Michael DeBell community meeting
I went to Michael DeBell's community meeting on Saturday, September 26.
Most of the meeting was spent discussion the 2.0 GPA graduation requirement. Director DeBell seemed to agree with the six people who came that the District can and should set a GPA graduation requirement and that it should be higher than 1.0. He seemed to share our concern about the range of classroom instruction hours provided at the various high schools. He also seemed to agree with us all that the six elements of the vote should not all be taken together - two are about credit (instructional hours and classes taken in middle school), two are about grading policy (11 point scale and weighting for honors), one is about graduation requirements, and one is about elgibility for extra-curricular activities. They are not a comprehensive set of reforms in any way.
Oddly, after all of the tension and wrangling over the 2.0 vs 1.0 there was instant and unanimous acceptance for a 1.7 GPA requirement, a "C-". After all, a C- is a C.
Another recurring theme was that Director DeBell is only one member of seven on the Board and as much as he might want accountability, he needs a majority of the Board to vote with him for it. He claims that he's not getting that now.
So that's why were not seeing the Board provide accountability, because four of them are against it. It was left to us to guess which four. He also said that it is difficult to make data-based decisions and demand accountability when the entire context is soaked in political issues about race and class. How, for example can he demand accountability on the Southeast Initiative when he knows that people will make it a race and class issue if he does?
There was a brief discussion of alignment and he wants to preserve the benefits we realized from site-based decision making while providing the benefits of alignment for those schools that didn't do well with site-based decisions. He wants the earned autonomy to be meaningful, but he hasn't found the right path yet - one that negotiates the tricky race and class issues and will find majority acceptance on the Board.
Most of the meeting was spent discussion the 2.0 GPA graduation requirement. Director DeBell seemed to agree with the six people who came that the District can and should set a GPA graduation requirement and that it should be higher than 1.0. He seemed to share our concern about the range of classroom instruction hours provided at the various high schools. He also seemed to agree with us all that the six elements of the vote should not all be taken together - two are about credit (instructional hours and classes taken in middle school), two are about grading policy (11 point scale and weighting for honors), one is about graduation requirements, and one is about elgibility for extra-curricular activities. They are not a comprehensive set of reforms in any way.
Oddly, after all of the tension and wrangling over the 2.0 vs 1.0 there was instant and unanimous acceptance for a 1.7 GPA requirement, a "C-". After all, a C- is a C.
Another recurring theme was that Director DeBell is only one member of seven on the Board and as much as he might want accountability, he needs a majority of the Board to vote with him for it. He claims that he's not getting that now.
So that's why were not seeing the Board provide accountability, because four of them are against it. It was left to us to guess which four. He also said that it is difficult to make data-based decisions and demand accountability when the entire context is soaked in political issues about race and class. How, for example can he demand accountability on the Southeast Initiative when he knows that people will make it a race and class issue if he does?
There was a brief discussion of alignment and he wants to preserve the benefits we realized from site-based decision making while providing the benefits of alignment for those schools that didn't do well with site-based decisions. He wants the earned autonomy to be meaningful, but he hasn't found the right path yet - one that negotiates the tricky race and class issues and will find majority acceptance on the Board.
Comments
"We believe in individual responsibility and collective accountability."
It does take courage to admit failure and pull the plug on specific programs and initiatives. But Board Members are the stewards of the taxpayers money and are supposed to provide due diligence in this regard. There are two levies that may be on the ballot in February. The Operations Levy is crucial to the District's budget. I don't know how they -the Board- expects the public to pass it when they will not require accountability. Charlie, your post was utterly depressing to me.
I attended Director Martin-Morris' Community meeting and heard very different things.
We did end up talking high school issues a lot but also SAP. I'll get to that in a minute but here are some random things said:
- The SAP is a work in progress.
- The SAP, to the best of his knowledge, will be rolled out in its entirety. He thinks a piecemeal fashion would not work. He said he has had pushback from IT folks and said it had to happen. He said they could even hire people temporarily but it had to get done.
- Key to note; the FEEDBACK meetings are just that; the INFORMATIONAL meetings are there to say what the feedback was and how it was (or was not) incorporated into the plan. He made it sound like there would be few, if any, tweaks after the meetings. If you are not attending the meetings, get your thoughts in quickly.
-He and Sherry Carr were talking about a model where people would get together and suss out boundary issues. But how to find each other? I suggested that there could be a sign-up list for each region and people could meet up that way. Or they could do it via their PTAs (but the PTA would have to be willing to have such a meeting).
- There is no known percentage for the Open Choice seats. I still don't know if the percentage will come from the freshman class size or overall school size.
- Kellie LaRue pointed out that NCLB plays into the assignment plan and hoped that this has been taken into account. She also noted that the building count number has to be based on one thing that everyone uses whether functional capacity or WSF, pick a number and stick with it.
High School
Harium DOES agree with the D average because he said the C wasn't a "true" C. Kellie pointed out that it could be a true C but he shrugged it off. He also DOES agree that the items are a package because they are all about graduation requirements.
I did ask the question about the middle school grades for high school credits being a state law and would voting against the package flout state law? He didn't really answer. I get the feeling that the Board and the Superintendent don't fear the state much and, if they don't want to do something, don't do it and wait to see if the state acts (which it usually doesn't).
He said, "AP is a mess." He also said the graduation requirements are a mess. I was a bit taken aback as what does this mean to students? He also said MAP data should be shared with parents. I did point out that no matter who I ask, I can never get data on the results of the PSAT that was administered last year.
He also told people, and there was surprise, that each SPS high school can add on its own graduation requirements. I, personally, think this is bullshit because there should be state/district requirements and I have no idea why we are allowing high schools this leeway. To their credit, Hale has higher credit requirements than the other high schools and SPS has higher credit requirements than the state. If we are aligning everything, shouldn't all the high schools have the same graduation requirements?
He also said the waiver process which is the superintendent's procedure that follows from the Board's policy would likely change.
It was suggested what was discussed at DeBell's meeting; namely, that you have a GPA requirement. Interesting idea.
Gary Sievert, a parent and Seattle Council PTSA rep, said that the district/Board have a couple of fronts to conquer. One is the public perception. Two, is the realities of what changing the grad requirements mean. I pointed out that teens are also an audience and I believe they will laugh at this. Harium said, yes, there could be students who don't care but that it probably isn't that many.
I brought up the BTA levy towards the end. I asked Harium how we can justify the continued pouring in of capital money to a building that is brand-new when we have such a horrific backlog of maintenance? He smiled ruefully and asked me if I remembered his vote on the STEM program being at Cleveland. I said no and he said he voted against it.
The Board/district has responded to concerns about RBHS and Cleveland. Is it too little too late? I don't know. What I do know is (1) despite calls, especially from community and Charlie, for the district to engage communities and parents in the SE about what they want in a high school, the district continues to go it alone. The academy system did not work out at Cleveland in any real way. I suspect it will be the same for STEM.
We can't afford to keep pouring money in this way. The southend can rightly say that there are inequities (but some of them, like PTA funds, are out of the district's control) but I think this district, in the time I've been here, has made huge strides. The southend has realized the majority of capital rebuilds.
I think there is some issue of race/class but again, political courage has to be shown. But until the Board and the district understand what it is, in concrete terms, that parents want, the problem will continue.
Did Harium have anything to say about seat time in HS?
I think some items run into each other. For example, Hale will argue that it does well with its lower seat time and that the time the teachers spend consulting helps students. So do you give schools earned autonomy i.e. less seat time for good overall performance? Or does the performance have to be sorted by f/rd to be valid? And, if you go down the road of this kind of autonomy, won't other principals want their own special waivers? Where does that end? How do you write the policy for that or is it at the discretion of the superintendent? And, are we aligning only curriculum for high schools? Hale is probably the most "different" comprehensive high school in terms of how it operates (and hence, maybe why some think of it as more alternative). Then, when it comes to the SAP and somewhat forced assignment, can parents whose students are assigned to Hale argue for alignment with other high schools?
I'm not picking on Hale; it's a good school. But it is a model for earned autonomy and so what do other high schools have to do to earn their autonomy and what form does it take?
On the other hand I also don't like the fact that some schools, such as Hale, can negotiate a waiver to provide less seat time than they are required to. I know parents argue that the time is needed by teachers to collaborate, and that it is productive time. I understand that. But I don't agree with it. I think students should get at the very least the state minimum seat time, and no less.
Any for all of the extra "collaborating" time that Hale teachers get they can't seem to get around to updating the source on a regular basis. Some teachers don't update it at all except for progress report time.
Here is the link to the article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_re_us/us_more_school
Melissa, you've repeatedly stated that the academy system did not work out at Cleveland. On what do you base this claim? What, in your view, happened? Was the failure at the building level, the district level, or both? Lastly, when was the last time you visited Cleveland, and what did you see there that would need to change for you to feel more hopeful about the school's chances for success?
Just wondering.
"Melissa, you've repeatedly stated that the academy system did not work out at Cleveland. On what do you base this claim? What, in your view, happened? Was the failure at the building level, the district level, or both?"
The evidence that the academy system didn't work at Clevelend lies in the enrollment numbers. The academy scheme failed to attract sufficient students to make efficient use of the building capacity. Summit K-12 was fuller than Cleveland.
What happened? The same thing that always happens, the District moved forward with an idea without any data to support the belief of demand for that idea.
At Michael DeBell's community meeting I asked him if there was any data to support the belief that there was a demand for a S.T.E.M. program at Cleveland. There wasn't. He did say, however, that there is evidence of demand in the District for math education. Of course the demand in the District for math education is for a type of math education that the District does not provide.
The District moved forward with the academies at Cleveland because they were enchanted by the idea, not because any students or families wanted it. At the same time, the District refuses to duplicate popular programs (TOPS, JSIS, Thornton Creek, etc.). Programs at Seattle Public Schools isn't demand driven at all.
That is a failure first at the building level because they developed an idea without adequate public input or support (much as they have done with the S.T.E.M. scheme and the program changes with the Southeast Initiative). It is also a failure at the District level, because the District should not have allowed the program change without evidence of demand for it.
What I base it on is that
(1) they started with 4 academies and now are down to 2. That happened pretty quietly so I'm surmising that either they didn't get enough interest to support 4 academies, didn't have enough students to support 4 academies or found it too difficult to run 4 academies
(2) the enrollment at Cleveland has been low and stagnant for a brand-new building. Time after time you see an uptick in enrollment after a school is rebuilt (it certainly revived Ballard which had a very bad reputation before its remodel). Plus, they put in the academy system and the numbers didn't change significantly. So why, with a new building and a new system hasn't Cleveland attracted more students?
Again, I can only surmise why more students aren't going to Cleveland and I don't know if it's a building problem or district. I'm pretty sure the district didn't ask parents/community what they wanted but installed the academy system believing it would attract more students. The district never seems to get that disconnect.
Simple Answer: Have Guts!
I've heard DeBell whine about that before, all while playing his little "I know something you don't" game of smiling and pretending he can't say the obvious in public, etc., etc. Frankly, I'm tired of DeBell, who has never, ever shown the courage required to get the district back on track. He "abstains" on a clearly ridiculous vote, instead of voting no? Politics, politics, politics. And the Board members wonder why race and class are always thrown at them. DUH! Try doing something sincere for once.
DeBell should resign if he isn't willing to take principled stands for FEAR of being labeled. And why? Because it may hamper efforts for higher office someday?
So more bones will get thrown to the South End, to be followed by still more bones in a few years. If they really want to know what will work in the South End, why don't they interview parents who bus their kids out of that area, and find out what it would take to keep their kids closer to home? But do they ever do that? No.
Can someone parse this for me? It obviously is in the interest of SE families for the SE Initiative to be effective and not a total boondoggle, so wouldn't a push for accountability be a good thing? What am I missing about the politics of this?
Perhaps, as part of providing accountability, the District closes Rainier Beach High School for a year, lays off everyone working there, takes a year to re-invent the program, and then re-opens it.
A lot of people will see that as something negative that the District is doing to a southend school.
So all of a sudden the *same grade* is acceptable as long as you call it a C- instead of a "D average"? People are funny.
Helen Schinske
RB doesn't have to close, but it needs help re-establishing itself. The SE Initiative was not enough. Seriously, who thought it would be? The RB community needs its school, and doesn't need to be targeted for appropriation by high-tech academies, or otherwise.
Its starts and ends with respect, and this district has not shown it to the South End for along time. The community outreach by SPS in the SE frankly stinks. How many more flash-in-the-pan ideas will come forth before SPS realizes that hard work and commitment to the school and the community, are the only thing that will work in the long run, instead of treating the RB community like a disappointment and a problem. SPS inflicted plenty of the damage to RB's reputation on its own. Where's the accountability for that?
DeBell is certainly more effective than Meyer, and Chow, but that doesn't say much for him. Overall he's really been ineffective. In fact I can't really think of much he has accomplished as a director, except vote "no" a couple of times.
Anybody? What has DeBell accomplished?
1) taken in the context of the recent change of policy to count failing grades as zero, there is some validity to the argument that lowering the grad. requirement is appropriate.
2) On the 11 point scale, we are talking 2.0 to 1.0 in the original proposal Amending it to C-, the change becomes 2.0 to 1.7. That's a "reduction in the reduction" of 2/3. I will admit this is not the hottest issue for me, so perhaps I'm more spin-susceptible.
4) And we're talking to DeBell, remember It's not like he's actually going to vote NO or anything...
Was the Academy model at Cleveland seeded by Gates? I seem to recall that some schools got money to go for academies, including Hale...
I also heard that after c acouple of years this money was pulled...But maybe I'm imagining it.
"skywadd," chimes in WV, "ad astra!"
This is so much in line with stuff I have been arguing in Seattle Public School District'/US education that I could almost have written it myself... so flattering to have my own thinking reflected by a bona fide 'expert' - LOL...
Now just wish the system would take notice and do a huge U-turn away from supersized (but with no substance or depth) curricula and standardised testing... but hey, there's profit in there somewhere, so somehow I dont think that will happen until society actually reaches the point of collapse...
You stated that Mike DeBell stated in response to STEM that there was an interest in ......
He did say, however, that there is evidence of demand in the District for math education.
How odd????
I've been unable to find out anything about what math will look like at Cleveland STEM.... I am sure the directors have no idea either.
The idea that there is a Math 9-12 fix possible given the k-5 fiasco is beyond naive.
These folks have no answer other than to pick a new straw and hope it is a good one.
So where is our core-knowledge alternative school ( E.D. Hirsch style)? There would be plenty of demand for that. Take a survey on that one.
STEM was a giant cop out once again.
How do we know Academies failed at Cleveland? because they made Cleveland an option school ... if the academies were working Cleveland would not be an option school.