Candidate Forum Tonight at Garfield

Tonight is probably one of the last School Board candidate forums for this election.

Tuesday, September 29th from 7:00 - School Board Candidate Forum - Garfield
(doors open at 6:30 so I assume you could talk to the candidates before).
It's in the Garfield High Commons. Parking lot and building entrance are located at 400 23rd Avenue.

I can't attend (Open House at Roosevelt) so if you go, please tell us all about it.

Also, The Stranger's Slog, one of the funniest "here's the latest, folks" blogs around - they have every kind of story) reports a press release from Betty Patu's campaign:

"Longtime school advocate and Seattle School Board, District 7 candidate Betty Patu, who has successfully intervened in the lives of hundreds of teen-agers to prevent them from dropping out of school, has officially earned her master’s degree in Education Administration from Antioch University, Seattle."

I note from the Slog comments after this story that if you say one word perceived as being against Betty, her supporters come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Comments

Charlie Mas said…
That's great. Now if she can tell us her positions on the issues or her agenda for the Board...

What is her position on alignment and standardization?

Will she be able to hold Rainier Beach High School staff accountable for failing to meet the benchmarks of the Southeast Initiative?

Will she vote to increase capacity in the north-end?

Will she vote to move north-end elementary APP to the north-end?

What will she do to improve access to language immersion schools, advanced learning programs, and Montessori programs?

How would she have voted on the high school textbooks and how would she have voted on Denny/Sealth?

What's her position on sibling preference?

Will she hold the superintendent and staff accountable to keep their commitments to students and families? How and when would she have done it during the past year?
SolvayGirl said…
Charlie...
I see you're back to the incognito of animé. I am so unimpressed with either candidate that I'm planning on writing you in—even though I understand it's not allowed to write-in a candidate who lost in the primary. WIsh you were going to be the one to hold the other board members' feet to the fire.
Well, at this point, to state what Charlie has already said; which do you want? Someone more like Mary Bass (Betty) or more like Cheryl Chow Wilson? And frankly, I might have been more inclined to vote for Chin but I don't want one more rubber-stamper on the Board and that's what I fear Chin would be. However, I'm not sure Patu knows the issues.
SolvayGirl said…
Could someone bring Patu up to speed? Charlie?
Robert said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert said…
I'm a terrible re-caper but... since you asked Charlie... Betty seemed against standardization. Wilson drilled down on alignment and said that folks confuse standardization with attempts to teach every student from the same book the same way and went into pedagogy which was echoed by Kay. Mary mentioned that she goes a step further and supports earned autonomy. I guess that is the next question for district 7 candidates.

Also, both Wilson and Betty mentioned that every child should have access to advanced learning without testing in... I guess they haven't heard of ALO?!?!

There was some concern that certain text books were not being given out out of fear of them not being returned at RBHS and I am not certain if Betty said that was a historical problem that was, would or should be fixed. Wilson said he would fix it.

Kay mentioned an idea I fully support which is coordinating the PTSA after classes across the district instead of burning out volunteers working to reinventing the wheel in how many schools. This would help extend the learning day with desirable course work and give just a tad bit more flexibility to working parents.

I thought Phylis did a good job... And they made it sound as if there might be a radio feed latter on this?
SolvayGirl said…
Powerful Schools is a group that provides a wide variety of after-school classes at a number of southend schools. The offerings vary from school to school, sometimes depending on interest and others depending on availability. They work with the PTAs and the school.

I know when I was on the PTA at Graham Hill our biggest obstacle to providing after-school classes for a broad range of students was transportation. Kids who need bus service often cannot participate if there are no funds to provide a bus later in the day.
RBHS has had this problem (in the recent past) of not having enough textbooks. It turns out that the reason for that is many textbooks don't get returned. It seems like, for the majority of books, it's a simple problem to solve. No participation in any extra-curricular activity (no matter what school they are at) until the books get back.

But it does seem unfair to not give out books to everyone if it's just some kids who haven't returned them.
reader said…
Robert, ALO has testing in. It is for Spectrum and APP eligble students that either don't go to schools with those programs, or don't have space. My school has additional requirements beyond "testing in", as well.. things like "shows independence", making teacher input a criteria. I'm not sure the usual "note from the doctor" works on getting into ALO. Typically it is a pullout program as well. So no, advanced learning isn't available to everyone.
Robert said…
ALO is available to everyone that applied for it at Lowell and TM this year. May be a change in the plan Reader but as I read it is not based on performance or testing?
Reader, when I read your post I thought, that can't be right. I thought, based on reading some school websites, that anyone could do ALO work. So I checked at the Advanced Learning page and sure enough:

"ALOs serve two primary student groups: (a) district-identified students who are academically highly gifted/gifted, and (b) teacher-identified students who demonstrate skills and readiness for participation in an accelerated and rigorous curriculum that is based on Spectrum curricular guidelines."

I was quite surprised because I thought it was work that any student could voluntarily do because I thought that was the point of ALOs - not just to serve kids who tested into Spectrum or APP but didn't go to one of those schools but to provide challenge for any child who wanted it.

I do think it likely that a parent could go to the school/teacher and ask for it but it seems odd that it is test in or teacher rec.
Robert said…
Solvay, any of the thousands of families taking advantage of these programs already tackle the transportation issue. This just relieves the burden off of volunteers and principals to re-invent the wheel every term, insure that every school has these valuable programs and perhaps get things in place before the third week of school.
reader said…
I think at TM and Lowell it is to make non-APP parents feel better... that is, not left out of the advanced learning party. Why would anyone else want to go to that school, if their kid's education was a complete sideline/also-ran? Now they can say... oh yeah, you're getting ALO... it's almost the same thing. See? We love you too. That isn't how it is everywhere else.
Robert said…
Melissa and Reader, I doubt that anyone tested in or was recommended into AOL this year at Lowell. Again, this may just one of those new cracks developed by the split... And it seems to fit the access zeitgeist.
SolvayGirl said…
Robert...that's exactly what Powerful Schools does and has been doing for at least 10 years. I was just pointing out a program that was already working to make it happen.
I'd love to see the District do something similar...but is it realistic to believe it can considering the financial problems it already has just trying to deliver a quality education during regular school hours? If Kay can figure out a way to make it happen then I'm all for it.
ParentofThree said…
My student was a teacher identified ALO student. All we got was a report card, no "advanced" curriculum other than some extra homework program.

We tested our student and enrolled in a Spectrum program in another school.
Robert said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert said…
Yeah Solvay me too!

And Reader, advanced learning is available to everyone without a TEST which is exactly what I said and you refuted. Proof: See the district website or visit Lowell. (Also, I think you may be mistaken about your schools requiring testing; If it does you should ask why it isn't stated that way on the SPS website or why ALO is being delivered without testing at Lowell).

As an aside, this is usually a civil discussion with seldom aspersions... But it seems those rules don't apply to any student going to a bldg assigned to APP even the non-APP families; Which we are proudly one! In fact, they are doing a bang up job in what I thought would be nearly an insurmountable task. Wholly cow! I didn't think I would ever say those words!
ArchStanton said…
Kay mentioned an idea I fully support which is coordinating the PTSA after classes across the district instead of burning out volunteers working to reinventing the wheel in how many schools. This would help extend the learning day with desirable course work and give just a tad bit more flexibility to working parents.

Apparently, someone has been floating a similar idea around recently. I'm told that they spoke to a group of school principals about creating a universal, standardized afterschool activities program throughout the district. I don't know the specifics being proposed, but some concerns spring to mind.

On one hand, it might be nice to ensure providers make programs available to more schools and have some standards around fees and contracts. (It does seem like every school does things differently) On the other hand, it could give up a lot control to the district and limit the ability of a school to arrange programs that meet its specific needs. Also, a lot of these programs are run by individual parents - they certainly won't be contracting to provide their classes throughout the district.

It also seems like a way to create more paid bureaucratic, administrative positions at the same time we are laying off teachers.

(note that I did not mention APP)
Robert said…
Yeah Arch I would think that executed correctly it would allow autonomy with the benefits of economy of scale while assuring that volunteer hours are used in the most productive fashion.
wseadawg said…
Reader: You're actually right about the ALO's at Lowell and TM. But there is substance. The advanced learning office sees ALO's as the glue that will bridge the gap that existed when they tried to combine APP with Gen Ed at Madrona. There are kids who will participate in advanced work in some areas, and I think Bob Vaughan expects some of those kids to ultimately test into APP, which they hope will help APP's reputation and basically advertise that its there for any kid who needs it and qualifies for it. For those who are advanced in only one or two subjects, it gets them half-way into the advanced learning world, which grows all of advanced learning across the board. It coincides with MGJ's plan or belief that growing advanced learning and spreading it around will help more schools reputations via their offerings. How realistic is it? Successful Advanced Learning programs rely on a strong, galvanized, supporting community. Can you have that in a school with say, 15 advanced learners? Doubtful. And given how some Spectrum programs are strong, while others languish, the plan or theory seems quite ambitious.
reader said…
Robert, I know for a fact, at my school, ALO is absolutely not something you can "opt into". So the idea... that everybody has advanced learning available is simply incorrect. Plain and simple. At my school, no, advanced learning is NOT available to lots of people who want it. And in particular, students who are specifically assigned to special programs at my school (and assigned without choice) have no advanced learning opportunities and do not have the opportunity to choose a school, such as Lowell, where it is available either. That is the definition of "not avaiable".
Robert said…
Again Reader I didn't claim that advanced learning is available to everyone... I just said it is available WITHOUT a test.

And you said "Robert, ALO has testing in." Which is true... But not necessary. You can claim the program has a diminished efficacy all you want but I stand by my statement and I hope Wilson and Betty learn that there are these programs (and not grandstand for them as they already exist) as one of them will surly be helping guide them in the future.
sixwrens said…
All students who go to an ALO school have advanced learning *opportunities* but the teacher has to see the need & identify the student for ALO.

The problem is that not all schools have ALO and among those that do, there is wide variability in what that means ranging from extra homework to break out groups for more advanced reading, writing, and math instruction.

And it depends a lot on the community. Last year I volunteered to lead a (kindergarten) ALO reading group. This year, I'm doing (1st grade) ALO math.
ArchStanton said…
Yeah Arch I would think that executed correctly it would allow autonomy with the benefits of economy of scale while assuring that volunteer hours are used in the most productive fashion.

Based on your experience; how likely is that to happen?
Robert said…
Very unlikely Arch unless you try... Seriously, what we have now could be optimized greatly (as well as diminish inequity of services by currently under performing PTSA) just by having someone take on the macro view to these program... Perhaps coming out of the SPS PTSA... but I am a bit of a newbie on that. Or as Solvay said Powerful Schools may be a model.

I just know it sounds good to me and would like someone on the board attempting to make such positive changes.
reader said…
OK Robert. So what? The fact is that most kids can't get ALO without a test AND a teacher approval leaves tons of kids out, without a true opportunity. That's the point. Another point, how good is ALO anyway? If kids have a worthless opportunity, which is not available to very many... that seems to be the issue the candidates are talking about doesn't it?
kanne said…
Every school implements ALO differently. At my kids' ALO school there is no articulated program and no "identified ALO" kids. Certain kids are pulled out in certain areas based on teacher assessments. And a lot of multi-age classrooms are used for differentiation. No one uses the ALO label and kids do not get a special report card. There is no certification process and no oversight from the district for ALOs hence the variety of ways the program is implemented (or not.)
Charlie Mas said…
When they were created, ALOs were supposed to be available to every student on a self-selected basis.

If there is a school that is not allowing students to self-select participation in the ALO, then that school is violating the idea behind the offering.

If the District allows schools to deny students access to the ALO then the District is violating the idea behind the offering.

This should be fixed, and fixed without delay.

This is also EXACTLY the sort of mistake that occurs when the District has not set a Vision for advanced learning, has not clearly communicated that Vision, and has not made any effort to supervise the programs in the schools to confirm their compliance with the Vision, let alone their quality or efficacy.

As for the ALOs at Thurgood Marshall and Lowell, that was a recommendation of the APP Audit.

From the Audit:

Locating APP program as self-contained classrooms within general education schools...

"Would require extensive professional development for APP teachers as well as general education teachers in the building in order to maximize the benefits of this model. It is advised to situate this program in ALO settings where talent development of all learners has been identified as a priority among educators in the building; it is ill-advised to situate this in a low-performing or other divisive school setting as this only stands to further the divide between the APP students and parents and general education students and families.

In order to maximize the benefits of this model, it may be wise to hire a gifted liaison to negotiate between the two groups of teachers. This individual would be charged with co-planning with teacher teams (comprising both APP and general educators at the grade level) who can facilitate the genuine sharing of resources and expertise between the general education and APP faculties.
"

Note how few of these recommendations has been followed.
sixwrens said…
We have an ALO report card. Kids who test in to spectrum or APP can 'save' their spot by having this ALO report card, but testing is not required to be part of ALO.

There's clearly inequity across schools, and that is a problem. But I don't understand wanting all kids to have "access" within a school. Don't all kids within a school have equal access? Kids can 'self-select' by demonstrating their skill (and need for ALO). Kids who are challenged by (or struggling with) the grade level curriculum do not need ALO.
kanne said…
Interesting Charlie-- I didn't know that kids are supposed to be able to self-select participation in ALO! That is definitely not the way things worked at Loyal Heights (though they have a new principal this year and perhaps he has a different vision.) Historically it has been a teacher decision as to who gets differentiated instruction, and what that looks like (pull out, different homework, etc.) A lot of parents would be thrilled for their kids to have more rigor... but they have to beg for it and are often denied or rewarded with more (not harder) homework for their kids.
Robert said…
Reader, they were talking about a barrier that doesn't exist as if it did. I pointed it out as I thought it hard to solve access inequality without a clear understanding of what really is at hand.

And yeah I agree that we want every SPS child to meet their educational horizon with no needless barriers nor bias towards the privileged.
reader said…
Carolyn those types of tests don't really get at the need for selective advanced learning. People don't want access to the test, they want access to the education. The tests certainly don't work for students who are twice exceptional for instance. So no, having a test that weeds kids out, and having teacher observational requirements like "demonstrated student independence level", doesn't make needed advanced learning available. At my school those are both requirements.
Moose said…
I would echo the experience of reader -- at my children's school, only the kids who have been identified by the District as advanced learners (that is, have qualified for Spectrum or APP, but have not moved schools) are offered a spot in the ALO pull out program. I was in meetings where the rationale for that decision is that ALO does not have a prescriptive curriculum and each school can fashion it as they like, depending on resources. At my children's school, the resources for pull out are said to have been maxed by those aforementioned District identified students.

My kids want to participate in ALO -- seriously, they ask for it. I am looking at getting them tested in this upcoming testing cycle. But it looks like we are SOL for this year.
sixwrens said…
reader - my point was that there are 2 ways to get into ALO, by testing in or through teacher identification.

An off-the-charts smart kid would probably be teacher identified, unless of course they were so bored that behavioral problems masked this. A good teacher would see through this. So teacher variability will certainly lead to variability in access (and, as mentioned earlier, parents must provide permission to test).

The bigger problem is the wide variability in how ALO is implemented across schools, the amount of parent volunteers across schools (just as important as money), and whether volunteering is welcomed or discouraged.
sixwrens said…
Just saw moose's comment. I agree, that testing should not be required for ALO. I didn't realize there was this difference in implementation of ALO across schools.
TechyMom said…
Here's what Principal King says about ALO at Lowell:

"Our Advanced Learning Opportunity ( ALO) program is new to Lowell this year. General education students are encouraged to excel in the classroom in all subjects. If there is an area of particular interest and skill, the student may “walk to” math, reading or science in a higher grade ALO classroom. We have 2 kindergarten classes, a first grade class, a second grade class, a 3rd/4th split class and a 4th/5th split class."
Robert said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert said…
"An off-the-charts smart kid would probably be teacher identified, unless of course they were so bored that behavioral problems masked this." Yeah Carolyn, there is also the twice exceptional kids as well. My daughter's APP class had a couple of kids that were keeping up, but were ADD and would hardly notice when the whole class emptied for recess.
Maureen said…
Back to the original post: you can listen to the forum at School Board Forum.

Lots to hear, and of course we all have our own pet issues...two things that caught my attention:

I was shocked to hear (at 35:15) how ready Chin seemed to be to dismantle APP--he seemed to think that kids shouldn't have to test in to Advanced Learning at all(he sees testing as a 'barrier'). I felt Patu was very focused on HS in all of her answers including regarding Advanced Learning.

It sounds to me (at about 41 minutes in) like Mary Bass has submitted a proposal for Madrona to become an alternative school and she wants TOPS to become a neighborhood school for Eastlake and North Capitol Hill.

Neither Chin nor Patu seemed to have any depth or bredth in their understanding of the District. I really wish Charlie had placed in the primary!

I agreed with many of Smith Blum's goals, but I kept thinking but where would the MONEY come from?!

I haven't listened all to way to the end yet.
Johnny Calcagno said…
Maureen says:

It sounds to me (at about 41 minutes in) like Mary Bass has submitted a proposal for Madrona to become an alternative school and she wants TOPS to become a neighborhood school for Eastlake and North Capitol Hill.



Yes, and in that clip she says she is actively lobbying other school board members, particularly Harium, to put that into effect.

The rationale is that the Eastlake/North Capitol Hill neighborhood hasn't had a neighborhood school for some time. Of course that ignores the fact that there is currently a neighborhood set-aside for TOPS, and that set-aside would continue under the new assignment plan and probably expand.

My understanding is that many neighborhood kids don't choose to go to Madrona, and now that TT Minor and MLK are closed, there aren't too many nearby options. If families in Madrona want a neighborhood-ish school, which one will they choose?

Changing Madrona to an Option program just doesn't make sense. Who is going to choose it? It is already significantly underenrolled. (Functional Capacity - 538; Enrollment - 411).
Maureen said…
And most of the remaining Central Cluster schools don't have a lot of general ed seats available: Both Lowell and Thurgood Marshall are required to take all of the APP kids who show up--only the leftover capacity goes to gen ed. Also Leschi now has a Montessori program that will probably grow to take up half the seats. McGilvra and Montlake are tiny. TOPS has over 500 seats, if it were to be repurposed as a gen ed school, but it has a tiny walk zone--probably 450 kids would have to be bused there. Madrona has a substantial and growing school age population that could walk to school if the program were suitable for them.

If we are going to create new Option schools, they should be physically located in buildings with small walk zones (like TOPS) or in neighborhoods that have an excess capacity. Neither of these apply to Madrona.
Robert said…
Don't let the walk zone map fool you Maureen. First it is not a walk zone map but a walk area map and they didn't prepare reliable maps for all city draw schools. I pointed this out last year but I guess they have bigger fish to fry. Anyway if you look at the Lowell map verses the Stevens map or TTM map it turns out Lowell students can't walk all the places that Stevens students can and the kids from TTM can walk in places that neither of the other schools could walk. Goofy.

Back to the original post... I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. Did you get a sense as to what Betty ended up saying about the text books?
Maureen said…
As I interpreted it, Betty said that RBHS has plenty of textbooks, but some teachers refuse to send them home with the kids because they have had trouble getting them returned at the end of the courses.

I realize that TOPS' published two square block area is probably somewhat smaller then could be possible (especially if we had crossing guards or if the city installed some more cross walks or lights, ha). But, just look at a map, no matter how you slice it, the walk zone around TOPS is small. Eastlake and Roanoake may be crossable but I-5, Lake Union and the ship canal are real barriers. There are rules about where kids can walk and the blocks around TOPS violate them.

A couple of us were standing around after Ultimate Frisbee practice the other day, brainstorming about what we could do if Madrona becomes the WMS attendance area Option school. We figured that QA/Mag would need an Option school--our kids could all learn to sail and or kayak in kindergarten and come to school via Lake Union! No one could ever say TOPS isn't an alternative school after that!
Janis said…
"My understanding is that many neighborhood kids don't choose to go to Madrona"


According to maps and data on the SPS web site, in 2008-09, there were 328 elementary age children living near Madrona K-8 who were attending public school. (This number does not include the children in the neighborhood who attend private school.) Only 61 -- about 18.5% -- attended the elementary grades at Madrona K-8.
Johnny Calcagno said…
Okay, I'll bite - because I really don't know...

If the goal is to have neighborhood schools, why shouldn't Madrona K-8 be a neighborhood school? It can't be because the current program (whatever it is, I don't really know) is enormously successful, because at least enrollment-wise, it is not. Please, someone enlighten me.
Charlie Mas said…
The leadership at Madrona has made a deliberate and conscious choice to serve a population other than the local population. The local population is affluent and seeks a well-rounded curriculum. The school is focused on the needs of students from low-income homes and provides a back-to-basics curriculum.

Since Madrona is under-subscribed, anyone who requests it, gets it. Consequently we can positively conclude that there is no demand for the school that isn't being met already. If it were an Option School it would be even more underenrolled than it already is.

There is no data to support the idea of making Madrona an Option School. It would be horribly under-enrolled. Even if you expected Madrona to get all of the enrollment that used to go to the AAA, it would still be horribly underenrolled.

Instead, Madrona will have to become a neighborhood school that serves the needs of the local students. I can't say how willingly the school's leadership and staff will make that change. If they do not make the change, then we will see if the District will back the community or the school. So far, they have backed the school against the community by choosing not to intervene at all.
TechyMom said…
I support making Madrona an option school, but only as a tactic. I think we can all agree that the current program at Madrona is not a typical general ed program. I think we can all agree that, right or wrong, the district supports this program and principal. Calling it an option program recognizes this reality. We saw last year that the district thinks option programs are portable. Once Madrona's program is recognized and advertized as an option program, we can see what the real demand for such a program is. If it's less than the capacity of the building, it can be moved, just like other option programs have been moved, leaving room for a more mainstream neighborhood school.
Charlie Mas said…
Perhaps the Madrona program could be moved to a site which would be a better fit - such as T T Minor or Hawthorne. Then Madrona could become a neighborhood K-8.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Education News Roundup