Reuven Carlyle on 17%
Representative Reuven Carlyle wrote on his blog about the 17% mis-representation.
Tuesday Open Thread
The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested. It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio. (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Comments
Charlie, Melissa, Meg, and many others here, provide that information for free, of course, but are seen as "opposing" viewpoints. They need to feel there's someone neutral who has their best interests at heart and isn't just concerned about petty things, like the kids.
stu
Helen Schinske
But good for Reuven for stating how this made him feel.
When we discussed it here in September, it took about a day or two for us to figure out that they had overstated the GPA and the credits necessary to be prepared for college and that 17% clearly did not represent what they were saying it did. Did any of the Ed Directors or Principals push back? This organization is being led by people who have no real interest in or knowledge of education in Seattle. Lower level staff who actually understand the schools and students seem to have no effective way of being heard, or choose to be silent.
Who all did use it? Carlyle? Schools First? LEV? Are all of them so disconnected from Seattle Schools that they didn't question the number?
He seems to give the superintendent a pass on the lie. In fact, he doesn't even acknowledge that it was a lie. He writes "a mistake was made". This was not a mistake. It was an intentional effort to deceive.
does anyone think this will affect our district advocacy efforts in olympia? because, hell yes, i do. i think he's saying the same thing, too, in politico-speak.
so what burns me is that our kids and our teachers will once again get the brunt of the ramifications here through even less willingness in olympia to fund our schools.
If he's distancing himself from the matter after blindly parroting a lie for so long, then it proves the maxim that Victory has many fathers and failure is an Orphan.
If he's honest, he'll correct course and fight twice as hard for his constituents, as opposed to brown-nosing the cocktail crowds at McCaw Hall & the Gates Foundation.
Ahhhh, what a nice change that would be.
in fact, any reader of this thread should do the same.
Yup, no doubt he is extremely steamed. And it's a pity for the District because he is a legislator who works for our students.
I do hope, though, this will be impetus for him to listen to parents, and not just staff/board/monied non-profits when we share data and news regarding the operations of the district and the education of our kids.
-ttln
"School Board President Michael DeBell said 17 percent always seemed too low to him. He raised questions about the number from the beginning, was told that staff would look into it, but said he never received a satisfactory answer.
"Every time I heard it, I cringed," he said. "I knew it was way too low. We were doing much better than that. I couldn't understand why we were putting that kind of data out.""
Which is why his interview on Schram was utter BS.
Here is what Seattle Parent wrote: "Check out the 5 yr Strategic Plan on the SPS homepage (p.14). The 17% rate was from 2006-07, with a "5-year" improvement goal for 40% in 2012-13."
Hilarious! According to the district, SPS is right on target!
Clearly, this alarming figure was intended to create crisis, pass legislation and obtain Ed. Reform Funding.
Wondering how the puppets at Seattle Council PTSA, legislators etc. are feeling. If they were smart- they'd dump Goodloe-Johnson.
I give Reuven credit for showing humility.
"We knew what the definitions were
and that they had changed over
time. We used the University of
Washington as the standard. It was
public stated that we had adjusted
the definition. From my viewpoint
whether it was 17% or 46% neither is acceptable to me. It would not have
changed our priorities or the
direction we want to go."
I have asked for clarification on
what on earth he meant by
"We used the University of
Washington as the standard."
and for the public disclosure.
More than that, what is he doing to advance students to that target number?
The original SPS math for 2006-07:
17% with goal of 40%.
New SPS mathsystem for 07-08:
49% with goal of 80%
for 08-09:
44% with goal of 80%
for 09-10
46% with goal of 80%
No matter how you spin it, even with their own new math we are not improving after 3 years.
the response will be "I follow the
strategic plan our Dear Leader has
presented and all will be good"