Sherry Carr's Community Meeting
I attended Sherry Carr's community meeting this morning. Lots of interesting topics. I came into it about a half hour after it got started but I think I got what the discussion was.
Topic 1 - Getting kids to school from daycare and from school to after-school care.
This seems to be an issue around Olympic View (which I thought had on-site daycare but this is likely another daycare). This is important because it raise several issues.
One is that apparently some kids get yellow bus transportation to and from daycare. I certainly wouldn't have thought this true but I think I understood Sherry to say this was on a space available basis. Many parents there felt this issue needed to be addressed in the new SAP and that space-available was not good enough. I mentioned that walkability was not weighted in the new SAP and only one of several variables used to make the boundaries. I told parents to tell the district how much this means to them. (Also, someone brought up that the walk path from their home took several kids past the house of a registered sex offender. I would have thought the district would check walk paths for this kind of thing because no parent wants that.)
However, I didn't say (but wanted to gently point out) that many other districts have little to no transportation. (I was just talking to friends in Palo Alto and their district has no transportation.) One of our biggest costs in this district IS transportation. Now under the new SAP, if most people stay near home, then the district will see this cost savings right away. However, as Charlie has pointed out, there are issues of transporting kids to Option Schools and high school kids to out of area high schools (if there is room or they get in on an Open Choice seat) on yellow bus if Metro is not available. We still have transportation issues. What I am trying to say is that this district really had a LOT of transportation available and I think the pullback may be traumatic for some if the district says, sorry, that's it.
A woman also brought up whether parents would be able to enroll their student using their work address, saying that it was just more convenient for some parents. I had heard from district staff that a lot of the out-of-district enrollment in the south end comes from parents who wanted their child near where they work. I don't recall seeing this in the new SProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
.
Topic 2 - Alternative school audit. I came in on the tail end of this but it seemed a couple of parents were good with the delay. However, I did smile when Sherry said that it wouldn't be good to have the audit if they couldn't then implement the recommendations. Well, that hasn't stopped the district yet; how many of the APP audit recommendations did they implement?
Topic 3 - High school seat time. This came up in the thread about the district changing to a "D" average for graduation. Parents from West Seattle have been working on this issue for years and have accumulated a mass of information. Basically, if you go to Roosevelt or Garfield, you would get out of school, based on the instructional time (which includes everything except lunch even early dismissal days), on time in June. If you went to Rainier Beach, based on the seat time, you'd get out in July and from Hale, in August. (This, of course, is hypothetical.)
I pointed out, as did someone else in the "D" thread, that this seems odd that the district is hurrying towards curriculum alignment of the high schools and yet this issue has gone under the radar. (I would also point out that I need to read and post the Cohort study released to the Board; Sherry referred to it several times and it looks like it has some good info.) I said my mantra of parents not being detectives and that there should be a baseline (that I think includes instructional time) for every single high school (unless it is an alternative). That means you go into any comprehensive high school and find X number of AP and Honors classes, music/arts in some form, etc. Then each high school has its own focus and programs but you, as a parent, would go in knowing the baseline for SPS high schools.
There was one Hale parent there who got a little prickly over the issue. Look, Hale is a good school that has a somewhat different model (Coalition of Essential Schools - previously discussed in another thread) and he argued that seat time was not the whole story. And he would be right except that the amount of time is so glaring between schools. He also said something quite interesting that I'll have to run past Michael Tolley, the high school director. He said that they did have a large number of early releases/late starts days but that didn't mean the kids weren't in the building. A teacher I know was there at the meeting and we exchanged glances because this seemed odd. The parent continued that the students came and were working on their senior projects, etc. The teacher asked about supervision and the parent shrugged.
I'll have to ask Mr. Tolley but I think you can't have kids in the building without supervision. This was one of the issues at Roosevelt (and other schools) during the WASL. We could not have kids come to the school if they (1) didn't have a specific purpose for being there and (2) had no supervision. So the teacher and I were puzzled over Hale having large numbers of students unsupervised in their building while staff and teachers were getting professional development.
It's definitely on Sherry's radar and I think it will get some play soon.
To me, it's an example of these little waivers here and there and everywhere in the district where there is a rule/policy and yet one school gets out of it. For example, all the other high schools have to start early except Center and Hale. (Even Ballard who had started at 8:30 got pushed back to 8.) Now I get Center because it's downtown. I was told Hale got to stay with its later start because it was "cost-neutral" to the district. I wonder how many schools know that if something is cost neutral, the district will grant a waiver.
Topic 1 - Getting kids to school from daycare and from school to after-school care.
This seems to be an issue around Olympic View (which I thought had on-site daycare but this is likely another daycare). This is important because it raise several issues.
One is that apparently some kids get yellow bus transportation to and from daycare. I certainly wouldn't have thought this true but I think I understood Sherry to say this was on a space available basis. Many parents there felt this issue needed to be addressed in the new SAP and that space-available was not good enough. I mentioned that walkability was not weighted in the new SAP and only one of several variables used to make the boundaries. I told parents to tell the district how much this means to them. (Also, someone brought up that the walk path from their home took several kids past the house of a registered sex offender. I would have thought the district would check walk paths for this kind of thing because no parent wants that.)
However, I didn't say (but wanted to gently point out) that many other districts have little to no transportation. (I was just talking to friends in Palo Alto and their district has no transportation.) One of our biggest costs in this district IS transportation. Now under the new SAP, if most people stay near home, then the district will see this cost savings right away. However, as Charlie has pointed out, there are issues of transporting kids to Option Schools and high school kids to out of area high schools (if there is room or they get in on an Open Choice seat) on yellow bus if Metro is not available. We still have transportation issues. What I am trying to say is that this district really had a LOT of transportation available and I think the pullback may be traumatic for some if the district says, sorry, that's it.
A woman also brought up whether parents would be able to enroll their student using their work address, saying that it was just more convenient for some parents. I had heard from district staff that a lot of the out-of-district enrollment in the south end comes from parents who wanted their child near where they work. I don't recall seeing this in the new SProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
.
Topic 2 - Alternative school audit. I came in on the tail end of this but it seemed a couple of parents were good with the delay. However, I did smile when Sherry said that it wouldn't be good to have the audit if they couldn't then implement the recommendations. Well, that hasn't stopped the district yet; how many of the APP audit recommendations did they implement?
Topic 3 - High school seat time. This came up in the thread about the district changing to a "D" average for graduation. Parents from West Seattle have been working on this issue for years and have accumulated a mass of information. Basically, if you go to Roosevelt or Garfield, you would get out of school, based on the instructional time (which includes everything except lunch even early dismissal days), on time in June. If you went to Rainier Beach, based on the seat time, you'd get out in July and from Hale, in August. (This, of course, is hypothetical.)
I pointed out, as did someone else in the "D" thread, that this seems odd that the district is hurrying towards curriculum alignment of the high schools and yet this issue has gone under the radar. (I would also point out that I need to read and post the Cohort study released to the Board; Sherry referred to it several times and it looks like it has some good info.) I said my mantra of parents not being detectives and that there should be a baseline (that I think includes instructional time) for every single high school (unless it is an alternative). That means you go into any comprehensive high school and find X number of AP and Honors classes, music/arts in some form, etc. Then each high school has its own focus and programs but you, as a parent, would go in knowing the baseline for SPS high schools.
There was one Hale parent there who got a little prickly over the issue. Look, Hale is a good school that has a somewhat different model (Coalition of Essential Schools - previously discussed in another thread) and he argued that seat time was not the whole story. And he would be right except that the amount of time is so glaring between schools. He also said something quite interesting that I'll have to run past Michael Tolley, the high school director. He said that they did have a large number of early releases/late starts days but that didn't mean the kids weren't in the building. A teacher I know was there at the meeting and we exchanged glances because this seemed odd. The parent continued that the students came and were working on their senior projects, etc. The teacher asked about supervision and the parent shrugged.
I'll have to ask Mr. Tolley but I think you can't have kids in the building without supervision. This was one of the issues at Roosevelt (and other schools) during the WASL. We could not have kids come to the school if they (1) didn't have a specific purpose for being there and (2) had no supervision. So the teacher and I were puzzled over Hale having large numbers of students unsupervised in their building while staff and teachers were getting professional development.
It's definitely on Sherry's radar and I think it will get some play soon.
To me, it's an example of these little waivers here and there and everywhere in the district where there is a rule/policy and yet one school gets out of it. For example, all the other high schools have to start early except Center and Hale. (Even Ballard who had started at 8:30 got pushed back to 8.) Now I get Center because it's downtown. I was told Hale got to stay with its later start because it was "cost-neutral" to the district. I wonder how many schools know that if something is cost neutral, the district will grant a waiver.
Comments
Are you saying that Hale starts later and then has a shorter school day or shorter classes?
Also -- about "waivers". Waivers aren't always bad or simply unfair. I think it's good to give programs/schools an extra measure of flexibility when it makes sense.
ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ADDRESS:
The choice address will be the transportation service address. Alternate service addresses will be considered for feasibility for the following situations:
* Child care
* Supervision
* Work (student employment)
* After school Activity
Helen Schinske
The seat time differential is based on a couple of factors:
State requirements and school scheduling. The state requires a certain amount of hours, I think it's 150 per credit? But recently the state watered down (some see it this way) the parameters of what constitutes "instructional time."
Now, apparently, according to the state passing time, break, etc, everything but actual lunch, are counted as instructional time.
As, apparently, are PD days (some of them, probably: some, such as actual days off, probably don't count, but early release or late start, apparently does...those two hours or whatever count as instruction time in some accountings.
So a BLT or building or whatever, when setting its schedule, could have a longer break, shorter classes, more late starts etc. But it wouldn't show up because it's all "Instructional time." Of course, the students aren't in their seats...
"Why do some students receive free bus service?
A. School districts are required by state law to provide free transportation for students who meet one of the following critera:
• Eligible for free meals program
• Eligible under District’s guidelines for VIP
• Eligible under special education services through an IEP, only if transportation is checked on the form C of the IEP
* Students who receive reduced price meals, will pay a reduced fee bus pass."
Everybody else pays but hey, it's only up to $672 per year.
From California:'
"Schools will allow only students who live outside a 1.5 mile radius of an elementary institution in the Berkeley Unified School District to reserve a seat on their bus in the new school year.
The change will not affect middle or high school students because the district does not provide them with transportation services, except in the case of special education students.
Berkeley Unified’s new walk boundary will increase the district’s existing walk boundary—which district officials said had been established in 1995—by .5 mile.
District Superintendent Bill Huyett said there was no cause for alarm yet.
“It’s one of the small things that comes with the budget cuts,” he said. “Many districts have completely dropped transportation. Berkeley Unified did not have to take such drastic measures.”
Huyett said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was proposing to slash 65 percent from transportation funds while the Legislature was proposing a 20 percent cut.
“We have to plan on the 65 percent cut,” Huyett said. “We are subsidizing transportation to a great extent. The state will not pay.”
I note that many districts walk area is between 1.5 and 2 miles. Two miles.
We have a good deal going in this district and it may not be the same after the SAP. The district is probably lagging behind many other districts and states in walk distance and costs.
Waivers for seat time apply only for high schools (re:150 hrs per credit). Only 21waivers were issued to individual high schools statewide last year. In Seattle, the last waiver was issued for the '07-'08 year to West Seattle HS (for 123.8 hours per credit)which was approved by the district and voted/approved by the School Board because parents were told, there were "no minimum requirements" in either state law or board policy, when applying for a waiver!
I agree with Melissa, there should be atleast a minimum standard that all families can count on, and this need to be specified in the Policy D15.00, as well as a proper definition of "planned instructional activities" (as worded in the proposed D15.00 policy).
Previously the district calculated "instructional hours" like most parent would- they deducted all non-classroom related hours such as passing time between classes, time spent at home for the 3 waiver days, WASL testing days (8 for HS), for early release/late arrival days, extended breaks for 2nd breakfasts, etc. That's how WSHS ended up with only 123.8 hours.
Today, with the new district procedures (not included in the policy, but referred to in the policy), there would never be a reason for a waiver, infact it would be an impossibility. Since now basically everything (except for lunch) counts towards the instructional hour calculation, 6 hrs/day for 6 classes = 1 hr. per class x 180 days = 180 hours! Masterful, we now exceed the state requirement by 30 hours per credit. Our students must be excelling with all this newly found instructional time!
It's clear that Policy D15.00 should not be approved until these issues are fixed.
Seattle Parent
(not to be confused with Seattle Citizen)
Unfortunately, this policy is bundled with two other policies, C15.00 and D128.00 and the district's intention is that they will all be voted on as a whole package sweep. There is a link to all these documents on the School Board Meeting Agenda, for 9/16/09:
www.seattleschools.org/area/board/
agenda.htm
Anyway, Palo Alto differs from Seattle not only by size. Palo Alto is an expensive city, and the families are highly motivated academically, watch their schools closely, and will move heaven and earth to support them regardless of the dismal state of public funding.
Oakland or San Francisco would be a better comparison to Seattle. I have heard that there's a significant fraud problem with families that live in Oakland setting up fraudulent addresses in Berkeley so their children can stay out of Oakland schools. It's hard to blame the families for doing that, and yet if all the motivated families take their children out, that makes Oakland's problems even worse. That reminds me of the Seattle families who send their kids out-of-cluster or to Shoreline (except in Seattle's case it's legal).
For instance I wholly support high school credit for MS work, but I strongly oppose the D average to graduate.
The definition of a high school credit, and the 11 point grading system should warrant plenty of community engagement, along with research and data presented to the board.
It's hard for me to comprehend that if a board member decides to vote no to the "D" average graduation policy, they will also be voting no for the high school credit for middle school work.
It's really Absurd.
It seems irresponsible and reprehensible to me that staff would present the board with D15:00 as a "package"? Each of the 4 components of D15:00 deserve individual attention, and an individual vote. The board should vote no on the "package", and demand that the 4 components be presented separately.
The 4 components
1) D average to graduate
2) 11 point grading system
3) high school credit for MS work
4) definition of a credit (seat or instructional time for HS students)
I wholly support high school credit for MS work, but I strongly oppose the D average to graduate.
It's hard for me to comprehend that if a board member decides to vote no to the "D" average graduation policy, they must also vote no for the high school credit for middle school work as they are tied together as a package.
As for the "definition of a high school credit", and the "11 point grading system", the board should demand plenty of community engagement, research, and data before voting.
Please vote no on the package, and demand each of these components be presented individually.
I agree. We should be confused separately!
Seattle Citizen
I presented yesterday and MW is right, this is the better part of 2 years of "detective" work. I had never heard her mantra before so I was absolutely charmed by it... so much so we repeated it to Peter Meier 2 hour later.
You're doing the right thing writing and hopefully more people will as we get the word out. The staff doesn't even include this in the board presentation. Verbally they describe it as an alignment with state policy but it is far more than that.
The other issue the board was not made aware of is the $175-300K impact on apportionment revenue per year if they continue to offer such ineqitable classroom time between the high schools. The auditor will review at the enrollment audit in the next few weeks and, from my converstion with district legal counsel after the board meeting on Wednesday, the staff doesn't get it yet. Some additional word from parents should help motivate them to take the study we've done, read it and understand it.
Yeah, I guess I'm not sure I understand the uproar about this one either. "F" means failing . . . anything above that means passing; it's pretty clear.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a C requirement for participation in sports. Where are the priorities?
stu
"Son... you need to keep at this homework if you want to play XXXXball. I expect nothing less than a 'D'"
That should get him fired up.
A "D" is passing, right, so why doesn't it count? Not that it's a good grade...
Some argue that colleges won't accept a kid with Ds, and this is true...then the kid should work harder.
Also, if D isn't graduating, does it led to grade inflation, so what was a D now just becomes a C?
I also agree that for extracurricular activities (not limited to sports) a C is a good thing, it's leverage.
Remember, a few stray D's or even F's (E's) does not make a D average. A 'D' average is really hard to get. There were only 129 students affected last year out of what, 3000 students graduating. To me that means 2871 students just had the parents motivational tool removed from the toolbox.
Even those 129 students affected were able to request a waiver. These policy proposals originate from the Principals and the counselors. Those roles are motivated to create policy that lessens their workload even though the waiver process, where individual circumstances are considered, may be more appropriate.
Then get rid of the "D" grade. You can't have a "passing grade" but not be allowed to pass. If you change the language so everything under a C- is an F, you can stop them from graduating. "D" is a legitimate grade and, therefore, is graduation-worthy. However, since the goal of school is to educate, the idea of saying "no partcipation in extra-curricluar activities" to those with an average lower than a C, is at least reinforcing the idea that spending more time with studies is important.
There is, of course, the counter-argument that says after-school activities, i.e., sports, clubs, whatever, are equally important to the overall educational experience. Some kids test poorly, or have poor study habits, or no support at home, and the self-esteem and values learned in sports and clubs is an essential lesson.
Still, an "F" is an "F" but a "D" is just a "D."
stu
I think classes on Tuesday are 40 minutes long rather than 50 - to me that's an small trade-off for more effective teaching/learning.
And don't tell me that a grade is objective because it represents a certain percentage correct. You can skew an assessment any old way. I used to have a teacher who purposely gave tests that almost no one could get more than 50% credit on. Naturally he couldn't use the "90% and up, A" criteria, but darned if he didn't have some of the highest actual standards I've ever seen. If you got an A from him, it was really earned.
Helen Schinske
In another thread, we discussed a lot of the pros and cons of the D average. The argument about a D for sports is that if it is a D for graduation, why would it be different for sports?
I agree with those who say playing sports isn't a right but a privilege. I think for any sanction outside activity that likely takes a lot more time (as opposed to a club) like music, drama or sports, you should be able to keep up.
My son made that same argument: if D is passing, it's passing. I just think that lowering the bar is the wrong thing - if only for psychological reasons. Kids, teens, look for any reason to do less (most of the them) work. If you say a D is a true D, if you say it really is more rigorous overall, well, it's just blah, blah, blah to the kids.
They see (and hear) - you can get all Ds and graduate. This is not going to motivate a single student to do better.
And that's why I'm against it.
AGENDA
1. Call to order – H Martin-Morris
a. Directors present
b. Approval of agenda
c. Approval of minutes
2. Committee Discussion
a. Review of revised materials adoption policy – H Ferguson
b. Develop a strategy and timeline for policy reviews for the 2009-10 school year – All
c. Grading policy: Issue of 150 hours of classtime – S. Carr
Further complicating matters is how "E" (the grade below D) is counted. While there was some disagreement about the timing of the change, E's were (at present or until recently) excluded from the GPA. Now, or in the future, they will count as zero. So if you roll this up with the C requirement becoming a D it may be close to a wash. Clear as mud, right?
Also, Peter made the point that extracurricular activity keeps less-academically-inclined kids in school. If the E-bit is true, keeping the C would exclude more; going to D would preserve the status quo, rather than (as it appears at first blush) being a easy way to push up graduation rates.
I still have to watch that part of the meeting, but I don't get the idea that will clarify much. I was going to tell Peter that the confusing combination of issues was ground to vote against it. I wish I had. Are they training for us US senate or what?
Second, is there any data to support this myth about extra-curricular activities being the only thing that is keeping struggling students in school? I hear the stories, but I don't see any data. I thought we were supposed to make data-driven decisions. I could make up alternative stories about students who re-doubled their academic efforts to maintain a "C" average and remain eligible for sports (or band, or cheer, or the school play). Both myths are viable, but WHERE'S THE DATA?
Bundling the three policies with so many moving parts together for one Board vote just doesn't make any sense.
Additionally, at yesterday's C&I meeting, both Sherry Carr and Steve Sundquist (Harium was absent) strongly urged the District to allow public review and comments at different points during the process to help shape new policy, rather than currently only being able to react to proposed policy when it's too late to do anything but urge a "no" vote. They have some excellent points- doesn't the Strategic Plan have something about public engagement?
This is exactly what has happened with these 3 "bundled" policies coming up for Board vote soon- even though there was a survey sent out to everyone at the HS level (11/08) about only 5 of the moving parts, the community has never been given the opportunity to have input into the shape of these policies since they've been drafted, and thus the uproar at so many different levels.
Please urge all of our Board Directors to step back and take more time for a public "community engagement and stakeholder evaluation process" before these proposed 3 policies come up for a vote. There is no urgent time line on these, as they will not be implemented until the fall of 2010, so let's do it right!
Recent studies have documented the association of participation in school-based extracurricular activities with higher levels of academic commitment and better academic performance (Cooper, Valentine, Nye, & Lindsay, 1999; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Jordan & Nettles, 1999), lower rates of high school dropout (Davalos, Chavez, & Guardiola, 1999; Mahoney & Cairns, 1997; Mahoney & Stattin, 2000; McNeal, 1995), and lower levels of delinquency and arrests (Cooley, Henriksen, Van Nelson, & Thompson, 1995; Eccles & Barber, 1999; R. Larson, 1994; Mahoney, 2000; Mahoney & Stattin, 2000). Participation in extracurricular activities also facilitates the development of positive social relations across ethnic groups (Khmelkov & Hallinan, 1999), particularly for boys. These results are consistent with Holland and Andre's (1987) review of more than thirty earlier studies of extracurricular activities.