Friday, February 26, 2016

Friday Open Thread

Still nothing new on the charter bill front.  As I reported yesterday, there is some last ditch bill - still sans any link/info about it except it appears to be a funding bill for a year - out there.  So what's left?

Monday, Feb. 29, 2016 - Last day to read in opposite house committee reports (pass bills out of committee and read them into the record on the floor) from House fiscal committees and Senate Ways & Means and Transportation committees.

Friday, March 4, 2016 - Last day to consider (pass) opposite house bills (5 p.m.) (except initiatives and alternatives to initiatives, budgets and matters necessary to implement budgets, differences between the houses, and matters incident to the interim and closing of the session).

Thursday, March 10, 2016 - Last day allowed for regular session under state constitution.

So if you considered this latest bill as part of the budget, then next Friday would be the last day anything could be done.  

The Times has weighed in with Time for drama to end: House should vote on charter schools.


Let's just say they blame everyone except the people who ARE to blame for this drama - the people who brought us this unconstitutional initiative and the charter schools/Charter Commission who did not protect families who enrolled in these schools.  I will agree that the charter initiative passed but I would like to see how that vote would play out today.  The WSCSA could only muster less than 17,000 signatures -statewide- on their petition they started in September. Not exactly a ringing show of endorsement.  

The UW spring lectures series list is out and they have some good offerings.  Among the lectures that may be of interest to you:
- I'm coming out: sexual orientation and gender identify in the U.S.
- Understanding and legitimizing how indigenous children learn
- Autism intervention in the community

KUOW story on a local girl and her experience being homeschooled.

The Times has a follow-up story about the day this month that over 200 black men came to South Shore Pre-k-8 to  encourage and support the children of color there.   A businessman in Detroit saw the story and is offering 10, $10K scholarships to African-American male students who attended South Shore and are graduating this year.  They will be selected only on the basis of an essay.  

I don't know where most South Shore students end up for high school but I'd have to guess Rainier Beach, Cleveland or Franklin. 

This is a truly wonderful thing to happen but I will gently point out that South Shore seems to get a fair amount of resources and attention as compared to many other deserving schools with similar populations. 

What's on your mind?

66 comments:

CharterTV? said...

Has anyone else noticed that the TV networks have been bought by the charter supporters as well (ABC in particular)? My eyebrow went up over a year ago while watching the ABC show "Parenthood" which not only had every child from multiple families attending charter schools (which they make a point of mentioning in every episode) but the main characters fight to start their own. Next, I watched a couple of episodes of "Switched at Birth" on Netflix (ABC Family, I think). Same thing -- always making a point to mention the kids go to "blah blah Charter School". The latest? "Person of Interest," which while not about children at all, manages to make every child appearing on the show (which is set in NYC) go to a charter as well.

Are there any current TV shows depicting healthy families with healthy kids that attend a public school? Is Netflix just recommending the wrong shows to me?

As this was an open thread, I thought it was the right time to post this fairly random query.

Anonymous said...

CharterTV?, if you haven't gathered by now, charter schools are a MASSIVE conspiracy. Your children are very likely reading about the (false) benefits of charter schools on the back of their cereal boxes in the mornings. I'd check into this if I were you.

Citizen Kane

Melissa Westbrook said...

Charter TV, interesting. I don't watch those shows so I wouldn't have noticed. I know the kids on Modern Family go to a public school. Hard to say why this might be; Hollywood seems mixed on this. Matt Damon is a huge public school supporter.

Po3 said...

Law and Order seems to depict students from exclusive private schools as the victims and/or perps in those storylines.

Glee was set in a public school that showed inclusiveness.

Anonymous said...

A glance at the HCC blog shows the program blowing up. Again. Maybe worse than previous implosions.

DistrictWatcher

Anonymous said...

CharterTV, I was just watching Togetherness on HBO and had this same question! Of course, a lot of the writers for these shows are young and single and don't have kids. They just write about whatever is in the wind. But I wouldn't rule out some subtle "product placement" going on here either.
HBO Too

Anonymous said...

There is a potential gas leak at Hale, and the kids have been evacuated to the football field. Seattle 911 map shows a fire call to Hale for natural gas odor.

-North-end Mom

Melissa Westbrook said...

Not seeing this on SPS or SFD twitter feed.

Anonymous said...

They are going back inside now.

-North-end Mom

Anonymous said...

They have been given the all clear.

HP

Anonymous said...

You have to follow the Sentinel twitter feed. The school newspaper does a better job.

HP

Anonymous said...

I've been pondering this, this week. A study that finds living in poverty is so stressful, it can lower IQ by as much as 13 points.

-StepJ

PreK said...

I also need to point out: The city's committee is responsible for making "course corrections". The superintendent and one board member sits on this committee.

PreK said...

My first comment didn't register.

I didn't attend the district's prek meeting, but I read the presentation. Did I miss something?

I didn't see any financial analysis related to the city's prek initiative. I didn't see the district outline operational and administrative costs. I didn't see the district outline the city's reimbursement rate and I didn't see that the district is collecting an administrative fee. I have noted that the district provides free space to private prek providers and I did note that the city withholds 25% for performance pay.

I didn't see an analysis of the city combining efforts with Head Start- a federal program. I didn't see an outline of district responsibilities related to a federal program and the manner in which the city is permitted to insert themselves. After all, the city wants all prek programs adopting their curriculum.

I didn't see anything about liabilities and risk analysis. For example, if the city fails to do a background check on an employee...what liability falls upon the district.




PreK said...

I did note a city document. It is called "Comprehensive Evaluation Strategy and it is important to note that the city's program is part of a research project. Note that the document discusses evaluations, and mechanisms to deal with children when they encounter questions that may cause stress:

"Assessors are selected on the basis of experience with children and knowledge of early childhood development. When possible, assessment personnel will be selected to match the culture and languages of children being assessed. Assessors are trained to support children as they encounter difficult questions, to be sensitive to children’s body language, and are required to provide breaks or stop assessments when needed. Before meeting with individual children, assessors will distribute informed consent/assent forms to all parents and legal guardians in multiple languages as needed. Informed consents include information on the study and its goals, what participation implies for the families, risks and benefits, duration, incentives if these are part of the study, freedom to withdraw, explicit assurance of participant's confidentiality/anonymity in investigator's reports of findings and information on contact persons. Consent forms require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval before they are used in the field. A field collection team will partner with SPP in efforts to communicate with families. While obtaining informed consent presents the possibility " (p 19)

http://www.seattle.gov/education/child-care-and-preschool/seattle-preschool-
rogram/documents

The last part of the project involves the city getting involved with childcare. They will evaluate whether they can replicate results of SPP prek program.

I have the names of researchers and I tend to investigate.

Will they let these children play in a sandbox?

Melissa Westbrook said...

Pre-K, I did attend and I'll do a write up. However, many of the questions you ask have been covered when the district first signed-up for this program.

They did somewhat discussion the issue of research but I don't feel the directors pressed hard enough.

Anonymous said...

This was on SPS Facebook page i
Seattle Public Schools is looking to expand our partnership with the City of Seattle, Mayor Ed Murray, and the Seattle Preschool Program to start up more preschool opportunities for families. In 2014, #Seattle voters overwhelmingly approved an initiative to fund quality preschool throughout Seattle. Since then, SPS' Department of Early Learning and the City's Department of Education and Early Learning have been collaborating to operate three preschool classrooms. Right now, preschool is offered at Bailey Gatzert Elementary School, Van Asselt Elementary School, and Original Van Asselt.

You can find more information on the preschool programs on the SPS website: http://bit.ly/1LKgOAD

Or the City's website for an application: http://bit.ly/1Up1joU


Sps mom

Po3 said...

"Seattle Public Schools is looking to expand our partnership with the City of Seattle, Mayor Ed Murray, and the Seattle Preschool Program to start up more preschool opportunities for families."

So this says to me that child care providers are being given the boot to make room for PreK, not K-5, students.

Melissa Westbrook said...

SPS Mom, I'm sure the Board will be interested to hear this.

Po3, this was one issue that at least two Board members brought up. As well, they don't want any space for K-5 to go into portables for pre-K and they don't like the idea of opening pre-K where they have have to take the space back in a few years. (I perceive the City is saying "yes, yes" but secretly believes they can somehow hang onto space.)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mirmac1 said...

Flip gave a strong hint that before/after care will go, that there will be hard choices in coming years. Duh.

Lots of questions and no answers re: inclusion of the 386 disabled SPS preschoolers into these City PreKs. These children bring $2.8M in funding to SPS. That works out to $7,200 per child. When added to the per child funds for City PreK, that's $19,700 - more than enough to cover serving this child in a 6 1/2 PreK versus the district's sorry 2 1/2 hours it provides the needy and vulnerable children in Head Start, Dev PreK and ECEAP preschools.

In response to Jill Geary's query about the plan for inclusion, the one unscripted moment during the PreK sales pitch illustrated all that's wrong with the City's pie-in-sky scheme. Greg Imel from Bailey-Gatzert offered up that last year they had a City preschooler who was identified as needing special education services. When Jill followed up, asking what his class did in response - he had to 'fess up that, uh, well the kid had to go elsewhere because they couldn't (wouldn't?) serve him. There it is. What Cashel Toner called "opportunities for conversations" with parents re: disability actually means counsel the child OUT. Happens everyday, everywhere in preschools (public or private) and it's going to stop. No more separate and unequal!

Anonymous said...

Yay for South Shore and you can use this forum as a way to publicize more the plights of other similarly situated schools Melissa. Your gentle reminder does nothing for them.

- seafarer

Melissa Westbrook said...

Seafarer, I'm not trying to do anything to South Shore. But it bears saying - for the fullest possible context - who gets what in this district. Why that would be an issue is not clear to me.

Also, don't tell me what I should be publicizing - I work very, very hard to bring stories with good and not-so-good news, from around the district, to my readers.

Anonymous said...

Don't get defensive. I just want to give you another interpretation of how you came off with your "gentleness."

Want to discuss inequality in SPS? Tackle the disparity of the funds raised by parent groups in each school. There's a rat race right there.

South Shore is having a good moment here. Don't detract from that with a comment that really doesn't change the status quo. It just comes off personal.

Kudos on working hard for the benefit of SPS and its families. I can be both a fan and a critique. Just as you are of SPS.

- seafarer

Anonymous said...

I don't think the city's pre-k teachers even have gen ed teaching credentials??? It would be amazing if they had sped credentials, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. WA does a dismal job funding education, and IDEA has never been fully funded. A child who qualifies for sped services, is legally required to have a teacher who is qualified to oversee/provide those services (a teacher with a sped credential). The city doesn't have anywhere near the funding they would need to provide ECEAP quality services in their pre-K program (with transportation). It's a shame.
TS

mirmac1 said...

My child was served via itinerant services in a private high quality preschool. That teacher did double duty by training the preschool teacher on how to handle any and all children with various differences.

The city should spend less on their executive in city hall and more on preparing to accept ALL children. And SPS should not agree to participate in an inequitable system, else face the consequences.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with you Mirmac. Unfortunately, not all kids are eligible for itinerant services or have parents capable of paying private tuition to the schools willing to take students with significant needs. The district should have NOTHING to do with pre-K at this point in my opinion. To be a negative Nelly, pre-K is way too late to close the opportunity-gap. Birth to 3 is where we should be directing our efforts.
TS

mirmac1 said...

TS, we don't disagree. I just point out our experience to show that it was not at all necessary for Imel and crew to kick/counsel that little one out of a well resourced City Orek.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Seafarer, South Shore has had many moments and yes, there are other schools that might benefit from some sharing of those moments.

TS, the City's pre-k teachers are certificated.

Another Name said...

I share Melissa' sentiments. S. Shore receives an extra $1M per year and it would be nice to share the wealth.

Anonymous said...

It would be great if other highly impacted schools got grants
and more funding, especially since they don't have PTAs raising
$100s of thousands (under the rationale that these schools
don't receive Title I or LAP).

Calling on a needy school that has achieved extra funding to be the donor
school is cynical, at best. Using good news about that school to "gently"
reprimand them for having more funding than the other needy schools is beyond
the pale.

Focus on getting rid of highly impacted schools. That will go a long way in getting rid of demand for charter schools. You can't have it both ways.

--about time

Anonymous said...

It is outrageous that a student with disabilities was denied service in a city pre-school. It is also illegal. How can they justify that?!

-HS Parent

Melissa Westbrook said...

About Time, no one said South Shore should do anything. I'm not saying that and never did. I'm saying there are other SPS schools with the same demographics and need.

I'm not reprimanding anyone; I'm pointing out a reality.

There's no "getting rid of highly impacted" school (in reality)unless our district were to bus (no thanks) or gerrymander assignment areas. There's no "getting rid" of them until outside forces (state and feds) attack poverty in this country that leaves 25% of American children living in it.

Lynn said...

Rooted? Did you mean routed? Hard to understand your comments sometimes Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

It is "Pathetic" that you need to put down someone else, regardless of how you feel about them or disagree with their opinions. This blog is only constructive when we all state our opinions about policies and events as well as share facts and observations that we have.

If you disagree with Melissa or anyone else, give specific facts and opinions - not crude putdowns.

Momof2

Anonymous said...

Actually, Another Name said that South Shore should "share".

There "are other schools with same demographics and need."
So what does that have to do with giving South Shore credit
when credit is due?


http://apps.tcf.org/a-new-wave-of-school-integration

This article shows many ways to work toward lessening the percentage
of FRL students in highly impacted schools. Asserting bussing
as the anti-example plays into people's fears (for good reason)
and allows you to dismiss research about districts who are making
it happen.

BTW, Diane Ravitch is very concerned about the resegregation of schools
and has been critical about Arne Duncan for only paying lip service
to it.

--about time

Melissa Westbrook said...

This is my last comment on the subject, ABout Time. I did (and always do) give South Shore credit.

There are many ways to lessen segregation (and, in fact, yet another reason I don't like charter schools which are disproportionally segregated.) Thank you for the link.

Anonymous said...

Black students and STEM in college

HERE in the NY Post.

-- Dan Dempsey

Another Name said...

Clearly, this is a sensitive issue for it's about time.

To clarify my statement: It would be nice if Seattle's wealth was shared with other low income schools, too. I wasn't referring to S. Shore sharing funds, but we are all well aware that S. Shore is LEV's baby. Why is additional funding limited to LEV's school and I am advocating for funding to be given to other low income schools.

I will no longer engage with "it's about time", either.

Anonymous said...

Melissa,
You say there are many ways to lessen segregation, could you say what those might be?

As I have said on here many times, our best hope for desegregation went out the window when 'neighborhood schools' became the new fun way to get to know your neighbor (who can afford to live there), and forget about the rest of the city.

No transportation outside of catchment areas now keeps students with less resources away from schools they might have chosen.

Dead Horse

Anonymous said...

I've always enjoyed comparing the words of Seattle's high minded liberals around "embracing diversity" and their actions around segregating themselves in exclusive neighborhoods and private schools.

Tired of the hypocrites

Melissa Westbrook said...

Dear Horse, Another Name gave this helpful link:

http://apps.tcf.org/a-new-wave-of-school-integration

There's a start.

Anonymous said...

One way to increase school diversity is to increase diverse housing in our neighborhoods. I would love to see multiple family units sharing lots in my neighborhood along with low income housing, senior housing, several small houses on a lot, duplex housing, mother-in-law units, backyard cottages, etc. Land has become so expensive in my neighborhood, that only the wealthy can afford the housing if it is limited to one family per lot. Especially when the lots are 8,000 sq ft & can't be divided. I want little kids playing hide & seek through my yard, asking to play with my pets & selling me girl scout cookies. That isn't going to happen unless more diverse families can live near me.

-YIMBY

Anonymous said...

Dead Horse, did you see the Pre and post nsap analysis by- HF maybe?- that the neighborhood school system has actually increased diversity, and lowered the number of hot spot schools? I was around during school choice, and it was my experience that it was a much more exclusive and Byzantine system. It was segregating.

We should be using gerrymandering much more than we are. Some schools should be outside their catchment areas. Just in the NE, Sand Point should look very different (over more to the west, and it and View Ridge should split the low income housing to the north). Wedgwood should be in JAMS, and Sacajawea should be in Eckstein. At the high school level, HCC is actually an excellent diversifying tool, so within capacity constraints (significant) we should keep that going.

I think the actual blocks to progress is not hypocrisy, but that you have to sacrifice things that are very politically popular. In order to diversify elementary and middle schools you have to sacrifice walk ability. At the high school level you have to "give" something to HCC families (choice), and people hate giving them things.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

Gerrymandering and bussing? No thanks. Back in my youth I was bussed a half hour away to a crumbling school as part of a desegregation program. There was a brand-new middle school less than two miles away, and most everyone else from my elementary attended it. It was painfully obvious that the poorest neighborhoods were sent to the ancient school. I don't know if it was due to to a misguided attempt to make kids feel comfortable (similar economic bracket?) or the parents had less clout, but it sure made it look like the poor don't deserve good schools.

-bad idea

Anonymous said...

YIMBY - It sounds like you don't like your neighborhood very much. Why not move instead of advocating to change it to your liking?

Diverse Neighborhoods

Anonymous said...

No, not bussing. Create boundaries around schools with diversity in mind- Sand Point Elementary is a good example. It draws in almost all the low income housing in the area, when that should instead be split off more to View Ridge, Bryant, and Laurelhurst. Or middle school boundaries- when they split off JAMS, they should have swapped out the lowest frl school (Wedgwood)for one right next door in Eckstein, to keep Eckstein diverse and start JAMS gen Ed off better. No bussing involved, just better bureaucratic decision making.

The places where I have seen this work tend to have LESS community engagement which here I find just turns into a time for powerful communities to get favored treatment at the expense of less powerful communities and eventually whole regions(what is going on with REMS right now is a good example). To do that we would need to be able to trust our staff, though, and I think we are a ways away from that.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

sleeper, HF admitted the "analysis" was not grounded in mathematical realities because it compared percentages rather than taking into account the demographic changes. It's disingenuous to use that as a rebuttal against the need for SPS to increase diversity.

Melissa, is bad idea's understandable response about bussing what you wanted when you originally responded with "gerrymandering and bussing" as the only two options (before I brought up Diane Ravitch and linked the article)? Many people had awful experiences with bussing.

How does this conversation on how to help vulnerable children living in poverty get a fighting chance in life evolve into the victimhood of HCC? Anyone can read the APP/HCC blog (and many of us do). The candor of some APP posters include things they never say in public, similar to when Obama said "bibles and guns" at a fundraiser.

Ten percent of children (mostly of similar socio-economic demographics) in self-contained (although now illegal by state law to have that as the only placement) elementary school is hardly "hating" giving them things. They are dying to get in. Even the people on the APP blog want it culled because they know it's a bloated and water-downed behemoth.

To take someone's comment about wanting more diversity in their neighborhood and conclude they "don't like" their neighborbood sounds like a tactic to cut off such an idea from even being entertained. That rhetorical device has become rampant on the campaign trail--trying to dismiss an idea by ridicule (they laugh at you).

Gandhi: First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.

--about time

Anonymous said...

about time, I don't believe I "admitted" quite what you said. I did acknowledge that there are larger demographic shifts occurring within Seattle, and that the analysis did not account for those. That is a far cry from not being "grounded in mathematical realities" however. What sleeper said is true--for some of the whiter and low FRL schools, the NSAP resulted in increased diversity and increased FRL populations. That is a good thing. For some of the high minority and high FRL schools, the NSAP was associated with increases in the white population and decreases in the FRL population. The NSAP did not turn high-poverty schools into average-poverty schools, but the movement--in terms of both diversity and FRL--was in the right direction more often than not. The caveat I stated with regard to the analysis is that it did not factor in the longer term changes in Seattle's affordability and the neighborhood demographics. I suspect that patterns will change. A school that was predominantly minority and low FRL prior to the NSAP, and that became a little whiter and a little lower FRL after the NSAP, will likely continue to change. If the perception is that the school is "better" because it has lower FRL or starts seeing higher test scores or adds enrichment programs due to more PTA $ or the like, the neighborhood may become more desirable, housing costs may rise, and the FRL percentage (and likely, minority population as well) will continue to decrease. None of that is a given, of course, but it's conceivable. My analysis acknowledged that possibility, but did not attempt to predict the future.

HF

Anonymous said...

Also, self-contained is not illegal.

HF

Anonymous said...

No, you disagreed, but it is very grounded in reality. She did take into account changing overall FRL rate in the district. The change to NSAP was not enough to completely solve our diversity problems, but that was not the goal, and should never be the goal for any one school district level change. The goal was to help- and it did. I think gerrymandering would also help.

I have no idea what you are talking about with victimhood. I was talking about high school level diversity improvements, which are a very different ball of wax than elementary and middle school ones. Two weeks ago on the blog I posted with someone who said they couldn't stand giving HCC families more choice than other kids have for high school, and last week the NW executive region director said he thought HCC kids should just go to their local high schools. Putting completely aside the elementary issue, which again, I was not talking about at all- this is a terrible idea, for capacity but more importantly diversity. HCC diversifies high schools. My children would go to Roosevelt under this plan, which back of the envelope would go down to 8% FRL, and Garfield would become an impoverished school, at 70% FRL. I am sure Roosevelt would have a lot of bells and whistles then, but I think that sounds terrible, and so here I am on a blog saying so, to try to improve the school system, not really being a victim of anything. I understand what you want to do is punish people you believe are not righteous, not educate any child until all children have the same advantages to start. What I want to do is not wait until utopia happens, with the very concrete problem of geographical segregation in our city and inequality and a mandate to educate even with those problems, even the children whose parents you think are jerks. I am trying to come up with pragmatic solutions, and some of the blocks are going to be political- including things like vitriol toward gifted programs. Walkability, too, especially in a relatively green city like Seattle.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

Cross posted with you, HF, and also hope it was clear I was not trying to speak for you in any of these posts today. These posts today are just what I think, not what I think anyone else thinks.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

Diverse neighborhoods,

Actually my neighborhood has become much less diverse in the last couple of decades. It use have small victory houses that lower middle class could afford and the old farm houses with multiple generation families in them and rentals with students and young families mixed in with larger homes housing more affluent folks. As property values have skyrocketed, the neighborhood has become much less diverse economically as lots have been filled with million dollar new construction. I miss the old hood. Our city is growing and we need housing that is affordable for people. I would prefer that to the changes I am seeing now.

And just to scare you, I live in NE Seattle & I write the city council & beg them to put poor folks next door to me even if it means rezoning my property.

-YIMBY

Anonymous said...

I certainly didn't say that self-contained is illegal.

The state law states that the district needs a continuum of services,
which is based on the special education model. The district is not
in compliance with the law on this front because self-contained is currently a choice for those who are identified, not a placement based on the need to provide appropriate services.

While we are discussing state law, the following law is being violated by SPS, too. This violation has a direct consequence for the children we are discussing in this thread--those living in poverty:

"The district identification process must apply equitably to all enrolled students and families from every racial, ethnic and socio-economic population present in the public school population they serve. Districts must review identification procedures to make sure student selection reflects the demographics of the area they serve. These specific requirements for compliance — and related activities — appear here in the WACs we list below.

"Continuum of Services

WAC 392-170-078 requires the district to serve identified students from the point of identification through grade 12. Districts shall make a variety of appropriate program services available to enrolled students who participate in
the district's program for highly capable students. Once services are started, a continuum of services shall be provided to the student from K-12. Districts shall periodically review services for each student to ensure that the services are appropriate."

--about time

Anonymous said...

It may have been based on a special education continuum of services, but it is not bound by the same constraints as special Ed in providing that continuum. Just because you borrow language in a statute does not mean you have imported the entire framework.

Separately they would say differentiation in a gen Ed class room is another option, so that's a "continuum." I do notice that the statute about identification specifically mentions the "area," not the "district," which means sps is in demographic compliance as well (though I would prefer them to work harder on being more similar to the district).

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

As long as it's a choice and not a placement, it is in violation of
the law.

Too bad it takes laws to get SPS to value diversity and finally have
to start making HCC a reflection of the district's demographics.

Debating "what the meaning of is is" won't change the intent of the
law and the direction SPS needs to take.

--about time

Anonymous said...

It's not, though, if you are saying it is because placement in the special ed context means no choice on the part of families. I am setting aside our previous disagreement beliefs about district policy, and just talking about this statute, and what importation of the phrase "continuum of services" means for the rest of the words in a statute. This is my area of expertise (not education policy, but statutory interpretation), and it DOES matter. "Placement" can mean a change in label(and does in some districts), and does not need to mean no choice on the part of the family, or whether they have options for services or not.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

Placement should always involve parent input (and must in Special Education law). Teams place students based on appropriate service needs for that student. Parents do not unilaterally place students.

We obviously have some very well educated parents in this district.
Let's put that brain power into making this a more diverse and equitable
district.

--about time (and out of time)

Anonymous said...

"with the very concrete problem of geographical segregation in our city"

If there were geographical segregation it would mean we had large mountains or rivers sequestering one segment of the population.

I think your trying to once again falsely paint Seattle in a racist hue.

Yes, Seattle does have economical realities keeping the Have Nots from living in many of our neighborhoods. This is not racism, it's the American dream and it's for Americans.

Voting Trump

Melissa Westbrook said...

"Thee state law states that the district needs a continuum of services,
which is based on the special education model. The district is not
in compliance with the law on this front because self-contained is currently a choice for those who are identified, not a placement based on the need to provide appropriate services."

I think that is your interpretation of the law. The district does, on paper and in some schools, have a continuum of services. That you don't like self-contained isn't relevant to the law (unless you want to draft a bill to change that.)

The district does have ways to identify bright kids and does outreach to their parents. I'd be interested in how readers think the district should be doing this.

I always say that Seattle is "geographically challenged" meaning, it is narrow and has water on both sides. You don't need rivers or mountains to influence how a city grows (also see San Francisco.)

Some people seem to not remember the history of redlining in this region so no, not everyone got the same chance at some neighborhoods as all other Americans.

Anonymous said...

They're not following the placement part of the law correctly. I didn't say they didn't have a continuum of services available. I am actually a strong proponent
of self-contained when it is the appropriate placement. Obviously, it isn't for too many currently placed HCC kids or the parents on the HCC blog wouldn't be consistently so concerned how watered down the self-contained program has become.
They are actually strongly advocating the culling, especially those with a history in the program

The district obviously isn't doing a good job of identifying potential students from underrepresented groups (and being on track for complying with state law). According the APP/HCC blog, they are doing a bang-up job of perpetuating the current demographic.

--about time

Anonymous said...

"Some people seem to not remember the history of redlining in this region so no, not everyone got the same chance at some neighborhoods as all other Americans."

I've challenged people on this blog before to provide evidence of "red lining". No one stepped-up and did so.

I'll ask again, prove your redlining theory with documentation. Show me a property deed from a Seattle neighborhood is the past 40 years that stipulates the color of a purchasers skin or ethnicity.

I've goggled for hours and the only thing you'll can find is unsubstantiated hearsay on blogs like this one.

Voting Trump

Anonymous said...

What are all of the "underrepresented groups" you are referring to? Aren't artistic (NOT AUTISTIC) students ""underrepresented"? Shouldn't they be identified and cultivated also?

Maggie

Melissa Westbrook said...

Voting Trump:

http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/online-exhibits/redlining-in-seattle

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/segregated.htm

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants_report.htm

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/12/blacklivesmatter-a-look-at-the-covenants-on-capitol-hill/

That was in two minutes of "goggling."

Anonymous said...

Melissa you suggested this link as having options for desegregation.

http://apps.tcf.org/a-new-wave-of-school-integration



So, it was a slog,and I have to admit I did not read the whole thing, but the gist of this article/study was that there are basically two options that the vast majority districts use for reducing segregation by socio-economic status and or race: attendance zone modification was the only one that did not involve school choice.

The rest involved school choice::District Wide Choice Policies,Magnet Schools,Charter Schools, and Transfer (there were a few that were listed under Other).

Nothing new there.

Choice only works to desegregate when there is transportation for all who need it.

Dead Horse

Anonymous said...

Dead Horse,

Your point is what? That we need transportation, even though we can't afford it? That we need attendance zone modification, even though it's not a sexy new idea? Or that it's all hopeless?

Confused Horse