What Will Seattle Schools Be When It Grows Up?
I sat thru the quick meeting today that was held before the Board meeting about the extra $11M in next year's budget that somehow got found. It was quite discouraging.
Up front - NO decisions were made. I suspect that staff will want some soon so look for another meeting next week.
One thing from the get go is that many of the Board members were not happy to be given a list less than 24 hours before this meeting. Not happy at all and, as Directors Harris and Blanford said, "This is no way to do business."
That's not because no one had ideas on how to spend the money, both on the staff side and Board side. I'm sure many of us could think of what to do with that money.
The staff had things like:
- RULER - which for socio-emotional learning and would be training and support for staff at Tier One schools
- the academic data dashboard (no encouragement on this one from the Board and I agree. If the district is allowing schools to go their own way on curriculum and program methodology, there is no hope to know what works and why at any given school)
- paying for PSAT and SAT testing
- teacher release days for PD (got a mixed reaction from the Board as they get varying feedback from teachers on how much worth there is to any given PD)
- assessments
- one interesting item was School Leadership with Michael Tolley saying it would be worth it if school leaders could head off problems so they didn't get bigger
- contract with "Thought Exchange" - some kind of online public engagement
- Building Leadership Team training - given that every school doesn't even have a BLT and most are tightly controlled by principals, I'd say no to this one.
I didn't actually see what the Board members got and their documentation included mitigation for schools. Also included was new middle school math curriculum which seems to be long-overdue.
There was one funny spot where Director Harris was inquiring about how the mitigation numbers came about and was told there was a combination of factors like F/RL, academic outcomes, school segmentation, etc. Harris said, "So there's a formula?" The answer from Tolley was yes. So Harris said, "But it's not provided so I don't understand how it works." Tolley said, well he didn't have the formula and the person that developed it no longer works for the district. Oh.
He also said something interesting. He said that McDonald and Stanford, because of their dual language programs, have "always received mitigation funds." He said that the other schools in this program - Concord, Beacon Hill and Dearborn Park - want funds as well.
Director Peters pointed out that, for example, at Center School, they are losing enrollment. This could be because of the erosion (and now) cutting of their arts program. Tolley's answer was that smaller schools always have issues with being able to provide what larger schools do. Peters pointed out that if these schools met their enrollment, they likely would not need the mitigation. Tolley agreed.
Budget head Linda Sebring explained that the deficit number they will be working with if the levy cliff comes (and this would be for 2017-2018) is about $74M but if they could move it just one year further out, then it might only be $45-50M. Meaning, take the whole extra $11M and use it as a buffer - don't spend it at all.
What was made clear is that the WSS for schools is simply to provide the stripped-down basics for a school (and meeting contract requirements.) As Tolley said, every school is different and has other needs beyond the basics.
To note, the documentation showed that most of the schools in Tier One were "low equity," meaning, not having equity issues within the school. When Director Geary asked why, Superintendent Nyland said, with just a shade of bitterness, "Because we made promises we can't keep."
IB got mentioned but Superintendent Nyland said it wasn't on the list because "it's another new promise and we aren't even meeting the old ones."
Pinkham pressed on the point, asking about what the promises were. He also pointed out that the spreadsheet had hidden columns and when he uncovered them, it looked like some items had been given a higher emphasis (didn't say which ones.)
Nyland said the promises were around dual language, Montessori, K-8s and that they were chronically understaffed.
The feeling - to me - was to blame those who came before and the promises those people made. I will point out that none of the programs involved was created just on a promise. All of them went to a board via a superintendent.
Geary kind of touched on the issue saying that they can't give lip service on creating programs and not following thru. She mentioned being out of compliance of laws and "setting ourselves up for lawsuits."
President Patu was of the mind to drive the $11M into the schools. She said the schools need help now.
They ran out of time and the whole issue got tabled.
Then I watched the first part of the Board meeting including the public testimony. There were a couple of very stark moments.
One was having deaf/hard of hearing parents come forward (with great ASL interpreters), explaining how badly deaf students are being treated and how they are been underserved. They acknowledged other students who are also underserved but said that if black children were being told in order to learn they had to act white, there would be a huge outcry and yet, their children have been told they need to learn to read lips in order to truly learn. And, at least one deaf program is down in some basement akin to a dungeon.
It was truly upsetting to hear. These children have the same rights to be educated and yet, somehow, continually get shunted aside.
The second stark moment was the testimony of two principals - Ballard's Keven Wynkoop and Gerrit Kischner, principal atTOPS K-8 Schmitz Park. Both principals testified about the district needing to view ALL decisions, first and foremost, thru the lens of equity. Principal Wynkoop, in particular, railed against "boutique" schools and "dual track" programs and white privilege. I was taken aback at some of his tone but I can give him credit for being honest. ( I did tweet about this and pointed out that I'm sure he appreciates the funds that his PTA raises. He tweeted back, "Absolutely" and that his PTA had funded programs to help kids in need.)
There was also moving words from Directors Blanford and Peters and Geary about their concern over funding. Blanford seems very worried about the dollars and how much there will be if the levy cliff comes. (Geary also touched on Orlando and student testimony on gender neutral bathrooms and support for all students. Peters also said she understood Principal Wynkoop's feelings about equity which she shared. But she said she was obligated to listen to ALL parents, appreciate their efforts and try to draw in as many other voice as she could.) (Update: Director Peters says she didn't agree with Wynkoop on either not listening to some parents or to get rid of smaller schools/programs.)
My takeaway?
I am loathe to say this because it plays into the hands of people who want to take over the district but, honestly, this district is is disarray. I sit in meeting after meeting, year after year, and superintendents and boards and staff like to complain and yet they seem to have no control over what is happening.
I've said it before - we need a sheriff. We need someone like Anthony Boudain who, when he visited Top Chef and looked around, asked, "What kind of crackhouse is this?''
I would NOT call SPS a "crackhouse" but it is almost unintelligible. To wit:
- Operations are not under control. The examples of this are legion. The Deputy Superintendent says, just this week, that senior management can't tell the schools what to do. What?! The district puts out money for a consultant on nutrition services, gets back a fairly damning report and....does nothing with it. Nor does the Board. Special Education? Not good. It's is just bewildering.
- Our district has seemingly taken on too many programs, year after year, almost as if they are good PR vehicles without seeming to understand they had to be paid for. And, if the district wanted good results from them, it was going to cost more money than a traditional school.
The district's one good thing - alternative schools - that had been here more than 20 years, parent/teacher created (the original charter schools), many were run into the ground or weakened by the district.
Dual-language is a great idea but no one truly understood/believed three things. One, you need two adults in the classroom to truly make it work. Two, all those elementary kids would grow up and go where next for that program? Three, equity. How was it fair to give that kind of opportunity to just a couple of neighborhoods?
And yet, Director Michael DeBell, as his parting gift to the district, pushed thru opening more dual-language schools, saying that promises were made. In essence, he created more mouths to feed.
That leaves the current staff in a rather untenable position of resenting these programs rather than embracing them. And it leaves the district ever more struggling and trying to put a good face on the whole thing.
What do they need to do? Or maybe the question is, at this point, what can they do?
They should strip down schools to the basics. It's cheaper to operate schools that are vastly similar in offerings. It is also more equitable. And, you can more easily focus on those who need the support.
It would make operations simpler and, for this district, that alone would be a big help.
I know many of you are thinking, "She must be kidding." I'm not kidding but I also know it's not realistic. It would take some humble pie to say, "We can't handle all this and we cannot go on this way especially with a possible levy cliff coming." It would take political courage.
Honestly, we can all argue that the district has to fund what it started. What I feel I am hearing is the staff saying, "No, we don't" and, in essence, are possibly going to starve programs into folding.
It can't be on parents to fundraising them out of this dilemma, either.
I don't know the answer.
I just know - as I have said over and over - this district will never get ahead with closing the opportunity gap as long as they cannot control their operations.
I see no evidence of that changing soon.
Up front - NO decisions were made. I suspect that staff will want some soon so look for another meeting next week.
One thing from the get go is that many of the Board members were not happy to be given a list less than 24 hours before this meeting. Not happy at all and, as Directors Harris and Blanford said, "This is no way to do business."
That's not because no one had ideas on how to spend the money, both on the staff side and Board side. I'm sure many of us could think of what to do with that money.
The staff had things like:
- RULER - which for socio-emotional learning and would be training and support for staff at Tier One schools
- the academic data dashboard (no encouragement on this one from the Board and I agree. If the district is allowing schools to go their own way on curriculum and program methodology, there is no hope to know what works and why at any given school)
- paying for PSAT and SAT testing
- teacher release days for PD (got a mixed reaction from the Board as they get varying feedback from teachers on how much worth there is to any given PD)
- assessments
- one interesting item was School Leadership with Michael Tolley saying it would be worth it if school leaders could head off problems so they didn't get bigger
- contract with "Thought Exchange" - some kind of online public engagement
- Building Leadership Team training - given that every school doesn't even have a BLT and most are tightly controlled by principals, I'd say no to this one.
I didn't actually see what the Board members got and their documentation included mitigation for schools. Also included was new middle school math curriculum which seems to be long-overdue.
There was one funny spot where Director Harris was inquiring about how the mitigation numbers came about and was told there was a combination of factors like F/RL, academic outcomes, school segmentation, etc. Harris said, "So there's a formula?" The answer from Tolley was yes. So Harris said, "But it's not provided so I don't understand how it works." Tolley said, well he didn't have the formula and the person that developed it no longer works for the district. Oh.
He also said something interesting. He said that McDonald and Stanford, because of their dual language programs, have "always received mitigation funds." He said that the other schools in this program - Concord, Beacon Hill and Dearborn Park - want funds as well.
Director Peters pointed out that, for example, at Center School, they are losing enrollment. This could be because of the erosion (and now) cutting of their arts program. Tolley's answer was that smaller schools always have issues with being able to provide what larger schools do. Peters pointed out that if these schools met their enrollment, they likely would not need the mitigation. Tolley agreed.
Budget head Linda Sebring explained that the deficit number they will be working with if the levy cliff comes (and this would be for 2017-2018) is about $74M but if they could move it just one year further out, then it might only be $45-50M. Meaning, take the whole extra $11M and use it as a buffer - don't spend it at all.
What was made clear is that the WSS for schools is simply to provide the stripped-down basics for a school (and meeting contract requirements.) As Tolley said, every school is different and has other needs beyond the basics.
To note, the documentation showed that most of the schools in Tier One were "low equity," meaning, not having equity issues within the school. When Director Geary asked why, Superintendent Nyland said, with just a shade of bitterness, "Because we made promises we can't keep."
IB got mentioned but Superintendent Nyland said it wasn't on the list because "it's another new promise and we aren't even meeting the old ones."
Pinkham pressed on the point, asking about what the promises were. He also pointed out that the spreadsheet had hidden columns and when he uncovered them, it looked like some items had been given a higher emphasis (didn't say which ones.)
Nyland said the promises were around dual language, Montessori, K-8s and that they were chronically understaffed.
The feeling - to me - was to blame those who came before and the promises those people made. I will point out that none of the programs involved was created just on a promise. All of them went to a board via a superintendent.
Geary kind of touched on the issue saying that they can't give lip service on creating programs and not following thru. She mentioned being out of compliance of laws and "setting ourselves up for lawsuits."
President Patu was of the mind to drive the $11M into the schools. She said the schools need help now.
They ran out of time and the whole issue got tabled.
Then I watched the first part of the Board meeting including the public testimony. There were a couple of very stark moments.
One was having deaf/hard of hearing parents come forward (with great ASL interpreters), explaining how badly deaf students are being treated and how they are been underserved. They acknowledged other students who are also underserved but said that if black children were being told in order to learn they had to act white, there would be a huge outcry and yet, their children have been told they need to learn to read lips in order to truly learn. And, at least one deaf program is down in some basement akin to a dungeon.
It was truly upsetting to hear. These children have the same rights to be educated and yet, somehow, continually get shunted aside.
The second stark moment was the testimony of two principals - Ballard's Keven Wynkoop and Gerrit Kischner, principal at
There was also moving words from Directors Blanford and Peters and Geary about their concern over funding. Blanford seems very worried about the dollars and how much there will be if the levy cliff comes. (Geary also touched on Orlando and student testimony on gender neutral bathrooms and support for all students. Peters also said she understood Principal Wynkoop's feelings about equity which she shared. But she said she was obligated to listen to ALL parents, appreciate their efforts and try to draw in as many other voice as she could.) (Update: Director Peters says she didn't agree with Wynkoop on either not listening to some parents or to get rid of smaller schools/programs.)
My takeaway?
I am loathe to say this because it plays into the hands of people who want to take over the district but, honestly, this district is is disarray. I sit in meeting after meeting, year after year, and superintendents and boards and staff like to complain and yet they seem to have no control over what is happening.
I've said it before - we need a sheriff. We need someone like Anthony Boudain who, when he visited Top Chef and looked around, asked, "What kind of crackhouse is this?''
I would NOT call SPS a "crackhouse" but it is almost unintelligible. To wit:
- Operations are not under control. The examples of this are legion. The Deputy Superintendent says, just this week, that senior management can't tell the schools what to do. What?! The district puts out money for a consultant on nutrition services, gets back a fairly damning report and....does nothing with it. Nor does the Board. Special Education? Not good. It's is just bewildering.
- Our district has seemingly taken on too many programs, year after year, almost as if they are good PR vehicles without seeming to understand they had to be paid for. And, if the district wanted good results from them, it was going to cost more money than a traditional school.
The district's one good thing - alternative schools - that had been here more than 20 years, parent/teacher created (the original charter schools), many were run into the ground or weakened by the district.
Dual-language is a great idea but no one truly understood/believed three things. One, you need two adults in the classroom to truly make it work. Two, all those elementary kids would grow up and go where next for that program? Three, equity. How was it fair to give that kind of opportunity to just a couple of neighborhoods?
And yet, Director Michael DeBell, as his parting gift to the district, pushed thru opening more dual-language schools, saying that promises were made. In essence, he created more mouths to feed.
That leaves the current staff in a rather untenable position of resenting these programs rather than embracing them. And it leaves the district ever more struggling and trying to put a good face on the whole thing.
What do they need to do? Or maybe the question is, at this point, what can they do?
They should strip down schools to the basics. It's cheaper to operate schools that are vastly similar in offerings. It is also more equitable. And, you can more easily focus on those who need the support.
It would make operations simpler and, for this district, that alone would be a big help.
I know many of you are thinking, "She must be kidding." I'm not kidding but I also know it's not realistic. It would take some humble pie to say, "We can't handle all this and we cannot go on this way especially with a possible levy cliff coming." It would take political courage.
Honestly, we can all argue that the district has to fund what it started. What I feel I am hearing is the staff saying, "No, we don't" and, in essence, are possibly going to starve programs into folding.
It can't be on parents to fundraising them out of this dilemma, either.
I don't know the answer.
I just know - as I have said over and over - this district will never get ahead with closing the opportunity gap as long as they cannot control their operations.
I see no evidence of that changing soon.
Comments
I agree and I hope these individuals don't take this fight to city hall. I was disappointed to learn that a John Stanford staff member decided to join the rally and hold a sign.
In case anyone is watching, I'm advocating that the district support trauma informed instruction. I've added this to my list which includes funding IB for 3 years, providing teacher/ student supports related to decreased suspensions, funding middle and high schools (Franklin needs help), and supporting deaf and hard of hearing.
There are things to support vulnerable communities without pitting groups.
Stop the Hypocrisy
Perhaps because it was developed by the Race and Equity Committee, with that focus, but certainly the overarching equity issue deserves its own analysis and attention, and that issue is poverty. IMO.
A/H/G T
-sleeper
". That WILL be work; it will be effort; it will be "a heavy lift", but to do nothing is not an option."
That we are asking questions of this new policy is NOT saying "do nothing." Please do not put words in anyone's mouth or make it appear that people are seeking the dreaded status quo. We all know change needs to happen but as a long-time viewer of the district, I know enough to beware of changes that come with little real explanation.
Maureen, I think you are right. Just viewing everything thru one equity lens means other issues may not get attention that is valid. I'm going to have to talk with some Board members about how they see this.
Solves the equity question too.
JS
I am also not sure how many times in a row the answer to a capacity problem can be "kick the hcc kids out!" before that is pretty inequitable, but we're butting right up against it. Especially since these are the kids who got pulled out of Lowell and then HIMS midstream(not my kid). That's starting a new school from scratch in the middle of your time at every single level. Pretty crappy.
-sleeper
If you compare HCC to gen ed students, the only “more” they are getting is the option to refuse the service, or in the case of HS, the option to play the lottery for IBX. That is not as good as it sounds – pathway schools are overcrowded with long commutes and could split, move or disappear at any moment, IBX is not a guaranteed placement, and neighborhood schools most likely don't offer what the student needs. Some people would call these “opportunities” but to those who have to make the decisions they are closer to impossible choices.
not more
Administration: " Look how poorly we treat x group of students. You are selfish to want better for your beloved. You are selfish like east-siders. "
Parents: " I guess we should race to the bottom, well, when you put it like that. I wouldn't want to be thought of as selfish. You had better treat our beloveds poorly as well. It's OK, forget that whole education thing, silly us for wanting it, expecting it, and paying for it. Those selfish Bellevue folks can demand public education, we'll settle for equity I guess."
Administrators: "Right, education is unsustainable and selfish. We need more lucrative tech, consulting, and admin. contracts!"
West
As for equity, I believe it's only equitable that parents who's children are not being served in SPS should receive some sort of compensation.
Cultural relativity
How many personal computers have you owned? Count your smart electric typewriters, your Commodores, your Amigas, your Apple II E, your IBMs and HPs, your PDAs, Blackberries, your smart phones, every single one, the HTCs and iPhones, count all your tablets, Kindles, iPads, off brands, count all your laptops, including the one you left on the train, ran over, dropped off the kayak.
Can you even count that high? Do you remember?
Why didn't 1 computer just last for even a decade? Why is it that we know that technology is not sustainable and Staff tell us it is the sustainable way to spent 11 million. Either they are young and stupid, or they are in on the hustle.
Teachers, classrooms, curriculum, pencils, paper, books, nurses, counsellors, desks, playgrounds, lunches. Repeat until all students are REALLY given an education. We don't need fancy projectors if student teacher ratios are small enough. Students should be able to see to the front of the room. Teachers should be able to walk a text around for read-a-loud if only one book is available. Teachers should learn the art of the lecture, and know the material well enough to draw diagrams on a whiteboard spontaneously, as needed. ... I guess that would be MTSS... "Oh, some of you still don't see, let me draw a diagram to clarify my point." Teachers should not need multi-year implementation for that, just small enough classes to assess learning while teaching.
West
-counting down
What does that mean in specific?
West, look for my upcoming series on personalized learning which is all about use of technology.
Does that mean your upcoming series will be all about the use of technology? Because personalized learning doesn't have to involve "technology" at all.
LisaG
That is what I was responding to in my comment about it not being used by parents. It's a policy and procedure tool.
Oh, I see, I read your comment as parents using the tool, but I think you mean how are parents to change their behavior if the tool is used generally. My apologies.
But yours is a good point - parents should know how tool is used, be involved in policy and procedure, particularly as it impacts schools in a variety of ways. AND why just race, and not F/RL, ELL, SpEd, HCC....
Regarding my comment about how it's not an option to just not do anything, well, it's not. Not trying to guilt anyone or anything, but I've been on a ton of committees over the decades, watched stuff developed, watched it languish and not a lot changes. I wasn't suggesting that parents WANT to just do nothing, but rather that we can't just do nothing.
A/H/G T
I'm talking about the district fully explaining this new (and seemingly overarching) vision for the district and how that will play out in schools and classrooms.
I know it is for staff but parents need the big picture explanation AND, if it gets used in their school, how it will be used.
"What does that mean in specific?"
-Property tax refund
West
"Hamilton was 54% FRL before the APP program was placed there, and is now 8% FRL. IHS has gone from 56% FRL (2009-10) to 28% FRL (2014-15)."
If I am remembering correctly, prior to the NSAP, transportation was provided to students living in SE Seattle, so that they could attend north-end schools like Hamilton and Ingraham. The changes in the demographics at these schools are due, at least in part, to the discontinuation of transportation to and from SE Seattle.
-North-end Mom
Yes, the NSAP resulted...in many cases...in drastic lowering of F/RL numbers in north end schools.
McClure MS was 47% F/RL in 2009, and fell to 22% in 2013
Interestingly, Whitman MS went from 23% to 30% F/RL in the same period.
A couple of points of clarification and context.
Budget:
The one-time funds were discussed at a recent work session, then brought to Executive Committee (Board president, VP and at-large) the following week for a determination. We felt that it should be decided by the full Board, which then required another meeting. Time (hard to come by especially in the waning days of the school year and as we headed into graduation schedules) was found on Weds, just before the Board meeting (6/15). Because related documents were not provided to the Board until the afternoon before, a discussion was had, but it was determined that there was not time in that brief meeting to reach an informed conclusion. This will happen soon so funds can go to schools ASAP.
Views discussed ranged from funding some or all of the 5 Board governance goals for 2016-17, funding IB for all three locations (Rainier Beach, Chief Sealth and Ingraham high schools), dividing up some of the funds among each school to use at their discretion, funding a MS math adoption, mitigation funding for schools with a priority on schools that have high needs or programs that cannot function without mitigation, to not spending any of it in the 2016-17 school year, but saving it for the 2017-18 school year.
Center School:
My point was, it is possible that one-time mitigation funds to retain a crucial component of a school (here, the art dept) could be an investment in the future of the school in that it could attract students and increase enrollment (bringing with it funding), making mitigation in the following year unnecessary. In other words, it may not require annual shoring up, but could be a one-time investment that would then sustain itself by attracting enrollment.
It’s my understanding that the loss of the art teacher and other offerings has dissuaded students from enrolling. I also want to point out that our smaller schools (perhaps what some are referring to as “boutique”?) also serve diverse students with needs that cannot be met in more comprehensive, larger school settings. That’s why there is broad Board support for an investment in various options for our students.
The term “boutique” has certain derogatory and subjective implications which I don’t find particularly constructive. I urge those who may discount such schools to study up on the history Middle College, Indian Heritage School, Center School, Nova, and the role they have played in giving a place, purpose and support to students who are no less deserving than any other, some who have been at risk of dropping out of school, and do not fit anyone’s stereotypical demographic. As for our our language immersion schools, I believe there is some general agreement that we need a sustainable model that funds all the programs and services the district offers, and to not have to rely on PTAs.
(continued)
Nutrition Services report:
I agree that this is an important study that prompts follow up and action. It confirmed many of the issues that were brought to the Board in the last year by the Lunch and Recess groups. I have expressed this at recent Board meetings and to the superintendent and staff.
Comments:
Just to clarify, some principals spoke before the Board on the topic of equity, urging the Board to consider this aspect when making decisions.
What I found problematic was the message from a few people that night who told the Board that we should not listen to certain constituents, students and school communities who bring their concerns to us, and the claim that those constituents are ‘louder’ than others.
I was troubled by that message and disagreed. For starters, ignoring constituents would be a violation of our duties as elected public representatives.
As I said at the last Board meeting, I don’t think we as a Board can embrace that message. We have to listen to everybody who comes to us, whether they’re loud or quiet.
Yes, we have to reach out to those we do not hear from often. But in my three years on the Board, there have been quite a few different communities who have come to us on many different issues, from various backgrounds, who’ve been passionate and compelling. We cannot ignore any of them.
The irony is, if the Board were to follow the logic presented to us by some of the principals that night—-to ignore the loudest voices who share their concerns with us –-that would mean that we should ignore those very principals. After all, there were about 20 of the district’s nearly 100 principals present, so, by their own definition they were a “vocal minority.” But I don’t subscribe to that view, as I indicated in my director’s comments.
I was also concerned by the suggestion that we not fund certain smaller schools or certain programs or services because they purportedly serve just one demographic and do not serve “our most fragile students” (an incorrect assumption).
It worries me when we get into a situation where we seem to be playing a zero-sum game, where groups are pitted against each other. We must be committed to all of our 53,000 students and meet the needs of all of them.
We cannot dismiss the concerns of any of our groups. We must address issues of equity and fairness with an eye to all of the students in need, and not forget any of our students.
Thank you.
Sue Peters
Vice President, Seattle School Board