Longer School Day
I wouldn't mind a longer school day for elementary/middle school but my preference would be that either remedial classes for those who needed it and/or homework help (for all) and/or enrichment (for all). I think many parents would be grateful to know their child came home from school with their homework done and the child had a music/drama/art enrichment class.
A couple of days later, the letter below was printed:
"When are they going to wake up and get it right? They can make the school day 24 hours if they like, and nothing will substantially change.
I taught elementary school for 30 years and noticed that as the school day progresses only one thing basically happens to kids: they get tired!
If you really want to improve public education, rather than increasing the length of the school day, it would be better to decrease class size. Teachers would then have more of a chance to administer individual instruction during class time, to all children. There wouldn’t be many chances to tune out, and more work of real value would be accomplished.
Children need time to be children. They’re not going to get it in a nine-hour school day.
Those who hate school will only hate it more. Most of the other children will be burned out by the time they reach high school. And when will there be time to do homework?
Kathleen Crisci"I think she has a point. Parents would be much happier (indeed, this is the number one reason I hear from private school parents as to why they want their child in private school) if they knew their child's class size was 17-20. Even with I-728, I haven't seen a lot of class sizes go down. I'm not sure any of us have ever understood how it passed, with its stated goal, and yet, we still have larger class sizes. A smaller class size benefits BOTH teacher and student.
So, longer school day or smaller class size? Which would help more? Or, is there still a better goal out there?
Comments
One other point. There is an inherent logistical difficulty with "reducing class size." Imagine a full school with 3 classrooms of each grade level and 30 students in each class. Now they want to reduce class sizes to 25 (and have the money to do so). This means that instead of serving 90 students per grade level they will opnly be able to serve 75. What happens to the 15 students that are "reduced"? There is not likely a classroom for 4 classes at each grade level, and even if there were, the school could not afford 4 classes of 22-23. So what can they do?
An easy answer is to reduce just kindergarden class sizes. But then the school doesn't filter enough students up to the higher grade levels, enrolments drop, and the school gets its budget slashed.
This is the myth that really needs to be exploded! "If SPS could only get those easy to educate, rich, smart, white people back, we would stop losing our state funding... and the schools would be great."
Actually, we have a weighted student formula. That means the smart, rich kids bring in a lot less money than the poor disabled ones. Look at any school's blue books. It's basically $3,000/child that makes it down to the school level for the so-called easy to educate child. Big deal. (The state's BEA is around $4,000... and about $1,000 gets eaten by the central office, transportation, etc.) So, they may cost less, but they bring in less... and they aren't free to educate either. While it might not be great for a lot of reasons, if every child that wasn't poor or disabled left the public schools... it would save the taxpayers a ton of money. It's ridiculous to see all the posting lamenting private school attendance. If that's what people want... fine, save us the $3,000. And certainly forget about the ridiculous "marketing campaign" idea. Another waste of money for no reason at all. We will still have the hard-to-educate students.
The cost of most of the decent private schools with reduced class size is around $15,000... and then there's the various giving that's required. Sure, you're always going to get more for $15,000+ than for $3,000. The public school could do it for less since they operate on economies of scale... but Washington voters would need to vote for significant tax increases to devote to this... and so far, that isn't forthcoming.
I have a question I hope someone can help me with. Where do I find statistics on high school attendance in Seattle high schools? I can find the stats on K-8 unexcused absences on the OSPI web site, but I can't find them for high schools. Anyone know where I can find the data for making school-by-school comparisons?
However, the kids who cost more to educate are more the issue than kids who aren't. That said, it is the job and the duty of the state to educate every child. Unlike charters and private schools, public school takes all comers. That is how it should be.
We DO need to get marketshare back because, as Boohoo points out, districts operate on economies of scale for a lot of students. Those so-called "easy to educate" students help provide a base of money to educate all. Beyond that, you may also be getting parents who are willing to be involved in their child's education which would probably translate into donations and volunteer time.
Having schools running at capacity means closing fewer schools (and all the heartache that involves). If we had more marketshare, it would probably mean that many students would have to go to their neighborhood school (because the popular schools couldn't handle the influx) and because of the increase in parents expectations, those schools would likely improve and have smaller class sizes because of the spreading out of students. Outcome; more schools that people are satisfied with.
Sure, I'm stating the best outcome but private school parents tend to be pro-active types who would come in and expect more and be willing to work hard to make it happen.
Saying we don't need to increase our marketshare is not a big picture view. If this Board (or any Board) had a dual plan of working hard to bring remedial students up AND reaching out to private school parents, this district would be a lot better off.
I'm not sure how I feel about a longer day. My kids are spent after attending school from 8:30 am to 3 pm, and that's with breaks and lunch.
I also think it's time to give schools the option of having a longer school year. My kids would love to go to school year around, with small breaks during the summer months. They're bored at home and we can't afford a lot of day camps or sleep away camps. We don't go "abroad" or have a farm, so what's the point? For teachers who have summer commitments, I think it would be great if schools could employ part-time teachers, interns or specialists during "summer school" to keep contracts in place, or at least give teachers the option of whether or not they want a longer year. WenG
If you could look at Seattle Schools records regarding lawsuits brought for denial of student services under the ADA, you'd learn that SPS has a habit of denying services to students with disabilities.
I don't think the poor or disabled student is the cash cow you assume them to be.
As for market share, I do agree that with its present culture intact, marketing money would be wasted. Frankly, if SPS paid for a marketing campaign, I'm sure they'd hear complaints from parents who are already donating money to their kid's class and teachers. Money for things like supplies, not the evil "frill" some parents find questionable.
Parents are smart. They talk to other parents. Just reading the archives here can give a new parent a fair warning of the pros and cons of Seattle. In the era of the President as Serial Liar, I think SPS would have to pay for a lot of lip-gloss to cover up this passive/aggressive institution they've defended for so many years. WenG
The term offends me.
It offends me because I truly consider public education a right for all citizens. Issues of race and class are never going to completely disappear. SPS can’t be expected, nor should it try, to spend time, money and years of study to claim they will “tackle” this issue. While they’re fiddling around with promises of equity that go nowhere, they’re not just losing the wealthy or highly-educated families, they’re losing the poor and educated, the poor and under educated. They’re losing a lot of kids they’re supposed to help.
Before I moved to Seattle, I never lived in a city full of as many empty schools as I see here. My first neighborhood felt haunted. Where were the kids? Then my neighbors filled me in. And yes, the planned to send their child to private school even before she was born and they’re not racist.
The idea of market share tells me the person thinking about it has the welfare of kids and teachers very low on their list of priorities. SPS needs to take a stand and promise to serve all students. Do that and you don't need to resort of insulting dodges like "we need rich parents" or "we must serve the neediest before all others."
A united front would be the best way to tell the legislature "Fund us." Start by saying no to board members in conflict and superintendent's who can't a read a spread sheet.
The only lawsuits I want to see flying are the ones coming from districts who have their act together, who are ready to demand the funding they need to live up to their mandates.
WenG
Deidre
If a school is throwing one group of students aside in order to focus on another, that school is broken.
I think part of the problem we're seeing now is that Seattle is making a second transition, the one that comes after the end of busing era. What was also supposed to follow the ideas that John Stanford set in motion; the idea of returning to the neighborhood school model among them. Nice on paper, but we still haven't done the work or locked down the moneies to make it happen. WenG
Deidre
http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/I728Reports.asp
Seattle's CCCDD number is 17001 (you type it into the yellow box. While this won't answer all questions, it is at least a start.
Indeed, we have elected to budget "Walmart" rates for our education. Washington’s basic education allocation (BEA) for garden variety kids is around $4,000. Around $3,000 makes it into your principal’s mailbox. That’s it. And there are no cash cows anywhere. This white flight to more expensive educations is a nationwide trend. Boston school district is now 75% minority. Where are Boston’s white students? It seems to me that all this complaining about the district, the superintendent, etc, is misplaced. WE have elected to shop at Walmart for our public education.
To use Charlie’s analogy of parents going grocery shopping: About 70% pick up the $3,000 education for free at the Walmart. Good deal, but mileage will vary. Some others go to Lakeside and pay $30,000 after all the expenses are considered (giving, trips, computers, etc). Lakeside’s website even has a pointer to places you can get “student loans” for K8. This can’t be a great value proposition but still highly desirable and a great experience. Some others go over to the Bush store and pick up their education for around $20,000. Clearly, it isn’t completely the same product as at the Walmart.
Everyone has their own reason for making these expensive choices. Some want lower class sizes. Some want specific programs. But let’s not underestimate the number wanting a “good peer group” for their children. Ever hear of that? I have. That is: ‘No pesky minorities unless they’ve been hand-picked and well screened by our admissions committee, no behaviors we’re not used to, and nobody who isn’t already a child genius like my kid, definitely not ever a disability…. unless, of course, we decide to do some charity.”
SPS should focus all it’s resources on providing a great education for everyone who walks in the door. People can choose as they will. THAT is the big picture. Yes, we need smaller class size in many schools. Yes, we need access to local schools, and more. Certainly we need effective differentiated instruction at all levels. SPS shouldn’t drive anyone off or go on goose chases looking for racism in summer vacation. But, we don’t need some special catering to an already privileged and mostly well served minority. SPS shouldn’t try to “attract anyone back” who has their own personal reason for opting out. We don’t need Waldorf. We already have more than adequate economies of scale. No number of volunteers, auctions or bake sales is going to turn $3,000 into $30,000. And we’ve already taken the hit of closing schools. The fact that some people make private arrangments isn't really "free money walking out the door" as Melissa implies, they too cost money.
Why compare Seattle Schools to Boston? Boston is one of the most challenged school districts lying in a city full of racial tension, and highly competetive, ivy league colleges. Why not comapare Seattle Schools to Houston, Denver, Albuquerque, Boise? Why not compare us to our neighbor districts, Shoreline, Bellevue, Northshore?
But you're right people have a right to choose what they want for their children, and people with the means will more often than not opt out of a public system that is underfunded and under performing. A district that can't keep a Superintendant around more than a couple of years (or most Principals for that matter), mismanages the budget, and has to close schools. A district whose classes are filled with 30-31 students, and a district who frowns on the elitist APP and Spectrum program.
IE A district custom made for the have nots.
Yes, people will choose as they will, but I don't think it is to run away from people of color, behavior issues or disabilities. I think they choose private so often in Seattle, because, this district is grossly failing.
I think the district has serious issues. I personally think that one of their biggest struggles is a struggle all over the nation - the achievement gap. The problem with that issue is in trying to fix the problem they are alienating the families with students who are higher achievers - bad approach.
The other big issue is funding.
My children's school has been able to avoid big issues so far because it is not in Madrona's circumstance. One of the things that is not as great about my child's school is it is not as diverse, racially and economically, but that may be why it has avoided some of the problems (fundraising, school has high test scores, so district lets it be).
This may be for the Madrona post, but if you are going to take a ton of kids who are struggling and thus take away recess, restrict arts during classtime, etc. etc., you are never going to serve the other neighborhood kids who aren't struggling academically without dividing the school. This issue among many others needs to be figured out - especially in the
South end where there is such a diverse economic situation among the residents.
BooHoo also suggested, rather, uncharitably, that a signficant number of families choose private schools to provide their children with "a good peer group". BooHoo then defined a good peer group, rather uncharitably as "No pesky minorities unless they've been hand-picked and well screened by our admissions committee, no behaviors we're not used to, and nobody who isn't already a child genius like my kid, definitely not ever a disability unless, of course, we decide to do some charity."
I will certainly acknowledge my concerns about peer group, but I'm not trying to protect my children from other races - I want to reduce my children's exposure to the peer pressure to underachieve. You can interpret that as you like, but I don't see it as race-based or economically-based and certainly not as ability/disability-based.
There is always, of course, the possibility that I'm living in a thin bubble of denial and self-delusion about this.
Another anonymous wrote "If this district is so grossly failing, why am I so happy our neighborhood elementary school."
Ideally, a school should be able to address the diverse needs of all of its students.
Ideally, a school should be able to provide each students with lessons at the frontier of his or her knowledge and skills. They can do it through small learning groups, through parallel curriculum, or through any of a number of other methods for differentiating instruction.
Ideally, schools should be able to accomodate the learning styles of each of its students.
Ideally, a school should be able to make every child and every child's family feel welcome. This only requires good interpersonal and social skills - nothing extraordinary.
There are a number of schools in Seattle who come close to these ideals. They are mostly, but not exclusively, in predominantly White, affluent neighborhoods. Class size plays a huge role in realizing these ideals. That means money. It can also mean volunteers, which, in turn, means money. In a healthy system, the school fosters volunteerism, which leads to higher quality and more positive feelings, which in turn lead to more volunteerism in an upward spiral.
The fact is that most student families in Seattle ARE pretty satisfied with their public school. The fact is that the work done in our public schools is, for the most part, very good. Our schools are staffed, for the most part, by hardworking, dedicated professionals.
If they were honest, a number of schools would tell some folks "Sorry, we're not really set up to address your child's specific academic needs. We will do our best, but there are other schools that would be a better match." Some schools are honest that way and I think it serves them well. I think it is easier for them to be honest about this when they have a waitlist.
The District is much more likely to expect schools to be able to serve any and every student even when we all know that is neither true nor even particularly desirable. The District is much more likely to proclaim it as true even when all of the evidence is to the contrary. The District has real mastery of the "official truth".
In contrast to the work done in the schools, most of the work that comes from the District's headquarters is pretty weak. Fortunately, few of us are ever really impacted by headquarters decisions. Unless your child is in a program with central control, you don't suffer often from District decisions.
The problems come when something isn't quite right at the school. That's when the District's real dysfunction shows. The headquarters fails in their oversight role from start to finish. They don't respond promptly to trouble. When they finally do respond, they usually do the wrong thing.
When there is a conflict, the headquarters almost always presumes that the problem is in the students or the community, never the school or the staff. Even when the school is truly messed up, the District will continue to blame the community. Sometimes they blame families who DON'T have children in the school. "If only you would send your child to the school, the school would change and become the sort of school you want."
The dysfunction is in the headquarters, so if your school is running well and quietly, and flying under the headquarters' radar, then you have a chance at having a good school that works for the students, families, and staff who are there. Your school, operating autonomously without much oversight from the District or direction from the District or interference from the District works almost like a Charter school. In that case, you have to wonder what good is the District.
If your school isn't working well, and the District's involvement is just making everything worse, you also have to wonder what good is the District.
Do you have faith you and like-minded parents could resusitate a neighborhood school not of your choosing? Is that the answer?
It is problematic because on the one hand, we don't want cookie cutter schools. On the other hand, many people have expressed the desire to duplicate successful schools. TOPs is mentioned. I personally believe it is not a hugely successful academic school (good but not great) but parents there seem to love it. What should be duplicated? Would you support a change in the enrollment system if the district said, "We will make sure that a successful model of school is duplicated in every area of the city." Meaning, have community meetings to identify what people would like and say okay, then another TOPS for the south end or another John Stanford for the NW. Would that make people stay put?
See, the reason the district is pushing a pullback (not ending totally, I don't think that's in the cards) on choice is that the transportation costs are killing us. And it will make the looming shortfall harder. They have to push a pullback. Instead of drawing a line in the sand, would it make more sense to say, okay, we'll support your plan but we want something (in writing with a plan signed off by both the Board and Superintendent)in return?
Melissa Westbrook
(my password isn't working so I had to sign in as Anonymous)
I get the high transportation costs, and I understand the need to cut back, however, I think limiting choice will drive so many families away from the district that it will ultimately cost much more than the current transportation costs.
I hate the idea of going in and "changing" or "taking over" a school. I think that schools will change as neighborhoods do, but it has to happen naturally, and reflect the demographics of the neighborhood. It takes time, and time is something that our children just can't spare. We attended a neighborhood alternative school for several years, and eventually became disatisfied. We didn't want to disrupt our child by changing schools so we decided to make our voices heard, and work with the principal and teachers on issues that we were unhappy with. Since many of the things we were disatisfied with were part of the culture of the school it was like we were swimming up stream. It became uncomfortable. We were trying to change the culture and philosophy of the school and we eventually realized that this was not only fruitless but unfair. Our son is now at Bryant (not our neighborhood school) and is thriving. Thank heavens for choice!!
Deidre
We’re a community. The four hundred families there face many of the challenges that the District as a whole faces. We have a chunk of over-involved white folks (me), we have a chunk of under-involved black folks. We have a chunk of over-involved black folks and of under-involved white folks. Then we have all the same mix of Asians and Hispanics and so on. Like I said: we’re a community. The one advantage we have is that we chose to be there. Whether we ran toward something or away from something, we all chose to be there. I think that makes a huge difference.
I think that the transportation cost the District faces is a small price to pay for choice. Without choice the District cannot allow programs like TOPS or John Stanford or Montlake or the New School or Madrona to exist. Without choice, every school must be all things to all families and therefore not good enough for any family.
Maureen
It's not underachievers that I don't want my children exposed to - it is peer pressure to underachieve.
First of all, not all low-performing students aren't trying hard. Many of them are. Second, not all high performing students are trying hard.
It isn't the level of their performance, it is the level of their effort that I am sensitive to.
And, so far as that goes, I don't even mind if they don't try hard, so long as they don't proselytize for slacking.