Saturday, November 14, 2015

The Long-Awaited Student Assignment Plan

Here's the agenda item from the upcoming Wednesday Board meeting. 

I have not had the opportunity to compare the red-line with the green printed (clean) versions of the SAP.   (And actually, it would be interesting to compare the last red-line version with the current one and see what differences there are.)

Here's the agenda for the entire meeting.

I note one interesting thing on the agenda.  The Board is to vote on the SMART Goals that guide the Superintendent's work. There are two amendments to this BAR; one from Director McLaren and one from Director Peaslee and Director Patu.  It involves wording over who are the groups in "students of color."
McLaren
I move that the Board amend the 2015-16 Superintendent SMART Goals #1 and 2, to replace the
“for all historically underserved populations” language African American males and other students of color,”as noted in the attachment to the Board Action Report.

 
Peaslee/Patu
By identifying the other groups of historically underserved students in the goal it makes it very clear
that these students will also benefit from the work behind this SMART goal.


The focus on African American males is not removed and there is no dilution of the strategy of “targeted universalism” in the goal or strategy as laid out in the rubric. 


This inclusive language recognizes all of our most historically underserved students and conveys to their parents, communities and leaders that we are focused on improving outcomes for each and every one of them.


So it seems to me that the disagreement, such as it is, is in actually calling out the groups affected and whether "African American males" should be called out over all other groups.

This should be an interesting discussion.

As well,  the Board is going ahead with the Superintendent's raise AND extension based on these two reasons NOT to do so.

IX.VIII. ALTERNATIVES
[Alternatives will be drafted and made public after the Superintendent’s evaluation is performed, which will give direction on alternatives, which will be drafted and made public prior to Board action on November 18, 2015]. Not provide a salary increase. This is not recommended as the Board wants to keep its compensation package competitive now and for future superintendents and the Board wants to recognize the Superintendent’s service to the District from February 1, 2015 until now. 

So no "alternatives" done.  He gets a raise because to not do so would somehow trouble superintendents of the future.  His compensation package IS competitive.  


Not provide a contract extension. This is not recommended because the Board is granting this extension based on the Superintendent’s performance and historically an extension has been granted when the Superintendent’s performance matches the Board’s expectation. To not grant an extension would signal his likely departure in 18 months and this could create organizational and senior leadership instability.

 What?!  First, the Board has proved ZERO information on the Superintendent matching "the Board's expectation."  Where is that?  

And, he himself SAID, from the beginning, that he wasn't going to stay but now is?  The point is that someday he will leave and has to give something like six months notice. Isn't that going to "
create organizational and senior leadership instability?"

I still say no to this and believe that the Board is simply trying to shore him up as the majority leaves office .  I do not believe this is being done based on merit and/or performance.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

There's little to no PROOF that here is Seattle we have, “historically underserved populations” and that African American males or worst off than other students of color.

We only have proof that black males under perform and that perhaps it's due to a myriad social problems.

The liberals in Seattle never articulate solutions, they only squawk about how various races can only make it with their handouts. The excuses flow like Seattle rain, but nothing seems to improve, no matter how much money they throw at their pet problem.

Libs want the title one cash and they will tell you what's best to do with it.

Broken record

Melissa Westbrook said...

Broken record, it's fine if you disagree but we are not talking about liberalism versus conservatism. We are talking about what you state - is one group more important than another even in wording?

Anonymous said...

Bah humbug. In no way, shape or form has the Supe performed so excellently that he deserves a raise. If they want to extend the contract, that's slightly (but only slightly) less objectionable. Clearly they want to set him up before the next Board takes over....sigh...


reader47

Anonymous said...

This Superintendent has outraged half of Queen Anne based on his removal of the popular principal at the elementary school. Many of these families are probably not looking at SPS for higher grades now because of his actions.

He has also messed with math curricula and the assignment plan. Bad things are happening under his watch.

S parent

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

One might think that after the resounding defeat of Marty McLaren and the election of those who oppose this current Board's philosophy (and that of the Superintendent), the Board would respect the wishes of the public. Instead, the Board shows its contempt for the public by extending the term of the anti-union Nyland and giving him a raise.

Tired ofIt said...

Michael is so tedious.

Anonymous said...

Ebenezer, you should ask the incumbents why they chose not to run again?

I did and I think people would be shocked by the responses. You could email each and ask, but I doubt they will be as candid in a documented response.

NB Parent

Ebenezer said...

NB Parent, why don't you tell us? As it is, your comment says nothing.

Anonymous said...

PBT, I am a Democrat also and offended by your political comments. Harris seems like a person who just might make the Board more accountable to all parents. I certainly hope she does not have a bias against north end parents.

I do know Rick Burke and he does not have a social agenda. He wants more effective curricula, a subject often lost in other discussions. The focus for SPS should be to educate students effectively, no matter what neighborhood they come from.

S parent

Melissa Westbrook said...

NB, either tell us what they said or don't put up a comment like that. We could all say we spoke to them and make up anything we want. I'm pretty sure I know why Carr and Martin-Morris stepped down, McLaren ran and Peaslee seemed to be increasingly upset anytime she was challenged on issues.

Also, this putting up of tales about what any candidate said during the recent campaign needs to be documented. If you can't do that, do NOT put up false allegations. That goes for any other person in leadership for or in Seattle Schools.

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

One change to the SAP not advertised is the wording around a current K-8 student being able to attend their attendance area comprehensive middle school.

In this version a student only has a guarantee to switch if they reside outside the walk zone of the K-8.

This is a big change, especially for the students at attendance area K-8's.

-StepJ

SPS Mom said...

StephJ - where do you see that? In the section that relates to students entering 6th grade, I see:

"
Students Currently Attending a K-8 School
Students entering 6th grade and attending K-8 schools will be assigned to continue at their current K-8 school for 6th grade, as long as the school offers the services the student needs.

 If they apply for their attendance area middle school during Open Enrollment through May 31 they will be assigned to their attendance area school as long as the school offers the services the student needs (unless they apply for and are assigned to a higher ranked choice)."

Do you see something else?

Anonymous said...

Ah, I didn't pay full attention. I was referring to paragraph 4 in Section A: "K-8 students who live outside of their assigned school's walk zone and are not eligible for transportation may transfer to their attendance area school at any time, as long as the services the student needs are available at that school."

I should have read through it again before making comment. But, also think the Section A and Section C language should be cleaner.

Sorry to alarm.

-StepJ

Highway Robbery said...

Section F of the Superintendent's contract indicates that the district will pay for a)dues in educational professional associations b) expenses for attending these meetings and c) time spent attending these meetings will be considered Superintendent's normal business and not part of vacation.

The above perks are in addition to $24K/year annuity, benefits, vacation time and $700/month car allowance.

Taxpayers are getting robbed. You would think that the Superintendent would at least pay for his own professional associations.

I guess this is the outgoing board's last gift to the superintendent that had the first teacher's strike in 28 years.

Highway Robbery said...

'Past practice of the Board has been to target a salary increase for the Superintendent that reflects
a weighted average of District employees represented by bargaining units and non-represented
employees. This year the weighted average increase for all employee groups was 5.8%."

This policy needs to be changed. We have highly paid administrators consuming disproportionate amount of taxpayer dollars. I don't deny teachers a raise, but these highly paid administrators are a different story.

TechyMom said...

I don't think he should get a raise, or have a car allowance, but employers paying professional association dues and conference attendance is pretty common. Usually the time and money amounts for this are controlled to some reasonable amount. It's not clear if that's the case here.

Highway Robbery said...

Peters name was taken off the BAR and Peaslee's name was added with new language. The language on the BAR changed..

From:

"[Alternatives will be drafted and made public after the Superintendent’s evaluation is performed,
which will give direction on alternatives, which will be drafted and made public prior to Board
action on November 18, 2015]."

To:

"Not provide a salary increase. This is not recommended as the
Board wants to keep its compensation package competitive now and for future superintendents
and the Board wants to recognize the Superintendent’s service to the District from February 1,
2015 until now."

Has the superintendent's evaluation been made public?

SPS Mom said...

Since it seems the 5/31 waitlist dissolution proposal is going forth, I would strongly encourage parents to ask the board to require that teacher funding allocations made based on that 5/31 data hold harmless any schools whose enrollment suffers from lack of a waitlist when enrollments are looked at 10/1. If the district takes away any mechanism schools have to gain new enrollment, then schools shouldn't have FTE removed in October. This would still mean that there may need to be FTE added in October (if, for instance, 20 new-to-district students move into a school), but there should be no adjustments downward.

Disgusted said...

The Ex. Committee (Carr, Peaslee and McLaren) have decided to set a timeline of initiatives beyond their time in office. Documents indicate that they will be directing budget expenditures into 2017.

I'll be glad when they are gone. They have no respect for incoming board members.

Anonymous said...

I do not see how the Superintendent's current salary is not competitive. The office has one deputy super, two associate supers and two assistant supers to help get the job done. What exactly does the Superintendent do all day to warrant such an overly generous salary (it's more than the governor's I believe—though may be wrong on this)?

Solvay Girl

Melissa Westbrook said...

No, you are right - he makes more than the Governor or Mayor. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

If old board says ok to extension.


I would require extensive weekly meetings with the public. Hell this might be the best admin we have had for a long time.


_really?