Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Garfield PTA Asks Community for Support

Dear Garfield families,

The Seattle School District has announced its intention to withdraw one full-time teacher from Garfield, effective Monday, October 25, 2014-leaving 150 students without a class for the rest of the semester, unless Garfield produces $92,000 by Friday, October 24. This cut will occur despite the fact that SPS holds $8.5 million in reserves that could be used to cover this expense.

Garfield High School is already the lowest funded High School in Seattle.  At $5,951 per student, we are a full 15% below the average of $7,004 per student per the 2014/2015  district funding report (page 44).

High Schools
Proj Enrollment

 Grant Budget
 Non-Grant Budget
Total Budget
Budget per Student
Chief Sealth
Nathan Hale
Rainier Beach
West Seattle

There will be no replacement-the cancelled classes will simply cease to exist and the affected students will finish the semester with a hole in their schedules. The cut will occur in core education (math, science, language arts, history, world languages or arts) and there are no provisions for making up required credits.  It hasn't been determined yet where the cut will be made. It could affect any student in the school, in any grade, and on any academic path. The teacher will be reassigned to another school, but the 150 Garfield students will be left without a class for the rest of the semester and the rest of the student body and teaching staff will be greatly impacted.

1. Send emails to the District leadership and School Board right away. Let them know the sudden cancellation of classes for 150 students is unacceptable--and you don't want our kids wandering the school halls for an hour a day while unable to finish a class they have now been in for 9 weeks. Urge them to find a solution that doesn't sacrifice our students and their education.  Demand they fix this broken process that threatens buildings annually. Our kids deserve a better method for reconciling enrollment projections. 

Seattle School District
Larry Nyland, Superintendent 
Lesley Rogers, Public Affairs
Linda Sebring, Budget Director
Ron English, General Counsel
Sarah Pritchett, Executive Director of Schools - Central Region

School Board District Directors
2. Show your support by being part of an all-school "walk-out" protest at Garfield on Thursday, October 23, 1:50 PM, just before the end of the school day. Join students, staff and other GHS families-make your voice heard!

Thank you for your support. Please contact us with any questions or concerns.

On behalf of your PTSA and PTSA Board,

Kirk Wohlers, Co-President
Marie Doyle, Co-President
Stacy Andersen, Advocacy Chair


Anonymous said...

There's a typo in the PTSA letter. Monday is Oct. 27. deadline for fundraising is Fri. Oct. 24.

Po3 said...

RBHS gets nearly $10K/student and is slated to get an another part time person, yet there are barely 500 students enrolled.

How does that pencil out?

Anonymous said...

Dumb question maybe- but why, exactly, is GHS the lowest funded high school?

-GHS Parent

Anonymous said...

Just wondering - why is it a given that the position being lost has to come from a core course? It would seem like it would be much better to cancel an elective rather than potentially stop sonme kids from graduating by pulling a required class.

Mom of 4

Anonymous said...

I would assume the different funding levels have to do with FRL students and special education students. Though the funds for the special education shouldn't really count in the overall pool since it is just supposed to be for special ed.


Melissa Westbrook said...

There are a number of factors around funding like number of Sped students and free and reduced lunch.

That said, it seems counter-intuitive that one of the largest high schools in the district would get less.

As well, if the enrollment numbers are low, it's artificial, I think. I have heard from many Garfield parents who were on the list and it never moved.

Mom of 4, could be that they pull a core class because of who the teacher is in seniority. The school doesn't get to pick who leaves; that's done by union rules. I think it just has to be one teacher.

Again, that said, it would seem the school could shift somehow to NOT lose a core class but managing the classes roster is a huge task.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with the advocacy of GHS in this regard, and hope that it carries over to all similarly affected schools. The current process is broken.

I do think the per student funding numbers are a bit off though, but it's hard to know by how much or how little. They are based on the project enrollment of each school, not the October headcounts.

Of course, if SPS would be more transparent in what the October enrollment numbers actually are, we could figure it out with certainty . . .

Either way, it is unacceptable that 150 kids can just lose a class they have been in for almost 2 months.

October Numbers??

Anonymous said...

Why don't you go get some from RBHS at $9,615 per student.

Bam Bam

Eric B said...

It would be helpful to the case if the table used actual enrollment, not projected. It looks like these projection numbers may be a few days old as well. For example, actual enrollment at Ingraham is 1225-1250, which would change the per-student funding by about $500 assuming that the budget numbers are accurate to this year. October 1 enrollment counts are the basis of the budget process and should be available. If they're not available from District HQ, then individual schools should have them within a student or two.

@PO3, there are a lot of fixed costs at a high school almost regardless of the student count. Principals, custodians, some cafeteria staff, librarian, etc. RBHS is also receiving some grants to create an IB program, which is fairly expensive. Hopefully, that and other programs will help the school be more attractive and grow to be full. We can't afford any empty seats in HS over the next few years.

Anonymous said...

Agreed it would be better to know actual enrollment #'s for comparison; however, that is likely to make it worse for GHS since we were told the # enrolled is well over 1,600.


-GHS Parent

mirmac1 said...

That's right HP. Too bad principals try to ignore that legal requirement (WA Supreme Court).

Po3 said...

Eric B - That makes sense and puts the school in a position where they need to fill it as this level of funding is simply not fair to all the other HS students.

This being the second full year of the IB program, I would think the total enrollment would be trending up and that does not appear to be the case.

Eric B said...

GHS Parent, if October 1 enrollment is 70+ over projected for this year, you should be gaining teachers if anything. Something doesn't seem right here, beyond the unfairness of getting rid of a teacher in late October. I suspect that either the projection number is from a previous year or the current enrollment is lower than that.

Anonymous said...

How can they eliminate high school core classes and think they are getting ahead?

These students still have to take these credit hours, and if it is a corse that is eliminated that must be taken in a series (Math, English, History, 1st Semester Biology), they'll have to run the equivalent course to allow the students to make it up next semester.

This is asinine. There is a way to reduce staff (and yes, you can remove an additional position) but you do have to find somewhere for the affected students to go.

This is just another example of how the basic day to day operations of the district are in disarray.


Melissa Westbrook said...

But again, maybe this "disarray" is by design.

Meg said...

so... another interesting thing about this is that Garfield was budgeted for a projected 1,532.

In the last 10 years, Garfield's enrollment has only dipped below 1,600 students once, in 2005-06, when it clocked in at 1,595.

It's possible the projected number was for FTEs (full-time equivalents), which is slightly different than actual people, but then the budget book refers to "per-student funding," which indicates that the folks who wrote the projected budget were thinking actual people (and all the numbers are whole numbers, another indication of headcount rather than FTE).

I don't know what Garfield's enrollment is this year. But it looks BOTH as if budget forecast UNDER-allocated the school, and now additional staff is going to be pulled? Huh.

Anonymous said...

Garfield, you have my support.

My suggestion? Axe the executive director of leadership, in order to find the money to fund your one FTE.

Similarly, I suggested axing the deputy superintendent, Charles Wright, and using the money saved to fund an elementary teacher at BF day.

Save teachers, not bureaucrats.

Those two teachers will do something, they will touch students, they will make a difference, they will have an impact. They will be productive.

On the other hand, what to do those two head honcho guys do, at the end of the day? And if they are axed, Would their contribution, whatever it is, would it be missed?

If we are cutting to the bone, then, we are cutting to the bone, and we can do without the fancy frills of whatever it is the guys in the corner office in the glass palace think they do.

No contest

kellie said...

There is something really off with these numbers. There was an increase of 708 students from the time the budget book was adopted to the post open enrollment adjusted budget.

Then it was reported that there was an additional 168 students over and above that adjustment for a total of 876 MORE high school students than the budget book. A quick look shows that every single school was adjusted upward.

Garfield reported enrollment of 1688 is another 76 students over the upward projections. What gives?

The first number that follows is the one in the letter, the second number is the Spring 2014 enrollment number.

Ballard 1572 1648
Center 271 288
Sealth 1170 1235
Cleveland 805 865
Franklin 1230 1294
Garfield 1532 1612
Ingraham 1150 1220
Nathan hale 1088 1146
Nova 253 273
Rainier Beach 516 562
Roosevelt 1623 1712
West Seattle 945 1008
12,155 12,863

kellie said...

As for the questions about Rainier Beach, RB's enrollment is very much trending upwards. I don't doubt that they need the .4 adjustment.

The enrollment increase at RB is good news for everyone. Those are the only empty high school seats in the district right now. The majority of those high school budget numbers is either at or over the school capacity.

Anonymous said...

Tolley would be no great loss -get rid of his position or downgrade it.


Po3 said...

Kellie- Thanks for the updated RBHS figures. Making more sense now.

I however, can't imagine this disarray by design, by now they must know GHS doesn't take any crap. I am betting some bad numbers have been passed along. And we will hear about that bad VAX shortly.

Anonymous said...

Yes Director of Leadership out!

Or one of the many other admin positions recently created Banda.

under the bus

Anonymous said...

Mom of 4. all classes whether core or elective are designed to meet graduation requirements. Losing a teacher means that approx 150 students have their graduation jeapordized.

kellie said...

I posted this on the other thread but here is a repeat of the overall enrollment information - aka the information that started this round of cuts.

The district announced that the Oct 1 enrollment numbers were about 300 students fewer than the budget projections, thereby creating a $3 million budget shortfall.

However, these staffing adjustments do not seem to align with the overall gaps. Since the school by school numbers have not been released and public records requests have not been fulfilled yet, the only information that anyone can participate in is the aggregate data. According to the limited enrollment information that was released, here are the difference from projections (and by extrapolation, from budget)

K - 80 Additional students
1-5 - 269 fewer students

Elementary net is 189 fewer students.
Middle school had 290 Fewer students and High School had 168 Additional Students.

All in all, those numbers are really very close. However, you would then expect to see adjustments that looks like

Minus 6 elementary teachers
Minus 10 middle school teachers
Add 5 high school teachers

With high school enrollment 168 students OVER the budget, there would not seem to be any reason for any decreases at high school. There is always the possibility that there was a huge location shift. However, this is an overall decrease at high school, not a shift.

mosfet said...

Pulling teachers in the middle of the academic year is ridiculous, particularly when the district has reserves. Even during the $33 million shortfall in 2002 and the massive layoffs, the district didn't pull or transfer teachers in the middle of the year, IIRC.

Why not cut administrative staff and other support staff, rather than teachers?

Pro-sleep Mom said...

I agree that the numbers don't make sense. We can't seem to get them from the District- can we get them, school by school, from the principals? My daughter at Ingraham told me a teacher said our count was 1254, well above the spring projection of 1220 or the letter number of 1150. Can people find out and post their schools census?(or, Melissa, do you have a better way to collect data?).

And this whole exercise doesn't do much to erase the alleged $3 million shortfall- if it's even true. What cuts are next? How can classroom cuts not come as the very last resort?

Also, we have a quite a number of over-crowded classes at Ingraham. Garfield is making a point, and I support them, but wouldn't they end up absorbing some of these kids into existing classes, even if they became overcrowded?

Anonymous said...

Kellie - any interest in running for school board? You'd have my vote in a heartbeat.


Lynn said...

Pro-sleep Mom,

It's a scheduling problem. Here's a copy of Garfield's Master Schedule.

If they pulled a History teacher (Truax for example), in first period you'd have 30 freshman who need to take World History 1. They won't all fit in Martin's first period class - they'd have to be spread across all 6 sections of that class - adding 5 students to each class. The five students who are moved to Martin's class are fine but the other 25 have to replace the class they were taking in the period they've now got World History. Then you move to the 30 students in Truax's second period class and on and on...
This would take the counselors weeks to set up. In the meantime, all 150 of Truax's students are missing several weeks of class.

Rufus X said...

So I'm going back through July posts here (the budget was voted on at the July 2 board meeting) as well as the March '14 protests (schools voting down proposed budgets in protest of cuts to school administrative positions). I see now that the budget book's projected enrollment numbers are based on average attendance over the school year, NOT the total number of students enrolled at a school. Now I'm pretty ignorant about a LOT of things- you could likely fill the Grand Canyon with what I DON'T know. I have no idea if this is normal budgeting practice or not. AAFTE instead of actual enrollment would explain why the approved budget's projected enrollment for Garfield (and other high schools) is less than, for example, the usual 1600+ enrolled students at Garfield. I have not compared the budget book's projected enrollment vs. the 2014-15 projected enrollment doc (revised Spring 2014) on the district's enrollment page for all schools set to gain or lose an FTE. A quick look shows Stevens Elem.'s enrollment in both places is 401, yet they're losing an FTE; Middle College & Lowell's projections are the same between the two docs, and both schools are gaining an FTE.

The whole thing has me feeling like the dog in the classic Looney Tunes Merrie Melodies "Cheese Chasers" - "It just don't add up!!"

Anonymous said...

This shows why this process makes no sense in any way. $3M short based on projected enrollment and we're going to screw up hundreds (thousands possibly) of kids 2 months into the school year? Why? The district is "saving" money on all of the open positions out there. Tons of money on all of the special ed people they haven't managed to hire (OT/PT/1:1s) - I kid here - that money should be segregated and they should be punished (I wish) for interfering with those kid's services).

But really - this is rage inducing. Surely there has to be a better method for allocating resources that takes into account that school population changes as a whole doesn't mean a school should have K classes of 26-29 because the school as a whole doesn't *need* another FTE. Kids who are 2 months into a class shouldn't get it pulled away from them...too bad so sad, maybe we can slot you into something else or not. This is ridiculous.

NE parent

Anonymous said...

Do you think they could be punishing the school for a $700k settlement by taking some of the settlement right out of the school budget?


GarfieldMom said...

So what happens when second semester rolls around? Will those 150 students continue to have holes in their schedules? If not, how can they join a year-long course during the second semester after missing the first semester? Will they be forced to catch up by taking the classes through credit retrieval at $300+ a pop (paid by the parents, of course) - especially seniors who want to graduate on time? There are new hires at every grade level, God help the seniors if the one who teaches several 12th grade sections gets cut.

If cuts are necessary, they must come out of central administration FIRST. There is no excuse for taking them out of the classrooms.

Anonymous said...

The last thing you cut are the essentials. I don't live by the rules of the John Stanford Center for Excess, so I know in my heart that teachers are essential. So who isn't? Placeholder Nyland to start.

He's already making more than a superintendent on contract and by coming out of a generous retirement, he's essentially double dipping. A superintendent, like a retired legislator, doesn't retire poor, so why isn't he donating as least part of his generous compensation? Other than standing around and stating the obvious, he's a large do-nothing he can and should be easily shamed into 'donating' part of his pay.

Doctor Herndon this. Doctor Nyland that. Just cut the crap and excessive compensation and keep the teachers.


Anonymous said...

Can someone please explain how/why the union allows teachers to be pulled when the administration can't even produce up to date numbers to justify the damage?

Further, the mere fact that teachers are up for ransom seems to violate the WAC somewhere. If not, then it should. Placeholder Nyland, anyone?


Anonymous said...

district staff respond to:

-media pressure

-legal threats

-political pressure from other agencies/the board

I'm not saying that's what they should do. It's not right. But that is their history on changing course. Got one? Two out of three or a trifecta would be best.

-been there

Melissa Westbrook said...

I tweeted and sent this info to several media sources. Here's hoping.

Lynn said...

Here's a link to the applicable SEA contract.

Anonymous said...

One would have thought Jonathon Knapp and the SEA would come out swinging both on the unfathomable computations and lack of data that are leading to the threat to yank teachers.

One would have thought Jonathon Knapp and SEA at the very least would issue a strong statement about the harm it causes to pull teachers and cancel classes two months into the school year.

But, no, not a peep.

"#Disillusioned + #Disgusted"

Anonymous said...

"Can someone please explain how/why the union allows teachers to be pulled when the administration can't even produce up to date numbers to justify the damage?"

It's not that the teachers aren't quite annoyed with this, but we're not management. That said, this is the type of stuff that is totally riling up some teachers and contributes to the ill-will factor that has me worried we're going to wind up in a strike next go around. I shake my head at some of this stuff but am nowhere near wanting to go on strike - but many teachers are way more frustrated than I am with these shenanigans to the point that every big mistake the central district makes right now may have additional consequences next contract negotiation.

The district needs to get this figured out not just because it's the right thing to do but because it continues to create a lack of faith in the integrity of the majority of the central office.

Consequences worrier

cmj said...

Thank you for contacting the media, Melissa! Thank you for all of the work that you do to improve education for students in Seattle!

Anonymous said...

Who's the "Executive Director" whose territory includes Garfield? Sack that person. Retain the teacher. Problem solved.

Ivan Weiss

Charlie Mas said...

The numbers don't look right from three or four angles. So the PTA shouldn't be using these numbers to support their cause.

The average spending per student is a meaningless statistic and completely useless for comparison purposes. So the PTA shouldn't be using these numbers to support their cause.

The claim that the teacher would have to come from a core discipline isn't credible. How does the PTA know what kind of teacher will be transferred? And if they know, then why don't they know which discipline will lose one?Isn't it the principal's decision? That makes it seem like the school administration as really warped priorities. So the PTA should be saying that.

How much discretion - if any - does the school administration have over their budget? How has the school exercised that discretion? What choices have they made instead of funding this teacher?

I'm not saying that the District has been open, honest, and accurate about this, but it's pretty clear that the school isn't being open, honest, or accurate about this either.

Finally, let's remember that this is the school that reportedly created a Spanish class for three student athletes. If the school had the discretion to create that, how is it that they have no discretion here?

This story just doesn't ring true.

Anonymous said...

Charlie: the PTSA has presented exactly what the district presented. They mandated, in writing, that the teacher let go be from a core class.


Greg said...

Charlie, why do you say, "average spending per student is a meaningless statistic"?

Seems to me it's a very important metric. But I'd like to understand your point better. Can you elaborate? Why do you think it is meaningless and cannot be used for comparison? Why do you think it does not indicate that Garfield is receiving substantially less funding than other high schools (or, if you don't disagree there, why do you think that does not matter)?

Eric B said...

Following up on Charlie's recommendation, I think the Garfield PTSA needs to simplify the argument. If you start talking about per-student funding, you start down a rabbit hole of whether one school or the other has more SpEd or disadvantaged students or IB costs or whatever. That's immaterial to the discussion. The twenty second pitch is:

Garfield was projected at 1532. Current enrollment is 1650. We should be gaining teachers, not losing them.

It's a simple argument that you can't muddy up by talking about other issues. The most likely place that someone would try to muddy the waters is by talking about year-long averages rather than October 1 counts. Before going into a conversation, it would be awfully nice to know what the average dropoff percentage is between the October count and the annual average FTE in the past couple of years. If that percentage reduction from the current October 1 count is still above 1532, then you can easily refute the argument.

Eric B said...

To answer Greg, the average spending per student is immaterial because it takes into account a lot of other factors that you can't control. It also doesn't specifically address the loss of one teacher right now, which is what you're arguing about. While you might want to have a discussion in January or February about funding equity among high schools as next year's budget is being built, that isn't the immediate problem that you need to fix. If you wander off into equity policy, the argument will get watered down, delayed, and then it'll suddenly be too late to deal with it. Work the small question first, then the big one.

Greg said...

I see, thanks, Eric, that makes more sense. And it's a great point that focusing on the enrollment projection and final count is probably the best strategy.

Anonymous said...

"One would have thought Jonathon Knapp and SEA at the very least would issue a strong statement about the harm it causes to pull teachers and cancel classes two months into the school year.

But, no, not a peep."

Too bad the teachers ended up re-electing Jonathon Knapp instead of SEE's Jesse Hagopian. I still get email from SEE (Social Equity Educators), and according to the email:
"Garfield projected that they would have 1,611 students and, in fact, hit that mark by October 1, 2014. Currently, Garfield has 1,622 students in attendance—more students than projected. We have no idea why the school district would displace a staff member from Garfield when we exceeded our projected enrollment."


mirmac1 said...

The number of special education students enrolled has a dramatic impact on overall $budget$ for students. Furthermore, additional dollars for sped are calculated based on the WSS.

Look at the FY14-15 budget book starting at page 110. Garfield has 11% SpEd, compared to, say, 26% for Nathan Hale. Garfield has, by far, the least number of SpEd students among the high schools. SpEd enrollment brings more FTEs and more budget into the building to serve these students. That's the difference between 8:1:2 versus 150:1

Patrick said...

Charlie: the PTSA has presented exactly what the district presented. They mandated, in writing, that the teacher let go be from a core class.

Would it be possible to quote the entire letter? Did it say who it was from? That makes no sense at all.

It looks more like an attempt to punish Garfield for something (MAP testing refusal? Naturebridge incident?) than a genuine budget problem.

Po3 said...

I believe inaccurate data is being used to make this staffing decision at GHS. If true, that then calls into question that staffing decisions being made across the district.

Anonymous said...

This seems to be turning into a trend. It's like they are blackmailing the parents to make up for budget shortfalls. And the more the PTAs kill themselves to try to raise ridiculous amounts of money to save their kids' schools, the more the SPS will rely on them doing so. My question: when will this type of budget layoff stop for the current school year? Are more schools on the docket to get a teacher cut? Parents need to know what's going on.

Roosevelt mom in support of Garfield

Anonymous said...

2 points:

1. World School (formerly the Secondary Bilingual Orientation Center or SBOC) is not on the list,


2. Beware the gross inadequacy of using aggregated then averaged data on a per school basis - this creates a VERY unnuanced picture and should be used only as a thumbnail 'proxy' because (a) different students are funded differently (i.e., each SpEd students counts for 'more' and is funded at a higher level, as are ELL and F&RL children), so obviously a school's mix of students will skew the average funding per student and (b) the jagged curve affect total enrollment per school enrollment has on the average funding.

Per the Weighted Staffing Standard (WSS), the 801st student enrolled in a high school carried with her/him a full FTE secretary. The 1,101st student brings along a FTE administrative dean. So, NOVA and Center School are tiny, about 250 and 270 students respectively. Yet the small one gets 25 FTE, and the larger one gets 20, but, they both have a principal and a secretary. In comparison, on the other end, Roosevelt gets 1 principal and 2 assistant principals for it's 1650 students, but Nathan Hale with less than 1,100 kids gets the same 1+2 AND it also gets a Dean that the WSS does not provide Roosevelt. Overall, the cost per student will look more efficient at Roosevelt, but, the admin will be significantly more overworked.

There is a scale problem that makes a high school of almost 1,700 much more complex and challenging, and it should receive commensurately more per student admin resources.

Anyway, all the teacher FTE is sacrosanct. We are heading into November, report cards are around the corner. Leave the teachers in front of the students. You know Garfield is going back up in enrollment next year, why pull the teacher now, disrupt the students (and the staff and the admin) just to turn around and have to rehire for this next year?

Fire the bigwigs instead. Surely, there are 2 or 3 that came from Banda's hiring spree that can be terminated immediately, thereby saving the money for Garfeild and BF Day. What are Dr. Nyland's priorities? What are the Boards? I know what yours and mine are (hint: starts with "c" as in children...)


Anonymous said...

I have to admit I am a little suspicious of the "we take into account equity when making these decisions." Since they obviously aren't just trying to make sure they only increase class sizes for privileged kids, it sounds more like "we will blackmail parents groups who we think will pay up. If they can't, sorry sped and FRL kids who happen to go to those schools- you have new new teachers, so you are screwed."

I am also concerned about the budgetary process that got us here. I have been talking to relatives in other districts about I-1351, and their class sizes are so-SO much better than ours, to the point that they are not sure we really need smaller ones. Not in chi chi suburban districts, either, just smaller ones. I believe this has to do with our extremely administration heavy district, and so budget shortfalls should absolutely be coming from central admin, not teachers from our already outlandishly large classes.


GarfieldMom said...

Looks like they are feeling the heat! This just came to my inbox from SPS Public Affairs:

"Oct. 23, 2014

Dear Garfield High School community,

I want to thank you for contacting the district regarding Garfield High School staffing. We understand your frustration and we hear your concerns.

Each October, after student transfer periods have closed, the district conducts a state-required official count of all students. This count directly affects district funding for the school year.

As a part of our annual process, we then adjust staffing – up or down – to align with our official enrollment. Our staffing adjustments are based on the official October count and include many additional factors. As we do every year, this process includes working together with each school’s principal to identify all possible options, check the numbers for discrepancies, and identify potential impacts on students in order to make an informed final decision.

The district is committed to assuring we have proper and equitable staffing at each of our schools. We are still working through this process, and we would hope the community will allow us time to complete our process. While we review the situation at Garfield High School, we ask that students and staff stay in class and parents encourage students to remain in class.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns.


Larry Nyland"

Anonymous said...

@ Garfield Mom,

Keep the pressure on -the school may still lose a teacher. The letter from Nyland while nice only says they are still working through the process. It is too early for a victory lap.


GarfieldMom said...

Oh, don't worry. The whole school plus a large group of supportive parents were out today in front of multiple news cameras. Many points made about where funding belongs (in the classroom, not the bureaucracy), the fact that Garfield exceeded their enrollment estimate, the "offer" to let us pay to keep the teacher (i.e. blackmail), etc. Jesse Hagopian shared a statement of solidarity from the faculty of Rainier Beach. Students and teachers spoke. It was well done.

Anonymous said...

Keep it up your are making the case for splitting up the district ever stronger.

Go Riders

cmj said...

Thank you to the Rainier Beach faculty and the Roosevelt mother commenting for supporting GHS students!

This isn't just happening at GHS. We heard about Gatewood already. Stevens, Hazel Wolf, B. F. Day, Denny, and Madison might also be losing a teacher mid-year.

SPS has budget problems but switching teachers around in the middle of the year is just about the worst way to solve them.

Melissa Westbrook said...

CMJ, while I do not like what is happening, it is not the middle of the year.

Anonymous said...

We are at about school day 37, which is 20% of the 180 days. While not mid-year, it is a substantial way into the year.

counting days

Anonymous said...

One quarter has gone by. Hale just sent out quarterly grades which are not permanent but are sent out so everyone knows where they are at and has time to work on them before the semester ends. It is too late in the school year to be removing teachers.


cmj said...

This isn't just happening at GHS. We heard about Gatewood already. Stevens, Hazel Wolf, B. F. Day, Denny, and Madison might also be losing a teacher mid-year.

SPS has budget problems but switching teachers around in the middle of the year is just about the worst way to solve them.

10/23/14, 7:13 PM
Blogger Melissa Westbrook said...
CMJ, while I do not like what is happening, it is not the middle of the year.


Good point. I'll amend "middle of the year" to "part-way" through the year. I should have realized that "middle of the year" could have been read as "half-way through the year."