Thursday, September 20, 2007

Promises kept

Who remembers the Board and the District staff saying that the school closures would result in significant savings for the District?

Who remembers the Board saying that half of the savings from school closures would be reinvested in the consolidated schools?

Who remembers the Board and the District staff saying that the consolidated schools would be able to offer more outside-the-classroom services, such as nurses, counselors, P.E. teachers, art teachers, and such when they have an enrollment closer to the model size? This was the presented as the REAL reason for consolidation, the academic reason. This was purportedly of greater importance than any budget crisis.

Now let's look at the school budgets. Where is the savings from consolidation? I don't see it. In the Blue Book for High Point this year I see no additional funding as a consolidation bonus. Does High Point have more nurse FTE than last year? More counselor FTE? Any additional FTE of that sort? Show us.


Anonymous said...

I don't know about High Point. In my neighborhood they closed Rainier View and sent the kids to Emerson. I dug up raw data for 06/07 year and 07/08. Here's what I found:


Rainier View

FTE: 47
Total Budget: $3,318,830


FTE: 49.5
Total Budget: $3,552,590

Total for both schools: $6,871,420


Rainier View

FTE: 0
Total Budget: 0


FTE: 61.2
Total Budget: $4,704,645

Certainly this is back of the envelope, but the high level calculations appears to show a savings over last year of $2,166,775, which maps to about 40 FTE positions.

Is the consolidated school benefitting? That's hard to say just by looking at the budget. By far the bulk of the extra money is going to classroom teachers, but the .xls certainly doesn't say if they are teaching art or music, or anything else. But it appears that they now have funding for a part-time nurse, and increased funding for library staff. The rest of the budget is very hard to decipher on a position-by-position basis.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Charlie, it hasn't been that long. There is a cost in vacating buildings.

This emphasis on saving money was not the central key to closing schools. There will be modest benefits but the key was to consolidate this district so that there weren't so many schools for the administration to manage. It's about streamlining and that's not an overnight process.

Give it chance.

Dan Dempsey said...


When the district said they will have a deficit of $21.9 million for 2007-2008, it appeared to be to motivate the population to see the need for school closures. Then when the deficit turned into a projection for a $5 million surplus in 2007-2008 (after the closings saved $2.3 million -by district calculations), it seems hard to believe much truth will be found in any SPS words.

My current rant on district double talk is the dual mantra of "Data Driven Decision Making" and "Concerned with closing the achievement GAP".

Consider the latest SPS Mandate - West Seattle HS must move to the 6-period day. The following data is based on 2007 WASL results. The data: Black Students at West Seattle HS on the WASL scored in Reading, Writing, and Math higher than the state average for Blacks in WA State, while district Black students scored below the state average in all three areas.

Hispanic students at WSHS have no achievement GAP in writing. As WSHS Hispanic students scored higher in wirting on the 2007 WASL than SPS White students.

In looking at 2007 WASL results for Reading, Writing, and Math. Comparing WSHS as Blacks, Hispanics, and low income students with the SPS district averages.
The results are Westside 8 SPS 6-period day 1.

When looking at 5 year differentials and expanding the compared groups to include all students and white students along with the above 3 groups. The comparison yields West Seattle 23 and SPS Six-period day 6.

My point being there are a lot of words thrown about but they have little to do with actual practices.

Some type of injunction should be placed on SPS to require them to refrain from using the mantras "Data Driven Decision Making" and "Concerned with the Achievement Gap" until some evidence of either can be found.

Oh!!! By the way the district data cruncher Brad Bernatek, called the West Seattle data inconclusive.

This is the same data cruncher who chose two random data points to present at the Everyday Math School board Elementary Math adoption meeting.

His random points for demonstration purposes for regular ed students South Kitsap (7% Black and Hispanic population) and Central Valley (5% B&H). He just randomly picked the best performing Everyday Math district above 5,000 students and amazingly enough picked the CV district which had the best special ed performance.

Perhaps Mr. Bernatek could pick a lottery ticket for me at random.

No the only data this district uses is what they can dig up after the decision has been made.

Data driven implies an actual search before the decision.
The JSCEE seems totally unaware of this fact.

How are decisions made?
I can only say not by data.

No the intelligent application of relevant data to improve our schools is definitely not happening with the Math selections or with the WSHS decision.

WSHS has managed to get to the point where project based learning is functioning well. The SPS response abandon it.

If anyone would like the spreadsheet and accompanying paper, email me at dempsey_dan@yahoo.com


Dan Dempsey said...


Give this idea a chance. Social and demographic changes take place but it is time to plan not for years or decades but for centuries.

At this moment more intergenerational contact is needed. The schools need not be closed. If a school has extra room, the remodel should be for Senior Center, Day Care Center or health service or ????.

In eastern WA there are districts that share superintendents. It would have been easy for High Point and Fairmount Park to share a principal or employ two part-time principals. That lets neighborhoods remain as small neighborhoods and would provide intergenerational contact that builds social capital.

I find it disgusting that we are spending $4.2 million on coaching of teachers rather than teachers for students. I believe that $4.2 million is around 50 new teachers.

I am for less top-down centralized autocratic decision making.

At this moment it appears that in many regards Seattle is headed in the exact opposite direction as Boston which actually makes significant academic improvement.

Dr. G-J's thrust for one size fits all uniformity, which Bellevue's Mike Riley likes has not been shown to be effective and very unlikely to accomplish much in Seattle with its very diverse population.

I think current plans are very short sighted. I would like to see more research into Seattle's unique situation and then intelligent actions. Unfortuately all I am seeing is importing mediocre ideas from elsewhere.

I am still waiting for the Supt. to address board policies that deal with classroom learning D43.00, D44.00, and D45.00. It looks like I will be in for a long wait.

I think the new student assignment plan is an astonishingly poor idea at this time. The district is choosing ethnically discriminatory math texts (also poor to mediocre for anyone). Mandating that WSHS abandon the 4-period day that has produced excellent results for attendance and closing the achievement gap, hardly paves the way for neighborhood schools.

No - I am not for school closures or the sale of neighborhood resources.

I think schools could easily stay open and under the plan above be very cost competitive.


Melissa Westbrook said...

Okay, High Point and Fairmount Park didn't share principals but did share a counselor. What you suggest was already happening there. Combining these two small (and very similar in population) schools) made sense.

What people forget when they say "use the extra space" is who will organize and oversee this effort? If the City would help, it might work. Yes, of course, schools are important parts of the neighborhood. I know at High Point their computer lab IS used in the evenings by adults. But, do we really have the manpower and time to assign district employees to go out and assess the schools, create a program, hire people to oversee (on-site), etc? I submit we don't.

It is worth studying but in the meantime, we had too many schools for too few children.

Dan Dempsey said...


If the city would help, it would happen. The SPS have not inspired much confidence in anyone

Has anybody made an effort to plan for the next 200 years?

Consulted with the City? Parks department? etc.

I find the admin to be occasionally very uninformed and often bullies.

Have the district admin approached the city in a manner that would lead everyone to believe the interest is a concern for all students and our citizens and city for the next century?

Looking at many expenditures, this remains a question of priorities. There are enough resources if some decision maker believes it is important.

If I was that decision maker, I would be approaching the city.


Anonymous said...


You are forgetting that the City is trying to screw SPS over right now on more than one front, including the Lander overpass and trying to get the 50+ million dollar land that Memorial Stadium sits on for free. Couple that with wanting to insconse Ron Sims (anyone rather have another politician - particularly one that nearly bankrupted his last charge over a professional educator - please raise your hands) and you would figure out that the city and SPS are not likely to be buddies any time soon.

Anonymous said...

The last anonymous is wrong about who the city wanted to put in place as interim sup't (it was Norm Rice, and yes, he did leave the Federal Home Loan Bank after a negative audit report) - but he or she is right in implying that the city has just as much responsibility to approach the district in a spirit of constructive compromise and cooperation as the district has to do likewise.

Dan, speaking of bullies - have you seen the Mayor in action?

And PS - using surplus space in public schools might be a nice, feel-good solution to filling up the building, and might be nice to consider if SPS were not in a budget deficit position (which has nothing to do with reserves but having annual operating expenses greater than annual revenue).

Until it isn't, the district's primary job is not citywide social service or subsidy, but educating children - and subsidized rents to social service providers in no way provides financial savings or much in the way of any income for that.

Even now excess schools are being leased for next to nothing to mostly hand-to-mouth social service providers and are actually costing the district money given the potential of developing for residential use that could subsidize community service (e.g., U Heights could be developed for residential with rents subsidizing space for farmers market and other community use on ground floor).

The district doing even more of that (renting below market to social service providers) would be financially irresponsible.

Brita said...

Hello all,

I think it would make sense to differentiate between the Mayor's office and the City Council. The Mayor's office did ask the board to appoint former Mayor Norm Rice as our new Superintendent rather than conduct a Superintendent search but we politely explained that hiring a qualified Superintendent is one of the most important duties an elected school board has.

We do work collaboratively with City Council and meet with them quarterly to bring up issues, discuss our reasoning behind our decisions, get their input, and figure out ways that the City could help the kids be better prepared to learn.

These joint meetings are open to the public and are televised, if you are interested.

Dan Dempsey said...

Brita, thanks for joining in.

Let us all look at some of the recent posts. In regard to operating at annual deficits, I have a question. Since we are projecting a surplus of $5 million for 2007-2008 and have by the district's own admission gone from plus or minus zero to a $20 million reserve over the past four years or so. How can we be operating at deficits? Granted without special levies and bond approvals by the voters the SPS would be in big problems but the fact remains it looks like we are running about $5 million per year to the good. Couple that fact with Thomas Ahearne’s pending NEWS lawsuit and the District could be in a much much stronger financial position. I believe under Mr. Ahearne's guidance the NEWS lawsuit will be won. Notre Dame’s football team may be having a poor year but Mr. Ahearne an ND grad will serve us well.

I certainly agree that looking at the mayor and many others does not exactly inspire public confidence. So we will need to bring about public pressure for positive actions. Given my lack of success in attempting to do so with the SPS during the last year, I realize many would question my contact with reality in still believing this can occur.

OK so I am a beginner in big city actions but I am persistent. I also believe in trying different approaches. I won't be beating my head against the wall in the same way repeatedly. I will find new ways to beat on the wall.

At this time it appears that the SPS responds to only massive disruptions ( school closures & military recruiters in schools ) and losing lawsuits, having a lawsuit filed against them ( race tie breaker), or occasionally responding to threatened lawsuits.

I will continue with the presentation of well reasoned arguments before the school board but not expecting a response. Lets face it if 10 consecutive testimonies from Jan 17 to May 30 in regard to the Everyday math adoption did zero, { These started with well reasoned and got no response so went to well reason with theatrics along the way. } I shall shift gears again.

Just because our school system is run by bullies, (central admin runs the SPS not the board) does not mean we have to be subservient to the bullies. We just need to be a bit more creative in our planning and future actions. More investigation into the law and processes coupled with some creative imagination is clearly needed, if we want better results.

Stay tuned for the Fall and Winter new season actions coming.


Brita said...


To clarify--I have been posting on this site for months but not recently due to the death of my mother a few weeks ago.

You are correct that the board has not responded to your many testimonies regarding math adoption. That is because we went through a year-long process, made a decision, and moved on. I do understand that you strenuously disagree with our decision and I respect your right to your opinion.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your statement:

"At this time it appears that the SPS responds to only massive disruptions ( school closures & military recruiters in schools ) and losing lawsuits, having a lawsuit filed against them ( race tie breaker), or occasionally responding to threatened lawsuits."

a) As the board's point person for school closures while serving as board president, I worked hard to ensure open community process including the appointment of an excellent community advisory committee to recommend which schools to be closed, which they did. Naturally we heard much testimony from parents and students in schools recommended for closure and took their information seriously. At the end of this process, we voted to close 7 schools.

The Superintendent then asked for more time to decide on the final four. However, the staff did NOT follow the process we asked them to, and thus missed a lot of information which came out only after their recommendations to us. I could not support this set of recommendations, which were seriously flawed. I told the Superintendent the day the motion was being introduced that he did not have even 4 votes. However, he decided not to pull it and we ended up with 4 hours of public testimony on what was a moot point. As soon as the meeting convened after the public hearing, we moved to table this recommendation indefinitely.

I know what was reported in the Seattle Times and they were wrong. The board did not 'cave' to public disruption--we used our own thinking skills prior to the meeting.

b) As the community member who brought the issue of military marketing up years ago via a press conference held at Garfield High School, as soon as I got on the board I met with our legal staff to improve the opt-out form and letter home, and asked for a report on the extent of military marketing in the various high schools. The board worked with the staff to improve this process and we benefited from emails last fall from parents Amy Hagopian (a former school board member) and Kathy Barker.

The students who staged a die-in at our meeting accomplished their goal of getting media attention for the issue but certainly did not change the outcome since the board was already on top of this issue.

c) The previous board ceased using the racial tiebreaker several years ago while the case was winding its way through the courts. The Supreme Court under its current configuration decided that the specific procedure that SPS had been using was not permissible although they did uphold the general concept. Our student assignment plan is being overhauled and will not use the racial tiebreaker that had been in place for high schools. Certainly we respond to the decisions of the Supreme Court.

d) I can't think of anything I have voted for or against during the past four years because of a lawsuit or threat of lawsuit. I hate seeing district funds wasted on fighting lawsuits but obviously the elected board will make decisions that not everyone likes, and some people will choose to sue, which is their right.

I appreciate your running for school board, Dan, and thank you for your passionate interest in the district.

Thank you, Beth, for giving me an opportunity to tell my side of the story. Without the blog, the local media are free to frame our actions without understanding them.

Charlie Mas said...

Here are the references I found to closures in the School District document describing the Operating Budget.

Under Staffing Changes on page 11:
"School closures result in a decrease of 4.0 FTE Principals and 6.5 FTE Office Support staff, reflected under Principal’s Office, as well as 6.3 FTE Custodians under Other Support."
and on page 13:
"Cost reduction of ($938) thousand due to school closure savings related to four school principals and related office staff."

Interestingly enough, despite these reductions in FTE for principals, the spending on the Principal's Office increased from $27.9 million to $29.1 million. All of this $1.2 million increase is attributed to a new negotiated agreement with PASS. The million dollars in savings due to staff reduction must have been offset by increased benefit costs or something.

Utility costs were not reduced by the closures; they rose by $300 thousand. Spending on custodial supplies also rose, by $100 thousand.

So it appears that the savings attributed to closures was just under $1 million. The Consolidation team has said that they expect to write a final report on the entire closure process this fall. In this report they will be able to finalize what was actually spent, what the District actually expects to save, and where students and staff
ended up. This report should be on-line, on the Books and Bricks page.

A review of the Blue Book budgets for schools that were consolidated shows no additional funding as their share of the savings from the closures.

So maybe I've got it wrong. Maybe the Board and the Administration didn't promise that.

Dan Dempsey said...

Brita and Charlie,

Thanks for the information. In particular, I would like to thank Brita, as she is one of the very few board members who takes time to respond to me.

Brita you said:
You are correct that the board has not responded to your many testimonies regarding math adoption. That is because we went through a year-long process, made a decision, and moved on. I do understand that you strenuously disagree with our decision and I respect your right to your opinion.

My question is when did you move on?
Can you give me an approximate date?



Brita said...


I simply meant that we voted on a math adoption -- I don't recall the date but the board office would have that information.


Charlie Mas said...

I have been searching the District web site and I cannot find any reference to a promise by the Board or by the Administration to reinvest any specific portion of the savings from the closures in the consolidated schools. Yet I am so sure that this promise was made.

Can anyone find a reference for this? Does anyone else remember this promise?

Brita said...


I recall that when we voted to close the 7 schools, part of the motion was that half the savings would be reinvested in the impacted schools for one year. You might ask the Board office for a copy of the motion or the board action report.

In the long term, we believed that spending money on unneeded utilities and school administrators made it harder to meet the needs of students.

Anonymous said...


Sorry to hear of your mother's passing - our thoughts are with you.

Dan - what does NEWS lawsuit mean?

Charlie - what does PASS mean?

Can people please identify their acronyms? Tryng to keep up and learn.

Brita, please continue other boardmembers and candidates to use the website - we have heard from far too few . . . . .

Thanks again for the terrific education this site brings.

Dan Dempsey said...


You seem to be referring to the vote on May 28th, 2007 when you stopped listerning. I am referring to the fact that I started testifying on Jan 17, 2007 and spent 10 consecutive testimonies with no board members listening.

I was hoping that you thought that you had given up listening about a year after the adoption process started. You seem to think you were listening right up to May 28th. Where is any evidence of that? You clearly chose to listen to your hired experts, but no one else. The "experts" that have participated in enlarging the Math achievement gap for both Black and Hispanic students significantly over the last 10 years. Why would you listen to Ms. Santorno after the math mess unleashed on Denver? I gave you the ITBS test data of the ineffective performance in the 30+ Everyday Mathematics adopting districts in WA.

The board paid no attention to Project Follow Through research or the large quantities I and many others submitted over several months prior to the adoption. You bought hook, line, and sinker the intellectectually fraudulent line presented as the board was fooled in the Everyday math adoption that Ms. Santorno shafted us with.

I remain steadfast in my earlier expressed opinion that disruptions and legal action are the way to get something done in SPS. Logical agruments are largely a waste of time. I am hardly the only person who thinks so. I've run into many more who think the same.

The process was rigged and there was no data or research presented that would lead any thoughtful informed person who knew statistics and research to believe otherwise, unless of course they had a vested interest.

I and others presented the board with many reasons to resist the expenditure on $2.5 million on the Everyday Math proven failed product. You bought the same failed product in use in Denver and many other places. The board chose to not intelligently apply relevant data (even when impending action from the state necessitated waiting) you chose to ignore rational decision making.

I sent you several Statistics Lessons via email. Still the board ignored the Green Lake pilot data. The board decided to have a non-videoed, non-televised school board meeting for adoption, that took place days after the SEA Union announced to their elementary school teachers that everyday math had been adopted. No you stopped listening long before May 28th.

The Seattle Schools Dictionary for newbies:
Open and Transparent = Fradulent and Rigged.

No Brita, the board stopped listening to the public long before May 28th. The board was listening to their hired experts.
The only question would be was the board ever listening to the public?

We now get to watch a virtual rerun of this fradulent decision making. With West Seattle HS now unilaterally forced by Ms. Santorno to a six-period day accompanied by more of Ms. Santorno's fraudulent hand waving that is supposed to substitute for data.

Wake up Seattle and actually look at the data. There is plenty of it.

Melissa hit the nail on the head earlier in the second posting when she said:

This emphasis on saving money was not the central key to closing schools. There will be modest benefits but the key was to consolidate this district so that there weren't so many schools for the administration to manage. It's about streamlining and that's not an overnight process.

Yes let us get those schools into a manageable streamlined condition so that centalized decision making can overwhelm the public interest.

We surely would not want centralized fraudulent decision making to be as difficult in the next 5 years as it has been lately. It needs to be much easier to adopt ineffective curricula over the objections of the public. It needs to be much easier to dispose of efficient practices that took years to develop.

Oh yes please streamline this so we won't need to waste our time protesting incompetence, you can just ram the consequences of incompetence upon us. I could have saved myself the time to prepare weekly testimonies.
Where do we go for our lobotomies?


Anonymous said...


I admire your passion but personal attacks and your overarching sarcasm don't get get folks to listen and doesn't make for change - Brita whom I have agreed/disagreed and admire for her committment participates on the blog in good spirit - its truly a shame other boardmembers and candidates don't but this is a good example of why they might not.

Lobotomy - give me a break. Our time is too valuable to be wasted by diatribe.

Dan Dempsey said...


You can track down the "NEWS" lawsuit at:


It looks for State to fully fund 100% of school costs.

New strategy that worked in New York and Wyoming is being used.

The suit seeks to have the court determine the actual costs to highly educate our students.

Then order that funding to occur.

This could have huge impact for Seattle.


Charlie Mas said...

PASS is the principal's union.

Brita wrote:
"I recall that when we voted to close the 7 schools, part of the motion was that half the savings would be reinvested in the impacted schools for one year."

Thanks, Brita, for the validation. I thought I was going nuts. I'll see if I can get a copy of the motion and find the reference to reinvesting a portion of the savings in the consolidated schools.

I don't want to get too far ahead of myself, but if the reinvestment is in the approved motion, then where will we find the dollars if not in the Blue Book?

If the reinvestment is in the motion but didn't occur, who can fix that?

If the reinvestment did occur, do you think someone could publicize it? Surely it is a good thing - an example of how the savings from the closures was spent in the classrooms, particularly in the classrooms of the students directly impacted by the closures.

Anonymous said...

Reinvestment means... "Oh yeah, we're throwing any money we might save back into the big pot. No sense counting it, counting is the first step in accountability."

Brita said...

Hello all,

Regarding the math adoption, it is true that I listened to what our Chief Academic officer recommended and why. I also listened to a lot of public testimony and did read the information sent to me before the vote. In addition, I talked with Mark Roddy, a former collegue at Seattle University who educates math teachers, and phoned a number of excellent math teachers in the district whom I know from being a parent. I attended a demonstration and talk by Ruth Parker, a proponent of constructivist math, and looked through the textbooks under consideration. I spent about an hour with a member of the math adoption committee who did not favor constructivist math, to hear his reasoning.

I attended a high school math class using constructivist math and observed, then interviewed students in the class.

Finally, I brought my own experiences using both constructivist and non-constructivist approaches to world language teaching to bear.

It is clear to me that there is a difference of opinion on the 'best' way to teach math. I am comfortable that our CAO's balanced approach makes sense for our district, given our staff preparation and attitudes.

I believe I did exercise due diligence on this issue and do not plan to revisit our decision. There is a time for listening and a time for action.

Anonymous said...

dan dempsey, I think a lobotomy might put you out of your own misery and ours - knock yourself out.

or maybe could you go elsewhere to beat this dead horse?

and to be honest, the thought of you in an SPS classroom is a little alarming to me.

Dan Dempsey said...

Dear Kinda tired a' Dan said,
and to be honest, the thought of you in an SPS classroom is a little alarming to me.
Yes having a hard working teacher committed to the success of his students, who publicly speaks may be an alarming thought to you.

I think you should adjust your mode of operation away from: insulting teachers and not checking any data because it is more time efficient to just insult. [clearly you will fit in well with Ms. Santorno]

I don't believe you contacted me at:

for data try this:
Fife HS WASL Spring 2004,05,06,07
10th Grade Math WASL:

Yr. level 1, lev 2, lev 3, lev 4
04 - 30.3 - 22.8 - 23.2 - 21.3
05 - 30.1 - 20.3 - 30.8 - 16.9
06 - 16.2 - 25.9 - 30.1 - 26.6
07 - 25.4 - 24.0 - 31.5 - 11.8

You will note in 2006 the lowest level 1 percent by a large margin and also the highest level 4 score.

I was involved as a the chief player in the design and implementation of a restructuring of Fife's 10th grade math classes for 2005-2006 school year. I taught there during that year.

The central admin thought the results were not what they wanted so they changed for 2006-2007, check the data.

I guess the thought of having a teacher involved in the classroom who dedicates substantial time to publicly defending what works and loves his kids - might be as repellant to you as it seems to be to the central SPS admin.

Those who hurl insults should at least sign their name.

I would again challenge anyone to submit data that the Everyday Math adoption was a reasonable data driven adoption. Same goes for the move to a 6-period day at West Seattle.

These are both very discriminatory of disadvantaged learners and there is lots of data to show it. SPS suppresses the data that leads to truth.

You will note that Brita talked to a lot of people - SPS has yet to submit to the public anything but cherry-picked data.

To improve a system requires the intelligent application of relevant data. The SPS is for some reason unable to even look at the relevant data, much less apply it.


Dan Dempsey said...

Brita said:

I attended a high school math class using constructivist math and observed, then interviewed students in the class.

I was involved with Professional Development Cubed at the UW in 2006-2007. This is an NSF funded project. After preparation in 2005-2006 Garfield and Cleveland implemented their projects that school year. They received increased resources in a variety of ways to make Interactive Math Program successful. Among those were additional plan time for teachers.

West Seattle is the third Seattle High school in this project. WSHS has had the misfortune of having IMP impairing the math education of many of our students(for more than 5 years - oh those pilots with no data -they just drag on and drag you down). When we approached Dr.King in the Spring about starting a project for 2007-2008 at WSHS. It was you need to use IMP because.......

Again Dr. King had no data.

Talking does not cut it. Let us use a process to bring about improvement.

My reading leads me to believe the SPS non-data driven my way or the highway will not be it.

Dan Dempsey said...

Dear WOW,

A one liner does not a diatribe make.

The development of a sound argument based on data is difficult to do in this forum.

Pretty much impossible to do at school board meetings either.

My passion comes from watching this School District operate in a confused fashion that appears to be benefiting groups other than students and families.

It really looks like someone up above is orchestrating this non-data driven disaster. Why? beats me.

Let us see where the assets paid for by Seattleites over decades wind up?

Like the illegal sale of Queen Anne HS; let us follow the money in the future.

McGraw-Hill had a bit of malfeasance in some of their recommendations and textbook purchases.

Is it make our schools as poor as possible so the charters can take over? I have no idea. I just know there are few rational decisions made when it come to math adoptions, school closures, or WSHS forced into 6-periods.


Anonymous said...

dan dempsey - the more you say, the more apparent your hostility and impulse control issues are, and I'm relieved you are neither in SPS classrooms or in line for the school board.

And as a matter of fact, I did ask you on this blog for the data you'd sent to the press that they hadn't seen fit to print. You did not provide it.

Dead horse. Move on. Please.

Dan Dempsey said...

Kinda tired,

So how am I going to deliver a large spreadsheet and accompanying documents to you, without an email address?

If you want it try writing.



Dan Dempsey said...

Kinda Tired,

Have any arguments you can back up with data? Send it.

Want to see data that supports an argument? Write.

The only reason that horses are dead in this school district is the Central Admin decides to shoot them rather than let them run.

You appear to be a major supplier of ammunition for these equine assassins.

Charlie Mas said...

I have received a response from Books and Bricks (Holly Ferguson) regarding the question of re-investment of the savings from closures and consolidations.

The motion that closed the schools did not include any reference to the reinvestment of the savings.

There was, however, a resolution (2005/06-17) in which the Board voted to commit "a minimum of 50% of the dollars saved as a result of closures back to school academics, either through the existing funding formula, through a revised funding formula, or as direct services."

So the savings were supposed to go into schools in general, not necessarily into the consolidated schools.

Dan Dempsey said...


This looks like the slap you twice plan.

Slap you once by closing a school in your neighborhood.

Then slap you again by spending the savings elsewhere.


Anonymous said...

dan dempsey - when I originally asked for the data you said the press ignored, I assumed you would post it here by pdf or link so all could see.

My email address is hopetrustverify@gmail.com

send away

Dan Dempsey said...

Kinda Tired,

You now have my data,

send what you have please.


Dan Dempsey said...

Kinda Tired,

Perhaps instead of sending your data, you could post it here by .pdf or by link.

I do not have the capability to do that at the moment. So perhaps you could lead the way.

You could also post the info I sent to you so all readers could evaluate it for themselves.