on schools was mostly through fundraising. PTAs contribute only a small amount of the over-all budget for a school compared to the school district and therefore the schools without PTAs are not that disadvantaged. I would argue that the effect PTA’s have on the success of the school has more to do with their ability to build community and train parents to advocate for their programs."

Cleveland STEM

The Board has voted to make Cleveland High School an option school next year with a STEM focus. STEM stands for Science Technology Engineering and Math. Beyond that announcement, however, there is nothing very much determined about the school, what it will offer, or how it will function. There are a lot of questions that haven't been answered.

This year's freshmen will be part of the STEM school, but this year's sophomores, juniors, and seniors will not. I'm not sure what will happen to them.

It is unclear what classes Cleveland will offer that will reflect the STEM focus. Will Cleveland have more or different math and science classes than other Seattle high schools? Will it have any math or science classes other than those available at Garfield and Roosevelt? What will be the Technology classes? What will be the Engineering classes? No one knows.

Will Cleveland have CTE courses or programs that reflect the STEM focus. I have heard people suggest that Cleveland duplicate the Biotech Academy CTE courses now found only at Ballard High School. Will it? What other CTE courses will Cleveland have? No one knows.

The District has been pretty clear that they expect the STEM school to be particularly rigorous. The Board Action that created the school reads: "STEM high schools are unique, and offer a systematic, four-year course of study with an intense focus on preparing students for academic and professional futures in science, technology, engineering and math. Because of this, a STEM school is not necessarily desirable to all students." Here's a quote from the school web site: "Why is Cleveland becoming a STEM high school? Seattle Public Schools has a need to improve its offerings in advanced science district-wide, and recognizes the need to offer a highly rigorous, college preparatory high school choice located in south Seattle." So will the STEM school be looking for students who are specifically interested in pursuing a rigorous course of study in the maths and sciences or will it be open to students of all abilities and interests? No one knows.

Now the bad news. These answers are not likely to come soon. In fact, they are not likely to come before the close of open enrollment. The Cleveland STEM project is being led at the District by Susan Derse, who is not particularly well known for her effectiveness or ability to communicate.

I fear that the STEM program at Cleveland will never appear. The Board Action creating the program included this requirement:

Further, prior to the Superintendent making a final decision to open a STEM program at Cleveland High School, the Superintendent will provide the School Board with: (1) a report from the project team addressing the deliverables described in this School Board Action Report; and (2) an identification of the funding source(s), both for start-up and long term, for the STEM program.

What are those deliverables?

In order to effectively implement the STEM program a project team has been identified, including a project manager and sponsor, and a statement of work has been created. The following are deliverables for the team:
• Identification of the appropriate STEM program model
• Development of a project budget and long-term costs for the program (note: this project team is not charged with identifying the funding source but rather with identifying the costs)
• Creation of a communications plan, including a plan for stakeholder engagement
• Identification of the necessary instructional skill sets to ensure staff are ready
• Creation of an implementation plan, including a readiness plan for the 09-10 Cleveland 9th graders, in preparation for a 2010-2011 continuation at CHS STEM
• Creation of a transition plan for those students who chose not to remain in the program
• Creation of an evaluation tool for the first, second and third years of implementation

First, I presume that the Board will forget that they put this requirement on the Superintendent. Second, I doubt that the superintendent will remember it for herself and provide the required deliverables. Third, even if I am surprised and the superintendent DOES provide some sort of "appropriate STEM program model" I doubt that it will have to be (or will be) very detailed. All of the rest can be sketched out on the back of a napkin. The Board requires these things but there are no established standards for these things so they must accept whatever the superintendent provides.

In the new Student Assignment Plan, the District's Enrollment Planning office assumes that 5% of all students in the attendance areas for the north-end schools will choose Cleveland STEM. What's more, the District expects 6.5% of the students in the Garfield attendance area to leave it for Cleveland. Right now, this appears to be an insane and absurd expectation. The only way it could become any kind of possible would be if Cleveland STEM actually offered something unique and truly rigorous, which could mean real math, real science, and real rigor.

The vast majority of the students now at Cleveland do not appear ready for that. Only 31 students (21.2%) in Cleveland's 10th grade class met the standard on the Math portion of the WASL in 2009. Of course, that's a huge improvement over last year's number of 12.2%. Only 22 (15.5%) met the standard on the science test. So who is going to do this advanced work?

The District expects 13% of the students in the Franklin and Rainier Beach attendance areas to choose Cleveland STEM. If that were to happen, and if they were choosing Cleveland STEM for the math and science rigor, that would represent a devastating brain drain on these schools. Only 17.6% of the tenth grade students at Rainier Beach passed the math portion of the WASL last year (none with a level 4 score). If 13% of that community's students left the school seeking more rigorous math, it would leave the school with very few students performing at grade level in math. The math pass rate at Franklin was 28%. Franklin would also be significantly altered if 13% of that school's students left in search of greater math challenge.

During Open Enrollment this year only 49 incoming 9th grade students named Cleveland as their first choice for assignment and only 88 were assigned there during open enrollment. By October 1, however, there were 244 9th grade students enrolled at Cleveland. Some of those students are second-year freshmen who did not earn five credits in their first year at Cleveland. I can't find a number for them. The rest are students who enrolled after open enrollment. Under the new student assignment plan, I don't think nearly as many students will be enrolled at Cleveland after open enrollment. Instead, I think that students who appear in April or later (there are obviously a lot of them) will be assigned to their attendance area high school. Since Cleveland will not be anyone's attendance area high school, there may not be many students added to Cleveland's 9th grade class after open enrollment. Moreover, the district will not be able to make mandatory assignments to Cleveland as they have in the past.

Without some serious work getting done very soon, Cleveland is likely to draw little more than 50 students into their incoming 9th grade class for next year. To prevent that disaster the District is going to have to take some strong steps and take them soon.

1. They are going to have to define the program. I haven't seen any sign that they are even close to doing this. They are divided between making the program authentic and rigorous versus making the program attractive, accessible, and accomodating to the under-performing students in the area. They need to resolve that conflict. I hope that they will decide to make it rigorous but to create supports for students who are not yet prepared for that rigor. Bad news: the District is really bad at this sort of decision and this sort of work. Good news: Princess Sharif, the Cleveland principal, is one of the few people around here who find that path and make it work.

2. They are going to have to connect with outside agencies to create those formal relationship with local STEM companies, institutions and universities that provide both students and faculty deliberate STEM projects and internships; where they engage with real math, science, and engineering. Bad news: the District is really bad at this.

3. They are going to have to engage the community about what sort of school they want Cleveland STEM to be. Bad news: the District is really bad at this.

4. They are going to have to promote the Cleveland STEM program to attract students to the program. This step has to come AFTER the previous three or they won't have anything to sell. Bad news: the District is really bad at this.

So unless the District starts developing and using new skills really fast, this program is going to be tiny, tiny, tiny.

Now for the flower growing in the cow chip. My 8th grade daughter, an APP student at Washington, may be very interested in Cleveland STEM if it is a rigorous and authentic math and science program. As a bonus, the school is within walking distance of our house. This could be really really good for her. Given the commitments made to this school and this program, if she were to enroll she could find herself in some very small classes with a lot of individual attention and tons of support. But wait, there's more. In addition, Cleveland was totally renovated just two years ago. The facility is gorgeous and state of the art. And they are getting more science labs this year as well.

If you have a student who is really looking for a rigorous math and science program, this opportunity could be a real bonanza. Since enrollment is likely to be low, you are practically guaranteed assignment upon request. The more high performing students who appear and demand rigor, the more that is what the school will provide. There is a lot of pride on the line for the District here and they need to make this school perform (or at least appear) as promised. This is a high profile effort on their part and one tied closely to a lot of public/private partnerships. There is a risk that they will water it down and wash it away, but I'm pretty sure that, even if they do, there will be some extraordinary opportunities here for the students who seize them.

Your thoughts?

Principals

A reader asked for a thread on new principals but heck, let's just open it up. What are your thoughts on principals? What, to you as a parent, makes a good principal? Is your principal responsive to parents? To staff? How is staff morale at your school?

I have said many times that I used to think that a successful school was a three-legged stool with one leg being staff, one leg being parents, and one leg being the principal (and the seat is, of course, the students being supported by the legs). However, as I've moved through the system I see that a principal is (can be) the most important part of a good school. Or rather, you can't be a successful school without a good principal

A good principal can inspire both staff and parents. A good principal can make parents believe (and therefore invest time and resources) in a school. A good principal can make students feel welcome every day.

My experience is that I've had good and not-so-good principals. There was only one principal who I felt was ineffective (for staff, students and parents). Luckily she was only around a couple of years and has now left our district. I have to say that there was really only one or two principals who I felt really tried to be there for parents. Oh, some gave lip service to parents but seemed to expect that parents would, of course, give their all for their school.

I believe that principals are more likely to want to please their staffs and their bosses. I do get that; you want to have a good relationship with the people you work with. Even though parents are the so-called consumers and the ones who are the glue in every good school, most principals will side with staff or protect their staff before agreeing with parents. I know there are union rules about what a principal can say or not say about staff but it is demoralizing to have a concern and have it - usually - vanish into a black hole in the principal's office. It is also sad to go to a principal with a new idea and ask about making it happen and it just dies.

It can feel sometimes like principals expect much from parents but parents aren't in a position to expect a lot from a principal.

I believe that the principal's job is a balancing act and I believe that many principals do their best every day. It's just that it's a job with many moving parts and it takes a good skill set to be good at it.

Meeting on Boundaries at Roosevelt

I attended the informational meeting on boundaries at Roosevelt High on Thursday night. There were about 60+ attendees along with staff. Steve Sundquist, Hairum Martin-Morris, Peter Maier and Sherry Carr attended as well. Dr Enfield was the lead staff person with Tracy Libros giving the presentation.

The handouts included the new map, the SAP, information about map revisions as well as a curious handout about the STEM program (I'll try to get a link for it). The information sheets about the map revisions were very cursory and did not fully flesh out how boundary changes impacted other schools. For example, they noted Roosevelt's changes and Ingraham's changes but not that it made Hale's boundaries much smaller. They said at the Work Session that something like 42 out of 58 elementaries boundaries changed but that was not reflected in the information on the sheet.

Also, Tracy made note of the updating of the FAQs but I could swear that questions I've heard at previous meetings haven't made it to there yet.

Tracy's presentation was what you heard before if you attended a previous boundaries meeting. She did add information about the new maps and their boundaries.

Dr. Enfield again said the "program placement process is changing" but didn't say how. (This comes later.) She also said that teachers were, for the first time, receiving professional development in curriculum. (Really?)

(New to this meeting; little signs on posts. One said "Equitable, understandable, predictable". Another said, "Our new SAP is an important step we must take to ensure that every school is an excellent school." I'm thinking they have gotten some pushback from parents about why they are changing the SAP.)

Questions from the audience:

1. Will changes be allowed to the maps after this? Tracy said that the Board can introduce amendments at any time before the Nov. 18th vote. She also said there would be NO more changes made to the maps by staff. So basically, you need to lobby the Board AND be able to show that any changes you want won't create a huge ripple out to other areas. I think that is one key point for anything the Board would want to amend - how much change to one area affects other areas?
2. Grandfathering siblings needs to be part of the transition plan. Tracy said that a couple of PTAs have surveyed their members and contacted her office to say that they thought it would only be small numbers of students impacted. (No I don't know which PTAs and I don't know how the surveys were conducted.)
3. Did staff consider input from those who liked the first maps? Tracy said yes and they had received a range of responses.
   
4. The 10% Open Choice seats seem to be a problem as many people feel that isn't enough and worry over them not truly being "open". Tracy said that the Open Choice seats are being made more complicated than they are. They will truly be open except for the sibling tiebreaker in the case of too many applicants for the number of seats.
5. How is the program placement process changing? It is changing because now the district is coordinating the work of program placement with student assignment, levies, and capacity management which they haven't done before. She also mentioned having advanced learning in every elementary eventually. She said the program placement would be more coordinated and systemic.
   
6. Is the first time we see the Transition Plan at the Dec. 16th Board Work Session? Yes, it will not be ready before then. (I find this hard to believe. They surely have been working on it and I really think a rough outline should be given out sooner. That way when the Board does go to the Work Session, they will have feedback from parents in hand. December 16th is two days before the Holiday break and then the issue literally drops off the radar.)
7. There is worry about the high (proportional to the other NE elementaries) F/RL number at the new Sand Point. As well the district is going to migrate the ELL program at Bryant over to Sand Point (over the next few years). What will be done to make this program attractive and successful to parents? Superintendent will appoint principals who will start the design teams which will include parents, blah, blah.
8. Is the district phasing out Spectrum? Tracy answered this one "No" but the answer should have come from Dr. Enfield.
   
9. Worry over equity of high school offerings? Dr. Enfield said they are starting with a baseline of offerings and that would include a baseline of AP classes.

Questions at my table (which had Sand Point attendance area parents):

1. What will Sand Point have in the way of staffing? There are a core staffing standards that you can see on-line. Pat Sanders, who is an elementary school director, said that they have learned from the Jane Addams experience and will apply that knowledge to the newly reopened schools.
   
2. One parent said it is better to have more F/RL kids because the school gets more money. (And where is the tipping point for it not being good?)
3. One parent raised the issue of where the money was coming from for Sand Point's renovation. There is worry over no playground there. Another parent said she heard that they were cannibalizing the BEX money from Ingraham due to their addition work being stalled out. (I have no idea if this is true but it would make sense. I'll check.
4. Parents who have come together over Sand Point are not creating a PTA and they didn't do it because they were excited about the school. They obviously heard this reported to the Board as if it were a good thing.
   

Table Reports:

• too much stress over the worry about siblings. Take it off the table now. "Grandfathering siblings used to be a guarantee and needs to be a guarantee."
  
• North Seattle Coalition talked for years about reopening schools and yet it is just happening now.
• belief that there is a need for more Open Choice seats (this was echoed about 3-4 times). As well, go back to using the concentric circle model for high schools.
  
• belief that high school students need more access to the different programs.
• has the district included the idea of shifts from private to public and vice versa?
• what about Metro issues for high school students?
• concern over not knowing if reopened schools will be K-5 or just a few lower grades
• concern over dividing kids from their friends
• boundary lines should, when possible, be arterials and not the middle of the street. Should be "fuzzy" boundaries for people who live within a block of a boundary.
• take high school out of this assignment plan and leave it alone
• more segregation in the south end with this plan
• want a distance tie-breaker
• Friends of McDonald, a neighborhood group, said they supported the grounds and the building that the district largely abandoned. They don't like the boundaries for the school and have worked hard for the building.

My observation is that parents are getting frustrated and feisty, many parents worry over getting access to high school offerings and that I'm not sure that I believe most concerns will be addressed by either staff or the Board.

Twice-Exceptional Children

For Bright Students with Disabilities and Learning Differences

Please come to a community meeting to learn more about bright students who have disabilities and school difficulties, known as "Twice-Exceptional".

Date: Monday, November 16th
Time: 7-9pm
Location: Hamilton International Middle School at Lincoln High School
in the Library
4400 Interlake Ave. N., Seattle, 98103

This meeting is open to all parents of students at all grade levels. If you have a student currently in Advanced Learning programs, APP or Spectrum, AP classes, or the IB program, who also has a 504 plan, Special Ed IEP, or has difficulties in school due to medical or learning issues, it is important for you to attend. Information will be provided, support groups are forming.

For more information, email Lynne at:
contact@nwexceptionalchildren.org

From SPS School Beat

Here's a link to the SPS School Beat.

• Seattle Public Schools’ elementary and K-8 schools will be closed from Monday, November 23 through Wednesday, November 25 for Parent-Teacher Conferences. This is the first year that all elementary and K-8 schools will be closed Districtwide for parent-teacher conferences. The new schedule will be less disruptive to student learning while also providing greater consistency and predictability for families.

Interesting. I remember how difficult it was with a shortened day but I had no idea that during the entire Thanksgiving week, the elementaries and K-8s will be closed. How do parents feel? Do the parents of middle school kids in K-8s get conferences? Is so, that seems unfair that if you go to a K-8, you get a conference and if you go to middle school you don't.

• The High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE, formerly the WASL) for Science will be given this year for high school students on one day for 125 minutes. (This from the science alignement presentation to the Board.)
  

• Seattle Public Schools was awarded the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Tools for Schools” Indoor Air Quality Leadership Award for its commitment and use of resources to address indoor air-quality concerns and issues in schools. SPS was recognized for its prompt and consistent action when an indoor air-quality concern was discovered or brought to its attention.
  

This is great and good for them. I will point out that it take awhile for the District to pay attention (and I'm glad that now that they are they are doing it well). I recall teacher Robert Femiamo repeatedly taking the district to task over air quality at Arbor Heights as well as parent who had been concerned with her student's health (he had cancer) at Hale. And, as you may remember, it was Wedgwood parents who lobbied, repeatedly, for clean water.

• A total of 82 schools earned up to $2,925 each to be used for resource conservation projects as part of the Shared Savings Program. Now in its third year, the program rewards schools for reaching conservation goals and/or reducing their use of energy, water, and waste. Also, 58 schools reduced energy use in 2008-09 compared to the previous year, and 41 schools reduced water use.

• Explorations in Math is hosting a special outreach event called MathFest 2009 on November 12. The event is the organization's third annual celebration of elementary students and math, and is designed to celebrate the thousands of children with whom it has worked over the past six years, which includes hundreds of Seattle Public Schools students. Held in a carnival-like atmosphere, more than 750 students, teachers, parents and community members “play math” at MathFest. Students build their confidence in and enthusiasm for math, and see that the community supports their achievements. The event is free. Click here for registration or call 206-325-0774 for more information.

MathFest 2009
Thursday, November 12
5-8 p.m.
Rainier Community Center
4600 38th Ave. S.

Good To Know

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

APP Blog Opened

As requested, a link to the APP Blog.

http://discussapp.blogspot.com

It does say that it is for elementary APP but I'm sure they would broaden the discussion to include middle and high school if you ask.

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:

• 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".

• 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

So before Tracy could get very far in her presentation, both Director Carr and Director Maier voiced questions over the obvious growth in area for Roosevelt and the decrease for Hale (adding area to both Ingraham and Roosevelt). Tracy said she would get to that issue.

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

She then gave brief examples of how they were moving towards those goals. She mentioned STAR mentoring for new teachers but I don't know anything about that program. She also said they (I think she meant principals) were doing instructional "rounds" this year, like residents in med schools.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 -

• 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.)

Middle Schools/Elementary SW/SE

• 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.

Central

• 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.

QA/Magnolia

• Coe has dropped its southern boundary down further south, just under McClure. Additionally, its eastern boundary shifted west towards McClure.

NW/NE

• 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.
  

What did I miss? (Or get wrong; my eyes are all googly by now.)

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.

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.

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.

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.