Notes from a Meeting with DeBell
This from reader Gavroche:
"Some possible news from the meeting at McClure Middle School with Michael DeBell & Reuven Carlyle Tuesday nite: (not sure where to post this)
Tomorrow School District will announce plans to reopen Old Hay in Queen Anne, put money into refurbishing it to make it a K-5 for QA/Magnolia. (Sad news for SBOC, for whom the District never found the money to improve the building while they were there, and so much for the District's stated imperative of saving money by closing Old Hay).
DeBell said there would also be some announcement about RIFs, enrollment and school openings -- hinting at "good news."
Tomorrow the Superintendent's evaluation will also be announced or presented to the Board.
Language Arts curriculum will also be voted on or presented to the Board.
Money for Meany may also be on the agenda.
Alliance for Education has invited NCTQ to Seattle to somehow be involved in the teacher's contract negotiations. A Google search on NCTQ reveals they are a Bush-era national organization based in D.C. inspired by No Child Left Behind, and with an agenda that appears to be anti-teacher's union. They do not appear to be an objective, independent or local organization. (See: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/05/19/37letter.h23.html?tkn=PLZFiYu7FFYaHF%2BtpJOhkPwt4"
So Old Hay is open so it can be easily switched to a K-5, handy. (By the way, modest amounts of money were put into Old Hay via BTA but no, it was never refurbished properly for SBOC.) There is money for Meany in the upcoming BTA III levy.
"Some possible news from the meeting at McClure Middle School with Michael DeBell & Reuven Carlyle Tuesday nite: (not sure where to post this)
Tomorrow School District will announce plans to reopen Old Hay in Queen Anne, put money into refurbishing it to make it a K-5 for QA/Magnolia. (Sad news for SBOC, for whom the District never found the money to improve the building while they were there, and so much for the District's stated imperative of saving money by closing Old Hay).
DeBell said there would also be some announcement about RIFs, enrollment and school openings -- hinting at "good news."
Tomorrow the Superintendent's evaluation will also be announced or presented to the Board.
Language Arts curriculum will also be voted on or presented to the Board.
Money for Meany may also be on the agenda.
Alliance for Education has invited NCTQ to Seattle to somehow be involved in the teacher's contract negotiations. A Google search on NCTQ reveals they are a Bush-era national organization based in D.C. inspired by No Child Left Behind, and with an agenda that appears to be anti-teacher's union. They do not appear to be an objective, independent or local organization. (See: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/05/19/37letter.h23.html?tkn=PLZFiYu7FFYaHF%2BtpJOhkPwt4"
So Old Hay is open so it can be easily switched to a K-5, handy. (By the way, modest amounts of money were put into Old Hay via BTA but no, it was never refurbished properly for SBOC.) There is money for Meany in the upcoming BTA III levy.
Comments
People - time is marching on by, as is the implementation of all of these measures so many of us have objections to...
now we have the move on curriculum plus the NCTQ getting in on the act, invited in by the Alliance and CPPS apparently, bodies that were spoken of here somewhat positively...
When are we going to stop talking round and round in circles, get together, decide on action - at this point any kind of action would be preferable to none, I'd suggest - and DO?
The District is showing us it doesnt care how much we talk, ask, plead, testify, write...
Perhaps the only thing that will capture its attention is action...
http://www.jsisweb.com/current_events/principals_letter_continued.asp
Apparently, the district is starting to figure out that they don't have enough capacity in the NW cluster.
My kid was assigned to Green Lake, which is a small school. We went to an event for incoming Kindergarteners and were impressed that there were 90 assignments this year to the school and very many of the little Kindees have younger sibs. I was told Green Lake would take a big K this year and could probably do that again and then they would be out of space. I don't think they will be able to accomodate all the kids in the reference area eventually.
Parents really need to educate themselves on this issues. NCTQ is not an unbiased group of educators or auditors interested in building on the strengths of our teachers and schools. They are a self-selecting bunch of capitalists with a history of determining teachers as failures, citing unions and schools of education as the cause- then conveniently, offering their own brand of certification. Their board of directors, funding, "invitation" to this and other districts are ripe with conflict of interest.
As last night's meeting so distastefully displayed, nearly all of us have had experience with subpar teachers. This may be an issue of lack of resource or support in the class/building/district, it may be a personality conflict, if may be a burnt out or even a bad teacher- it is not a Union issue.
Thanks, Gavroche, for reporting.
And it's still really odd that the District refuses to call it an alternative school. What happens if they are using it as a "standard" program and the audit (now delayed until fall) finds that it is alternative? Why can't central staff publicly think more than one chess move ahead at a time?
Looks like the SBOC program is going to move south over the next few years. That means another grade school will be getting this program. Conjecture as to which one?
Each panel member gave an intro of their role/impact on Education... topics ranged from HB2261 to PTA advocacy to the Strategic Plan.
Then Q&A... I did NOT hear DeBell say that Old John Hay will definitively be reopened - only that the board will be voting tonight to grant approval to SPS to study the role of many closed schools (Old John Hay is one) toward alleviating capacity issues.
DeBell specifically refused to discuss the negotiations so I'm not sure the mention of NCTQ can be attributed to him. The entire panel/audience got involved in the issue of measuring student outcomes/teacher performance with many perspectives shared, often passionately.
Reuven specifically stated that unless some legislation is passed at the state level, there may be limited scope for SPS to negotiate on outcomes/performance under current law. I'm not sure what that means, only that he said it.
For me, the most distressing issue was Reuven's comment that it is VERY unlikely WA state will get any of the Education stimulus money coming from D.C. as we don't have any innovative programs that qualify under the terms of the stimulus package.
SAP was discussed but not as much as I expected. I personally believe that it is because most think they won't be affected - and will be surprised when they are.
Questions did come up around opening a HS in QA/Magnolia - no promises made there, obviously.
It was nice to see such a strong turnout on a very busy end-of-school-year week.
Just to clarify a few things --
Some people spoke to DeBell after the meeting, which is where some of this info comes from.
The NCTQ announcement came from Hattendorf or Moore, not DeBell.
DeBell did say to some parents that there would be announcements coming today regarding OPENINGS of schools and info regarding enrollment and RIFs.
I believe it was a member of Friends of SBOC who offered the details about amounts and timelines regarding Old Hay -- something like $800,000 for architects to start planning on how to refurbish the building, starting as soon as this summer. So the SBOC community has been hearing about the Old Hay plans from somewhere too.
And the fact that DeBell and others are now saying K-5 instead of just a K-2 there also implies a deeper commitment to making Old Hay a lasting elementary for that area.
Another detail: DeBell mentioned (to the whole group) that families in the South Lake Union area where all the new condos have been built are likely to have kids, and Old Hay might be their reference school too.
So maybe these were mere intimations -- but they added up to a pretty detailed scenario coupled with DeBell's statement about an announcement about openings, that implied a strong likelihood that Old Hay will be reopened, sooner rather than later.
But I suppose the District could do another Jane Addams and backtrack on this too.
And I counted about 60 people there.
Rather than just raising suspicion about NTCQ by labeling it "Reagan-era," it would be helpful for you to provide your insights regarding what specific NTCQ philosophies or positions you disagree with. I am a CPPS member, and I have reviewed a lot of NTCQ material. Even if its supporters or founders have a particular agenda, I can't quibble with goals such as wanting to ensure that Districts have meaningful performance evaluation and management tools that identify effective teachers and ones that need additional support, training, or, if unsuccessful, to transition to another line of work. And I do think that there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that District-teacher negotiations do not lose sight of enhancing education for all students due to a focus on employee-employer relations.
There was supposed to be an Advanced Learning Audit which turned into a few people dropped in on APP for a couple days the last week of school and wrote a report based on that. Much was made of hearsay evidence of racism, but other than that, has anything of consequence happened as a result of that audit?
I don't understand what the alternative ed folks are expecting. And even if they do get a comprehensive audit, what are they expecting will happen next?
You write that you "can't quibble with goals such as wanting to ensure that Districts have meaningful performance evaluation and management tools that identify effective teachers and ones that need additional support, training, or, if unsuccessful, to transition to another line of work [there's a nice way to say "fire"!]"
Have you seen the section on evaluation in the current Contract? Looks pretty good to me. The problem is that it's not followed: Principals don't have time. Furthermore, I've yet to see someone propose a system that would fairly evaluate based only on "performance" What do you use, WASL scores? That's not fair. My suggestion is teams of evaluators that rove, stopping into classrooms and doing in-depth reviews of curriculum, instruction, etc.
If you've been following other threads on this blog, you'll note that we also have curriculum alignment coming along. To some of us, this is tied to evaluation: make all the lessons the same, a package, and then see what the outcomes are across the board, thereby evaluating educators (supposedly.) The problem with this is that it ignores the myraid variables in any given classroom.
Mercermom, what do YOU think of the current evaluation tools in the CBA, what do YOU think should be used to evaluate staff, and what do YOU think the NCTQ would like to use?
Do YOU think the NCTQ has an agenda? If so, what is it?
You added,
"And I do think that there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that District-teacher negotiations do not lose sight of enhancing education for all students due to a focus on employee-employer relations."
Is this another way of saying that educators should just do it for the kids, forget their real-life employment issues and suck it up?
Educators hear this often: Do it for the kids. Well, they also have to have good, fair, working conditions.
The focus IS on employer/employee relations right now because the contract is being negotiated. To imply that somehow the focus will lost (bad teachers! selfish!) is disingeneous and seems to be another way of saying educators should "get with the program" when the program might not be in their, or the childrens', best interest.
In my opinion, this national trend towards standardization and making educators into interchangeable content-spewers is a dis-service to students.
We are looking at some very drastic changes in curriculum, assessment, evaluation, program provision, and many other facets of public education.
There is an agenda nationally to do away with education unions, to standardize curriculum, to privatize delivery...This is well known. Is it good for educators or children? I don't think so.
http://www.seattlewea.org/static_content/contracts/index.htm
The contract proposals can be found here:
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/laborrelations/proposals.xml
"CLASSROOM VETS V. TEACH FOR AMERICA: WHO DO YOU LOVE THE MOST?
5/26/2009
http://www.nctq.org/p/tqb/viewBulletin.jsp?bulletinId=0&volume=latest#9586
Even as teacher layoffs loom in districts across the nation, Teach For America appears as attractive an option as ever to school districts. Baltimore, Charlotte-Mecklenburg and New York are just a few examples of school districts keeping Teach For America recruits in their schools despite budget cuts. Charlotte-Mecklenburg is bringing on 100 new TFA teachers, while at the same time laying off more than 400 teachers. In Baltimore, schools chief Andres Alonso plans to double the number of corps members, despite having to find extra money to pay for their training. Alonso calls the organization an "instrument of reform"--citing the high numbers of former TFA teachers who began in the 1990s who are now serving as principals, other administrators and reform leaders in the district.
In New York City, Chancellor Joel Klein will continue hiring TFA corps members along with NYC Teaching Fellows for hard-to staff positions, all while the city is otherwise in a hiring freeze and forcing principals to take on teachers from the city's infamous excess pool. The forced placement rolls back the city's groundbreaking attempt at "mutual consent" hiring. New York isn't guaranteeing the rookie teachers jobs if they can't find placements (the district has in the past), but Klein isn't making any attempt to hide his preference for these smart recruits. A letter from the Chancellor to deans at the local colleges of education might best be construed as a slap in the face to traditionally prepared teachers. The letter states, "As these candidates have all been identified after a rigorous and highly selective screening process, we will encourage schools with vacancies to give them priority consideration."
Perhaps some deeper questions are needed about why superintendents are so reluctant to give up on their TFA commitment, when they certainly have a budgetary excuse to drop it. What are these corps members bringing to the table that other new teachers aren't? Though some of TFA's great PR might have you believe otherwise, their teachers are not immune to the difficulties any new teacher faces, racking up the same low student achievement results as any first year teacher. And most of them will be gone in two years.
The answer is not complex, but apparently falls on dead ears. Teach For America's teachers are the end result of an extraordinarily selective process, which education schools would do well to even faintly emulate.
City wants to expand Teach For America program
Liz Bowie, Baltimore Sun, May 24, 2009
Rookies to bump veteran teachers in N.C.
Ann Doss Helms, The Charlotte Observer, May 14, 2009
Schools chief bans hiring of teachers from outside
Javier Hernandez, New York Times, May 6, 2009
Mercermom: Where should we start?
Could it be NCTQ's pattern of attacking seniority and tenure provisions in every contract they review? Could it be their zero-rebuttal, non-peer reviewed "research?" Could it be their myopic focus on "retention of young teachers" (translation: eliminate experienced teachers)? Could it be their blatant ageism and union-bashing tactics? Could it be that their ranks are filled with former TFA grads and their ilk, who spend two years in a classroom then hop into administration and education think-tank jobs as though they are now experts in education with the knowledge and experience to tell teachers and parents how the profession should be run? Could it be their devotion to standardization everywhere? Could it be that they were formed and and launched right after NCLB passed to further the Bush Administrations education agenda by trying to standardize the teaching profession (The other side of the NCLB coin from standardized testing of students)? Could it be their partnership with the ABCTE, an organization that promotes alternative routes to teacher certification, in direct competition with teaching colleges, which NCTQ blames as much as unions for all that is wrong with education?
Reading their materials and connecting the dots reveals that they are pushing an agenda to standardize schools, which in turn greases the skids for curriculum providers, testing companies, educational consultants, remediation providers to profit off public schools while running them like a "business." They'll quote McKinsey Group "studies" that supposedly say class size doesn't matter, and that it's all about teacher quality. But McKinsey also lauded ENRON as a model company for the way it was structured and run. Let's not forget that.
Further, while we all love young energetic teachers (who come cheaper lets not forget), someday they will be older, have families, and be sick and tired of broken promises and lousy parents too. And how much power and influence will they have without their union? Do we really think Mr. or Ms. Wonderful young, non-tenured teacher will stay that way forever and not burn out too? Let's be honest. That's really what we're talking about here.
I think groups like NCTQ ultimately DISTRACT us from the real work that needs to be done in education by scapegoating teachers and deliberately over-simplifying the problems in our schools so we'll buy into the "remedies" they want to sell, like NCLB and standardized curricula. While they may suggest some positive things, the larger question is how sustainable their models are for the long term. They have basically no track record of success to rely on, so why should we take cues from them?
I think the teacher's union has its problems, but is ultimately a necessary evil to counter-balance meddling administrators run amok and I dread to think of where our schools would be, and how much worse off my kids would be if not for some EXCEPTIONAL and UNION teachers in their late 40's and 50's who teach our kids.
Let's agree that bad teachers have to go, period. But I resent groups like NCTQ distracting us by pitting young against old, tenured vs. non-tenured, and bashing unions as inherently evil when I have seen first hand how that protection has benefited my own kids.
There's an old rule in customer service that a person will share a good experience with 2 people and a bad experience with 5. We all hear about all the bad teachers, but my principal says its less than 5% district-wide. That is a problem, no doubt, but not a crisis.
NCTQ covertly involving itself in our contract negotiations, especially after MGJ explicitly said they wouldn't be, is underhanded and deceitful, which further tarnishes their reputation.
I do find it odd that CPPS wanted it and now it is coming through the Alliance.
An interesting perspective related to this issue: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-teachers15-2009jun15,0,7874840.story
We are confusing and conflating issues here and we need to stop. Teacher Performance evaluations, retention policies, and termination policies are one thing. Seniority and tenure during RIF's are another.
We've seen the two slammed together with the recent round of RIF's creating a golden opportunity for reformers to say "AHA! Lousy old teachers are costing bright young teachers there jobs because of seniority! Damn that union! Down with Seniority! Down with the union!
I agree that bad teachers should be gone. That's a no-brainer and the union should get on board with that. But that's not what we are talking about here.
We are talking about, and CPPS is pushing, performance evaluations to decide who stays and who goes during layoffs, and that includes everyone, NOT JUST BAD TEACHERS. It could very well include your favorite teacher at your local school who made the poor career choice of challenging a principal, for example. Think that doesn't happen? Want to remove a teacher's ability to do that? While it sounds all fine and dandy, how will such evaluations be fairly and apolitically done to ensure that performance, vs. brown-nosing is rewarded? And what are the performance criteria? Shouldn't we talk about that and develop those measurement standards first?
I'm disapppointed that folks in the district aren't getting or making the distinction. Seniority has its place. So does performance. But a winner-take-all competition between young and old teachers will have many downsides and we need to think about that.
NCTQ doesn't care about those issues. They have their agenda and want to move it forward.
Today's young hot-shot we all love might be tomorrow's burnout. If we start targeting older teachers because they cost more, and start getting into "bang for the buck" assessments like businesses do everyday, we'll likely err on the side of cost savings, buying 1.5 inferior teachers instead of 1 superior one.
I think this is a worthy debate we need to have, and we should work together WITH our teachers AND THEIR UNION to get what we want, versus bringing in mercenaries from elsewhere to do the work for us.
Nobody can deny that the sped audit was fabulous. It was accurate, well thought out, complete, completly thorough, and timely. The EBD portion of the review has been hidden from the public by the district. No doubt, it must have been quite critical. Unacceptably critical.
What is the district doing about it? Now that is a different matter. The district is using this as a cost cutting measure. If you look at the current, proposed union contracts... you'll see all the self-contained programs alive and well. In fact, those self-contained programs are all improved by as much as 25% staffing increases. Inclusion programs? Well now. Poof gone. Don't need 'em. Not in the contract. Dorothy, if you're wondering about "what the sped audit really means", why not look at the actual contract proposal? That's where the truth comes out, and where the pedal hits the metal.
If anybody ever wrung their hands that the "audit" would mean their little dear would need to sit next to somebody disabled... you can rest easy. Those disabled kids will crash and burn, there's no real support in the contract for them... and they will now be "one of the few that still has to be self-contained." Isn't that great? They used to be doing great in "inclusion programs"... now they have nothing and won't bother you any longer.
"If anybody ever wrung their hands that the "audit" would mean their little dear would need to sit next to somebody disabled... you can rest easy."
I'm thinking this is coming from a difficult place for you where you have heard unkind comments made about special education students. But it is equally unkind to make an assumption that because someone makes a query about the special ed audit that it means they don't like or support special ed students. It's not fair so please choose your words carefully unless you mean to say that everyone here doesn't want to have a special ed kid in their child's class.
I've read the APP audit, which was first billed as an Advanced Learning Audit. It did have some good points, but suffered from not enough time or engagement between the auditors and community. There are conclusions I would challenge. But the big conclusion: we are not following current thinking or best practices for gifted education I do not challenge. But did anything positive happen?
The Special Ed audit was more comprehensive. I would love to know more. Like how was it implemented, how much time it took? (That's one thing about the APP audit, very little notice and they observed school in late June.) There are parts that weren't revealed? Can you get them from Open Records Act?
We don't get enough Special Ed information on this blog, we do get discussions in the comments but it is hard to follow sometimes. People contradict each other and assume some basic knowledge we don't all have. I understand that. Speaking too clearly on the subject, whether you are a parent or a teacher, could too easily reveal one's identity or personal information on a child. Frustrating. But I would like to have a better sense of Sped's frustration. Connect the dots a little better for those of us who are unclear exactly what's at stake with the contract and audit. But as stated, I was really commenting on yet another person with high hopes for positive change resulting from the future alternative school audit.
The Alternative School Coalition has been working to understand what the alt school audit will entail. We've asked the district, the board, our principals, the auditing agency- and get no answers. We've talked with representatives of other SPS programs/communities that have been audited- Sped, APP, ELL/BOC- and, as you and sped have alluded to, the results are mixed. Seems the audits themselves turn up some good/useful/relevant information, and the district ignores or incorporates it as it sees fit.
I don't know that I would say the alt community has "high hopes for positive change" as a result of the audit. Speaking for myself, I'm more concerned with a mountain of paperwork from an auditing agency that does not have experience with alt ed, at a time when the district has taken multiple steps which weaken alt ed. I think we may speak of the audit with some expectation of a positive outcome in an attempt to hold the district accountable. Maybe if we all knew the metrics and outcomes of the various audits- we could better support all programs in SPS. What is the EBD portion of the sped audit- and why is it not public?
And I agree with owlhouse about the alt ed audit. It's not that I expect anything positive from it--I just feel, if it is going to happen, we should do our best to be prepared, so we aren't entirely blindsided.
Sorto of like branch blogs for the various constituents...I like that this central blog has a lot of different people contributing, and it's an important function, but a readily available list of the various groups, updated with information, would be handy.
Knowledge is power, and too few of us know much about many of the important "peripheral" (not meaning that disrespectfully) issues.
This sort of already happens: previous posts, identified by topic, are available. But they're not organized in a way that shows ongoing issues.
Here's my list, for openers, but by no means exclusive:
SpEd,
APP
AP/ALO/IB
Alternative
CTE
ELL
Safety Net
Curriculum
Evaluation
etc etc