The Next Superintendent
Let's look forward a bit to the next Superintendent.
First, we don't need some national search for a superstar. Please, no national searches and no superstars. We don't need or want a superstar. All we need and want is a competent, honest administrator. Frankly, we can't afford a superstar salary or a superstar ego. We need someone humble, who speaks plainly and clearly, and who wants things done plainly and clearly.
Second, we need a superintendent who understands that the work - the real work - is done in schools by teachers, not in the central office by administrators. The central office plays, at most, a supporting role. Most of the central office work is only indirectly related to teaching: operations, administration, and planning. The primary duties of the central office should be to take the non-academic work off the schools so they are free to focus on academic concerns. The central office's role in academics should be strictly a quality assurance role - making sure that schools and programs are doing what they are supposed to be doing and getting the outcomes they are supposed to be getting.
The next superintendent should put the central office house in order. That means getting all of the non-academic departments working effectively and efficiently. Nutrition, procurement, technology, transportation, warehouse, and facilities maintenance should be hitting their benchmarks and hitting them regularly. Human resources, recordkeeping, and enrollment should be delivering reliably excellent service. The administrative departments, including legal, finance and budget, and capital projects, should be responsive, transparent and accurate. Finally, there needs to be a completely apolitical and integrated planning process - enrollment planning, program placement planning, and capital planning are one and the same. Planning decisions need to be based on data, not on clout.
The next superintendent needs to redefine the mission of the central office with regard to academics. The proper role of the central office regarding academics is quality assurance. The central office should be like the schools' academic auditor. The Executive Directors should be able to visit their schools and confirm that classes are being taught at or beyond grade level. They should be able to confirm that students working below grade level are getting early and effective interventions. They should be able to confirm that students working beyond grade level are getting additional challenge. They should be able to confirm that IEPs are being followed. They should be able to confirm that ELL students are getting served properly. They should be able to confirm compliance with all Board Policies. They should know which students are struggling and which students are excelling and what is being done for them. They should also know which teachers are struggling and which teachers are excelling and what is being done for them.
The central office needs to provide leadership on special needs programs, such as Special Education, bilingual education, and advanced learning. District level expertise is needed in these areas because it is unlikely that the Executive Directors will have enough expertise in all of these areas to be able to fulfill their duty to confirm the quality of the services in the schools. The central experts will also be able to coordinate the efforts of the teachers in the schools around the district - sharing information on practices, materials, and training opportunities. They will act as consulting teachers and a resource for the classroom teachers.
In a similar way and for a similar purpose the central office needs to keep a few curriculum experts in the areas of math, science, literacy, CTE, world languages, arts, and P.E. instruction. These experts will help to develop the District's expectations for content and materials, will coordinate the efforts of teachers across schools, share best practices, and serve as a resource to the classroom teachers.
A look through the directory of the central office reminds me of only a few more departments - small ones like communications, traffic education, athletics, and support and prevention that are appropriate to maintain.
That's it. There is no other work for the central office to do and there is no other work that the central office should take on. The bloated bureaucracy is rooted in the mistaken idea that there is a lot more work that the central office should be doing. There isn't. I don't think we need dedicated full-time staff to work on policy and government relations, research evaluation and assessment, strategic planning, or partnerships. Even if we did, those things could be done in the context of some other work. Strategic planning, for example, can be a staff person in the superintendent's office, not a department of its own. That's if we don't decide that it doesn't need even that much labor devoted to it.
First, we don't need some national search for a superstar. Please, no national searches and no superstars. We don't need or want a superstar. All we need and want is a competent, honest administrator. Frankly, we can't afford a superstar salary or a superstar ego. We need someone humble, who speaks plainly and clearly, and who wants things done plainly and clearly.
Second, we need a superintendent who understands that the work - the real work - is done in schools by teachers, not in the central office by administrators. The central office plays, at most, a supporting role. Most of the central office work is only indirectly related to teaching: operations, administration, and planning. The primary duties of the central office should be to take the non-academic work off the schools so they are free to focus on academic concerns. The central office's role in academics should be strictly a quality assurance role - making sure that schools and programs are doing what they are supposed to be doing and getting the outcomes they are supposed to be getting.
The next superintendent should put the central office house in order. That means getting all of the non-academic departments working effectively and efficiently. Nutrition, procurement, technology, transportation, warehouse, and facilities maintenance should be hitting their benchmarks and hitting them regularly. Human resources, recordkeeping, and enrollment should be delivering reliably excellent service. The administrative departments, including legal, finance and budget, and capital projects, should be responsive, transparent and accurate. Finally, there needs to be a completely apolitical and integrated planning process - enrollment planning, program placement planning, and capital planning are one and the same. Planning decisions need to be based on data, not on clout.
The next superintendent needs to redefine the mission of the central office with regard to academics. The proper role of the central office regarding academics is quality assurance. The central office should be like the schools' academic auditor. The Executive Directors should be able to visit their schools and confirm that classes are being taught at or beyond grade level. They should be able to confirm that students working below grade level are getting early and effective interventions. They should be able to confirm that students working beyond grade level are getting additional challenge. They should be able to confirm that IEPs are being followed. They should be able to confirm that ELL students are getting served properly. They should be able to confirm compliance with all Board Policies. They should know which students are struggling and which students are excelling and what is being done for them. They should also know which teachers are struggling and which teachers are excelling and what is being done for them.
The central office needs to provide leadership on special needs programs, such as Special Education, bilingual education, and advanced learning. District level expertise is needed in these areas because it is unlikely that the Executive Directors will have enough expertise in all of these areas to be able to fulfill their duty to confirm the quality of the services in the schools. The central experts will also be able to coordinate the efforts of the teachers in the schools around the district - sharing information on practices, materials, and training opportunities. They will act as consulting teachers and a resource for the classroom teachers.
In a similar way and for a similar purpose the central office needs to keep a few curriculum experts in the areas of math, science, literacy, CTE, world languages, arts, and P.E. instruction. These experts will help to develop the District's expectations for content and materials, will coordinate the efforts of teachers across schools, share best practices, and serve as a resource to the classroom teachers.
A look through the directory of the central office reminds me of only a few more departments - small ones like communications, traffic education, athletics, and support and prevention that are appropriate to maintain.
That's it. There is no other work for the central office to do and there is no other work that the central office should take on. The bloated bureaucracy is rooted in the mistaken idea that there is a lot more work that the central office should be doing. There isn't. I don't think we need dedicated full-time staff to work on policy and government relations, research evaluation and assessment, strategic planning, or partnerships. Even if we did, those things could be done in the context of some other work. Strategic planning, for example, can be a staff person in the superintendent's office, not a department of its own. That's if we don't decide that it doesn't need even that much labor devoted to it.
Comments
First of all, I agree with everything you said here. I especially agree with the hope that they don't start a huge "superstar" search.
That said, is there anyone around here, right now, that you think has the integrity and credentials to do the job? Just curious if there are local names, whether currently part of SPS or just in the area, who are particularly qualified to do this job and do it right.
Anyone got some suggestions?
stu
"MGJ issued a statement through her publicist Charlie Sheen (recently added to her legal team) from her location holed up in a greenbelt near the old TT Minor school:
"My people love me"!
After questioning as to who those "people" are, Sheen replied:
"She can't see little people".
We believe they could be lured out of hiding by placing a carving station near an unidentified house in Tacoma.
More at 11.
This is not to say that I'm all for running a school like a business. But a business that knows where the money goes, yeah, I'll take that. And as Charlie's post suggests, academic credentials are less important than a respect for those that have that knowledge and experience.
"Still, some are starting to float names for an interim superintendent. One that has surfaced is Susan Enfield, the district's chief academic officer and a former deputy superintendent in Evergreen Public Schools in Vancouver, Wash."
The more accurate reporting would have included Phil Brockman's name.
But hey, it's the Times.
Po3
My hope is that the level of parent activism that I have seen in the last year or so continues and that we remain vigilant over our schools to ensure that this never happens again.
grumpy
The info is out there. We have the Googles. Let's do our due diligence this time and, for crying out loud, listen to our gut.
Brockman seems to have a lot of fans (maybe as a high school principal?), but from the time he was Director of High Schools I was not at all impressed. He was not responsive to peoples's issues and allowed top down decisions on his watch, while always seeming very concerned on the surface. Does anyone have current experience with him as the new Executive Director?
Helen Schinske
We were supposed to trust MGJ. We need the next Sue to be entirely fee of her taint. Particularly when there is an ongoing criminal investigation.
Bird
We were supposed to trust MGJ. We need the next Sue to be entirely fee of her taint. Particularly when there is an ongoing criminal investigation.
Bird
Selecting Enfield would be a sign that's it's more of the same.
We have an opportunity for a sea change here. It would be devastating to teachers if we got Enfield instead.
Teachers like Phil Brockman for this. A lot. We trust him.
I am a parent at one of the schools that is under Phil Brockman as Exec Dir. My experience is exactly as you state -- he is implementing top down decisions while appearing concerned about issues raised by parents without ever really responding to those concerns. I have not been impressed and would not support him as interim superintendent or superintendent for that matter. I also think it's highly unlikely that the School Board would elevate Brockman to make him interim superintendent over Susan Enfield.
Parent
Agreed. Our schools are woefully underfunded. I suspect the board will buy out MGJ's contract at $264K. We don't need to invest nearly $750K to find a Superintendent. With enormous state cuts,dollars need to be kept in classrooms.
MKB
Enfield is a define NO. Consider her role in the NTN Action Report Forgery.
Perhaps Brockman for interim Superintendent. He was interim Secondary Director prior to Michael Tolley. Remember the Secondary Director from New Mexico that came for a cup of coffee and then fled. Perhaps he saw the inner workings of this MGJ machine.
There is a giant amount of SPS redirection needed thanks to the continuing actions of several Rubber-Stamping directors.
So who will be the next four School Directors in Nov 2011?
I can't say that I'm surprised about his attitude. He has never, and will never stand up to the superintendent. Why would he start now. In fact I'm surprised he doesn't want to hire Potter back.
Let's hope that the rest of the Directors have some backbone and do the right thing.
KSB, Michael DeBell, Sherry Carr, Peter Maier, Betty Patu...Please step up. We need you now.
KSB for superintendent. She is smart, fiesty, caring and wouldn't put up with any cr@#.
I wouldn't support Enfield- she plays too many games with staff funded by grants vs general fund dollars. In my opinion, she should finance more of her staff expenditures via TIF grant and leave general fund dollars for classrooms. Don't trust her.
How appalling!
Can share with us what he said?
Bird
But regardless, giving the current SI even another penny makes me sick to my stomach. We've paid her a gross salary in excess of $20K per MONTH since 2007, and what do we have to show for it? Surely, at this level, she should have some cash reserves set aside in a rainy day fund. The taxpayers should NOT have to pay her any sort of severence or worry at all about her ability to scrape by financially until she finds another gig. We owe her nothing, and if she's the savvy adminstrator she claims to be, then she doesn't need another cent of taxpayer money. Anyone making that much per year should be able to go a few months without income and be fine.
The thought of giving her the equivalent of 4-5 teachers' salaries as a lump-sum buyout is absolutely repulsive to me and I hope it is to the Board as well.
I'm going to repeat even more strongly that we need to keep KSB on the board. With four members up in the air at election time, the last thing we want is to give up her seat too. Her performance on the board is one thing that so far DOES seem to be working. I don't think we can afford to let it go.
Helen Schinske
They're asking for opinions NOW on their feedback line: 206-221-3663.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172942399165436.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_3
Public School Parent
However, I would be concerned that if she isn't removed she and this one situation will remain the subject, overshadowing many of the other issues. I'm sure that if a few of the others who are still working there remain, firing her will do little good, unless the new hire was willing to really shake things up.
The only reason I would be hesitant to fire her immediately is that at least she is a known quantity-good or bad. A new hire under these same circumstances may not be any better and less known. Maybe we should make her work for her money until a good decision can be had. Should this Board be the one to do the hiring of a new Superintendent? I am surprised to hear myself question immediately firing her.
These people who get buy outs still leave wealthy. Is this Board qualified to hire?
In the past few years (EVERY year)when teaching positions have been cut we have been able to buy back some teaching time out of our supplies budget. Of course, that is no longer an option as their is now no supply money left.
This entire crew of current administration makes me sick.
How dare they! Who do they think they are to continue funding their pet projects while stacking our classrooms to the rafters.
Not even the SCPTSA has weighed in on this and they may have more influence on the general less- informed public than this blog. And is the union setting up to do something?
Harem Martin-Morris said Monday.
Seattle times front page story today
MKB
This has been my worry for the past couple days, and I've been reluctant to even post it.
Everyone listen-up. If the supe is replaced right now, guess who gets to make that decision? The current board! And while KSB may be a great director, she's just one voice. Michael is probably not going to do anything stupid at this point, so that's two. Betty is a wild card, but at best that's three. The other four can vote as a block and bring in whoever they (or their financiers) want. My gut says that they will be heavily influenced by the political insiders who are hell-bent on controlling our district. Why would that change now? While some of you might feel it can't get any worse that MGJ, that's no sure bet. Can anyone say: Don Nielson?
I think I still prefer to see MGJ (and a bunch of her minions) gone ASAP, merely because opportunities like this don't come along very often, but there is definitely a danger here that most people are ignoring. Out of the fire...
Po3
"Blomstrom's stated reason for running for School Board is to bring attention to what he calls the "Seattle Mafia" — sinister corporations and community leaders he believes have corrupted the school system. That's most of what he addressed during the show, saying closing schools was "a sham" and that corporations have virtually privatized public schools. He opposes the Washington Assessment of Student Learning and said it isn't fair that public-school students have to take it while private-school students don't. And he said corruption taints school levies because school officials "play so many games" about what happens to the money.
Doesn't sound so wacky now, does it?
"
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/seaschoolnotes.html
parent
Another Parent.
Po3
Notably Olchefski had to lose 35 million in a single year to be dismissed. While serious, this is a much smaller amount and one that was at a much lower level. 3 levels down is indeed a ways to go. No, superintendents don't know what every principal is doing. They will not be able to know if they are too corrupt. And what about Fred Stephens? Where is the hue and cry over him? He is in much more of a responsible position than MJG, his hands seem as dirty, and he as incapable as anyone else. Where is the cry for his ouster?
district observer
I think you are DEAD wrong. Remember -- this is the only loss we KNOW about. Who knows what else is out there, but she has played fast and loose with ethics on the MAP contract, did a horrible job of negotiating the STEM contract (and because bloggers, BLOGGERS, for petes sake, actually read the drecky thing, the Board had to revote to approve it later). The thing with the $7,000 party? Closing and then reopening schools, at a huge cost? No transportation savings (at least none that she has ever been able to report -- because she doesn't do the reports). No effect from all the dollars poured into the SE Initiative, which she basically abandoned? Under her reign, we have lost a LOT more than the Potter millions. And, since the auditor says the books are so bad they can't tell whether District assets are missing or mismanaged, who KNOWS how big the problem REALLY is?
Face it. She is a terrible manager of District assets. As Sahila noted, she really doesn't care. She didn't come here to manage the District. She came to "reform" it -- money and "little people" be damned. The Board should have declined to extend her contract last June. Except for KSB and Betty Patu, they were all too spineless to stop being nice and be good stewards of Seattle's children.
Moreover, you cannot "improve" someone unless they acknowledge they need to be improved. As MGJ herself has noted, she has never failed. She does not lose sleep. She does not worry. Evidently, that gets left for others -- you know, like parents whose kids are in buildings that will collapse in a major earthquake, parents of Southeast Seattle special ed kids, parents trying to figure out how to get their kids to school next year, given transportation cuts. I suspect her idea of improvement would be along the lines of firing a bunch of people below her, because she can (nope -- no sleep lost there either).
And Stephens -- well we would all be happy to rail at Stephens, but he is hiding behing the Department of Commerce phones, and is pretty much untouchable, unless Gary Locke and/or Obama do the right thing and show him the door.
KSB is an interesting idea. She DOES answer email, I suppose. Does that qualify her? I was disappointed with her analysis of the TFA situation- very businesslike without really thinking about the people on the ground. I think she trusts enfield cause they are both rather perky 40 somethings. But I do trust KSB much more than Enfield.
Phil Brockman is my choice for an interim. I am biased- he was my principal for 6 years. And he was great- he let teachers teach and be innovative (no relation to our new eval system). He was efficient, maintained relations with the important communities, and yes, he didn't rock the boat much. I think that is very very important, especially now. Charlie's post was very wise- and after reading I think Phil is definitely the right person for the job.
From what I hear Ballard HS for kids with special needs wasn't such a great place during Brockman's time and now that he is ed director there's still not much change. That makes him part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is too much cronyism already in the enfield crowd.
Northend parent
Or, is that phrase the perfect little jingle for reformers to make hard work sound regimented and boring, thus "killing" inspiration, as though "Discovery Math" with butterflies and sunshine will be so "enlightening."
Any worthwhile pursuit requires practice, and lots of it. "Drill and Kill" is a slogan used by charlatans to hock their wares. Why not instead say, "Here! Take the Easy Way out!" So character-building & skill-building, isn't it?
Absurd.
I keep coming back to the question of why would he/they be so upset about what has already been publicized. It's too late - the horse is out of the barn and the doors are burned off the hinges.
So that leads me to conclude, lacking other information, that there are other issues that have NOT been brought to the light of day - some other aspect to this story that is still lurking out there. Mr. English and others must be panicked it will be discovered.
What that also tells me is that it makes ZERO sense for anyone currently associated with the district to be appointed as interim supe - there needs to be an appointee with zero baggage, whose only agenda will be to turn the lights on all the corners at SPS that are still lurking in the dark.
http://www.street-soldiers.org/programs_bio1.htm
SPS Parent
My experience dealing with Enfield has been quite different. I've gotten candid replies in person and by email to my questions, and seen action when she directed a member of her staff to follow up on an issue I brought up.
I've been impressed with her from what I've seen personally, but I'm not ready to jump on any bandwagons, especially because so many others here do not seem to like her. That's troubling.
Yes, I know Dan has some pet issues with her, and I do agree that some of what she has done was Not Good. But... how much of this is her own doing vs. working for MGJ? i.e. how far can you push against your boss? I think it's difficult to make that call either way. There's really no way to know until or unless they are in charge.
I know for a fact that some time back one staff member disagreed with one of MGJ's marching orders, and yet they had to actively sell it to the public. It was really painful to watch, and yet this staff person is a good person that we would be far worse off without.
Never forget that MGJ runs a dictatorship, which means it's hard to know which of her staff can be trusted. That may very well mean that the entire house needs to be cleaned out, but that has it's own set of problems. We may want to shut down a lot of BS programs and initiatives, but we do need to keep the district running, and that requires institutional knowledge.
The former Super of Federal Way Schools.
Watching my 2nd grader's frustrations with EveryDay Math (hey, this week, we're doing Geometry! Next week it's Algebra! Then we'll do some Multiplication, and don't worry that you haven't memorized times tables yet...), I can only say that I'd prefer "Drill and Kill" over "Diffuse and Confuse" any day.
And yes, I am coining that phrase: diffuse and confuse. Use it often and use it widely. EDM scatters concepts around widely and thinly, which results in confusion and lack of mastery.
(sorry to be so off topic... then again, maybe a change in administration will allow some local control over how math is taught..)
I think this sums up my feeling as well. I don't want to gut the entire system without anything in place to hold it up.
And I hope we're not counting our chicks too early. I don't even trust that the Board will necessarily do the right thing, but I am hopeful.
Across the country, there are urban districts with better academic results than Seattle while having more challenges than our community. I've observed our community swings back and forth on the type of Board members we elect who then in turn hire their Superintendent of choice. Back and forth the pendulum swings. Centralize vs.decentralize; standardize vs. no standard; alignment vs. freedom and flexibility; CEO vs. Principals. I've heard that "This too shall pass" is a common saying in our Seattle community.
WE (Yes,I am one who have waffled)are fond of the latest and greatest, the "shiny new toy". We, as a community are fickle or have unrealistic expectations of our leaders and of ourselves. Longevity is the key! Educators know that patience is virtue. We allow for mistakes; it is a valuable part of the learning process.
I agree with all the comments regarding compentency, transparency, accountability, etc. However, does the Seattle community truly care about K-12? If so, why is it that such an affluent city, full of educated, talented people can't seem to put the right leaders to run our district. Surely, it can't be due to corporatate conspiracy or simply politics.
I wonder how our community can help recruit and retain good leaders. What structures do we need inside and OUTSIDE of the District. I hear this is one of the issues the district is struggling with in their current district plan.
A friend to Seattle
Me too, I'm afraid we're underestimating the power of the powers that be. But it's hard to judge the implication of the Times editorial (was that writing passed down for them to put on the wall?) And then there is the question of all the things the Board may know that we have only begun to suspect.
Any insiders care to share their thoughts about this idea?
A Friend of Seattle
Will MGJ be gone this week one way or another? No doubt, and with that announcement will come the naming of the interim. No board would remove its leader without naming an interim.
That means Enfield, almost certainly, because she is "next in line". I am saying this as a pragmatist, not necessarily as a supporter or non-supporter of Enfield. My point is to the smart readers of this blog who might want to start thinking, OK, and then what might our own individual and affinity groups next steps be? What would be best for our district's students? For fixing the ills of central admin? For the city as a whole?
Working with her? Beside her? Around her? Against her? Over her? What? And...How?!?!?!
nec
As to the possibility that MGJ may have lost even more... so might Olchefski have lost even more than was discovered. But his identifiable loss was way more significant. 35M in one year vs. 1.8 over 3 years. Let's get a grip here. Perhaps the board could get a handle on the superintendent as a result of the scandal. A good deal of the oversight problem actually starts from the board itself. Obviously she knows she's skating on thin ice. We need a real way to monitor audits, all of them. And, we need a board that insists on that.
I second Friend's idea of volunteers in the central office. This has often been offered and soundly rejected, repeatedly. Clearly better community relations, that is meaningful is necessary. But that doesn't mean rolling over to loud special interest groups, or to those who think they know how best to teach. For example, the NSAP was a long time in coming, and completely necessary. Waiting for the community to come up with the plan, would have meant it never would have happened.
--District Observer
But who knows? Maybe that might be something that could happen under a new Superintendent.
To SPS Board:
All of us on this blog and many in our communities are depending on you to exercise your leadership responsibilities in helping restore public confidence in our District. However, I don't believe a common definition of "leadership responsibilities" exists. For me, leadership is about modeling for others specially in times when mistakes are made. Many of us parents, teachers, educators would not cast our children or students aside when they make mistakes. Instead we extend a helping hand, give them back the tools then need and give them confidence that learning is a process. There must be accountability and there must be a commitment to journey together. I'm not perfect; no one is perfect and I think it is unreasonable for our community to expect that any Superintendent is too. We tell our kids that mistakes will happen but what's important is how you deal with them.
The ball is on your court.
A friend of Seattle
ps. I realize my views maybe the minority in this venue; however, I have faith in the owners of this blog that freedom to dissent will be allowed.
A friend of Seattle
I liked his short list of interim candidates. What's Norm Rice up to these days? can't imagine he'd want the headache.
Friend in Seattle: sure, nobody is perfect. The issue here is deep distrust and the conclusion that she is just not doing the work that needs to be done. She should not be hiding bad news from the board. She should be ensuring that promises to the board are kept. The board needs certain information to make decisions. Did you see Peter Maier get candid about not having capacity planning documents that they were supposed to get? Did you see him furious when the "Strategic Plan Update" was just a few anecdotes about how some of the initiatives are working out really well. No data, no benchmarks, no analysis.
Sure, you don't turn your kid out into the street for making mistakes, but you also act. You remove them from situations where they have shown they don't have enough mature judgement. And Maria is an adult on a job. This isn't a personal relationship, it's a professional one. If you hire someone to remodel your house and they not only let their employees steal your belongings but they cover it up, do you keep letting them work for you, because we all make mistakes? Is it ever appropriate to fire an employee?
Local control of math and other instruction would be FAR superior to what we currently have. Look at Schmitz Park -- they "localized" their choice -- managed to wangle a waiver out of the District, and are beating hearly everyone hands down, using Singapore.
You claim private schools don't use traditional math? Many do. Explorer West did when one of my kids went there. Children's Academy in Kent did, when one of my kids went there. Bush School did, when one of my kids went there.
And your example of Lakeside is weak. First of all, discovery math techniques work MUCH better in a high performing/gifted population (seen the tests that Lakeside kids take when they apply?) and the class sizes are 10 or 12, instead of 26 to 30, with grade level differentiations of 2 to 4 grades.
Secondly, pop into the Lake City and Wedgwood Kumon centers someday, and ask how many of their hundreds of students are Lakeside kids. LOTS! Many of those kids are unable to master math using that horrible discredited system, so they do it after school, on their own dime, and their own time.
Third -- discovery math techniques are particularly horrible for special ed kids, ELL kids -- any populations for which direct instruction methods work best. There aren't a lot of those kids at Lakeside. There are LOTS in our public schools.
I agree with your endorsement of Friend's idea of permitting volunteers to help downtown. But I still contend that we will never get to the bottom of the District's problems with a Superintendent who doesn't give a fig for managing (except managing pr). This Superintendent didn't come here to manage the District. She came here to collect another "reform" gold star, on her way to what she hopes is a position with the Obama administration. We will never get through this mess with her at the helm.
Concerned Citizen
FYI
David Brewster on Crosscut:
http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/20140/Open-letter-to-the-Seattle-School-Board/
WOW, I left out a "don't" in my last post regarding Brewster's aricle.He is probably still way more into the Gates Foundation and other big businesses as a solution than I am. I believe that they can be a part of the problem when their agendas don't drive education. Educational community needs should drive what they ask of the businesses, letting business know what they need. These big businesses drive too many different agendas and do not always act in the public interest.
Of course, this assertion could take hours to argue and support
John Stanford was all image, no substance, double talking liar and (all in all) a fool.
RIP.
You said: I hear this is one of the issues the district is struggling with in their current district plan.
Could you elaborate? I agree with you that there is a lot of "back and forthing" in this area. But I never felt, when this Superintendent came, as though the community had asked for her brand of heavy-handed, ed reform, top down leadership. We needed someone who would take the time to identify District strengths and problems, use District assets to meet needs where available, deal with the SE Initiative problems and the new student assignment plan, etc. We NEVER clamored for standardized curricula, moving principals around willy nilly, closing 5 schools to open 5 more, 110 coaches at a cost of millions, a SEA no confidence vote of over 90%, etc. etc. We needed a seasoned people and money manager. Instead, we somehow picked a hard-headed, stubborn ed reformer. Sometimes -- you just choose the wrong person. In my opinion, she is just the wrong person.
"We needed a seasoned people and money manager. Instead, we somehow picked a hard-headed, stubborn ed reformer. Sometimes -- you just choose the wrong person. In my opinion, she is just the wrong person.
FYI
David Brewster on Crosscut:
http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/20140/Open-letter-to-the-Seattle-School-Board/
WOW, I left out a "don't" in my last post regarding Brewster's aricle.He is probably still way more into the Gates Foundation and other big businesses as a solution than I am. I believe that they can be a part of the problem when their agendas don't drive education. Educational community needs should drive what they ask of the businesses, letting business know what they need. These big businesses drive too many different agendas and do not always act in the public interest.
Of course, this assertion could take hours to argue and support
I really am wondering, not declaring. What would the pros be? What would the cons be? For interim Superintendent?
Seems like it would be worth considering - it might get us someone with accountability to more than just the board, who is likely to stay in Seattle once the interim gig is over, and who will be from outside of SPS administration. On the other hand, it might also open a huge can of political worms - both for worries of mayoral control, even unofficial, and for local ed reformers to be able to influence issues through city government.
In it she says:
I think it will be a 5-2 vote, with Directors Maier and Martin-Morris saying the Superintendent is still viable as a leader, and Directors Patu, DeBell, Smith-Blum, Carr and Sundquist voting to oust her.
You know, I saw Maier's face on KIRO tonight when he said he was really angry. I don't always agree with his reasoning, but I believe he is really stressed out about the budget. I'm betting he will vote MGJ off the island because of the $1.8 Million. At least if he doesn't have to vote first. I also believe Harium might vote with the majority if he knows his vote won't make a difference.
How is the order determined?
People from those industries know that all of the value is created by the professionals on the front line and that you have to trust them, you have to give them freedom to do their jobs as they see fit, you have to support them with the tools they need to succeed, and you can still hold them accountable for their performance.
I want someone with real management training, a strict business sense, a tight mission focus, and experience establishing internal controls.
I want someone who doesn't claim to know about education, but who does know how to set and maintain performance expectations for staff. Someone who won't hesitate to fire people who need to be fired.
The central office shouldn't be about academics, it should be about operations, but those operations need to be in service to academics rather than the other way around.
For too long in Seattle Public Schools academic priorities were ignored and decisions were driven by operational expediencies. We can't let the operations tail wag the academic dog anymore.
I would welcome someone from outside the education business because I don't think the superintendent job should be a job for an educator. I think it should be a job for a manager/administrator.
The usual complaint against EDM is lack of multiplication drill. BTW. Same as Singapore... it has no multiplication drill either. Classroom teachers can be expected to provide that on their own without a book can't they?
But whatever, lots of proponents of thinking math that are now superintendent candidates.
--Observer
--Observer
Yeah, they can see the writing on the wall and have finally acknowledged that their horse isn't even going to finish.
A) they have small class sizes, 10-16 students, compared to SPS classes of 30. This alone makes a huge difference.
B) Kids must test into Lakeside. They get the best, brightest, most motivated kids, with involved, wealthy parents. They weed out the rest. They don't have to deal with them. SPS does, they have to take every student that comes to them.
C) Lakeside does not serve many ELL and Special ed students. Seattle Public Schools do.
Of course Lakeside students do well with inquiry math. They'd do well with just about any math materials.
Can you address the three issues above?
Personally, I like inquiry math and my kids have done very well with it. I'm not saying it doesn't work or that we shouldn't use it, however it is just not reasonable to compare Lakeside to SPS. We have to use what works best for SPS students as a whole.
How about a sharp financial person from KPMG?
Not excited about inviting government involvement.
-Concerned parent
1) Of course smaller class size is better, but it is better for almost everything. Lower class size wouldn't change a whole curriculum though. You wouldn't use something inferior... just because your class size was smaller. Larger class size doesn't preclude the importance of thinking and discovering. Perhaps you're thinking you just can't expect much from a large class. I disagree. 2) Of course students test into most private schools, that doesn't change the curriculum (again). You don't need to test into the need for thinking do you? 3) And, I believe I already addressed the special ed case. I'm quite familiar with that. Very familiar. Students with disabilities deserve the opportunity to experience curricula requiring thought and discovery, and a range of curricula, for that matter. Students with disabilities need to have challenges beyond the constant spoon feeding. And they can do well with it. In fact, they need it the most of all. Unfortunately, spoon feeding is the usual case for them. And, unfortunately, most private schools do indeed discriminate against people with disabilities, while at the same time, proclaiming a love of diversity. No that is not good, but it has nothing to do with a curriculum choice.
Observer
Comparison with Lakeside is right up there with "Let them eat cake" for understanding of the problem.
Anyway, sorry for the thread hijacking.
I'm not sure running the schools like a business is possible, let alone desirable. I do want the superintendent and the board knowing where the money is going. But other aspects are inappropriate for a public agency. Agencies can't be run as little tyrannies where nobody questions the boss. (I know, MGJ tried.) Putting in only yes-men gets us the current situation, where bad news was buried so it could grow up to be terrible news.
A superintendent must lead by example. If you want ethical behavior, you must start with your own behavior being above reproach. No parties at the public expense, no suspicious undisclosed board relationships. If you want workers to take a pay cut, must start with your own.
A public agency has to disclose much of what it does. Living in a fishbowl like that would rule out a lot of what happens in the private sector.
Getting things done in the public sector is about persuasion and positive relationships, not about giving an order from the top. Trying to rule like a CEO will get resentment from the teachers, the public, and eventually even the board.
Observer
I think that we can all think of situations in which inquiry-based math instruction would work well and situations in which it would not work well at all. Likewise for direct instruction. There are plenty of examples of both strong and poor outcomes with both styles of instruction.
Neither instructional strategy is inherently better or worse or more or less than the other.
Here in Seattle we have ample evidence of widespread failure of inquiry-based math instruction. That doesn't mean that it couldn't work well elsewhere - or even that it couldn't work well in Seattle Public Schools under different conditions.
There are folks who can point out historical failure rates for direct instruction and who find it equally ineffective.
I have my beliefs and reasons for those beliefs. You have yours. Inquiry-based math instruction was a disaster for my family, but there may be some folks who experienced a disaster with direct instruction. It is highly unlikely that we're going to settle this question here.
I'm happy to discuss it, but let's not stoop to cheap accusations.
My kid has struggled ever since the curriculum switch three or four years ago - the switch to a new way of learning when he didn't have the background was really tough on him.
He's done Kumon, I've brought home Singapore and other things to supplement - and I've really read through the books (CMP now) to try to help him.
When I read through them and really had to understand what they were driving at - the basic premise didn't seem that bad. I can see why some would support them, and why some people could get good results.
However, in practice - my kid's class has never had time to do even a decent majority of the problems in any of the books - and that's with homework every night. There is a lot of practice in them, but much of it doesn't tie to our standards. So they aren't able to really master the curriculum that's presented each year in the books.
Then - there really are times when they are poorly written. You have to assume a lot to answer some of the questions because the english in them is not always clear. Translating math into english is not always easy, and the authors frequently miss the mark.
The realities of our district are what make that curriculum inappropriate. If students were able to master each year's curriculum before being promoted to the next level, we would probably see reasonable results.
But that often doesn't happen. And they are promoted anyway. Then, with all the dependence on language and thinking things through in this curriculum, it becomes increasingly difficult each year for someone who is even a little bit behind to comprehend what they are supposed to be learning.
A more direct instructional method could be a real help to those who are trying to catch up or who find the language confusing (ELL and a lot of native english speaking kids and parents too!).