Seattle Schools Community Forum

Update: One other thing to happen at tonight's Board meeting are updates on 3rd grade reading and 7th grade math. Maybe it's me but I'm having a hard time deciphering the  charts and graphs.  Maybe one of you can tell us what you think. It is the first item after Board comments. end of update Want a tip on Board meetings? Go back to the agenda again and again to see documentation that has been attached to items AND new items. To wit, now on the Board agenda for tonight: Adoption of Resolution No. 2024/25-11, directing the Superintendent to present preliminary recommendations and supporting analysis in October 2024 for up to five school closures for the 2025-26 school year;  to develop a multi-year plan no later than June 2025 to achieve fiscal stability in support of student outcomes; and  to form a taskforce to advise the Superintendent on implementation of 2025-26 school closures, if approved by the Board, and development of the multi-year recommendations.  Approval o

Oh boy! It's on!!! What might I be referring to? What looks like - reading an op-ed in the Times from Director Sarah Clark - is open warfare on closing schools and the SOFG governance plan.  Of course, I did check the Public Testimony list. There are 25 people who made the cut and 72 are on the waitlist. I think that may be a record. Naturally, most want to speak on closures or a specific school on the possible list with a few wanting to talk about the BEX VI item. But onto the op-ed. First, Clark issues a warning that while it's good the district backed off of closing 20 schools, "This is not a retreat; it's a slowdown." Then she lays down what she thinks "as a newer board member." I'm going to break out what was one paragraph into bite-sized sentences.  As a newer school board member, I have concerns about information missing from the plan.  I am also not convinced that there aren’t other options to balance the district’s 2025-26 budget.  To c

Perhaps this information  on religious accommodations comes home with parents in the First Day packet but I have never seen it before.  Background: During the 2019-2020 school year, Seattle Public Schools and Seattle Education Association created a joint workgroup to address equity and evaluate inclusive considerations related to religious and cultural observances and practices in developing student and work calendars. The workgroup sought to develop the calendar using the negotiated calendar  formula (important dates) below, while also considering days which may have high impact on our communities. The goal of this calendar is to provide an at-a-glance look at the variety of religious holidays and observances to assist schools/teachers in planning important events, testing, and exam dates.   While we can’t change school year dates to accommodate every religious/cultural observance, it is understood that students may end up missing school and important school events in order to honor t

There are several stories I do want to get to but I have two questions for my readers and I am truly interested in your viewpoint. I'm going to do a separate post for each. One, why do you think the Superintendent and staff are dragging their feet until the end of October to announce the five schools they believe should close?  And, secondarily, why is the Board okay with this?  My take is that the Superintendent and staff are continuing to run out the clock. So rather than announcing them sooner, they want to push it as much as possible to the end of the year.  Keep in mind that the Superintendent promised the Board, before the end of school year 2023-2024, that sure, they could have some meetings over the summer. Didn't happen. Then, after the preliminary list was announced, the Board again asked about public input and Jones said something about "workshops." Didn't happen. Of course, that means any kind of community pushback for the five schools selected will be

Update:  The Seattle Times' editorial board has spoken out again - Mismanagement in Seattle PublicSchools: a lesson in what not to do. One of the odder facts about public education is its management structure. To wit: Veteran officials making six-figure salaries are held accountable by school boards comprised of unpaid amateurs. Or so goes the plan. But it’s easy to see the potential for a power imbalance that favors the professionals, not the community volunteers. The consequences are visible in Seattle Public Schools, where Superintendent Brent Jones just inked a new, two-year contract with a $348,395 annual salary that includes a $14,000 raise — despite presiding over dwindling enrollments, academic stagnation and historic budget deficits. Nice work if you can get it. The money problems might look less ugly if student outcomes were soaring. But those results are among the most disappointing of Jones’ tenure, particularly for youth of color. Meanwhile, three Black students have

Sometimes KUOW's Week in Review gets the right combination of guests who actually know something about public education. This week was one of those times.  Bill Radke discusses the week’s news with writer and editor Sarah Anne Lloyd, Seattle Times Claudia Rowe, and political and public affairs consultant Sandeep Kaushik. Public disclosure:  I know and have spoken upon occasion with both Rowe and Kaushik about public education. Host Radke started the show talking about Seattle Schools (and the entire discussion around schools goes to about the 25 minute mark). He referenced the $94M deficit that SPS is facing, that SPS originally wanted to close 20 schools and now it's down to five. He added that no matter the number of schools closed that the district would still have to do belt-tightening in the form of transportation changes, staffing, etc.  Rowe jumped in and said, "(it's) something of a game of chicken, freak people out with a big scary number of schools and no r