tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post751149058050390142..comments2024-03-28T23:38:22.511-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: APP Times' Op-EdMelissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-72595555899037818222008-12-28T23:18:00.000-08:002008-12-28T23:18:00.000-08:00I think that fighting the middle school split is f...I think that fighting the middle school split is futile because the District is committed to closing Meany. When they do, they will need 200 seats at Washington for the Central Region students now at Meany. The only way to reduce the enrollment at Washington by over 200 seats is to remove all or part of APP.<BR/><BR/>They could relocate all of it to Hamilton, but that would only work for about three years. Then the north-end middle school population would grow to a point that the District would have to split the program then. So, to keep from moving the south-end students north for just three years and then moving them again, they have chosen to leave them at Washington and only put the north-end APP students at Hamilton.<BR/><BR/>If you're going to fight the middle school split, then you're going to have to find space for either the Central Region students from Meany or for all of APP at Hamilton.<BR/><BR/>Of course, there is a third way: all of middle school APP at John Marshall with a 300-student general education program.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-34352675528873714162008-12-27T17:43:00.000-08:002008-12-27T17:43:00.000-08:00Want to know what is futile? Fighting these splits...Want to know what is futile? Fighting these splits."<BR/><BR/>I profoundly disagree. Why do you think fighting this is futile? Because people are tired and its the holidays and too many threats have been made? No one has the energy anymore? It's too hard?<BR/><BR/>Do you really think, that by giving the go ahead for the district to rip apart a successful program, you will have standing to negotiate anything? APP will have given up it's power. When this was being contemplated, APP should have had a seat at the table. I mean parents and teachers not only the current manager. Real negotiations would have happened before the split was proposed. Now parents are put into the position of being marginalized if they do not go along? <BR/><BR/>There were good reasons to separate APP from Madrona. Those reasons remain valid. I would argue that APP at Lowell is a school rather than a program. What board member can truthfully vote to split up what is -by all measures-a successful school?another momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12303476240929715442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-4835225037591682302008-12-27T16:57:00.000-08:002008-12-27T16:57:00.000-08:00Melissa, you are so right! The district has employ...Melissa, you are so right! The district has employed a classic divide and conquer strategy. Note Dr. Vaughan's note to families requesting no protest, just go along. By attempting to isolate the naysayers, and by threatening or bullying the district appears to have the upper hand. But then again, they might not. I believe that a united push back by APP would send an enormous message. Carving up a successful program makes no sense. Who benefits? The district has not yet demonstrated that it can administer consistent multi-site gifted programs. What has changed that anyone would believe that a split APP will be consistent from site to site. Yes, write Hiz Honor, and the Council's eductaion committee, and individual school board members. Go big!another momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12303476240929715442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-61153890109525435762008-12-27T15:45:00.000-08:002008-12-27T15:45:00.000-08:00AdHoc is right; united we stand, divided we fall. ...AdHoc is right; united we stand, divided we fall. When this district hears one loud voice, they get it. <BR/><BR/>And do you know who else you should write to (and in a LOUD) voice? The Mayor and the City Council and your state rep. "But Melissa, the Mayor and the City Council have no part in district governance so what good is that?" Well, the Mayor and the City Council have a big bully pulpit and they CAN put pressure on the district if they hear from enough constituents. Ditto even more with your state legislator (those are the folks who can put real pressure on the Board).<BR/><BR/>Here's who is on the City Council Education committee:<BR/><BR/>Tim Burgess - Chair<BR/>Bruce Harrell - Vice-Chair<BR/>Nick Licata, Tom Rasmussen<BR/><BR/>(To receive committee information, email Betsy Graef (betsy.graef@seattle.gov<BR/>or call (206) 684-8806.)<BR/><BR/>Is it fun writing all these e-mails/letters/phone calls? Nope but they really get the message and I guarantee if they got more than 15 phone calls, they'd ring up the Board and/or Dr. Goodloe-Johnson. Remember, some of this closure business is being driven by the Board/Dr.-G-J's desire to look like they are heeding the warnings by the State Auditor. If it looks like they are doing things that alienate parents (i.e voters), then the district looks bad. <BR/><BR/>If the APP parents got a phone bank going to call and call, you'd get the attention you want. <BR/><BR/>Also, I don't know who mentioned it previously but yes, one HUGE stick that the APP parents have is the WASL. You want a guarantee? The way to get is via the WASL because if the district had 90% of its APP students not take the WASL (as is their legal right and for pete's sake, it's one year), the district would notice. (And forget that,"you're hurting your school nonsense" - who's hurting your school more at this point, you or the district?) <BR/><BR/>And, of course, you would wait until your APP group had been separated and sent to two different schools to step out from the WASL; you wouldn't do it this year.<BR/><BR/>Harsh? What could be more harsh than splitting your community with no real understanding of how it will work out? Uncomfortable to do? Not really. "Oh that's going too far?" So what would you do to save your community if you believe it to be threatened? Let the district tell us we have no power and then sit back and do nothing. Then you really DO have no power.<BR/><BR/>You use the tools you've got. Go big or go home.Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12588239576000641336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-14838163406806903552008-12-24T10:18:00.000-08:002008-12-24T10:18:00.000-08:00We, the families of SPS, have never had any author...We, the families of SPS, have never had any authority. We have never had any decision making power. Nothing has changed. We do, however, have a voice. We can speak out, protest, strike, organize, rally, lobby, elect responsive school board directors, get media attention, bring law suits, and put the pressure on. That's not exactly begging.<BR/><BR/>Hey, the pressure caused Olschefski to resign.<BR/><BR/>We do have a voice.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716725891562757052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-83063350577609293802008-12-24T09:50:00.000-08:002008-12-24T09:50:00.000-08:00I get it, Charlie: let's fight, but let's fight sm...I get it, Charlie: let's fight, but let's fight smart. You have been in the trenches for a long time, and I have a lot of respect for your ninja instincts (and persuasive skills), but I'm still confused about where exactly we should focus our energies as a community. Writing individual appeals to the board?<BR/><BR/>We can't really negotiate. We can only beg, and that's an uncomfortable (and humiliating) position to be in. That said, do you think there is any value in begging for a one-year delay so the APP split can be planned and executed properly?Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14779418481668841114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-49074726972668480292008-12-24T08:51:00.000-08:002008-12-24T08:51:00.000-08:00Charlie, you are doing exactly what you should be ...Charlie, you are doing exactly what you should be doing, what we all should be doing, which is to continue to advocate and work (and fight if necessary) for what we believe is in the best interest of the students of this district. We all share in that responsibility. <BR/><BR/>Sure, the district and board hold all of the cards, and ultimately make all of the decision. But we can and should try with vigor to influence those decisions.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I believe the current administration headed by MGJ has been far and away more responsive to the public than any before. That alone is hope. And that alone is worth out continued advocacy.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, it is the board this time around (with the exception of Harium) that seem much less responsive to their constituents concerns. So what does that mean? It means that we work double time to reach, lobby and influence them. We don't relent.<BR/><BR/>I heard a joke on the comedy channel the other night and it reminded me of SPS in an odd kind of way.<BR/><BR/>A mate on a pirate ship ran up to the captain and said "Captain we are being attacked by another pirate ship", and to that the captain said to the mate " hurry, go and get me my red shirt. They fought vigorously and won the battle. Afterward the mate asked the captain "why did you want to wear your red shirt?" The captain replied "so if I was wounded and bleeding my men wouldn't know it and they would continue to fight".<BR/><BR/>A few days later the mate again came running up to the captain and said "Captain there are 20 enemy pirate ships coming straight toward us", and to that the captain replied "quick mate, go and get my brown pants".<BR/><BR/><BR/>So .....lets all put on our red shirts or brown pants if need be, and lets not give up. Lets not waiver. Our kids futures are at stake, and they are worth the effort and the fight.<BR/><BR/>We parents may not all agree on everything, but we all, every one of agree on one thing. That we want whats best for the children of this district. Lets use that unity and get to work.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716725891562757052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-32280325855578958472008-12-24T06:18:00.000-08:002008-12-24T06:18:00.000-08:00So where does that leave us?What can we do now?No ...So where does that leave us?<BR/><BR/>What can we do now?<BR/><BR/>No negotiation is possible - or worthwhile.<BR/><BR/>No complaints or protests will be effective.<BR/><BR/>The District has all of the authority here. Should we just start scouting other districts and private schools? But wouldn't that put us in exactly the situation that we are trying to avoid?<BR/><BR/>It has always been my policy that the futility of my efforts does not excuse me from the obligation to make those efforts.<BR/><BR/>I guess I really am an activist, because I'm looking to take action.<BR/><BR/>So what can we do?<BR/><BR/>I continue to advocate for smarter solutions - using B.F. Day as the north-end elementary APP site and re-opening Old Hay for Queen Anne/Magnolia cluster students, making the general education program at Thurgood Marshall an all-ALO choice school instead of a reference area school, leaving Lowell as it is and achieving the District's ends through less disruptive means, etc.<BR/><BR/>I continue to advocate for a more equitable assignment of general education students at Lowell so the T T Minor students are on an equal footing with the Montlake students.<BR/><BR/>I have written to the Board and asked them to codify their promises. I have written to Bob Vaughan and asked him to do the same.<BR/><BR/>I am asking for answers to critical questions about the District's Vision for APP, the District's response to the APP Review, about a written, taught, and tested curriculum for APP, Spectrum and ALOs, about program certification, re-certification, and potential de-certification, about the need for a Spectrum program in West Seattle-South (I submitted a Program Placement Proposal for this), about the need for elementary ALOs south of downtown (there are only two), and about any number of other issues.<BR/><BR/>I am looking for ways to be actively involved in the creation of the new schools - Thurgood Marshall, Lowell, Hamilton, and Washington.<BR/><BR/>What is the alternative? I know that the District doesn't have to listen to us. I know that we can't rely on any of their assurances. I know that we cannot trust them at all. None of those facts are valid excuses for despair or inaction.<BR/><BR/>Yes, we are going to lose, but we must fight. And when we fight, we need to fight smart. We don't have their brute strength of authority, so we cannot beat them that way. We must be more nimble, more creative, and more flexible. We need to stay focused on the core principles that we must preserve and let go of lower priorities. We need to be strategic. The toreador does not meet the bull's charge with one of his own.<BR/><BR/>What is our alternative? To quit? I cannot accept that. To draw some line in the sand and get steamrolled? I will not accept that.<BR/><BR/>Okay - I get it - all of our efforts are futile. They hold all of the cards. But that is how it has always been and we have managed to keep the programs together and (largely) functioning until now. We cannot quit, but neither can we meet them with threats and demands. Threats and demands are not effective. The way to beat a bureaucracy is to know their rules better than they do, to take them at their word and make them fulfill it, and to fill out your paperwork correctly, completely, and on time.<BR/><BR/>We do not capitulate, but we must accept the situation as it really is. The District is deeply committed to splitting APP at the elementary and middle school levels. Accept that. We cannot change that. It will happen. Now, given that reality, how can we make it work as well as it possibly can?<BR/><BR/>We need effective, high quality programs at every school. That will require:<BR/>1) written, taught, and tested curricula<BR/>2) a supportive culture at every school<BR/>3) trained staff, administration and teachers at every school<BR/>4) a cohort of sufficient size to form a viable learning community at every school<BR/>5) access to academically challenging and appropriate learning opportunities outside of the four basic disciplines (reading, writing, math, and science)<BR/><BR/>What else will it require?<BR/><BR/>I'm no Pollyanna. I own no rose-colored glasses. These things will only happen with work. So let's get to work. Want to know what is futile? Fighting these splits.<BR/><BR/>I was able to work successfully to delay the middle school split last time. Then I had the data on my side and a more responsive and independent Board. With the closure of Meany, the data demands the split and the current Board is in the thrall of the superintendent. The split is coming and we cannot stop it. The best we can hope for now is to make it work. How can we NOT work for that?Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-51532371546236879782008-12-23T15:13:00.000-08:002008-12-23T15:13:00.000-08:00Y'know what? Y'all have done it. You have won me o...Y'know what? Y'all have done it. You have won me over. I am convinced. You're right. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for us to believe or accept any of the District's promises. There is absolutely no reason for us to believe that the District won't completely dismantle every advanced learning program they have - or replace them all with totally ineffective and unaccountable models that they prefer because they are more inclusive or perceived as more equitable.<BR/><BR/>There is no statement they can make and no guarantee they can offer that will satisfy because they don't keep their word and they cannot be trusted to fulfill their promises no matter how tightly bound they may appear to be. They will neglect and violate their own decision-making criteria, they will neglect and violate Board Policy, they will neglect and violate Board Resolutions, they will neglect and violate M.O.U.'s.<BR/><BR/>We are lost. The future of APP - and Spectrum and ALOs - dangles from their careless fingers. they wish to rid themselves of these programs which have worked so well for our children. They wish only to retain the names, but to gut them of everything that made them effective.<BR/><BR/>I know that they claim otherwise, but they are such inveterate liars that their claims of support for the programs serves only as further evidence of their intention to destroy them.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-45516594829199162272008-12-23T11:33:00.000-08:002008-12-23T11:33:00.000-08:00well put, adhoc, and I agree entirely. It's disqui...well put, adhoc, and I agree entirely. It's disquieting to see the SPS people so obviously viewing schools and people as simply entries in a spreadsheet. They seem honestly surprised when people object to having their "program" moved. There is a schism in perceptions: managers see schools as widgets to be managed, and parents and students see schools as nearly outgrowths of their homes. It's no wonder we sometimes seem to talk past each other.Josh Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242600011474990770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-68372098286045516482008-12-23T10:34:00.000-08:002008-12-23T10:34:00.000-08:00I agree wholeheartedly that programs that are at c...I agree wholeheartedly that programs that are at capacity and performing well, should not be disrupted whether they are alternative or not. The only exception to this rule, in my opinion, would be programs that are housed in buildings that are not safe, and in those cases the programs should be moved in their entirety and as one cohort to a new building.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that APP, NOVA, and Montlake meet the criteria of strong programs that are at capacity. I don't think either of these three programs should be disrupted. <BR/><BR/>I understand the rationale that an alternative school, because it's not neighborhood based, is more portable. That makes sense, and I understand that an under enrolled, or low performing alternative school would be the most likely candidate for closure/consolidation or a move, and considered before a neighborhood school with the same statistics. That makes sense. <BR/><BR/>I also understand that at some point in the future it may be prudent to split APP. Perhaps the program will need to expand, or perhaps a north and south location makes better sense, but if and when that decision is made it should be done with careful consideration to the integrity and sustainability of the program.<BR/><BR/>Disrupting entire communities to save other communities or fill buildings is just not responsible. In fact it's downright wrong.<BR/><BR/>Better to leave NOVA at Mann, keep Meany alive (and perhaps co-house Summit there), keep Montlake at Montlake, keep APP at Lowell and Washington, and find another under enrolled elementary school to combine with Marshall.....at least for now, and at least until the moves can be considered with all schools best interest and outcome in mind.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think a north/south split for APP would be a good thing, if done right, and with the supports necessary. It would make sense if it allowed the program to grow. It makes sense if it would lower transportation costs, and it would make sense if it was more convenient to students and families (shorter bus rides, more parent involvement).anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716725891562757052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-19003079535719304502008-12-23T09:53:00.000-08:002008-12-23T09:53:00.000-08:00"You have to use some pretty inflammatory language..."You have to use some pretty inflammatory language, dire predictions, and staunch demands to motivate people to action." <BR/><BR/>Like threatening to opt out of the WASL en masse?<BR/><BR/>Better to write your individual, thoughtful emails to the Board and supt. than to wait for that Advisory committee to fight this battle. Use you Lowell and WMS school directories to circulate a mass email.uxolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01595802010492801183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-43794407680840325262008-12-23T09:15:00.000-08:002008-12-23T09:15:00.000-08:00Charlie said,"The capacity management problem was ...Charlie said,<BR/>"The capacity management problem was NOT at Lowell. The excess seats were at Thurgood Marshall and at Hawthorne."<BR/><BR/>Of course the capacity problem was not at Lowell. I understand that completely. So the answer is to disrupt 500+ students and their families at Lowell because it is perceived to be portable? Take a well functioning, full, stable school -Lowell APP is a school not just a program- and carve it up? Where and when has the district said that alternative schools are portable? Maybe I missed this. And the logic of breaking up successful programs escapes me. <BR/><BR/>Parents can make all kinds of requests to have things in writing. So what- written promises are pretty meaningless in this district. By all means get things in writing but good luck with the enforcement piece. And yes, I do believe that blended classrooms will result. Parents should anticipate all of the scenarios. Not just the ones the district lays out. The truth is that tight budgets will dictate what happens in individual school buildings. APP is no exception here.<BR/><BR/>"Now everyone sits down at the table together and negotiates without the preamble distribution of torches and pitchforks to the villagers."<BR/><BR/>Really? I was unaware that APP had a seat at the table with regards to this. Unfortunately, the manager of the program is put into a terrible position of begging the parent group to please accept this and don't protest. Since the decision is made to split the program, do you really believe that APP will have a seat at the table to negotiate anything? Sorry for the glass half empty approach here, but it is a little late on this issue to restart an advocacy group. In the past there were two groups. Read the history. Also, both the Boeing machinists and Bellevue teachers negotiated new contracts in the midst strikes. I'd say that was adversarial.<BR/><BR/>There is no conspiracy here. The district has been quite open about wanting to break up APP since the early 90's. Read the history.another momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12303476240929715442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-21312221171048240882008-12-23T05:59:00.000-08:002008-12-23T05:59:00.000-08:00When I used to rally the community to fight for Sp...When I used to rally the community to fight for Spectrum - which really WAS at risk when Olchefske and Rimmer were in charge (and they had said as much) - I used to understand how union organizers must feel. You have to use some pretty inflammatory language, dire predictions, and staunch demands to motivate people to action. Announcements of disaster and cries of "No Comprises!" were needed to build support so we could get to the table - where we could negotiate comprimises. Then the leadership had to come back to the (now) activated community and sell the compromises.<BR/><BR/>That's now seen as Old School adversarial negotiating. I don't know many trade unions that do it that way anymore. Now everyone sits down at the table together and negotiates without the preamble distribution of torches and pitchforks to the villagers.<BR/><BR/>But that's not quite how APP does it these days. The APP Advisory Committee is an advisory body - advocacy is not their role. The APP Review made the distinction and it has been holding. The APPAC always gives very cautious statements that aren't nearly as strident (and satisfying) as the community would like. Where the community wants to say "Hell NO!", the APPAC says "we have concerns".<BR/><BR/>Consequently, there is no organized advocacy group for APP anymore. That's what is missing; that's what is needed. There is no recognized leadership of an advocacy group for APP (or Spectrum or ALOs or Advanced Learning in general) and so there is no one with the voice of the community to make these demands. Each of us must speak as individuals. We feel how small our voices are and we become shrill in our effort to be heard.<BR/><BR/>Here is what I recommend instead:<BR/><BR/>The District has organized a different body to provide advice to the program manager and Superintendent on advanced learning. There are representatives from the APP Advisory Committee on that new <BR/>Advisory Committee. Doesn't this free up the current APP Advisory Committee to become an advocacy group instead? They have been replaced in their advisory role, haven't they? They never were consulted for advice anyway, were they? So that committee should just drop all pretense of advisory and adopt the full-time duty of advocacy. Then they would be free to come right out and say "Hell No!" and to make demands.<BR/><BR/>Let's not forget: the APP AC owns the email list - not the District. The District has no email list of APP or advanced learning families. The District can only communicate via printed messages sent by post or kid mail which they hate to do because it is so expensive. The APP AC has much better communications abilities than the District.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, if the community had an advocacy group that spoke clearly and loudly for the community and advocated for the students and the program, that organization would help us to stay focused on the issues that we can influence and would really work to influence them.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-58856332109098201022008-12-23T05:56:00.000-08:002008-12-23T05:56:00.000-08:00another mom wrote:"The reality is that there was n...<B>another mom</B> wrote:<BR/>"<I>The reality is that there was no reason to dismantle APP at the elementary school. Lowell is full; no capacity problem there. The fact that this arose in a plan to reduce capacity should raise everyone's eyebrows.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Ah! Here's one I think I can answer!<BR/><BR/>The capacity management problem was NOT at Lowell. The excess seats were at Thurgood Marshall and at Hawthorne. These two buildings, however, are in very good condition, so rather than closing them, the District looked for a population they could move into them.<BR/><BR/>Again, this is why the proposal relies so heavily on alternative schools - because the District perceives them to be more portable than neighborhood programs. They moved APP into these schools to fill them up - not to benefit APP in any way and not as part of any "Vision" for APP.<BR/><BR/>Same sort of thing at the middle school level. The District counted butts and seats and saw that Washington has enough room for every Central Region student, so they closed Meany. They had to move at least half of the APP students out of Washington to make room for the Central Region students coming from Meany. That's why the split at the middle school level - again, not to benefit APP in any way. Certainly not as part of any "Vision" for APP.<BR/><BR/>By all means, be skeptical. By all means, demand answers and details. Go ahead and be distrustful - be a malcontent even. All of that is good.<BR/><BR/>Demand an M.O.U., demand a written curriculum, demand a Vision, demand details about class sizes and eligibility criteria, demand annual re-certification (and possible de-certification) of Spectrum and ALO programs, demand a testing opportunity (for enrollment in the coming fall) for students in closed schools, demand answers about how the District will manage the school cultures, demand answers about access to Integrated III (or Algebra II), demand answers about music programs. Demand answers to anything that is on the table.<BR/><BR/>All I'm asking - and it's a pretty modest request - is that we not demand answers and details about things that are not in evidence, such as "blended" classrooms or the dissolution of the program. Let's not cry "racism" or "segregation". Let's not presume that the south-end school will be left with a weak PTA incapable of fundraising while the north-end program rakes in millions. Let's not presume that the south-end APP community will become politically voiceless without the strong advocates in the north-end to speak for it.<BR/><BR/>Please remember that Montlake, McGilvra and Stevens are all in the south-end. So are the vast majority of TOPS families. The majority of APP's leading advocates over the past several years have lived in the south-end.<BR/><BR/>Let's stay focused on the real and not lose any energy, credibility, confidence, or solidarity fighting these phantoms of our active imaginations. There are plenty of real demons for us to fight without conjuring additional ones.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-1479781227972246532008-12-22T17:33:00.000-08:002008-12-22T17:33:00.000-08:00"For those who do not receive the mail from the AP..."For those who do not receive the mail from the APP group, Dr. Vaughan circulated a letter that requests the buy-in and not the protest."<BR/><BR/>How can one buy-in to something when the details are not yet worked out? Too many promises and not enough substance. Too many unanswered questions. Families are being asked to buy something sight unseen from a district that has a terrible record of keeping promises.another momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12303476240929715442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-29848536787913267132008-12-22T17:19:00.000-08:002008-12-22T17:19:00.000-08:00"I don't know that the money difference between no..."I don't know that the money difference between north end and south end families in APP is as dire as we might assume."<BR/><BR/>Really?<BR/><BR/>PTAs in the south end routinely make in the thousands of dollars for their fund raising efforts for elementary schools. PTAs in the north end schools routinely make in the tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands for successful/popular schools. This adds up to a lot of art, music, science, math, and other programs as well as funding extra teachers for some grade levels. <BR/><BR/>It is true that there are middle class families and even wealthy families south of downtown. A lot of those families go to private school. My 13 year old attended preschool with a group we are still in touch with. Of the 17 families in his class, 5 attend public school. Most of the children on his soccer team attend private school or attend a north end public school. More than 1/2 of the parents I meet in our kids age groups go to private school. <BR/><BR/>You may well be right that APP families are more equal in income and wealth, but paired with another program - TM v Montlake the differences are going to be significant.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13549425880887010652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-72940351932888736762008-12-22T15:43:00.000-08:002008-12-22T15:43:00.000-08:00Charlie writes, "This was one of the problems at M...Charlie writes, "This was one of the problems at Madrona. The solution lies in the selection of the principal and the staff and the creation of a culture at the school that acknowledges and accepts this as a potential outcome."<BR/><BR/>Mr. Kimball, the strongest advocate in Seattle administration, was the principal at Madrona.<BR/><BR/>For those who do not receive the mail from the APP group, Dr. Vaughan circulated a letter that requests the buy-in and not the protest. For the sake of the students and teachers, I believe that families who want good solid programs throughout the city are better off protesting the proposed splits for the 09-10 year. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the current administration minus $5 million of staff will be able to pull it off. Write to the Board and cc supt.uxolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01595802010492801183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-39081975827972002792008-12-22T15:39:00.000-08:002008-12-22T15:39:00.000-08:00"...but it is not productive to become overwrought..."...but it is not productive to become overwrought and fearful about the end of the program as we know it."<BR/><BR/>I am certainly not overwrought, but simply facing the real rather than the let's dream it approach. The reality is that there was no reason to dismantle APP at the elementary school. Lowell is full; no capacity problem there. The fact that this arose in a plan to reduce capacity should raise everyone's eyebrows. The middle school is a different issue altogether. Sorry, but I have watched this district for too long. Just call me skeptical of the motives. As I am skeptical of what is happening to Summit, Thornton Creek, and Pinehurst to a lesser extent. You can add the SBOC to that too, they were promised(codified I believe)money in BEX. So you can tag me a distrusting malcontent if you like. Hysterical though not a chance.another momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12303476240929715442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-66114955580430838022008-12-22T14:49:00.000-08:002008-12-22T14:49:00.000-08:00Again,I'm not saying that we should just trust the...Again,<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that we should just trust the people in charge. Don't trust them - get every promise in writing on the most enforceable document available.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that there are not challenges. Everyone is going to have to work very hard to make this happen well and even then there will be mistakes and gaps. They are not going to do this right on the first try - maybe not even on the second. We, too, will have to work hard and diligently, and keep the District and school people at it hard and diligently.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that there are not grave concerns that need to be addressed. We should be concerned about how the program structure will change to adapt to multiple locations. We should be concerned about equity between the sites. We should be concerned about being co-housed with a disparate population.<BR/><BR/>What I am saying is that staying focused on these fundamentals and working to get these real concerns addressed is productive and necessary, but it is not productive to become overwrought and fearful about the end of the program as we know it.<BR/><BR/>Yes, advocate. Yes, work for accountability. Yes, work to get legitimate concerns addressed. But let's not dissipate our energy fighting decisions, such as blended classrooms, that no one has even suggested.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-55208198942428662542008-12-22T12:45:00.000-08:002008-12-22T12:45:00.000-08:00The Madrona experience is but a legend for most of...The Madrona experience is but a legend for most of you. Many of you here have no clue. Contrary to what some believe and have been told, a talented principal burned-out pretty quickly trying to keep both programs happy. Perhaps I misunderstood Charlie, but APP classrooms at Madrona were at and over the contract size. The neighborhood program always had very small class sizes. Splits were common and existed at several grades in APP. 1/2 split classes and perhaps blending will happen in the event that the numbers cannot support a classroom teacher. <BR/><BR/>Supporting a split APP is fine if you choose to do that. Folks say don't be a naysayer, be a part of the solution. Hold them accountable. That is easy to say, but not so easy to do. As some of you know, board policy is meaningless when violated by staff at will and whim. By all means codify how the split will happen with all of the accountability details built-in. But keep in mind that the district does not make guarantees ever. And what about the selection of a principal? Interview committees do not have the power to hire. They can only make recommendations. All of the questions are prescripted. The same questions are asked of each person. No follow-up questions allowed. You follow the script. Right now four APP "friendly" principals need to be found. Two at the elementary level and two at the middle school level. Charlie, indeed there is a written curriculum for APP in fact there are two that have been written. <BR/>That no one seems to locate,use, or help new teachers adapt to it is the fault of ???? A common curriculum needs to be used by APP teachers at both the elementary and middle schools, but will be very difficult with staff in four buildings. It will also cost money.<BR/><BR/>People with legitimate concerns are told to trust that Dr. Vaughan, Ms. Santorno, and Dr.G-J have it handled. The ubiquitous design teams will figure it all out. Don't worry so much.Parents are being told that they are the problem if they don't embrace a major change in the program. I have noted veiled threats made by board members and others. But where is the money going to be found to support the necessary expenditures of curriculum writing or purchase, and teacher training? Teacher training not just between neighborhood programs and APP but training to teach the new curriculum. And what if the new curriculum requires purchase of books and other supplies. which budget will pay for this?<BR/><BR/>There is no plan just promises. Once APP is split there is NO chance of it ever being whole again. Call me chicken little if you like, but there are far too many questions which are answered by saying we will make this work. It is a leap of faith.another momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12303476240929715442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-10637020422406733312008-12-22T10:18:00.000-08:002008-12-22T10:18:00.000-08:00I acknowledge the legitimate concerns about a spli...I acknowledge the legitimate concerns about a split APP. Those are real and present and can be addressed.<BR/><BR/>The "chicken little" talk are things like jumping to the conclusion that Thurgood Marshall will have blended classrooms instead of a self-contained program. There are no grounds for that assumption.<BR/><BR/>If that is a concern, then let's address that concern in advance, and in writing with all of the parties. Let's get some sort of written assurance - from the Board if necessary.<BR/><BR/>I think a more likely outcome than a class with a mix of APP 1st graders and general education 1st graders is a class with a mix of APP 1st and 2nd graders. That could occur at either APP location - north or south. Let's get some rules laid down about that as well.<BR/><BR/>"<I>In an era of budget crunch, why do you think the district will come up with the money to do TM justice?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Doing Thurgood Marshall right will not require money so much as wise leadership - which is rare, but no more costly than foolish leadership and therefore a great bargain. There will be some costs associated with professional development for ALL of the staff and teachers at Thurgood Marshall. There will also likely be need for some personnel changes. Not everyone will want to get onboard with the new structure. The principal selection will determine almost everything; the community should take a strong role in this.<BR/><BR/>"<I>In a district with a history of allowing wide disparities between schools in different parts of the city, why are so sure this time will be different just because some of the kids are APP?</I>"<BR/>The source of my confidence lies in the promise of a written, taught, and tested curriculum. I actually think that we will have less disparate curriculum than elementary APP has now. I fully acknowledge the wide diversity of curriculum at various Spectrum programs across the district. Beyond that is an even broader range of curricula in ALOs and an immensely broader range still in the general education programs. It is my expectation that the APP teachers at Thurgood Marshall will be, for the most part, the same people now teaching APP at Lowell. That doesn't have to be the case and it will not be 100% true, but it is what the District expects and there is good cause to expect it. Now think of this: every teacher at Lowell is teaching something different. Some are stronger with math than others. Some are stronger in other areas. There is no single APP curriculum being taught now. With a written curriculum and some real oversight to assure compliance with that curriculum, I think we have reason to expect LESS disperate curricula from classroom to classroom than we have now.<BR/><BR/>"<I>In a state that pathetically relies on parents to fund many essential educational program, why are you confident that the $ disparities between North/Montlake and South/TM won't create disparate programs?</I>"<BR/><BR/>I don't know that the money difference between north end and south end families in APP is as dire as we might assume. There are people of means living south of the Ship Canal. When people list the best supported schools in Seattle, the top of the list are often schools south of the Ship Canal. The south APP schools will have an active PTA that will be able to fundraise as well or better than most schools. There will be money for library books, music, field trips, and all of the usual PTA stuff. There may not be anything ostentatious, but I don't know if that's such a good idea anyway.<BR/><BR/>"<I>Do you believe they will have separate accelerated class of a dozen APP first graders and also a regular ed of 32 down the hall and a wait-list at the school?</I>"<BR/><BR/>I do not believe that they would blend APP with general education. I would be more concerned that they would cobble together an APP 1/2 class. I think that is a legitimate concern that we should address.<BR/><BR/>"<I>regular ed parents clamor for fair class sizes and the waste of resources having a teacher for just a dozen kids.<BR/></I>"<BR/>This was one of the problems at Madrona. The solution lies in the selection of the principal and the staff and the creation of a culture at the school that acknowledges and accepts this as a potential outcome. I'm not saying that it is a good idea; but it is something that will require strong leadership.<BR/><BR/>"<I>The parents with power, money, and influence (doctor and lawyer Moms are especially strong advocates) will be concentrated in North APP because by residence address nobody will have any choice.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I remember once I was in a meeting about Spectrum with some of the District staff. We were advocating for self-contained Spectrum classrooms in EVERY Spectrum school. And, if there were not enough students to at least half-fill a class with District-identified Spectrum-eligible students, to have a single Spectrum site for two or more clusters. One of the District staff then said that someone should be speaking for the families south of the Ship Canal. Every single advocate for Spectrum in the room - all four of us - DID live south of the Ship Canal.<BR/><BR/>Let's not fall into believing stereotypes that suggest that everyone north of the Ship Canal is a power-broker millionaire and everyone south of it is illiterate and on the dole.<BR/><BR/>"<I>How much control can South APP parents have if the building principal refuses to support their changes (remember Madrona?) or if a new principal comes in who "doesn't believe in" APP because differentiated instruction is good enough?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Surely the same could be said for the north elementary APP, or for Lowell or for Washington. How many of the past principals at Washington or Garfield would you characterize as APP supporters? None that I can think of. This is the risk we have always run. I can't offer you any assurances, but I strongly suggest that we get some assurances written into the revised Board Policy D12.00.<BR/><BR/>"<I>SPS Parents must DEMAND PLAN SPECIFICS on how a split will be implemented! Stop blandly accepting empty district promises. </I>"<BR/>I totally agree. We must demand specifics. Moreover, we must demand written and enforceable assurances for our concerns. But we can do all of these things without becoming shrill, without the hyperbole, and without spinning tales of horror to cause undue panic. Let's not assume the best - I own no rose-colored glasses - but let's not assume the worst either.<BR/><BR/>Let's actually take these people at their word. Right now the Superintendent, the Chief Academic Officer, and the Program Manager are all on the record as claiming to support APP, Spectrum, ALOs and advanced learning in general. Let's use this moment to solidify and codify the sort of program our children need to be adequately supported - academically, socially, and emotionally. Let's use this opportunity to get a favorable re-write of Board Policy D12.00. Let's use this opportunity to get legitimate Spectrum programs in every cluster of the district. Let's use this opportunity to get consistent written, taught, and tested curricula for APP, Spectrum, and ALOs. Let's use this opportunity to define and enforce "self-contained" as it applies to APP and Spectrum.<BR/><BR/>There are legitimate concerns. That's unquestionably true. Let's address them, but let's not fly off the handle and spread fear about extremely unlikely worst-case scenarios that lie beyond the range of legitimate concerns.<BR/><BR/>The District committed, years ago, to certification of new programs and the annual re-certification of existing programs. Each year the certification process grew weaker and in no year was any school denied their APP, Spectrum, or ALO designation despite failing to meet the certification requirements. That sort of failure of accountability should be a thing of the past. These processes are still the District's stated processes. Under Bob Vaughan's leadership, we are starting to see some schools fulfill their certification and re-certification requirements. This process is consistent with the District's current mania for "accountability" and should be codified and enforced. When we get this then we will have the best assurances we can get.<BR/><BR/>Director Martin-Morris, on his blog, acknowledged a truth: that there is no rule that says that Seattle Public Schools cannot expand APP from the top 2% to the top 5%. The District determines all of the aspects of the program. The District can, if they choose, make it a "blended" program. The District can, if they choose, merge APP with Spectrum and make them into a single program with locations all across the city. The current program design was not handed down at Sinai. It exists exclusively at the whim of the Superintendent.<BR/><BR/>So, no, I cannot give any assurances that the program will continue to function as it has in the past. But the risks are not much greater than they always have been. Consequently, our work to support and protect the students and the program should stay pretty much in the same range where we have always worked. Let's work to codify the curriculum and the model. Let's work to get supportive leadership. Let's work to strengthen the program where and how we can. But let's not waste energy over low probability fears that can be addressed through the usual course of advocacy.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-44718760087520028272008-12-22T09:41:00.000-08:002008-12-22T09:41:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rudy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470831804495683371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-29880169492811538212008-12-22T08:32:00.000-08:002008-12-22T08:32:00.000-08:00And, yes, Josh Hayes, I agree with you completely....And, yes, Josh Hayes, I agree with you completely. Children from closing schools should be able to test for APP/Spectrum this the summer, or earlier if need be for planning purposes.<BR/><BR/>If a family thought their school would be open, and that school was their first choice placement for their child, they may not have sought testing for APP/Spectrum, however Spectrum/APP might be their second choice placement. If they find their school closing there should definately be an option for late testing for them.<BR/><BR/>You too, should send this to Dr. Vaughan, Carla Santorno, and MGJanonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716725891562757052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-85543854688480875412008-12-22T08:27:00.000-08:002008-12-22T08:27:00.000-08:00I agree with another mom, sps family made some gre...I agree with another mom, sps family made some great suggestions, and I thank him/her for sharing them. Though I don't agree with all of them, the majority make sense, and I think they warrant being sent to Dr. Vaughan, Carla Santorno, and Dr. MGJ. Many of them would show a true interest on the part of the district to increase access to advanced learning.<BR/><BR/>As much as I would like to hear more from sps family about these ideas, he/she is so nasty, sarcastic and patronizing that I don't think I will be corresponding any more with him/her, at least on this thread. If you really want to share what you believe in and influence people then you might try being polite, respecting other views, and practice basic courtesy.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03716725891562757052noreply@blogger.com