Friday, February 03, 2017

Friday Open Thread

It's been a busy week. We're looking ahead to a lot of education news at the federal level and the state level. What has your attention?

86 comments:

Charlie Mas said...

If the Senate were to vote on Betsy DeVos today, the vote would be 50-50 and Vice-President Mike Pence would vote in favor to break the tie.

If the Senate were to vote AFTER Jeff Sessions is approved as Attorney General, the vote would be 49-50 and her nomination would be rejected.

Timing is everything.

Patrick said...

Timing is everything, like if Scalia had died during Obama's term, we would have had another centerist judge on the court... oh, wait...

Anonymous said...

I suffered through an election season with little use for either of the two presidential candidates. I had hoped Trump's election brought an end to his fake fact propaganda, unfortunately it did not. I find most of his nominated appointees far more stable and rational in their speech than Mr. Trump, but not Betsy DeVos.

She sometimes pushes the fake facts to support her positions. So now we look to have 50 senators who are willing to confirm Betsy DeVos, even with her fake facts. What a sad state of affairs.

EdWeek made it clear that during her senate confirmation hearings, she justified her support for full time online schools with grossly inflated graduation rates. At one time she was an investor in full time online charter schools.

DeVos pushes inflated graduation rates for Cyber Charters

Apparently DeVos feels entitled to her own facts. It is appalling that half the senate would support this type of behavior. Once again it is apparent that WADC is all about tribal politics and to hell with the actual facts.

Betsy DeVos's behavior is so reminiscent of Susan Enfield's SBAR pushing the $800,000 contract for 3 years of services from New Tech for Cleveland HS.
Enfield wrote that New Tech Sacramento had a 97% graduation rate when data based on cohort enrollment revealed it to be consistently below 50%. The Seattle Board approved the $800,000 and Enfield eventually became Supe at Highline; so I guess we will soon be stuck with DeVos. Fake data is no problem to decision-makers when it comes to education.

Pretending things work when they don't is becoming a hallmark of education. Especially so when it comes to justifying funding, or proposing, promoting, selecting and evaluating programs and materials.

-- Dan Dempsey

Stuart Jenner said...

A reminder about the Feb 9 and 10 conference at the UW, sponsored by the Robinson Center, on Equity and Gifted Education. There is no charge to attend, but you do need to preregister.

https://robinsoncenter.uw.edu/events/equity-summit-gifted-education/

Anonymous said...

Anyone attend the forum last night at Ballard HS on high school and education funding? It was billed as discussing funding, 24-credit graduation requirements, and Lincoln HS boundaries/questions.

Sadly, I know a lot of parents like me who have 8th graders who couldn't attend because last night was the same night as open houses for 3 North End high schools (Roosevelt, Ingraham and Hale.) Ugh.

Thanks so much to anyone who can report out what they learned and heard.

Concerned parent

Anonymous said...

EdWeek just sent out an appraisal
of the 50 senators likely to vote for DeVos.

It appears at this time that there will be no more dissenters.

Note: the two Republican defectors will have no impact, thus they can be safe with voters while not impacting Trump's preferred outcome.

Like Charlie says it all about timing.
Ain't gamesmanship bizarre?

-- Dan Dempsey

Anonymous said...

I can't wait for the voucher system or some sort of tax relief for parents seeking a proper education for their children.

--Barbra

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

Is it possible to get an initiative on the ballot that directs how SPS spends money? For example, would it be possible to require them to fully fund schools (based on school provided budgets) before new initiatives, technology, hiring more people downtown, etc. etc.? To me, it seems that there might be a good amount of money for our classrooms and schools if they were funded before anything else. Could we also require SPS to scrap any weird funding formulas that create insane class sizes, split classes, etc. through voter initiative?

Anonymous said...

From my 40,000 foot level, it appears to me that groups of humans are very consistent about finding reasons to crap on each other, they are very consistent about crapping on each other at the behest of some parasitic 'leadership' group living on the surplus of the community, and it is rare that the parasitic leadership group bears the costs of the crap they've stirred up.

I grew up Irish Catholic in Massachusetts - I've heard plenty bad about Irish Protestants, the English, all Protestants ... And what is up with that Middle East place - how long have they been slaughtering each other over who has the better God? I've heard northern Italians belittle southern Italians as lazy, and I've heard Germans say things about the French and the Italians ... and don't the Poles love the Russians the Germans! How does that Japan - Korea - China thing work out? What about the Vietnamese and the Chinese? Those Tutsi & Hutu people did a good job on each other a little while back.

Oh yeah! And just about all cultures treat their women like garbage.

And for 8 or 12 thousand years, in many places of the world, the "government" exists to make sure the serfs provide a comfy living for those in charge, and for the enforcers of those in charge.

++++
Then should the warlike Harry,
Like himself, assume the port of Mars,
and at his heels,
leashed in like hounds,
should famine, sword and fire crouch for employment.
++++

Teach stupid history, keep repeating stupidity.

histoire

Anonymous said...

I thought it was about District focus and the new School Board. Many people, White and of Color believe that this election was basically funded by special interests that weren't necessarily concerned with the majority of our students (which,in my opinion, includes the middle class). It seems that the Times, and some on this thread, are now pleased that we are no longer focused on the Academic Achievement Gap and Institutional Racism, and finally the middle class has a chance. (I must have missed the results of the hyper focus)

I see that many people believe that the kind of programs being mentioned have their place, and should be widely available. I think I hear people arguing that they are, but perhaps want more. OK, I can live with that, even though I know they will only serve a small portion of our students. My question is: what is the appropriate balance between enrichment programs targeting some of the more privileged in our society and effective education for the vast majority of our students? When it comes down to opportunity costs, what and who are willing to give up on? Where do we put pour money and resources?

I don't think I hear anyone saying that "these programs" are the solution for this majority of students who are not well served. Institutional Racism is still with us, and along with a school system designed to crank out factory workers, is the root cause of our school's inability to serve ALL students. As concerned citizens, perhaps even progressive citizens, it is our collective responsibility to advocate for adequately serving ALL students. We can't do that if the privileged few with the power to influence change are blaming "parents" of those being failed by system, and only focused on making sure that their children get educated.

The true test will come in a couple of months, when we budget our money.

--RBP

Anonymous said...

Money - I appreciate your sentiment but I would caution against creating policy by initiative. Even the most well intentioned initiatives often have negative effects because they are so broad and lacking in nuance.

For example, the class size initiative has led to evictions of after school programs and an increase in split classes and portables. I think the class size reduction makes sense in most cases, but the schools communities now lack the flexibility to balance class size versus other issues they might choose to prioritize.

I believe we are better off investing our attention and energy in to having representatives (be it school board directors, senators, etc.) who can thoroughly vet policy before enacting it than by creating policy through the initiative process. The issues are too complex for the couple of sentences that many voters restrict their research too. I have seen too many initiatives that misrepresent what they are actually achieving.

- TS

Anonymous said...

In the New York Times =>

Betsy DeVos is the most Jeered

Even Eli Broad is opposed to her.

-- Dan Dempsey

Anonymous said...

I am with TS on this:

I believe we are better off investing our attention and energy in to having representatives (be it school board directors, senators, etc.) who can thoroughly vet policy before enacting it than by creating policy through the initiative process. The issues are too complex for the couple of sentences that many voters restrict their research too. I have seen too many initiatives that misrepresent what they are actually achieving.

Now if only we can find elected representatives, who will perform an intelligent analysis of the facts before making decisions.

-- Dan Dempsey

Melissa Westbrook said...

"My question is: what is the appropriate balance between enrichment programs targeting some of the more privileged in our society and effective education for the vast majority of our students? When it comes down to opportunity costs, what and who are willing to give up on? Where do we put pour money and resources?"

There's a lot in that small amount of writing to unpack.

First, gifted programs are NOT "enrichment" programs. If anyone chooses to believe that, you can but it is simply not true. And it certainly isn't true to the government. In fact, a Republican at this week's Senate hearing on their McCleary bill included gifted programing with ELL and Special Ed.

All children deserve "effective" education. What that looks like and how we support students who come in with challenges is the real question. One state said their students are entitled to a "basic" education, not a "good" one. I'd like to think WA state could do better than that.

We should give up on no child but where is the tipping point for what we do is open for discussion. Again, I'd give up athletics as a starting point. But again, athletics keeps some kids in school but is the point to keep kids in school or give them a good education or both?

These are modern-day questions that everyone in public education grapples with. But I do not believe that any child's needs come before another child's for basic education. All kids deserve that. If we have fewer dollars, then we figure out the basic ed and whatever else is left is for supports.

Anonymous said...

Why do people think we "have" fewer dollars? Our state can produce ample funding, they just choose not to.

Fix AL

not mc-t said...

RBP said:

"As concerned citizens, perhaps even progressive citizens, it is our collective responsibility to advocate for adequately serving ALL students. We can't do that if the privileged few with the power to influence change are blaming "parents" of those being failed by [sic:the] system, and only focused on making sure that their children get educated."

1./ As concerned citizens, perhaps even progressive citizens, it is our collective responsibility to advocate for adequately serving ALL students. AGREED. that is partly what hcs does by decreasing the cost for educating the number of students in their class rooms. in addition, many of the pro bono attorneys on the sps legislative committee working on mcleary are also hcc parents.

2./ We can't do that if the privileged few with the power to influence change are blaming "parents" of those being failed by [sic:the] system, and only focused on making sure that their children get educated.

a.) if you are talking about the opportunity gap where is your proof that anyone is blaming any parent for their child's outcome?

b.) i'm a parent first that is my focus (especially as my kid program is constantly assailed upon) but an sps parent second and if the whole thing is failing then it is going to affect all parents. areas that have been a great concern in general for sps and hcc that i have fought against. mgj school closures. the use of sbac for spectrum assignment (untested - too computer based). ses gerrymandering of schools with each new assignment plan. an initiative to truly universal test all 2nd graders. sped mismanagement with warehousing and illegal distribution of funds. disregarding sexual assault costing huge payouts. general building upkeep being ignored.


in fact most, if not all of my advocacy is for others as my kid(s) is/are well past testing, instruction, pathways. and i also advocate for the south as well as the north hcc programs which are distinctly different thanks to michael tolly. i imagine i am no different to many other hcc advocates. i just will react to false facts like you are sharing here.

no caps

Anonymous said...

McCleary and the Washington Policy Center

Senate passes bill to solve McCleary by guaranteeing $12,500 per student; taxpayers in 245 school districts would get property tax cut

At one time the OSPI State Report Card included more that academic data for the state and each school district. It also included spending per child. That stat also included percent spent on teaching, administration, etc. Unfortunately the financial data has not been posted on the Report Card for several years.

-- Dan Dempsey

not mc-t said...

that sounds like a lot. is it? 300k per class room would pay for a lot of nylands right? would it makes sense to bring back the 23k private students, now?


Anonymous said...

The above references SB 5607 which has passed the senate but has a way to go to make it through the house. This bill is 120 pages long.

-- Dan Dempsey

Anonymous said...

not mc-t asked is it a lot of money.

Check National Center for Educational Statistics HERE

Looks like the average is $12,296 per child per year nationally.

Note: New York and WA DC spend over $18,000, while Utah spends less than $7,000.

Utah usually has the largest class sizes in the nation.

Class sizes by state

Here are the 9 states with the largest class sizes =>

Kentucky 23.3
Washington 23.7
Michigan 23.8
Arizona 24.1
Idaho 24.5
California 25
Nevada 25.3
Oregon 26.4
Utah 27.4
==========================
smallest class sizes
Vermont 16.6
Wyoming 17

Wyoming over 10 years ago passed legislation similar to McCleary.

-- Dan Dempsey

Anonymous said...

In the Washington Post:

No, it’s not just unions that oppose Betsy DeVos. Even Teen Vogue has anti-DeVos articles.

-- Dan Dempsey

Watching said...

Thanks for calling attention to SB 5607, Dan.

-SB 5607 will cost Seattle taxpayers $174M and we will loose $30M.

- SB 5607 is a levy swap with sweeping education policies. This
bill went through Ways and Means, but did not have a hearing
in the Senate Education Committee.

- SB 5607 seeks to place non-certificated teachers in our classrooms.

_ SB 5607 seeks to change the funding formula- which is highly controversial.

- SB 5607 will hurt special education students

The list goes on...

Outsider said...

It's stunning to think they plan to spend $12,500 per student. But perspective is important. After administrative skim and the cost of special education, the average amount spent to actually teach a typical non-special elementary student is surely less than $5,000. And some of that is spent on over-priced junk textbooks that work more to slow than promote learning.

Josh Hayes said...

Don't sleep on Teen Vogue. They've been doing some stunningly good journalism. I believe one of their young editors was sneered at about something, and replied to the effect of "We can have fabulous skin AND smash the patriarchy." I'm thinking about getting a subscription. (Sadly, my teen years are lost in the dim and distant past.)

Anonymous said...

Will anyone connect facts to opinions and then take action on the facts?

Certainly not Betsy DeVos who possess non-facts masquerading as facts.

As for the Washington Policy Center's linked page above =>

"Finally, the Education Equality Act would set targets for improved academic outcomes, and would allow school districts to remove teachers who are detrimental to student academic performance. This provision alone would go a long way towards eliminating the academic Opportunity Gap between lower-income, minority students and other students."

I do not believe that for one minute. As Charlie Mas has often pointed out: There is zero data to indicate this would be successful. The same conclusion can be reached with common sense. Anyone who has spent time teaching in schools with high concentrations of poverty would find this laughable that teachers are the problem in regard to student achievement.

Witness the first school district in the state to be "In Improvement" and required to use one of the four mandated "Turn Around" models. Toppenish School District 6th graders in 2016 SBA testing had 15% passing ELA and 6% passing math. --- Wow I guess it wasn't the teachers.

The Federal "school turn around models" wasted $7 Billion using actions that do not work. Now we have the Washington Policy Center pushing some of the same failed proposals.

"To improve a system requires the intelligent application of relevant data." - W.E. Deming

-- Dan Dempsey

Anonymous said...

Liv Finne of the Washington Policy Center has always thought public schools were filled with lousy teachers. I do not know if she ever visited a Seattle public school but she is a big supporter of charters.

My sons attended both private and public schools in Seattle. My impression was that both types of schools had teachers who cared very much about their students.

I always thought curricula was a big deal in academic performance. The discovery math textbooks (popular in Seattle schools) seemed to set back students of all incomes and races. Dan Dempsey and I spoke out about this math at Seattle School Board meetings and I hope the curricula is better now. Charters and vouchers are a distraction from what is actually taught in the classrooms that could lead to improvements.

S parent

Anonymous said...

So I'm pretty shocked to see some people I respect getting totally duped by a right-wing ed reform coalition.

There is an "Equity Rally 2017" happening in Olympia on February 20. It is sponsored by the Campaign for Student Success, which is an ed reform group funded by DFER, Stand for Children, the Washington Roundtable (which are the state's largest corporations) and the Equity in Education Coalition, which is founded by a former LEV staffer.

The cosponsors on this rally include the Washington BATs, AFT, the state labor council, and more. Do they realize they're signing on to a corporate ed reform project? Did any of them stop to ask what exactly they were agreeing to support?

I mean... http://stand.org/washington/blog/2017/01/12/campaign-student-success-kicks

A whole lot of you are getting duped.

Grandmaster

Anonymous said...

Grandmaster, I just got stuck in the rabbit hole of this campaign and I'm worried.

The Campaign for Student Success publicly commended the Senate Majority Coalition Caucus's education funding proposal, the Education Equality Act. The Washington State Charter Schools Association and Washington Roundtable (senior executives from the top Washington private business employers) are also members of the campaign.

Following the dots: charters, the Roundtable, DFER, Stand, and LEV want backpack funding so that the funding is easily transportable and follow a student to charters and vouchers.

I poked around the campaign's website: https://wastudentsuccess.org. I didn't see a single mention of how to amply fund schools. It seems that this campaign is focused only on the way funding gets to schools. How does this campaign think Washington state should pay for public education? Did the Washington Roundtable have some suggestions for how to pay by closing tax loopholes?

I'm concerned because it seems this is all corporate education reform and not at all about increasing Washington's investment in every kids public school.

Not duped

Juliette F said...

Lincoln High School opening in Sept 2019: aside from wanting boundaries ideas...
I'd like to know when upcoming meetings might be, and if they'll include more than 'building planning' ...and some more details on that horrible old public-works era 1000-seat auditorium and how they're only going to 'refurbish/renovate' it. *raised eyebrow*

-Juliette

Watching said...

I am in complete agreement with Not Duped.

Senate Republicans: “The Campaign for Student Success applauds the Senate Majority Coalition Caucus for introducing the Education Equality Act to address McCleary and focusing on student-focused solutions for all students, attracting and retaining great educators and accountability and support for our schools."

http://src.wastateleg.org/blog/tag/campaign-for-student-success/

Very convenient.

Beware of The Campaign for Student Success.



not mc-t said...



is it incorrect to say that paying for the education of immigrants who didn't come here legally, are foreign born and whose parents are not paying taxes here is a stretch.

i mean that honestly.

how is that sustainable? i know we are america! usa! usa! we should pay for all of that as we have been trying to rule the world as de facto supreme commander but when is that not sustainable. (( we certainly shouldn't be bringing in people more quickly -- including those in war torn areas we created -- like central/south america)). i am just thinking about kids who are here getting educated and the moral hazard that creates for families coming here just for that and to not help move america forward but to educate their kids.

i am open on this. i ask you guys as i know there is a broad spectrum of views on this blog. just try to say why you think we should do x y or z. or just ignore me.

thank you,

no caps

not mc-t said...

oops. we SHOULD be bringing in people more quickly -- including those in war torn areas we created -- like central/south america. big mistake.

Robert Cruickshank said...

"is it incorrect to say that paying for the education of immigrants who didn't come here legally, are foreign born and whose parents are not paying taxes here is a stretch."

Yes, it is incorrect. This is the same argument people made in California in the early 1990s and led to Prop 187. It was false then and it's false now. Those kids are Americans just like my kids or your kids and have the same right to a free public education as anyone else in this country. The cost isn't a problem - especially when we remember how much money the top 1% have lying around.

Anonymous said...

How much of your life are you dedicating to moving America forward? I don't think that's a citizenship requirement.

Most of the people you are talking about DO pay taxes, in the form of sales and social security and Medicare taxes. They just don't get to take those benefits out. They're a net gain for the system. And the cost of not educating people always turns out to be higher than the cost of educating them.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

More money gets flushed on SPS admin than on helping teach ELL and immigrant students. If the rediculous testing standards were not a factor, good teachers in these classrooms could truly move the needle forward for this population. Don't forget, USA is made up of immigrants (except native Americans) and every child has potential to be amazing. When these budget negotiations are finished, I hope we in the end give teachers the tools/curriculum, financial security and training to teach ALL children to think, and principals the freedom to put good teachers in the room with the supports they need to manage all learning needs. I would like to see SPS hire a new superintendent that costs 1/3 less than Nyland, and reduce staff significantly.

Everyone Welcome

Anonymous said...

"Those kids are Americans just like my kids or your kids and have the same right to a free public education as anyone else in this country"

Wrong...maybe in your twisted SOROS funded anti-american progressive swamp, but not in under our Constitution.

Who's Murray

Anonymous said...

Wow, Grandmaster, that's an amazing display of alternative facts. Let me share the real facts:

1. Equity Rally 2017 is sponsored by the Equity in Education Coalition. The Campaign for Student Success is not involved.
2. The Equity in Education Coalition was founded by Sharonne Navas and Tony Lee, neither of which ever worked for the Gates Foundation.
3. The Washington Roundtable is not a member of the Campaign for Student Success. They supported their launch but they are not members.
4. I'm pretty sure Campaign for Student Success members like the Asian Pacific Islander Coalition; Coalition of Immigrants, Refugees and Communities of Color; the Statewide Poverty Action Network; and Solid Ground would be very surprised to learn that they were right-wing organizations. All of these groups are (in reality) progressive organizations supporting communities of color and low-income communities. They are left-wing for sure.
5. No one is being duped. Everyone (besides you, apparently) is aware of the fact that the Equity in Education Coalition Coalition is sponsoring the event.

Get your facts straight before sharing your paranoid manifesto. This campaign is driven and supported by progressive organizations pushing the legislature to adopt student-centered solutions to McCleary rather than adult-centered solutions. You might disagree with their approach but let's not insult these communities and organizations because you disagree with them.

FYI - The Equity in Education Coalition includes as members Fuse Washington, the Washington State Budget & Policy Center, and OneAmerica. Hardly right-wing. It's possible, Grandmaster, Not Duped, Watching, et al that communities of color have different interests in McCleary than you.

Frederick Douglass

Anonymous said...

"This campaign is driven and supported by progressive organizations pushing the legislature to adopt student-centered solutions to McCleary rather than adult-centered solutions."

What solutions are those? Did the organizations that signed on to cosponsor this rally or support the coalition sign on in support of a specific set of policies? If so, what are those? One wonders in particular if AFT and the state labor council and Fuse Washington were aware they were endorsing such policies.

As to the Washington Roundtable, actually, they are a founding organization of the Campaign for Student Success, as Stand For Children's announcement made very clear: http://stand.org/washington/blog/2017/01/12/campaign-student-success-kicks

One would hope everyone supports racial equity, but it matters what that means in practice. It is difficult to believe that the Washington Roundtable speaks for communities of color.

John Brown

Anonymous said...

First, it appears that you are conflating the rally --- Equity Rally 2017 --- and the Campaign for Student Success. They are separate. As I mentioned previously, EEC is sponsoring the rally, not the C4SS.

The list of members for the C4SS can be found here: https://www.wastudentsuccess.org/our-coalition. The Washington Roundtable is not listed as a member. They may have been involved in its founding but don't appear to be a member. Don't know what's going on there.

The solutions be offered by the C4SS can be found here: https://www.wastudentsuccess.org/priorities.

BTW, finding all of this information was accomplished by simply reading the C4SS website. Easy peasy. I always find going to original sources the most helpful of sources.

Frederick Douglass

Watching said...

Washington state charter law is in the court system. SB 5067 directs funding into charter schools.

I agree with this statement:


"I'm pretty sure Campaign for Student Success members like the Asian Pacific Islander Coalition; Coalition of Immigrants, Refugees and Communities of Color; the Statewide Poverty Action Network; and Solid Ground would be very surprised to learn that they were right-wing organizations. All of these groups are (in reality) progressive organizations supporting communities of color and low-income communities. They are left-wing for sure."

Anonymous said...

I am confused. What is the relationship between EEC and C4SS? EEC is a member of C4SS, and C4SS is listed as one of the sponsors of the rally.

I did read the C4SS website. Is Fuse Washington a supporter of that? If not, why did you cite them in your earlier comment? And I didn't get an answer about AFT or the labor council (or the BATs, which I'll ask about now).

I also notice no mention anywhere on the C4SS website of new funding needed to achieve all these goals, as it cannot be done within current revenue levels without robbing other social services. I assume this is a deliberate omission and would explain much about the Washington Roundtable's support of this effort.

Weird that the Washington Roundtable was listed as a founding member but is now suddenly nowhere to be found. It looks like someone has something to hide.

John Brown

Anonymous said...

Still depressed over the vitriol directed toward HCC - a program that's seemingly being assailed on all sides and struggles to serve the needs of the students that would be served even worse (as in, frequently not at all) if the program was dissolved.

Continue evolving the program? YES!!!

Breaking it seems to be penalizing the students that need to be there in order to learn (yes, i'm simplifying with that statement for brevity), not fixing the issues. It's trite and tired, but, please, think of the children, not just a social crusade. Acting with humanity and humility to put a plan into place to reform is much more constructive. It's not the students (or parents) fault that the system appears (I don't personally have proof either way so am using that word) biased - it's not like this was asked for, nor is it liked or desired.

My students in HCC were at neighborhood schools, and we'd gladly have kept them there. But our students didn't fit there and were literally starting to suffer academically and emotionally because of it. In both cases we always made time to talk to their teachers and asked them pointed questions about staying at the school, and in both cases, the teachers said no, that our students would be best served by the HCC program. THEN we looked at the hoops to jump to get into HCC with the application and the district testing, etc.

Within the first month in the HCC program, despite not really knowing anyone, they went from "wilted" to "blossoming", and both became very engaged academically and socially. It was beautiful, and has stayed beautiful.


HCC parent #312

Anonymous said...

EEC is a member of C4SS. That is the relationship. C4SS is listed as participating in the rally. They are not sponsors. This is an EEC-sponsored rally.

I don't know if Fuse is a supporter of C4SS but I imagine they are since they're a member of EEC. I mentioned Fuse et al earlier as it relates to their membership in EEC. That's all.

Frederick Douglass

Anonymous said...

Please call VP Pence - remind him that conversion therapy is illegal in Seattle. Ask him if he really wants to pick yet another fight with us by continuing to back DeVos?

-McClureWatcher

Anonymous said...

" One state said their students are entitled to a "basic" education, not a "good" one. I'd like to think WA state could do better than that."

Melissa-- Actually this same comment was also stated by one of our Seattle school board members recently,who said "entitled to a basic education not a great education."

-NT

Melissa Westbrook said...

Fredrick, I will say that whoever the key sponsor of the Equity Rally, it seems to be unclear exactly what the "ask" is. It is also interesting that the EEC is a ed reform driven group (with associations with Stand for Children and LEV) and they have gone to WPD's Facebook page to get attention and then dissed the WAPTSA and anyone who doesn't fall in line. Not so inclusive.

The Washington Roundtable WAS part of the Coalition and screenshots can prove that. They may have exited but they were not just launchers.

Communities of color should be onboard with McCleary but not the GOP's bill. It will not serve anyone well and it's deeply troubling that anyone could broadly support it.

It's also interesting that it's hard to figure out with the Coalition who is their funders. Hmm.

I'll note that there is a Work Session this week on Advanced Learning and there is a two-day forum at UW on gifted education. I'll be attending both.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Also, I'm always amused when groups get all hot under the collar over not being correctly identified/explained and yet it's not by their originators but by anonymous persons. If these groups are so great, why can't their supporters/funders identify themselves?

Wondering said...

I agree with Melissa.

The campaign for Student Success is running TV ads. Who is paying for the ads??

LEV's Communication Director is the media contact person for Student Success campaign.

https://wastudentsuccess.org/sites/default/files/C4SS_Coalition%20Growth%20Final%20for%20Website_01.30.17.pdf

Anonymous said...

Hey McClureWatcher,
"Please call VP Pence - remind him that conversion therapy is illegal in Seattle. Ask him if he really wants to pick yet another fight with us by continuing to back DeVos?

-McClureWatcher"

The question should be the other way around - Do you really want to pick another fight with Pence? Pence's party controls:
1. The Presidency
2. The House of Representatives
3. The Senate
4. The Supreme Court (soon)
5. 33 States where the R's control the governorship and legislature

The D's control:
1. 6 States where the D's control the governorship and legislature
2. The mainstream media

I'd suggest that you choose your battles carefully. Resisting everything is a recipe for further marginalization.

Wisdom

Anonymous said...

Let's count people Wisdom.

Let's count major corporations.

Resistance is not futile,

truth and justice will prevail.


copperhead

Feeling Concerned said...

What is the relationship between Stand for Children and Equity in Education Coalition? Both groups will be involved in a rally and I'm not sure what exactly they are both promoting. As well, both groups seem to support changing the state's funding formula.

Any chance the Equity group is a Stand for Children spin -off group?

I've been told that per pupil funding formula opens the door to Betsy DeVos's agenda.

"As soon as she worked through the math, the effects were obvious to Navas, who organized the California trip and heads the nonprofit Equity in Education Coalition, a statewide group dedicated to closing gaps in achievement for low-income students of color.

http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/stealth-inequities-how-washington-education-system-hurts-poor-schools/
A forthright East Coast native, Navas had worked in community organizing — including briefly for the ed-reform powerhouse Stand for Children — without finding a satisfying route to fight for minority youth."

Feeling Concerned said...

Clarification:

"As soon as she worked through the math, the effects were obvious to Navas, who organized the California trip and heads the nonprofit Equity in Education Coalition, a statewide group dedicated to closing gaps in achievement for low-income students of color.

A forthright East Coast native, Navas had worked in community organizing — including briefly for the ed-reform powerhouse STAND FOR CHILDREN — without finding a satisfying route to fight for minority youth."

It should also be noted that GATES and RAIKES paid for Sacramento trip.



http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/stealth-inequities-how-washington-education-system-hurts-poor-schools/

Anonymous said...

DeVos is in , praise Jesus.

MT

Melissa Westbrook said...

Well, given that Equity has ties to both LEV and Stand, that's a good guess.

As well, if any of those groups support the GOP ed funding bill, that is deeply troubling. You can't just stick the word "equity" on bill and that makes it true.

Brian Duncan said...

Summary notes of last weeks High School and Ed Funding Panel Discussion at Ballard High School are now up on BHS PTSA webpage:

http://www.ballardhighschoolptsa.org/blog/

Latest updates on SPS budget cuts for levy cliff, broader ed funding, coming high school schedule/programming credit changes, Lincoln HS, CTE program from panelist from SPS, legislature, PTA, and Principals.

Brian Duncan
Leg liaison, BHS PTSA

Feeling Concerned said...

What is Equity in Education Coalition's position on charter schools and vouchers? I can only hope that Equity in Education isn't trying to support a funding model that would benefit vouchers and charter schools. I understand that Equity in Education sits on Stand for Children's steering committee.



Anonymous said...

@ Brian Duncan, thank you for posting that link. I can't believe they are still plowing ahead with the 3x5 schedule. Have they bothered to do any of the feasibility analysis for AP and IB classes? If so, where can we get this information? This whole 24-credit thing needs so much more transparency.

HF

Anonymous said...

Looks like the 3x5 schedule change is very much on the table, according to the Ballard PTA meeting notes. Very concerning. Does anyone know what principals are serving on the "study group" and how parents should be providing feedback?

Does the "equity lens" somehow filter out common sense? Show us a large school district embracing and successfully operating on a 3x5 schedule.

(Thank you for the link to the Ballard mtg notes)

truly baffled


Feeling Concerned said...

Clarification: I am being told that Equity in Education is on Student Success's steering committee.

At this point, I see little difference between the corporate backed Student Success and Equity in Education.

Anonymous said...

Plans for the opening of Lincoln? What plans? They are suggesting the program will be determined by community engagement (Who else thought it was supposed to be a comprehensive high school like Ballard and Roosevelt? What's up for discussion?) and one option is to open it as 9th-10th grade. You cannot have a comprehensive high school with only 2 grades. Sports, band, drama, electives, etc., with only 9th and 10th graders? What about access to advanced coursework? Roosevelt and Ballard cannot sustain the projected enrollment increases.

Between the absence of info about Lincoln (boundaries? program? geo-split? grade splits?) and the potential 3x5 schedule, high school is looking bleak.

growing pessimist

Anonymous said...

@ growing pessimist, don't worry, they are still planning for it to be a comprehensive HS like Ballard. The 9th and 10th grade idea is just for the first year, and they would add a grade each of the next two years. The idea behind that is so that they don't move juniors and seniors from their current high schools, since that would be very disruptive. As to community engagement, even comprehensive high schools often have particular specialty areas or programs, right? Like Ballard's biotech academy, Roosevelt's drama program, various "international" high schools, Nathan Hale's schoolwide "academy" approach, etc.? The community absolutely should be involved in helping to set that type of direction.

HF

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

This line from the BHS meeting notes about the 24 Credits is very concerning, "Graduation requirements not the same as college entrance requirements."

Was the vibe that SPS is only looking to meet High School graduation requirements going forward and tough nuts about offering courses needed for college entrance?

Egads.

-StepJ

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

Private school where we have one child just had a meeting about future changes to schedule in upcoming years, and parents soundly disliked 3X5 schedule. Absolutely disliked, as did the kids.

The communication and planning were amazing, however. I really appreciated it - explanations directly to kids, in detail, with their feedback. And then to parents. Multiple valid surveys (and having taken the SPS generally unhelpful ones, I was impressed at the quality and thoroughness of the explanations in the survey, of the questions then asked, and of the parents' space to respond).

But - again, the parents largely rejected 3X5, after having it all explained. The other option of 2 semesters with 6 classes each time, and a linked "intensive" short session was preferred over 3X5 (but I think no change was preferred over that).

Pursuing 3X5 seems like a loser - if highly engaged parents hate it this much, and kids don't like it either - WHAT is SPS thinking? And this was at a school with a lot of care and time to present the roll out.

signed, gone soon

Anonymous said...

Gone soon,
Will you pass the private school surveys and notes on to the relevant folks debating it for SPS and/ or post them on this blog? Thanks!

signed, no to 24

Jet City mom said...

If the district was serious about increasing opportunity for all students to pursue education past high school, they would make it easier for students to take the same foriegn language in high school for two or three years, minimum.

Virtually all schools that award bachelors degrees in Washington require foreign language just to apply.

Odd as it may seem to those who are very involved, but some parents discourage their children from challenge, particulary if they would be first gen college.

Ive counseled students who didnt start thinking about college until jr yr.
Without being on track to complete entrance requirements, its quite frustrating for them.
But having the district make the requirement of foreign language, ( or ASL), instead of the kid pushing for ir as an 8th grader, broadens their opportunity.

Anonymous said...

Maybe PTAs and PTOs need to proactively educate parents about a 3x5 schedule, ahead of SPS, in order to put an end to the crazy idea.

No 3x5!

Anonymous said...

Could you please make a separate open thread for Brian's Duncan's post about the Summary notes of last weeks High School and Ed Funding Panel Discussion at Ballard High School are now up on BHS PTSA webpage:

http://www.ballardhighschoolptsa.org/blog/

Latest updates on SPS budget cuts for levy cliff, broader ed funding, coming high school schedule/programming credit changes, Lincoln HS, CTE program from panelist from SPS, legislature, PTA, and Principals.

There are some great comments here and they could be easily lost at the bottom of this thread.


- katie

kellie said...

The board is leaning towards opening Lincoln as a 9/10 because of Running Start. As Running Start is guaranteed starting in 11th grade, it is highly unlikely that 11th or 12th graders would split to Lincoln when they have a guaranteed place in Running Start.

Also because of the way capacity works to fully open Lincoln as a 9-12 or a 9-11, you would need to have "domino splits". In other words, if enough students are split so that Lincoln opens near capacity, then additional students would need to be split from to backfill those students, so other high schools don't become too small. Presuming that students are moved from Garfield, Ballard and Roosevelt to fill Lincoln, that would mean that other students would then be split to backfill Garfield, Ballard and Roosevelt.

This is one of the many, many reasons why the planning for Lincoln needs to start. Starting Lincoln as a 9/10 is likely the only logistically viable option as the other options would likely cause Running Start to shut down and/or potentially domino up to 4,000 high school students. Opening Cedar Park with 300 students caused a domino split of 850 elementary students. Opening Lincoln would easily cause a domino ripple of at least 4,000 and potentially 5,000 students.

juicygoofy said...

One sad consequence of Lincoln starting in 2019 as a 9/10 roll up, is that presumably many of the students who are being moved to REMS this fall for their 8th grade year are going to be the same students moving to Lincoln for their 10th grade year. They will then be "forging" the way for 11th & 12th at Lincoln. The poor class of 2022, they've been taking hit after hit since Kindergarten.

Joe Wolf said...

Response to Juliette F. re. Lincoln east campus buildings:

See the Final SEPA Checklist for the Lincoln project. https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/one.aspx?pageId=16889

Some friendly advice: Drop the 100-octane snark. It neither advances the conversation nor speaks well of you.

juicygoofy said...

I'm with Juliette. It's not wrong to assert that Lincoln planning should include more than just the structure. That auditorium is dismal. My behind hurts just thinking about the concert I endured in those seats. Snark keeps readers entertained & coming back.

not mc-t said...

garfield kellie, why? shouldn't they be going to ghs or have you accepted (or maybe it is common knowledge) that those hcc kids who went there as a dilapidated hs pretending to be a primary school, sans playground etc. that now they get to go to lhs as a hcc school absent of ALL hcc support (minimal as it is, but it certainly will not match garfield's established meager program).

is there no humanity! said for the wolf man. he likes over the top snark.

no caps

Anonymous said...

@ Jet City Mom, taking 2 yrs of foreign language isn't just about applying to college--it's part of the new core 24 graduation requirements. So kids should start getting at least that.

Unfortunately, given the challenges in finding enough foreign language instructors, more students taking 1st and 2nd year language classes likely means reduced offerings at the advanced level. (Garfield admin however, may see that as a welcome side effect--just one more way to lower the ceiling and reduce disparities, right?)

@no caps, yes garfield. have you looked at the ghs projections if hcc stays? not sustainable. and garfield's hcc support seems to get weaker by the week (e.g., this week's report they will be limiting AP classes to 3), so it's not a given that lincoln will provide less. the lincoln zone will include a lot strong students and a lot of engaged parents, so there will be tremendous pressure to provide a rigorous curriculum.

HF

rising 6th said...

Juicygoofy,

I disagree that the kids being pulled from HIMS and sent to REMS will be impacted by the opening of Lincoln. Kids in QA/Mag and some assigned to Ballard and Roosevelt who live in Wallingford/Fremont will be the ones impacted. Kids being moved from HIMS to REMS live in North and Northwest Seattle. They shouldn't be impacted. Although, some kids in NW might be rightfully assigned back to Ballard once the QA/Mag kids are moved to Lincoln. In the name of spreading the pain equally, that's how it should be, too. It sucks any kids are negatively impacted by boundary changes, but those areas (wallingford, QA, Mag) have avoided the misery of splits for the most part (other than losing friends, perhaps).

Anonymous said...

Rising 6th-- We don't know boundaries for Lincoln yet, nor do we know programming. The kids being pulled from HIMS and sent to REMS (some of whom moved from Lowell to Lincoln) may be impacted. Garfield is the current HCC pathway and if a pathway is established at Lincoln, high probability (according to Kellie and others) north end kids will be pulled. School Board member Rick Burke also stated this info to parents at a meeting.
- TY

Anonymous said...

Rising 6th-- Read Kellie's comments about Garfield and Lincoln on the high school thread. "Lincoln is similarly geographically challenged. It is located almost exactly in the middle of Ballard and Roosevelt. The largest boundaries for Lincoln can only extend, to a within a few blocks of those schools, so it will be very challenging to draw any boundaries that would fill the school. As such, there will need to be a program placed at Lincoln to fill the school. "
-TY

juicygoofy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
juicygoofy said...

Oops. Trying again.

Rising 6th.

Kellie implies that HCC students will likely be used to fill LIncoln. The bulk of students moving from HIMS to REMS are HCC.

But I want to also note that REMS is drawing Greenwood, Bagley and Olympic View students. I would place bets that those who live below 85th will be assigned to Lincoln (from Ballard or Roosevelt.) Thankfully, some of these students might be able to remain at Whitman, but any who currently attend HIMS or Eckstein must move, and they'll probably have to move again in High School.

Rising 6th said...

juicygoofy, it appears you are only talking about HCC kids. I wasn't since those families have chosen to join the program which is not necessarily at their neighborhood school. If we choose to leave our neighborhood schools, we are taking a risk since programs are clearly easier to move than school boundaries.

This is especially true for the rising 8th grade HCC kids being pulled from HIMS, SPS should let people know the plan for Lincoln within the next 12 months. That would give impacted kids the opportunity to apply for choice seats allowing them to stay at a high school if they get a spot. My understanding is they can stay if they get a choice seat, but not if they are in a program or boundary change. Meaning, apply for a spot at Ingraham, Ballard or Roosevelt if you live outside the current boundaries so you can stay when Lincoln opens.

To top off the above, I wouldn't put it past SPS to open Lincoln with 9/10/11. To me, the kids worst off are those going into 9th next year since they'd be moved in 11th.

I still don't buy the story that the kids currently in 7th at HIMS going to REMS next year will take more than their fair share of moves. I HOPE that is not the case and I see many ways how it won't be the case. However, this IS SPS and they tend to deal with things in the most disruptive way.

I might be on a small ship by myself, but given what's going on at Garfield on so many levels (curriculum, crowding, anti-HCC behavior by some teachers, most likely a split) I wouldn't sign my kid up to attend anyway.

kellie said...

Regarding the REMS geo-split and Lincoln.

It exceedingly unlikely that the Northern boundary for Lincoln will be any further than 65th. Both Ballard and Roosevelt High schools are on 65th and 65th is an arterial. The southern boundary for both Ballard and Roosevelt needs to be at least 10 blocks south of the schools.

The most probable northern boundary for Lincoln is most likely between 50th and 55th. This means that NONE of the general education students who were geo-split to REMS are likely to be in the geo-split for Lincoln.

The HCC students split from Hamilton to REMS are extremely likely to be part of the geo-split to Lincoln, if they remain in the cohort and continue on to Garfield. At this point, I don't see any scenarios in which all of North-end HCC is NOT moved to Lincoln.

All of the REMS HCC students who live North of 85th are guaranteed a seat at Ingraham. I suspect that most of them will take that option.

juicygoofy said...

Thanks (again) Kellie,

I know of families in the Bagley/Greenwood area who were effected by boundary changes in elementary, and are now moving from Whitman to REMS. I am thankful that you feel Lincoln's northern boundary will not extend very far North.

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