Schools First
SchoolsFirst is a political organization that acts as the committee to get school bonds and levies passed. They pretty much run the "Vote Yes" campaigns for the Operations Levy, for BEX and for BTA.
That's all good and everything, but Schools First gives the District blind, unquestioning support. No one from Schools First has ever - or apparently will ever - demand any sort of accountability from the District. No one from Schools First has ever - or apparently will ever - demand that the District engage the community. Moreover, Schools First has put out a lot of misinformation and, in the case of the Chief Sealth/Denny co-location, disinformation.
Schools First gives the District exactly the sort of support they want from the community: straight from the checkbook.
I suspect this see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil culture is pervasive at Schools First. One Board member, Peter Maier, came to the District from the Board of Schools First. As a School Board member, Director Maier has yet to vote against a single staff recommendation. He has yet to provide any meaningful oversight or accountability. Now Wilson Chin, also from the Board of Schools First, is running for a seat on the District's Board. Will he also be a rubber-stamp, continuing the Schools First style of mindless support for whatever the District staff says?
Then again, perhaps I have judged Schools First too harshly. Perhaps someone who is close to Schools First can share with us all of the times that Schools First has demanded accountability from the District, can remind us of all of the times that Schools First worked for a more rational and less political prioritization of capital projects, and can point out all of the work that Schools First has done to solicit input (and not just donations) from the community. Yeah. Perhaps not.
That's all good and everything, but Schools First gives the District blind, unquestioning support. No one from Schools First has ever - or apparently will ever - demand any sort of accountability from the District. No one from Schools First has ever - or apparently will ever - demand that the District engage the community. Moreover, Schools First has put out a lot of misinformation and, in the case of the Chief Sealth/Denny co-location, disinformation.
Schools First gives the District exactly the sort of support they want from the community: straight from the checkbook.
I suspect this see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil culture is pervasive at Schools First. One Board member, Peter Maier, came to the District from the Board of Schools First. As a School Board member, Director Maier has yet to vote against a single staff recommendation. He has yet to provide any meaningful oversight or accountability. Now Wilson Chin, also from the Board of Schools First, is running for a seat on the District's Board. Will he also be a rubber-stamp, continuing the Schools First style of mindless support for whatever the District staff says?
Then again, perhaps I have judged Schools First too harshly. Perhaps someone who is close to Schools First can share with us all of the times that Schools First has demanded accountability from the District, can remind us of all of the times that Schools First worked for a more rational and less political prioritization of capital projects, and can point out all of the work that Schools First has done to solicit input (and not just donations) from the community. Yeah. Perhaps not.
Comments
Consider this reasearch:
Look at these scores. (see below)
These scores are the direct result of the type of instructional materials the board chooses.
These inflict damage on the educationally disadvantaged children of Seattle. The board should do something other than lower the gpa needed to graduate. This confirms there is no accountability for much of anything in the SPS.
SPS ignored their responsibility to children by refusing to enact D44.00 and D45.00 there are no effective interventions.
The most meaningful intervention would be the adoption of the type of materials known to be effective with disadvantaged learners.
4th grade Gap changes since the start of Everyday Math
Spring 2009 gap score (year two of EDM) – average of Spring 2006 and Spring 2007 gaps
Black 3.55%
Hispanic 4.45%
Asian/PI 3.40%
American Indian 2.55%
Low Income 4.25%
Limited English 2.50%
Gap score changes for Cleveland PD^3 a three year program
Average of gaps for last two years minus Average of gaps of two years before start
All 9.85%
Black 7.40%
Hispanic 4.45%
Asian/PI 16.35%
Low Income 9.15%
Limited English 15.55%
This is the model for high school math.
What to do is clearly known. Unfortunately this board lacks the courage to do anything meaningful. In the SPS evidence based decision-making is never used in math.
Where is the written plan to change the decade of futility?
-------------------------
I would not invest in this outfit.
These increases occurred in a time when management said their practices would close gaps.
This outfit has "ZERO" accountability.
I too would like to hear from the School's First folks. While we're waiting here for a response, can you enlighten me on who controls the levy money once voters approve it?
The selection of buildings for renovation was driven by District politics - like all decisions at Seattle Public Schools. Schools First supported those decisions and worked to quiet anyone who wanted a more rational method of prioritizing capital projects.
Schools First says that they work to inform voters about public school capital projects, but they sure didn't inform folks about the plan to co-locate Denny middle school and Chief Sealth high school, did they?
Where has Schools First been on the issue of community involvement in the determination of projects? Nowhere.
I think supporting the levies and bonds is good and important, but that's no reason to do so blindly and unconditionally.
Any expense in excess of a fixed amount, I think it's about $50,000, requires Board approval, but the Board doesn't vote these things down - ever. Even as the budget for Garfield's renovation grew from $50 million to over $110 million, the Board approved the increases every step of the way. Not one of them ever even suggested that it would be reasonable to deny a budget increase and reduce the scope of the project.
The expansion of the Garfield budget, of course, pushed other projects right out of the levy. The World School, for example, didn't get built because Garfield took all of the money that was budgeted for it.
So, to answer bulldogger's question, given the Board's disinterest in providing any kind of control or accountability, Facilities controls the capital levy money after it has been approved.
On your campaign web site you write that, if elected, you will "work to build a rigorous, accountable educational environment".
You are on the Board of Schools First. How, as a member of that Board, have you worked for accountablity? How has Schools First demanded accountability from the District?
What happens after the money after the levy/bond is voted in? As long as it's used for a capital measure, it can be anything. The district could throw out the entire list and start over if they wanted to (if the Board agrees as the Board has to vote on the list). But the Board seems to be easily convinced of changes. I'm going to do a thread today about the Garfield money.
Last BEX election, people said to me (as I opposed the list put forward), "Let's just get the money and ask for changes." You can see how that worked out.
At this point without some basic accountability written into any capital projects put on the ballot -such as outlined in a previous thread- I cannot support the next BEX. On time and on budget need to mean something.
We have:
* restructuring with no parent involvement at AS#1;
* sixth graders forced back into the elementary model;
* no recess for middle schoolers;
* the principal's focus on complying with the District's demands and with teacher contract conditions rather than on what is good for the kids and what's wanted by the parents;
* core choice replaced with core assignment;
* District discipline policies are implemented (resulting in his previous school (Summit) having high rates of suspension and the deputy principal there having to be escorted in the halls by security guards because he was intimidated by middle schoolers) rather than Positive Discipline - setting the kids up to succeed, not to fail - because Positive Discipline techniques - to which the school had previously committed itself - are considered too time consuming/data intensive to carry out;
* BLT meetings scheduled for 2.40pm on a weekday, so that most (working) parent representatives cant make the meeting, which bypasses community input and gives all the power to the teachers and principal...
That's what happens when we are left with alternative school principals who are not committed to the alternative school governance model contained in Policy C54.00 and who are committed to following District dictates rather than standing up for good education and community engagement.
Also, SF has a list on its web site of PTSAs that have already voiced their support for the next levy.
Those of us who might want our PTSAs to consider a protest NO vote for all the valid reasons Melissa and others have stated on the other thread should consider talking to our kids' PTSAs about Melissa's petition and our concerns.
Here's who's listed so far:
http://www.schoolsfirstseattle.org/supporters/
Renew your commitment to Seattle's Children.
Vote Yes! to renew Seattle School levies - Feb. 9, 2010
Early Supporters
Adams PTA
Ballard High School PTSA
Bryant Elementary PTSA
Garfield High School PTSA
John Stanford Int’l School PTSA
Laurelhurst PTA
Lawton PTA
Montlake School PTSA
Nathan Eckstein PTSA
Pathfinder PTSA
Seattle Council PTSA
Stevens PTA
Washington Middle School PTSA
West Seattle High School PTSA
Hmmm. Will they provide a reciprocal link to the blog from their web site?