Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Community Meeting on Growth Boundaries - Mercer

I attended the first community meeting on Growth Boundaries at Mercer Middle School. It was jam packed in the Mercer lunchroom. The Hawthorne community turned out in force. School Board Director Betty Patu was there as were school board candidates Stephan Blanford and Suzanne Dale-Estey.

The meeting began with a totally useless presentation by Flip Herndon, Michael Tolley, Tracy Libros, and a man from Facilities. That sucked up half an hour.

Then a half hour was spent with the community members working in groups to identify the three things they liked about the plan and the three things they wanted to change. The groups did not report out. Instead, the group work was written down on large sheets of paper with a sharpie and district folks just collected them. They also collected question cards.

The last half hour, from 7:30 to 8:00, was supposed to be Q & A time, but mostly people had comments rather than questions. The comments were mostly about not messing with Hawthorne or expressions of puzzlement at some of the changes.



For example, why is an area north of Kimball being shifted from Kimball's attendance area to Maple's? This is the part of the Kimball attendance area that is furthest from Maple (there are other parts of the Kimball attendance area that are much closer the Maple) and this is an area that is in the walk zone for both Kimball and Beacon Hill, but not in the walk zone for Maple.

Some of the comments were just about the speaker's narrow self interest and some of them were uninformed, but I did hear the smartest thing I have ever heard anyone say at a community meeting. A man said that in the absence of any rationale provided for any of these decisions created a situation in which all of the decisions appeared arbitrary, the community couldn't understand or accept them, and the community couldn't make a case against them. Brilliant! He put his finger right on the core problem.

While I would like to think that the staff has a rationale for every decision, I certainly don't expect them to provide a footnote for each one. It would, however, be positive for them to provide the rationale for the big decisions. For example, the decision to swap middle school pathways for Hawthorne and Wing Luke. Why would the District move the bigger elementary school, Wing Luke (660), into the more crowded middle school, Mercer, and move the smaller elementary school, Hawthorne (275), into the middle school with space available? Instead of shifting 400 students from Aki to Mercer you would think that they would shift them the other way - or at least do nothing.

41 comments:

JvA said...

I was also at last night's meeting, speaking on behalf of Maple parents from Mid Beacon Hill. Basically, we have the exact same requests as the Georgetown parents -- for our neighborhood children to remain at the school we've all invested in over the years, which is much closer than Van Asselt.

I must admit to being uninformed about the plan for Dearborn Park becoming an option school, and that is why I asked about it. What is the plan for Dearborn Park to become a language immersion school, in terms of timeline, funding, and curriculum? No one could answer these questions for me. I believe I talked to Shauna Heath, and then I asked the question to the entire group as well.

Because it seems to me that most of the concerns expressed in the meeting about Kimball students being reassigned to Maple (which Kimball parents don't want) and Maple students being reassigned to Van Asselt (which Maple parents don't want) could be solved by Dearborn Park remaining an neighborhood school.

If anyone has any insight into the Dearborn Park change that seems to be precipitating many of these problems, I'd love to understand what's going on. Thank you!

Melissa Westbrook said...

I disagree with Charlie; I think the district SHOULD be able to have a rationale for every single change. Why? It changes boundaries, it changes everything for many students.

This rush to new language immersion schools when we are grappling with option/not option and what awaits those kids in middle and high school seems wrong. But DeBell is hellbent on this being his swan song and dammit! it will. (Just as I believe President Smith-Blum wants a third building at W-P.)

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the Hawthorne/Wing Luke swap is about the high schools, rather than the middle schools. I could easily imagine high school boundaries being re-drawn so that Hawthorne kids end up at Rainier Beach (think about current Aki and RB boundaries).

Focusing only on the middle school swap just leaves us with a decision that doesn't make a lot of sense. But, throw the high school into the mix and I think it becomes more rational.

- wall spaghetti

Anonymous said...

I agree that the question about the apparent arbitrariness of the plan was brilliant, and I might say this again tonight at the Nathan Hale meeting (assuming I can fit in the door - it will also be packed).

I know there are smart and good people like Tracy Libros behind these plans, but the District throws it out there without a lot of explanation, and parents are suddenly forced to try to decipher the reasons behind the proposals. I don't have a Ph.D in Seattle Schools, and I don't want one. It is not unreasonable that most parents focus their efforts on understanding/advocating for their own schools.

Every year, the format of these meetings make me angry. Too much time with bad staff presentations, then a poorly facilitated process to extract info from the crowd, then a line of people at a microphone for 30 minutes, and then it all disappears until the next meeting. It is wholly unsatisfying as a way of finding out what the community feels. This process is also a "divide and conquer" strategy, I think. Pull people into smaller units, and never reassemble their ideas into a whole.

The absolute worst thing about these plans and this process is that in advocating for what people know best (their own school, their own kids), they usually pit themselves against other schools and other parents. Everything seems like a zero-sum game between parents/schools. There are few avenues for using the process to unite us in providing the best for everyone.

- Process Problem

Charlie Mas said...

I finally got the explanation for why some language immersion schools are made option schools and why some of them remain attendance area schools.

I thought it had to do with the availability of native speakers. It does not. It is driven by the presence - or absence - of an English language program in the building.

John Stanford International School and McDonald are all language immersion. Neither of them offers an English language program. Students living in their attendance area who either don't want or don't qualify for language immersion go to B F Day (or some other school) instead. Since these schools are 100% language immersion, they are option schools.

Concord and Beacon Hill have language immersion programs, but they also offer an English language program. So they are attendance area schools.

Dearborn Park, when they designed their language immersion program designed it as a whole school program. They will not offer an English language program, therefore they become an option school.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Oh I understand why some LI schools are options and some aren't. But bringing more on-line when it is not clear the direction the existing ones are going seems wrong.

Process Problem, excellent comments.

Anonymous said...

"The absolute worst thing about these plans and this process is that in advocating for what people know best (their own school, their own kids), they usually pit themselves against other schools and other parents. "

And then the school district can feel comfortable in the belief that parents are only advocating in their narrow self-interest, and not the interests of all the children in SPS (which is the responsibility of the district). This logic then justifies any decision the district makes while undermining the relevance of parent input. The trend also prevents the acquisition of allies (including outsiders to the system), because from outside it sounds like parents whining about what happens to them (i.e. my special snowflake will have to go to a different school).

This scenario is one of the reasons why parents have to try to understand the bigger picture in advocating for what they know best, even if the district makes it hard for them.

(zb)

Anonymous said...

It is a catch 22, though.

zb

Charlie Mas said...

Here's something interesting from the meeting last night: Rainier Beach has been identified as the international education pathway high school in the southeast.

The international education pathway will go from Beacon Hill -> Mercer -> Rainier Beach.

This is odd, since Beacon Hill and Mercer are in the attendance area for Franklin, not Rainier Beach.

It is the natural result, however, of two dysfunctional practices.

First, the District continues to erroneously equate language immersion with international education. They are not synonymous. Also, the District mistakenly equate IB with international education. Again, they are not synonymous. And language immersion sure as heck isn't synonymous with IB. However, the intentionally muddied distinctions between these three is cultivated by the District staff who work to confuse people by using these terms interchangeably.

Second, IB was pushed into Rainier Beach not through the managed growth of International Education, but through an effort to pour sugar on Rainier Beach to make it attractive.

Families that are pursuing language immersion through Beacon Hill and Mercer will realize no advantage by sending their children to Rainier Beach instead of Franklin. The pursuit of IB is a separate question from language immersion and, frankly, from international education as well.

Charlie Mas said...

Oh, there were people complaining about how the changes affected their special little snowflake.

One of the last comments of the evening was a man opposing the middle school switch for Hawthorne because it meant that his kids would go to a low-performing school, Aki Kurose, instead of a high-performing school, Mercer. I don't know if he realized how whiney, self-absorbed, and entitled he sounded.

Anonymous said...

Has their been any push yet to grandfather siblings affected by the boundary change? Even for one year?

Carol

Anonymous said...

"Oh, there were people complaining about how the changes affected their special little snowflake."

I'm sure. And, frankly, that's all many parents really care about (or at least have time to care about, even if in a perfect world they would feel differently).

So part of the advice is simply political -- even if all you care about is what your kid gets out of SPS, yo need to make arguments that are broader than that.

zb

lendlees said...

Charlie-

HIMS program feeds into Ingraham...nowhere near it's boundaries (aka Roosevelt) so you are spot on with the IB vs. International disconnect.

Charlie Mas said...

Michael Tolley pretends that the policy and the procedure are clear, but if you are informed and you challenge him, he will them admit that there is a lot of self-contradiction.

They talk about all of these things: STEM, language immersion, international education, and option schools, as if they were programs. He makes presentations to the Board and the public in which he calls them programs, but they are NOT programs. At least not according to the Superintendent Procedure 2200SP. That procedure specifically identifies them as curricular foci.

This is just one more way in which he is dishonest with the Board and the public.

Anonymous said...

Has the district indicated when the changes will take affect? The boundary around my kids elementary has changed - am I safe to assume that they will not be required to change schools and that only incoming students are subject to the changes? I haven't heard any transition plans about schools that just had a boundary change (no new building or program).

yumpears

Anonymous said...

Charlie and the other poster, "special little snowflake" is another term for "someone's kid". I think it offensive to equate someone expressing a concern about how changes impact their kid with not caring about the rest of the student population. Again, few people have time or expertise to be advocates for all kids everywhere.

I wasn't there, and it sounds from the comment like the parent who spoke was insensitive at best and a jerk at worst, but as someone with a "special snowflake" that the district is again trying to move around to new locations far from home, I ask that you consider not painting everyone with the same broad brush.

- Process Problem

Melissa Westbrook said...

Yumpears, I believe boundary implementation will occur next school year. I'll ask Tracy Libros about this.

Someone said...

I have no kid/snowflake in the SPS fire (for which I am profoundly grateful after reading this blog for a while). However, more and more I hear Mr. Tolley's name being bandied about as being a huge roadblock re: biggest growth/planning problems. Why does he get away with the stuff people report? The misinformation, lack of responsiveness etc? Why does no one in authority call him out on it? They can't be blind to the issues I've seen raised here? Whose closet is hiding his skeleton? I truly don't know and am interested in why he continues to seemingly sabotage the district.

Charlie Mas said...

yumpears,

Although we can never know until the Board decides, everyone expects that students who are already enrolled in an attendance area school will continue to be assigned to that school even if the boundary change puts their home in another school's attendance area.

process problem, Yes. I absolutely agree that I'm being rude. It's intentional. I don't paint everyone with the same brush. Really it was just this one guy.

And, frankly, I was surprised by it.

Hawthorne is a turnaround school. Just a couple years ago it was, literally, the worst performing elementary school in the district.

These folks are not afraid to take a chance on a turnaround school. In fact, that was one of their most powerful arguments.

The District asked them to take a chance and they took it. The District asked them to form a community and they did. They created a strong community and strong school. They made it a Creative Approach School and they introduced a STEAM curriculum.

They worked hard and they built something great at Hawthorne and now the District is coming in and messing with them.

First, by designating Hawthorne as the Special Education program site for the Aki Kurose service area. This was a bad decision for everyone. It's a bad choice for the students with disabilities because Hawthorne is all the way up at the northern edge of the Aki Kurose service area - literally three blocks from the northern border. Hawthorne is so far out of the center of the Aki Kurose service area that it is, right now, outside the service area. It is also relatively inaccessible by public transit. So it's a crazy long bus ride for the students every day and difficult for families to engage.

Also, Hawthorne is a small school, with a capacity of only 329. With the special education programs there the neighborhood student capacity is only 275. So it is only 275 students who will have access to this amazing STEAM curriculum and the turnaround effort. Consider that Hawthorne is also supposed to be the Spectrum site for the Aki Kurose service area (a bad choice for the same reasons as SpEd), and access to the school by neighborhood kids is restricted even further.

The District should have a much stronger case before placing programs in such small schools. At Hawthorne they have no case at all.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Tolley's longevity? Well, he did learn at the feet of Dr. Goodloe-Johnson so that might explain a few things. No, I suspect he has a very well-crafted contract that protects him. I also think that he has benefitted from staying the course and being one of the last guys standing.

But like many a person in this state, I suspect that he (like Lynne Varner of the Times for example) may hear that siren call of charters, sooner or later.

Patrick said...

I have no kid/snowflake in the SPS fire (for which I am profoundly grateful after reading this blog for a while). However, more and more I hear Mr. Tolley's name being bandied about as being a huge roadblock re: biggest growth/planning problems. Why does he get away with the stuff people report? The misinformation, lack of responsiveness etc? Why does no one in authority call him out on it? They can't be blind to the issues I've seen raised here? Whose closet is hiding his skeleton? I truly don't know and am interested in why he continues to seemingly sabotage the district.

Someone, I quoted you because your post is unsigned and therefore will probably be deleted. If you don't want to log in, put a 1 or 2 word nickname to go by at the end of your post.

Tolley was hired under Goodloe-Johnson, and for her and Enfeld doing fake community engagement that was just enough to avoid a law suit was exactly what she wanted. There's a shortage of experienced senior district staff, and maybe that's why he remains. Or maybe that's what Banda wants too. It's hard to say from the outside.

Patrick said...

Oh, is Someone a nickname? Apologies if so.

I also wanted to add, there are many good experiences within Seattle Schools too. Good principals, schools, and teachers protect their students from many of the issues with the central administration.

Someone said...

@Patrick - yes, Someone is the "nickname" I've used here for over a year or so
thx

Anonymous said...

@ Process Problem and Charlie Mas

HERE HERE to the comments about the process (or the lack of it)

I'm curious about how tonight will go...

Eden

Anonymous said...

"Charlie and the other poster, "special little snowflake" is another term for "someone's kid""

Process Problem -- I am fully aware that all special snowflakes are someone's children. I further think that everyone has an obligation to take care of their own child.

I thought your analysis of what happens when the school district makes changes that have significant and visible impacts on one's own children without explaining the reasoning in general was spot on, and was trying to agree with you on how that creates a catch 22.

A parent is faced with an immediate negative impact for their child with no explanation of why the change was necessary for the system at large (and thus is put in a position of guessing). Then, they rightfully point out the negative impact on their child and are dismissed as only being concerned about themselves.

In this specific case it seems to me that, as Melissa has raised, the need for a option immersion school in the area should be part of the discussion

Maybe that's worth a thread of its own? the demand and need for an option immersion school and whether one should be placed at Dearborn?

zb

Charlie Mas said...

The rationale for a language immersion school at Dearborn Park is thinner and weaker than any of us would like. It's strictly operational.

Families with children in language immersion elementary schools want that language immersion to continue in middle school. However, it takes students coming from two elementary schools to create the critical mass needed to justify a language immersion program at middle school.

So the District committed to a complete build-out of language immersion schools that had two elementary schools feeding into one middle school in three different parts of the city. Actually, I think their whole grand plan for international education, when completely scoped out, will have language immersion in five parts of the city.

Anyway, they have language immersion at Beacon Hill and they are fixing for it to appear at Mercer so they need another language immersion school in the Mercer service area. I hope they thought about it for a while, but whether they did or not they chose Dearborn Park as the other language immersion elementary in the Mercer service area. Because program placement is a secret process, we'll never know how or why they chose Dearborn Park.

I'm not saying that they are ashamed of their process, but they sure aren't proud of it.

They presume that if they build it, they will come. They presume that the demand for language immersion is essentially insatiable regardless of location. So they never thought about questioning the demand for it.

Anyway, the Magic 8 Ball chose Dearborn Park as the second language immersion site in the Mercer service area, so that's where it will be.

They never questioned whether it was a good idea or not, they are just implementing the Plan. This mystifies me. They have seen how horrible all of the decisions made then have turned out to be, yet they follow this as if it were handed down at Sinai.

Anonymous said...

anybody who has been to a district community meeting knows the drill. presentation, small group "brainstorm" and then a summary from each group. It's a way to diffuse input and dissent. i just take a book and refuse to do the group thing. if enough people would refuse to go into groups, it might make difference, although probably not. It makes me feel less belittled.

annoyeed

1savvymama said...

As a parent within the South East Seattle Community, I am highly agitated with the new Growth Boundary Plan. I smell something fishy..*smh*
As usual this new plan seems to adversely affect schools within SE Seattle. When I look at this plan, I personally feel like the boundary changes are a elaborate attempt to try and mask the achievement gap. I'm just reading between the lines here. It is time for ALL SCHOOL communities in SE Seattle to STAND TOGETHER and demand that SPS RESPECT & SUPPORT ALL students needs and the communities which we live in.

Charlie Mas said...

1savvymama wrote:

"As usual this new plan seems to adversely affect schools within SE Seattle."

Can you provide details? Which schools? How are they adversely affected?

And what would it look like if the District respected and supported all students needs and the communities which we live in? What would they do differently?

Anonymous said...

Charlie Mas wrote - And what would it look like if the District respected and supported all students needs and the communities which we live in? What would they do differently?...

First, I would dare give myself a headache/heartache listing the all the bad decisions SPS has made, that adversely affects children in SE. One, example closing Rainier View Elementary, then re-opening the school within 3-4yrs of the initial closure. I personally, know a child who lives across the street from the school, had to started K at Emerson because of clousre, changed to AAA in 1st grade, then that school closed and ends up at another school then back to Rainier View? Do you think he was adversly affected? Also, look at the decision not to remodel Rainier Beach HS? Why? As, far as what can SPS do differently, they can do alot. And do you think it is respectful to already have these decisions in place,then come to the community, or maybe then can start with getting input first,then come with a plan. What do you think? I would really like to see ALL of SE Seattle Schools to come together on the various issue within our school system.

JvA said...

Charlie -- Thanks so much for the explanation about Dearborn Park. A friend of mine whose son goes there didn't even realize their school's entire zone was disappearing! I get the feeling that many parents at the school don't know what's in store.

Anonymous said...

Reposted for 1Savvymama:

Charlie Mas wrote - And what would it look like if the District respected and supported all students needs and the communities which we live in? What would they do differently?...

First, I would dare give myself a headache/heartache listing the all the bad decisions SPS has made, that adversely affects children in SE. One, example closing Rainier View Elementary, then re-opening the school within 3-4yrs of the initial closure. I personally, know a child who lives across the street from the school, had to started K at Emerson because of clousre, changed to AAA in 1st grade, then that school closed and ends up at another school then back to Rainier View? Do you think he was adversly affected? Also, look at the decision not to remodel Rainier Beach HS? Why? As, far as what can SPS do differently, they can do alot. And do you think it is respectful to already have these decisions in place,then come to the community, or maybe then can start with getting input first,then come with a plan. What do you think? I would really like to see ALL of SE Seattle Schools to come together on the various issue within our school system.

Lynn

Anonymous said...

Hawthorne's community has really worked so hard. I can't imagine the District being so callous.

The SPED placement might be financially driven though. I know that the District, and principals sometimes try to add special services in order to balance out the insubstantial funding receive for a general education student.

GMG

NEMom said...

If the Dearborn Park community doesn't want a immersion school maybe they should open another one instead in the Northeast; there sure is demand and interest here.

Anonymous said...

GMG,

Don't those SPED dollars have to be spent on SPED services? I don't see how that would balance out anything.

Lynn

Maureen said...

I think it makes sense to feed immersion to IB since IB requires a level of fluency in a second language that standard college prep does not. I think IB Higher Level language classes go beyond what is available at non IB schools. My kid will only have four years of a language so won't be able to do Higher Level language for her IB diploma. I also think the "International perspective" fits in with the way I understand K-5 immersion is done in SPS and with IB.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure about the SPS IB programs, but IB does have a track that does not require the student to already be fluent in a second language.

Garfield Mom

joanna said...

It always seems a little sad when I hear statements belittling someone as speaking in their own self interest. I look at the map, and just wonder why Georgetown is being moved around the way it was. They need to speak up. Everyone should since everyone else is. Knowing what is upsetting to you as an individual and being able to articulate it is usually the beginning of a good conversation and pretending that you know what it best for someone else generally is not. People have to speak for themselves. Only then can a good understanding of what each person wants and needs be reached. And, in some cases, for instance if you are the only kid downtown, likely a walkable school is not immediately in the cards. Build and they will come has not happened on Broadway, where for decades the condo and apartment dwellers lived near schools. Even with the new bigger complexes the number of children hasn't increased significantly. The type of units offered is an important factor. But, at least we know that Lowell and Hay do not seem like downtown neighborhood schools to this parent, and others can acknowledge the fact and talk over the concept of build it and they will come.

These boundaries should be a very big deal for all and are a major shake up that is not worth the effort if it isn't going to work. The guiding principals as presented were good. It is just that at times it seemed like the new proposal violated them whenever it could, rather than adhering to them whenever possible. And if there is a bigger long term picture with numbers and data, the district is not sharing it. They still have not presented the projections for the proposed middle school areas. I do not think this is Tracy Libros fault. The superintendent is responsible for directing the staff to produce the desired product. I am sure that Board politics play into this as well.

Anonymous said...

Charlie & others: A little pious, no? Come down off the high horse. Calling kids "snowflakes?" Please.

You all know as well as anyone all the positive press Mercer has gotten over the past couple of years and how it's been held up as an example of how a school can be turned around with the right people, curriculum, etc., etc. Just like you say about Hawthorne. So who wouldn't want to be sent there, versus Aki, given the choice?

Please don't dredge up the tired, old snide comments about how entitled or whiny a person is for being disappointed that their kid is being steered away from a school with a demonstrated reputation for academic strength, to a school that hasn't, on the hopes and possibility that they can turn that school around too. There's no proven formula that's guaranteed to work, so how about having some empathy for that dad's peace of mind and security he felt for Mercer, which is being ripped away for something behind door #2, that poses risks that Mercer doesn't.

I personally think we will improve more schools under the NSAP than under the old system, because the district can no longer send people to other schools willy-nilly and actually has to deal with problems that have gone on for decades. Maybe those parents can build at Aki what they built at Hawthorne, but also, maybe not. Much of the district is headed on the right direction, but not all, and there's no guarantees. So, in our politically correct, moral superiority, we are condemning parents for being as human as the rest of us when they worry out loud or voice their displeasure at being jerked around.

It's so easy and convenient to throw around the entitled or whiny label, instead of giving the person the credit for speaking out - whether right or wrong - and expressing feelings many in the room probably share, but won't say, for fear of the retribution they'll be shown, just like what I've read here.

People have a right to their opinions and feelings, whether you agree with them or not, and we should not be chilling the environment in which they can speak if we want to know what people really care about and feel.

A parent worrying about his kid is now a bad thing? Nice.

WSDWG

SusanH said...

WSDWG: Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right. Unlike so much of the north end uproar, where parents are protesting being moved from Awesome-School to Slightly-Less-Awesome-School, the parents down here have been faced with some dreadful, failing schools.

I feel really sorry for the Hawthorne parents, who didn't try to work the system or go private, but rolled up their sleeves to make that failing school a gem. They committed to the school and the neighborhood, despite the challenges, with the understanding that their kids would be on a Hawthorne - Mercer - Franklin trajectory.

Now they are told Aki Kurose, and don't you want to bet that whole neighborhood will be Rainier Beach bound once we start seeing new high school boundaries?

The dad who spoke is worried about his kid, sure. But it doesn't mean he's entitled or whiny. If so, he would have fled the neighborhood or gone private or enrolled in an option school. No, he worked hard to make the neighborhood school better. He was trying to support public education in his neighborhood, while still ensuring a decent education for his child.

Anonymous said...

@SusanH: Thanks for YOUR comment. One part of such changes that bother me is - and call me cynical - when a group of parents demonstrate that they are willing to work hard to make their school better, the district rarely rewards them, or acknowledges them as a resource within that school. Instead, the district tends to see them as an "able capital resource" (and I don't mean money, I mean instead of money) that will do the heavy lifting required to turn schools around. In other words, doing a lot of the district's work on the front lines. And then, since they did such a good job at Hawthorne, why not see what they can do at Aki? Maybe they'll turn that around too!

I know we have capacity problems and boundaries have to change, but the Hawthorne dad is voicing the same sentiments that a lot of APP and other communities voice. I.e., What's wrong with a little predictability, and/or rewards for a lot of hard work getting their schools on solid footings? How come the reward for commitment to a school is another, larger commitment to yet another school? I can understand the parents on the Hawthorne-Mercer-Franklin track feelings completely. After all, the NSAP was supposed to be all about predictability, and so far, way too many families are getting anything but that.

And the last thing I'm saying here is that Aki or RB aren't, or won't be good schools. I believe both can, have, and will continue to improve, although the "if they build it they will come IB program" is beginning to look like another SPS Magic Bullet. If the RB community wants it, that's fantastic. But from the district's perspective, it looks like another magnet to draw others in, instead of supporting the good work there already and helping the students currently there who need it, and may very likely be marginalized by all the hoopla over IB.

I guess I just don't see the desire for predictability as "entitlement" or complaints about the lack of it as "whining." I think they're legitimate complaints by vested parents who ought to have the right to know where their kid is headed.

WSDWG