Looking for a Parent Group?
As I have said previously, I totally support the PTSA. Our PTAs do the frontline work at our schools and give support that makes many good schools great. I personally wish there was a way to organize a PTA in every school (I sure there is but how the Seattle Council approaches this I don't know). But I do have some dissatisfactions with PTA mainly in the fact that it operates more as a cheerleading group for the district/schools and is not really an advocate for parents. I pointed this out to the National PTA President during a recent visit to Seattle and she pointed me to a brochure about PTA and how schools should allow parents to advocate for what they want. But it's all words if districts don't take it seriously.
My last word on PTA is that it is the largest parent organization in the country. Certainly in Seattle we have some very strong PTAs and I'll bet the numbers are pretty strong overall. Could the PTA flex its muscle ever once in awhile to advocate for parents to the district? It could but it doesn't. Maybe it's Seattle Nice or maybe it's just how PTA operates in every state and city. But without PTA, many, many things would not get done in schools. They are a huge benefit to our district.
So if not PTA, what else is there? Choices include:
- CPPS. Here's a link to their website. CPPS was organized here in 2004 (but started in 1989 in another part of the country as Parents for Public Schools). Here's what PPS says:
Our Values
PPS values public education as an important part of American life, as an essential element of a democracy, and for the richness in diversity it offers our children.
PPS values effective parent involvement as critical to strong public schools.
PPS values the constructive involvement of parents in the governance of schools and as a bridge between the schools and the community.
PPS values parents as committed owners of, rather than passive consumers in, public schools.
PPS values the improvement of public education for every child, not just our own.CPPS echos these views. I like this idea of being pro-active. It lays it out, for all to see, that CPPS is not going to be a booster group but parents who want to be part of the system.
The knock against CPPS was that they initially took Gates Foundation money and there was worry that there was an agenda there. I think that is not so now. Also, Venus Velázquez is their interim director and I haven't always found her to be the most effective person to get a message out. But I wouldn't hold that against CPPS as a whole.
They are a 503 c organization which means they cannot lobby for candidates.
- ESP Vision. This group was organized recently and here is their mission statement.
Educators, Students and Parents for a Better Vision of the Seattle Schools (ESP Vision) advocates for justice and equity in public school resources, smaller class sizes, individualized instruction, curricula that reflects all children and learning styles and an ongoing communitywide commitment to demand full mandated funding and close the resource gap in our district. ESP Vision is “Saving Seattle Schools” from decades of mismanagement and failed vision. We value children and educators first and oppose balancing school budgets through building closures, educator lay-offs and cuts to essential programs, services or facilities.
This group seems to be more militant in its stance, more holistic in what they want to achieve (curriculum that reflects the students), and more coalition building (not always a good thing from my experience - very hard to do well). If this is what you are looking for, this might be a good group. It is unclear to me if they are a non-profit group.- Stand for Children. I was just recently introduced to this group by one of its local organizers. Started in 1996, it has chapters in 5 states. Here is its mission:
"Stand for Children builds power by training everyday people to be effective citizen leaders who join together in a unified, grassroots voice. We use that power strategically to win concrete, long-lasting improvements for children, at both state and local levels. State affiliates and local Chapters mobilize members, donors, and other supporters to hold leaders accountable for prioritizing children’s needs.
We improve children’s lives not by providing direct services to individual children or their families, but by making those services more broadly available and more effective through advocacy. Every dollar contributed to a direct service provider yields less than a dollar of service, after administrative costs are covered. Every dollar contributed to Stand for Children is multiplied more than one hundred times, yielding greater resources for services that help large numbers of children."
"On June 1, 1996, 300,000 citizens came to Washington, D.C., for Stand for Children Day, the largest rally for children in U.S. history. Mrs. Rosa Parks, civil rights movement icon, through a statement of support challenged the nation to commit themselves to improving the lives of children, saying, "If I can sit down for justice, you can stand up for children." From that event grew Stand for Children, a 501(c)(4) grassroots advocacy organization, and Stand for Children Leadership Center, a 501(c)(3) leadership development and training organization."
That last sentence is key because this group because of the 501 c 4 means they can lobby for candidates in a way that other non-profits can't. I haven't made my mind up yet. I feel like CPPS has been around longer but I do like the broad abilities of Stand for Children. I have already tried a group like ESP Vision and it's not for me. Anyone a member of any of these groups? What can you add to to broaden the view about these groups?
Comments
I have met with Shannon Campion several times and seen one of their community organizers at several events as well. I leave every interaction more and more impressed with this organization and the people in it. Their community organizers are still being trained, but the growth I've seen in such a short time is tremendous.
Stand for Children knows how to organize. They have systems in place to reach every part of a District, not just the low hanging fruit. They set an agenda and they aggressively go after it.
They replicate those proven community organizing strategies in new areas with great savvy and nuance. They are voracious about understanding the intricacies and the players. Stand for Children might be new to town, but they are paying attention and learning VERY quickly.
They are forming relationships with schools and neighborhoods other organizations fail to keep. They have parents, teachers and principals building teams to create change, and I for one am inspired watching it all happen.
Yes, my eggs are in the Stand for Children basket. I highly recommend talking to Shannon Campion to learn more about their work and their strategies to bring change.
p.s. I am not on the staff or of board of Stand for Children. I am just really impressed with their approach, savvy, and methodologies.
At AS#1 we dont have a PTA - we have site council and a BLT...
Long time parents report that the school was highly democratic and had a lot more involvement in decision making from the whole community before our organisational structure was broken in two with the imposed requirement to have a BLT...
The change in principal from Ron Snyder to Ernie Seevers (and the consequent change in direction towards the more 'mainstream') and then the usurping of policy setting and decision making power from the Site Council, plus the repeated necessity of staving of merger/closure threats from the District, have drained the school of its vitality and castrated it's capacity to respond effectively to changing circumstances.
We come together in crisis - like our Dec 15 closure public meeting, where our auditorium was packed - and for special occasions such as Moving Up day (this Thursday) and somehow, we make happen what needs to happen for our kids... but its a constant struggle now for parents and teachers...
The power in the school has shifted from the whole community to the principal and a handful of people on the BLT, who do not and cannot represent all voices (I'm on the BLT)...and there is a lot of resentment about that. Participation in school decision making and support activity has dropped to about 20 families, many of whom are stretched thin working on multiple support bodies - BLT, Site Council, Equity Committee, Sir Herbert Reed (fund raising) etc.... we have logistical problems communicating across those bodies and many of us are exhausted and frustrated...
I've wondered out loud in our community how to mend this fracture and get more community involvement - maybe there's a way to merge the Site Council and BLT to repair the damage, heal the lingering toxicity, have both groups reignite their passion and commitment and save ourselves a huge amount of time and energy in the process, having one body working in a united fashion rather than two operating at cross-purposes or with simmering resentment...
Judging by the process that's beginning under our new principal, AS#1 is losing even more of its democratic, community-centred decision making capacity, which new families might not mind, but which veteran families do...
I'm pretty sure this happens in other small, diverse, poorly resourced schools which are not embraced by the District, which might be one of the reasons why there are so many 'failing' schools around ...
But this doesnt mean the District should close these schools... it means the District should leave models that were working alone - AS#1 five years ago - accept that there is more than one way to successfully educate children, that these schools serve the needs of their populations well and provide support for those various modalities... Roy Smith was making a case for small, diverse schools on another thread... Just for once, I was in total agreement with him!!!
What does this have to do with looking for a Parent Group and the PTA and CPPS and ESP Vision?
Well, in the first place we dont have a PTA to give us a line into a regional or national association.... I dont know if there is a body representing Site Councils and BLTs?
As an alternative school parent, I personally feel more aligned with the statements of ESP Vision than with what I have heard coming out of CPPS and I have attended a couple of their rallies...
I dont know anything about Stand for Children...
Some of us at AS#1 have joined the Alternative Schools' Coalition - talking about ways to ensure the longevity of alternative education policies and what we might do to ensure the upcoming audit really focuses on how well we measure up to alternative education standards, rather than to traditional school norms...
What seems to me be the problem is that there are numerous bodies operating from some very different basic principles drawing support from varying groups of people in the community, but none have the critical mass to have any real clout or an overarching vision that supports all children in whatever education model best suits that child.... and because of that, we cant muster a strong enough voice to make a direction-changing impact in the District...
That needs to change - but how to make that happen? Is there enough commonality somewhere in all of this, enough room to accommodate - not just tolerate, but accept and work towards preserving and sustaining - our differences to form one group that can speak with a more or less unified voice?
While we are not in that place, the District will continue on its path, no matter how many people get up and speak at Board meetings, no matter how many turn up at community engagement sessions, no matter who says what in a newspaper opinion piece...
Just a mom - I was interested in what you wrote, but you didnt say what Stand for Children stood for exactly - mission, goals, plans....
"WBC is happy that Seattle has a later school year so we can visit the little brats before they begin their summer leave. We will be on hand to show the children of the disobedient rebels who run this nation - I say we will be on hand to show them exactly what "good" looks like. It is only fair that they are shown some truth and light and life for one time in their sad lives."
Is Garfield the most liberal high school in Seattle? What sad lives? I almost think it better not to have a counter-demonstration at all and ignore. Naturally, the media will show up for this but doesn't cover the assignment plan.
Apparently he has been here before...
From what I have read, there is no knowledge why he has singled out Garfield for his focus... its also unclear why he has singled out other 'christian' churches (he purports to be christian) - he has quite a full schedule moving around a half dozen locations/organisations... some groups are choosing to respond to his presence saying that not responding allows his hate-speech to stand, others are choosing to ignore him as they think responding highlights and gives energy to his efforts...
http://www.seattleoutprotest.org/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2009320620_danny10.html
As to why this protest is heading to Garfield- there is no reason aside from publicity and pushing the Phelps family message. I agree that it may almost be better to not engage at all- but it's tough to let aggressive bigotry go unchallenged.
Danny Westneat wrote about this last week, as have some local blogs.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2009320620_danny10.html
First - Bruce Randolph Middle School in Denver...
http://randolph.dpsk12.org/challenge2010
Scary place....
Then...
Sojourner Elementary School in Milwaukie, Oregon is small, white and quite well off, with very few FRL-qualifying children:
http://schools.publicschoolsreport.com/Oregon/Milwaukie/SojournerSchool.html
and it has an interesting (alternative) approach to learning, recognising that each child has a different way of taking in and processing information/knowledge
http://www.nclack.k12.or.us/18582028131940477/site/default.asp
Two public schools, not charter, apparently operating from very different philosophies meeting the needs (desires????) of very different communities.... I have questions about both approaches - the rigidity of Randolph and the lack of diversity at Sojourner - but why cant we successfully meet different sets of needs here in Seattle/Washington?
We had a situation at Roosevelt about a PTA job that involved money and had been handed down from friend to friend and the money had not been handled properly (nothing bad but just not properly). That kind of friend to friend trust doesn't work for PTAs when you have fiscal duties and duties to a community as a whole.
I think the problem is when you have a diverse population some of whom don't know what the PTA is or understand that parents are part of the school and are needed. But yes, if the leadership has a more narrow viewpoint, you can find fewer ideas of what might be good for any particular school. I had asked if our Board could review how we spent our fundraising money and was talked down. And that was just to discuss it.
Maybe going to the Seattle Council PTSA for help is the answer.
Here's how Seattle U. Ed. Prof. D. Marshak described NCTQ in a letter to Education Week in 2004:
"both the NCTQ and the ABCTE are largely creations of Bush-aligned Republican Party operatives and officeholders. "The National Council" sounds impressive, but it’s entirely self-appointed. It was created by Chester E. Finn Jr. and an array of right-wing academics and operatives. Mr. Finn served in the Reagan administration’s U.S. Department of Education and runs foundations that spend a lot of right-wing, Republican money on research and policy development designed to further Republican Party causes.
The NCTQ’s main project is the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence. The bright idea here is that people will take multiple-choice tests in subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. If they pass the tests, they will be certified to teach. No student teaching, no internship, no practicum, no prior classroom experience of any kind, no actual experience with children, and no evaluation of their ability to interact with young people in positive ways.
The ABCTE is a joint project of the NCTQ and the Education Leaders Council. The ELC was formed by right-wing Republican chief state school officers and state board members in 1995: Lisa Graham Keegan (Arizona), Eugene Hickok (Pennsylvania; now U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige’s No. 2 man), Linda Schrenko (Georgia), Frank Brogan (Florida), and a few others." Link: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/05/19/37letter.h23.html
I believe CPPS is earnest and well-intended, and I don't ever want to knock parents trying to organize to make their schools better.
But I worry that any group, whether it be CPPS, ESP, PTSA, League of Ed Voters, or any other could get co-opted and used by outsiders with their own agendas, whatever they might be.
With Arne Duncan essentially blackmailing states to embrace his ideas of Education Reform, or not get federal dollars, we need to be digging very deep and thinking very hard about what we parents in the district really want from our schools, and whether taking pointers from nationally-affiliated parent organizations is the way to go in Seattle.
Personally, I think the High School Math Adoption is far more outrageous, by orders of magnitude, than "ineffective" teachers, and I wonder why no parent groups raised a ruckus over that. Maybe my priorities are different, but if we want "good educations" for our kids, I would think math curriculum would be a good place to start.
I know I dont know much about your US curricula... I'm learning as I'm going, and I have to say - which I have before! - it doesnt compare favourably with overseas curricula - a real narrowing and dumbing down going on.
School standardisation and super-sizing, bell times and transportation, student assignment and boundary changes, the need for alternative schools - all of those things I understand and can form (and express!) an opinion on...
I do know that narrowing the curricula options and making all kids do the same thing, at the same time, on the same day, and having non-teachers write lesson plans, is crazy!
Further than that, I dont think I have the background and (subject matter) expertise to make a valid judgment and comment...
How many other people are in the same boat and so are forced to take the stance that the 'experts' know what they are doing and that people like Dan Dempsey will keep them honest?
I have enough of the bullcrap about how bad teachers are dragging down the whole system, unions are corrupt and defend bad teachers, etc., etc. Scapegoating teachers and their unions for the ills of public schools? Give me a break! Look at who and what they've had to work under for the past 30 years!
Reformers cite supposed "research" to support claims like "class size doesn't matter", and that the key factor is "an effective teacher." Okay, so what's an effective teacher? One that spews standardized curriculum promulgated by the same company that writes the tests, sells "coaches" to districts to teach their unteachable crap, and even sells "remediation services" to kids who can't pass their crummy standardized tests? That's what Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee or Paul Vallas would call an "effective teacher." I would call that person a "good salesperson," not a teacher.
And what research? The bought and paid for crap from the infamous McKinsey Group, who lavished praise all over the ENRON business model? The non-peer reviewed, self-serving "research" from the NCTQ and other union-bashing NCLB-loving groups like that?
It is mind-boggling and maddening to watch the corporate mindset creepily try to take over public education. If unions are the root of all evil, why did Saturn, GM's non-union car company fail right along with all GM's union lines?
Teaching kids what one group wants them to know is programming, not educating. No two-ways about it: Standardization is dumbing down.
You are right Sahila, we are dumbing down and its getting worse all the time. Unfortunately, in a district run almost entirely by which way political winds are blowing at the time, I don't see things getting better anytime soon.
In the meantime, follow the money and google every name and acronym you come across. You'll find many, very interesting bed fellows in education these days. Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich hand-in-hand on education? Yeah, right. Follow the $$$.
Just a mom... do you know what their goals are?
What I find amazing is that the superindentant doesn't seem interested in any of the debates. If you read her op-ed this morning, her plan for improving the quality of the public schools is to annouce that the schools will get better. There is just nothing in there about HOW we are going to go about doing it. It is almost--but probably not quite--enough to make you wish for a Michele Rhee or Joel Klein who--whatever their faults--are in there every day with passion, trying things, shaking things up to see if we can get some traction on these seemingly intractable problems.
If the Superindentant wants to improve the failing schools, why doesn't she have representatives in the failing schools kicking butt and taking names? Why doesn't she take a public stand and develop a serious action plan on EITHER class size or teacher quality? Why isn't she consciously recplicating her most successful schools?
If the plan is to send everyone to their neighborhood schools on the theory that all schools will be "excellent," it would be nice to see a little passion about (and a little concrete progress towards) making the less-than-excellent schools excellent.