Community Meetings/Work Sessions
Did anyone attend either Director Smith-Blum's meeting or Director Patu's meeting yesterday? I heard from one attendee to Smith-Blum's that there were about 40 people (including KIRO tv, interesting). Tracy Libros from Enrollment and Nancy Coogan the Central Regional Executive Director were also there.
Monday
Curriculum and Instruction Policy Committee meeting, 4-6 p.m.
Tuesday, September 28 at 6:30 – 8:00pm
Southeast Regional Welcome Back Meeting at Aki Kurose
Wednesday the 29th
Director Sundquist Community Meeting, 11-12:30p.m., Delridge Library, 5423 Delridge Way SW
Board Workshop on Budget Goals, 4-8 p.m. at the headquarters.
Thursday, September 30 at 6:30 – 8:00pm
West Seattle Regional Welcome Back Meeting at Chief Sealth
- Two-thirds of the discussion was around issues at Garfield. Kay and Tracy apparently said there could be some future redrawing of boundaries.
- Why aren't their comparable quality AP classes at all high schools? (Interesting question but I'm not sure what they mean? Better teachers? Better AP course topics?)
- Teacher from Schmitz Park came and noted how well they were doing using Singapore math and that he felt all elementaries should be free to choose their materials. Good for him.
- Science curriculum at Garfield was also a topic (and needs a separate thread).
- Lack of college counseling at Garfield (Kay said she had to work with her own kids.)
- Nancy Coogan spoke about focusing on quality teachers and teaching in every classroom as well as accountable principals.
- Tracy said that the predicted 400 extra students districtwide had grown to 700, most at the secondary level. Tracy, along with Kay, said that things would balance in 3-5 years. (Uh oh, here it comes.) Yup, some parents basically said, kids can't wait. Meaning, it's okay for my child to go through high school in an overstuffed, unresourced building while you figure this out? I would not say that is an acceptable answer.
- Kay apparently said something quite interesting. To whit, that the district funding is strained and that some programs/positions might be sacrificed. Lowell said their school only funded a .5 Librarian and the PTA paid for the other .5 and that the Librarian was the one responsible for proctoring MAP.
Monday
Curriculum and Instruction Policy Committee meeting, 4-6 p.m.
Tuesday, September 28 at 6:30 – 8:00pm
Southeast Regional Welcome Back Meeting at Aki Kurose
Wednesday the 29th
Director Sundquist Community Meeting, 11-12:30p.m., Delridge Library, 5423 Delridge Way SW
Board Workshop on Budget Goals, 4-8 p.m. at the headquarters.
Thursday, September 30 at 6:30 – 8:00pm
West Seattle Regional Welcome Back Meeting at Chief Sealth
Comments
1) Tracy L. says district is planning on drawing geographic zones around option schools so that students who live nearby will get priority (after siblings). One parent brought up the fact that some children would then have access to two option schools while others wouldn't have access to any.
2) Options to reduce overcrowding at schools: the ever-popular program placement to make programs available at other schools (one parent brought up the fact that moving programs around is VERY disruptive), the geographic zones mentioned above, 'eventual' redrawing of boundaries, lowering of the option %, fix the Mann building for Garfield.
3) Capacity management/transition plans will be presented in January at board meetings.
3) Meany building is still not up to snuff for NOVA including...a fire alarm system that wasn't working last year. Yikes.
4) Science alignment issue. I sat next to the Garfield science teacher who brought up the 'validation' process the district instituted (3 days to write up why Marine Biology, Ecology etc... should count toward the high school science requirement). Nancy Coogan was all over this and afterwards made sure the teacher had her business card and information to discuss this.
5) KSB assured that APP would NOT be kicked out of Garfield.
I did send a follow up to KSB about the overcrowding 'surprise' at Lowell and am waiting for a reply.
d. Instructional Material – Waivers
This is where the decision is made to allow your child's school to adopt alternative curricula. Only one standing curriculum waiver exists in the district - Singapore Math at Schmitz Park.
There are two other provisional/partial waivers that are scrutinized by math coaches at great consternation to teaching staff. Those don't really count.
If you want a waiver to do Singapore Math or Saxon Math at your child's school, then a "waiver policy" must be implemented. Hopefully sooner than later.
Lobby Directors Patu, Sundquist, Martin-Morris
Signed: Concerned West Seattle Parent
I know three of the counselors & the registrar as a parent volunteer including when parents used to be allowed to help with college counseling and I can tell you that I know that at least those four staff are working their a$$es off for the students.
My kids are first gen college- so it was a learning curve when my first applied ( from her private very tiny prep school), but really with the internets, you can get the bulk of your info yourself.( and Garfield also provides one of the best school websites in the city/state)
You do need counselors for certain things- but at an urban school like Garfield, they are just spread way too thin .
What will happen is that there will be a 'priority zone' so someone who lives across the street from an option school will have priority over someone who, while in the same geographic/MS zone, lives further away.
This will make the option schools a lot like the old choice system with siblings and proximity being the top two tiebreakers.
You might recall that I wanted to work with students at Ingraham on college applications. Initially I was told great but now the union says no. I talked to Olga Addae, the SEA president, about how these kids need the help. She was sympathetic but said it would be problematic for her membership. I told her that (1) I would do it only 2 hours a day each week and (2) that I could only commit to one year and (3) if the job opened up again, of course, I'm gone.
No, no and no. She said what if every high school had volunteers who did this. (Well, I think in the absence of any college counseling, it would be a wonderful thing.) But the reality is that there is no way every single high school in this district could get volunteers to be in the career counseling office at least part of a day every day. That's just not going to happen.
So I guess I could schedule a couple of times to go up to Ingraham but frankly it would work better to have solid times that kids could count on.
Um, then every student would have access to an adult to help them navigate the college application.
It is statements like this that turns me off on the teachers union.
What seems to be the problem?
This should be a top priority- I mean really
Karin Youngberg
But the district doesn't want to pay for them. If volunteers step up (bless 'em) then where's the incentive to provide staff?
It's kind of like cutting FTE and other things and "allowing" PTSAs to pay for it. Why fully staff or fund if the community will pick up the slack?
Of course, there is no good answer. Who suffers if we try to hold the district to the fire on college/career counselors by not volunteering? The students suffer.
Maybe if people could volunteer AND other people could get their butts down to JSCEE with picket signs, demanding these positions in the high schools be re-staffed...
But the bigger point is that the district, while embarking on ever-bigger and ever-broader programs that involve a lot of time and money, seem to neglecting basics. Things like career counselors, maintenance of buildings, regular textbook purchases, etc. How many of these things would be directly impacting schools and their inhabitants?
I sometimes wish that PTAs would go on strike for a week to show the district how much our schools depend on them. SC is right about how the district is allowing PTAs to pick up more and more expense and counting on parents' good will for their child's school. It's wrong and it simply isn't about fully-funded schools.
It's about the choices our district is making.
Aargh. It's wrong because it's a huge driver of inequity. Further, it doesn't make any sense. There spending all this money centrally to reduce inequities while increasing conditions that create inequities in the first place. Kind of like running a race while continually shooting yourself in the foot.
But no, we get computerized tests and consultants....
A secondary reality is, we don't WANT in there. Not dissing SB, it's just not our scene. But the fact is, there is no option school for a lot of kids in this district even now. I think it's likely to get even skimpier next year.
#3 Schmitz Park 94.5%
#5 Loyal Heights 93.2%
#8 Wedgewood 92%
Statewide five schools scored a 0% and four of those were Indian Schools.
#1 was in Edmunds:
Challange Elementary scored 100%
Here are the cohort scores for those high scoring 5th graders in 2010 from grade 3 in 2008 and grade 4 in 2009:
Grd Three - Four - Five
LH .: 83.3 - 88.5 - 93.2
WW: 92.6 - 83.3 - 92.0
SP .: 96.2 - 78.6 - 94.5
Here are the current percentages of students scoring at the highest level: level 4 in grades 3, 4, 5 on the 2010 MSP Math
Grd Three - Four - Five
LH .: 56.7 - 57.4 - 61.0
WW: 57.1 - 58.7 - 48.0
SP .: 57.1 - 35.1 - 65.5
Note these all were low poverty schools in 2010. Low income percentages.
LH . : 5.4%
WW: 13.7%
SP . : 9.6%
This year the librarian at Lowell was cut to .5 (which is what the Weighted Staffing Standards funds for elementary schools). There is no additional library staffing at Lowell right now. The PTA has proposed to fund a .5 library assistant position (I don't know any more about this, but it is on the agenda for the PTA meeting on 9/29).
My husband spoke about this at Kay Smith-Blum's meeting. The concern he raised is that at Lowell, and other schools, the librarians, who may only be half-time, are being assigned to proctor MAP testing rather than teaching and working with students. Between staffing cuts and testing, student access to their libraries and librarians has been drastically reduced at some schools.
Laurie Amster-Burton
Lowell parent
and librarian at Washington MS
We are not talking about 100s of parents, putting in 100s of hours helping 100s of students. Rather a handful of parents, like Melissa, spending a few hours helping a few students.
This doesn't distract from the unions argument that that the district is cutting staff, it just changes it. (Unqualified parents are stepping in to do the work that should be done by people with such and such experience and and education.)
I am sorry, but I think the union is diluting its power by focusing on parent volunteers, when the big battle in downtown!
Helen Schinske
And if the PTA is funding .5 of the librarian should they be spending PTA funded time as a proctor? I know that is not how I would want my PTA money being used.
I think you start on a very slippery slope when you bundle test proctoring with bus duty.
Helen Schinske
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment, and ask, what do you propose to do to fix this (whatever problem it is) this year? Does your solution depend on making it work for your children at the expense of somebody else's children? Or does your solution depend on increasing funding? If so, who pays for it?
While saying something like "this will be all better in 3-5 years" may not sound like an acceptable answer("students can't wait!!!"), it may be the only realistic answer. Unless of course, you prefer the "we are going to continue slapping on band-aids which do little to relieve the pain and nothing to solve the underlying problem" approach that has been so thoroughly perfected by SPS.
Keep your eyes open for the phrase "3-5 years" and you'll find it crop up in a lot of places where people don't really what they are talking about.
Some things really do take "3-5 years", but when people use that phrase, it's often a good idea to ask people for the details on how they arrived at that figure.
At the beginning of school last year, at Lowell we were told that the library would basically be closed during testing days, but that kids could get stuff from the library on a case-by-case basis (e.g. if they were working on a school project)
While saying something like "this will be all better in 3-5 years" may not sound like an acceptable answer("students can't wait!!!"), it may be the only realistic answer. Unless of course, you prefer the "we are going to continue slapping on band-aids which do little to relieve the pain and nothing to solve the underlying problem" approach that has been so thoroughly perfected by SPS.
Ok, Roy. I will bite. I believe (this is TOTALLY my opinion, based on remediation with my own child and watching remediation with others) that, with decent curricular choices, extremely small class sizes (7 to 14 or 15), and building-wide, programmatic attention, the "deficit gap" for many kids could be solved in one year, and for most kids -- in 2. I leave out of this equation SOME special ed kids who simply learn more slowly (they may benefit from attention and small class size, but not all of them can be accelerated -- and they should not be subjected to an accelerated pace that cannot be supported by their learning styles -- they just need more time) and kids who, for whatever, reason, simply refuse to do the work (substance abuse/addition, borderline personality disorder, conduct disorders, etc.) I also exclude ELL kids because I know nothing about that area. But -- IF we took the truly vast amounts of money being thrown at curricular alignment, performance management, teacher coaching, huge contracts for computer support of STEM, wasted book purchases for Discovery Math, costs of opening/closing schools when those actions are unsupported by data, etc. -- and put all that money and effort back into schools -- I believe that we would move the needle on student learning (measured in any number of ways) now, THIS year, in year ONE.
I agree with Bird that "3 to 5 years" is a great way of avoiding any accountability for programs that are quite clearly NOT working right away (and may even be causing harm) -- and by the time 3 to 5 years comes around -- the promisers will either be gone, or (they hope) people will have forgotten or lost interest (see the Southeast Initiative for an example of this) or they hope they can come up with something intervening on which they can blame their lack of progress (example -- well, we WOULD have made significant progress in student scores, but the teachers thwarted our efforts by refusing to approve the meaningful teacher evaluation changes we sought, or "but the levy failed, or --etc. etc.)
I also believe that the 3 to 5 years often does not get discussed up front. MGJ never said, when the Board was hiring her, that she was expecting no accountability for her actions for 5 to 10 years -- while she got things up and running -- and that kids lost during that time were just "collateral damage" as we pursued the "greater good" to be achieved at a later date. We weren't told then "Change is difficult" or "accountability starts for me 3 to 5 years after all my changes are in place," which will take 3 to 5 years" or presumably, those bonuses would not have happened in the early years, right? Why is it that when she wants incentive bonus payments, the jury is "in" (and she wins) but when she doesn't want to be held accountable, the jury is still "out" (so people should just shut up and trust that all this will bear fruit in 3 to 5 years)?
I think if by Oct 1, 2011 that Garfield/Eckstein and whatever NE elementaries (or any other places in the city) are so overenrolled as to not be able to provide sufficient services/classes to students, the boundaries should be tweaked. It is ridiculous to sit around and wait for 3-5 years for things to "balance out."
If not, then yes Roy, the district is going to have back off their pet projects and GET THE MONEY TO THE SCHOOLS.
This is the precise premise of our education about the supplemental levy. That levy is about maintaining and expanding existing central office programs, not about putting money in classrooms.
There is not real priority setting here. All things being equal, we can do new initiatives for the long term outcomes but ONLY if we are managing day-to-day operations. Right now, they are not. The Auditor says it. I say it, too.
Class sizes? Getting bigger all the time. Levy addressing this? Nope.
Textbooks? Finally getting some replacement ones in the levy for high school science and social studies but hey, why doesn't the district have a line item in the budget for this (since OSPI only provides funds every 18 years)? Oh, that's because textbooks, one of the staples of the classroom, was taken out of the district's operating budget as a line item 10+ years ago. That's why the district has its hand out; they made a choice a long time ago about priorities.
Maintenance? Well, you might get the leak fixed faster or painting done sooner than in previous years (but don't count on it) but if you think rundown schools will get better sooner, no. The district does not care about maintenance on either our many older pre-1960 schools OR our brand-new schools.
So if the district doesn't balance its new initiatives that are supposed to support student learning down the road WITH day-to-day operations, which do you think they should go with first?
I vote classrooms.
And, how could I have forgotten a good nugget from KSB: she is determined to change the WSS formula and how schools are funded from the district.
It had to be because they needed to artificially get to a certain number for spring budgets - because no one in their right mind believed the enrollment estimate at the time.
It also led to the unnecessary lay-off of the 7th grade counselor - who has since been reinstated (thank goodness).
A second grader last year got the question: "What is the symbolism of the rose in The Scarlett Letter". Granted this was an APP student...
Of course, I don't know if this is a "fair" question for anyone. Is The Scarlet Letter required reading at some point during a child's SPS career? I know nothing about curriculum beyond my current elementary experience.
It seems to me that questions that are this specific should directly tie into a list of required readings, if such a thing even exists.
Are you telling the truth about the Scarlet Letter question? A second grader--are you sure about that? Is that verifiable?
By the way, as I posted on a different thread, my 7th grader was given the same passage (about Art and Philosophy) to read three or four times in the course of her 1 hour exam. I asked our "test coordinator" (or whatever they are called) about it and she said that the instructions say it is not uncommon for passages to be repeated in exams. So it wasn't a bug. I wonder how many times a topped out reader will have seen the exact same questions by the time they get through 9th grade spring MAP?
My 11th grade AP Lit and Comp student couldn't have answered the Scarlet Letter Q. In my experience, classic American lit is not covered in SPS (RHS did have a Shakespeare course, I think it may have been displaced by required AP LA though.)