Tuesday, October 07, 2014

Curriculum and Instruction Policy Committee agenda for October 13

The agenda for the October 13 Curriculum and Instruction Policy Committee has been posted and it's a lulu.

It includes:

  • A motion to amend Policy 3201, Disciplinary Appeal Council
  • The motion for the annual approval of schools
  • A motion in support of the City's pre-K initiative
  • A draft Policy for advanced learning
  • The annual approval of the Alternative Learning Experience Plan as well as a review of the Alternative Learning Experience policy
  • An update on the Special Education revised C-CAP
  • An update on MTSS
  • An item labeled "Garfield High School Post"
  • An assessment update
  • Something to do with the attendance policy
  • The quarterly report on Equitable Access
  • And something to do with the policy on Research Activity and Test Administration
The annual approval of schools only states that every school has a C-SIP. There were years, however, when some schools did not have C-SIPs. The C-SIP is kind of a bullshit document anyway, but it carries a lot of requirements from the state and from the District and it is never hard to find ones that are blank, or all boilerplate, or just simply wrong.

I wonder if the motion in favor of the City's pre-K initiative could pass the Board. I wonder if it should. Maybe the District should just stay out of it.

I can't wait to see the draft policy for Advanced Learning. The last version was not only perfectly dreadful and completely inadequate, it was also essentially identical to the one that the Board rejected a year before.

Now that some of the ALE schools have chosen not to be ALEs (The NOVA Project and STEM at Cleveland to name two), I wonder what's left of the ALE policy ad procedure.

Hoo boy. An update on the C-CAP. That should be fun. I think this is the first time the Board has taken it up since the announcement that some funds will be held back.

An update on MTSS should also be fun. Is that implementation on pace with the timetable that the staff has been presenting from the start?

Garfield High School Post. What the heck could that be? It is not the name of the school newspaper.

I think we would all like an assessment update. Just what tests will the District be putting in front of students this year. And, more importantly, why.

The quarterly report on equitable access is always a little bit funny because it so completely fails to meet the requirements of the policy. Ha ha. Isn't that cute. The Board doesn't care.

And, to finish, some effort at a coherent statement about the District's policies on tests. Should be fun


mosfet said...

"Davison" is mentioned as being in charge of the "Garfield High School Post." That must be Mary Davison, head of CTE for the district. Not sure what that's about.

Robert Cruickshank said...

The district should stay out of the pre-k ballot measure debate. They could, if desired, pass a resolution supporting the concept of expanded access to developmentally appropriate pre-k that emphasizes play-based learning.

Anonymous said...

Post is the Outdoor Ed program affiliated with Garfield and the Boy Scouts. It had a rough spot in the late 1990s early 2000s when the instructor committed suicide while being investigated for engaging in sexual misconduct with students on trips. I suspect CTE is concerned that the program cannot be sustained under the "no field trip" decision by Ted Howard or wants to make sure it is not falling under Mr. Howard's rule.

-Way Back

Anonymous said...

Robert, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the district should stay out of the pre-k ballot measure, but don't agree with you that they should pass a resolution supporting pre-k that emphasizes play-based learning.

Why such a narrowly defined concept of high quality preschool? An emphasis on play-based learning ignores proven programs like Montessori.

--- swk

Lynn said...

Post in the News

Robert Cruickshank said...

Good point, swk, thanks for that important reminder.

Charlie Mas said...

With this story about the Garfield High School POST, it is becoming increasingly clear that the District, as an institution, is something of a pathological liar. They won't tell the truth even when there's nothing to hide. Their standard procedure is to lie.

Anonymous said...

Here's the C-CAP update 11 new citizens complaints and 7 due process hearings. I would say since
last year it was 5 CCs and 3 due process hearings that things are going in the wrong direction for SPS.

I couldn't get the OCR investigation numbers from USDE, but my guess is there are 3 investigations going on based on what parents have told me.

This is NOT a SPED issue! most of the issue are around lack of accommodations in the general education classrooms. SPED staff just have no authority to make teachers follow the law. I can't see how SPS will meet the C-CAP when this blatant disregard for the law continues.

OSPI pissed

Charlie Mas said...

OSPI pissed puts the spotlight on the problem: the people responsible for the work don't have authority over the people who do the work. The failure to put responsibility and authority together is a management failure.

Anonymous said...

OSPI pissed,

I'm curious about your assertion that these complaints are things beyond the control of the special education department. Actually, you know this from looking at the content of the complaints? Because generally speaking (a) there seems to be pressure on SPED staff from central administration to play along with the buildings as much as possible in order to be "invited back" (hence the piece in the RC-CAP where buildings are going to be rating the satisfaction with sped services is just bizarre) and (b) SPED staff absolutely can and do make decisions to "Get to Yes" (or not) with families (and reading the book "Getting to Yes" was in the first C-CAP) and sometimes don't/won't because of power struggles with the families.

I would also say, as I've said before, that the focus on these formal complaints is misplaced. Few families who have a case file them. They're afraid of retaliation, or, they don't know how. Soft calls to OEO are much more common. The real nexus of problem solving should be at the building level however SPS has ensured that there are no mechanisms to reality check progress for SPED with families. SEAAC acted in that role to some extent. And look what happened to SEAAC.


Anonymous said...


Yes, Anne I'm monitoring all OSPI CC and DPR OSPI receives. Each month I reach out to my OSPI contacts and get the information.
You could do the same, that way I'm not the only gadfly after SPS.

I completely understand that CCs are just the tip of the iceberg and have know way of tracking complaints to the ombudsman. We really need to find a way to help other families file more CCs this year because if the volume reaches X (I cant say for sure what x is) then the DOJ is going to step in and investigate SPS. I have had several conversations with USDOE staff about the problem with SPED not having any real authority in enforcing the C-CAP. They agree it will NEVER work with the current administrative configuration.They and other agencies are now just sort of siting back waiting for SPS to fail under it's own weight.

Most people believe the June 30th 2015 compliance is not going to happen and judging by the nature of the citizen complaints SPS is not serious about making it happen.

SPS received provisional IDEA part B grants for the last 3 years and if SPS fails to meet the June 30th deadline then a process will start to force SPS to repay those grants which total 36 million.

I understand about fear of retaliation, it's real and a problem.Unfortunately there is the misconception on the street that this is all a SPED problem. We know it is a district problem currently without a workable solution. On the bright side SPED staff is on it's toes and are trying to comply with it's part, but again they don't control what happens in the class rooms and the several principles I've met with are in SUPER CYA mode!

Maybe if there where an online log where parents could post and day light issues, then parents would see they are not alone, that they are not the problem and that there are people out there who can give them help.

OSPI pissed

Melissa Westbrook said...

I find the idea that the Board would endorse either preschool measure wrong. There is no reason for it except to push 1B which would, in the end, hurt this district.

The Board can endorse preschool in general as a help to having kids "prepared" for kindergarten but one over the other seems wrong.

mosfet said...

@Way Back,

Thanks for the clarification!

VoteNO1B said...

I agree. The board should vote to support early education, but should not support a specific initiative.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lynn said...

Draft Advanced Learning Policy

Draft Advanced Learning Procedures

Anonymous said...

Has anybody seen this?

BAR for Policy 2161, Special Education and Related Services for Eligible Students 10 mins (Jessee/Clancy/Schiers)

I'd appreciate a link to what is being proposed for amendment.

Thanks, AnneS

Anonymous said...

2116 reads-

Policy No. 2161
July 21,2013
Page 1 of 1
It is the policy of the Seattle School Board to provide a free, appropriate public
education to all eligible students with disabilities, ages 3 through 21, in a manner
that comports with
federal and state law and regulations.
Seattle Public Schools is committed to providing programs and services to
eligible students that support their full participation in learning experiences in
their least restrictive environment and which result in stu
dent development of
skills and understandings needed to access postsecondary education, vocational
training, employment, and independent living. Programs and services are
identified in students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEP) and are based
upon e
valuative data. Parents/families and staff work collaboratively, through
the IEP team process to develop and deliver educational programs as well as to
monitor student progress.
Seattle Public Schools will conduct Child Find activities in accordance with
applicable state and federal regulations that are calculated to reach all students
with a suspected disability and in need of receiving special education and related

I think they want to add the words "just kidding" at the end.

OSPI pissed