The "Ah Ha" Moment (But Not That Things Are Clearer)
Anyone who has ever read Oprah's O Magazine knows she has a column where she talks about an "ah ha" moment.
So I have been pondering the Martin Floe issue and thinking that Ms. Dussault certainly isn't all powerful and Susan Enfield probably thought long and hard about this. So I went back and looked through some other data (and talked to some trusted sources). I believe I now understand the reasoning behind this firing but I think the district has a fight on its hands, nonetheless.
At Level 5 there are only certain things that can be done. One of them is to contract with another entity and turn the school over to them (charters). Not in Washington State, so that's out. Another is to restructure the activities of the day (longer school days, supplemental activities). Well, we have no money so the district went to the last thing which is to replace the school administration.
So if all this is all true, then the district is within its rights to fire Mr. Floe to fulfill NCLB requirements.
Or are they?
First, I'm not sure the feds are even enforcing this stuff anymore given how NCLB is in this netherworld of possible restructuring.
Second, there's 2009-2010 document, It is odd because the document explains how the district's groupings are different from the Feds. So I think the grouping in this document is SPS's but why wouldn't they put what each school's federal ranking was? It's very confusing.
• Seattle’s school performance framework is different from the federal government’s No Child Left Behind policy. The district created its own framework in order to measure student growth in a more fair and accurate way than the federal government measures it.
• No Child Left Behind requires all schools to make “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) every year. This means hat the percentages of students in every subgroup who pass state tests must increase. Unlike Seattle’s system, it does not take into account student growth unless students pass tests. Schools that do not meet
AYP are put into federal “Steps of Improvement.”
• Federal Steps of Improvement are different from Seattle’s grouping of schools.
• Schools must make AYP for students in every ethnicity, students in poverty, students with limited English, and students receiving special education services.
– AYP Step 1 – Schools not making AYP for two years
– AYP Step 2 – Schools not making AYP for three years
– AYP Step 3 – Schools not making AYP for four years
– AYP Step 4 – Schools not making AYP for five years
– AYP Step 5 – Schools not making AYP for six years.
Update note: I totally got this wrong about schools and their rankings. For whatever reason, the district's rankings go from Level 1 (the worst) to Level 5 (the best). NCLB ranks Level 1 (Alert) to Level 5 (Restructuring). Why the district did this is a mystery to me. I find it confusing (and I obviously got it wrong the first time around).
But again, my question is when Ingraham was at Federal level 4, it requires the following:
Level 4
Corrective Actions
In addition to continuing all the requirements for Level 3, the district is required to take at least one of the following actions: replacement of staff who are relevant to the school not demonstrating AYP, implementation of a new curriculum, significantly decrease management authority at the school, appoint one or more outside experts to advise the school, extend for that school the length of the school year or school day, or restructure the internal organization of the school.
Did any of the above happen last year? (Thank you to Monkey Puzzle for pointing out my error.)
Third, while Ingraham was slowly slipping downward, where was Michael Tolley who was in charge of high schools the last several years? What was he doing?
Fourth, did parents and staff realize the gravity of what was happening? Were they warned by anyone in the district?
Now I looked at Ingraham's CSIP plan for this year and it's not the most impressive document. You don't sense a lot of urgency. Is that because Mr. Floe didn't take this all that seriously or because the district didn't give him the sense of urgency?
If Level 2 is SPS's notation and Level 5 is the feds, what was Ingraham supposed to be doing and was that clearly translated to them by Michael Tolley and Susan Enfield in the past couple of years? I mean, the CAO for the last year was Susan Enfield. I wonder what her communications to Principal Floe and/or Michael Tolley on this matter were?
Also, Director Carr said a hearing examiner will be appointed to hear his appeal (if he does follow thru). This is from an RCW but it also contradicts Board policy which states the Board has this job. Naturally the RCW rules but it would behoove the Board and its Governance Officer to make sure Board policy doesn't have this kind of error.
Both Mr. Floe and the district have to agree to the examiner selection. The district has a good record of winning in these kinds of cases but I have to wonder if the examiner will turn and ask the district what it was doing to push/support Principal Floe. If he can prove that they were not telling him, in detail and in a timely manner, about what was coming, they may not come out of this looking all that good. In fact, they might even lose the case if the examiner finds that yes, Mr. Floe didn't do all that he could but no, the district did not communicate the facts clearly to him and/or support his efforts.
So I have been pondering the Martin Floe issue and thinking that Ms. Dussault certainly isn't all powerful and Susan Enfield probably thought long and hard about this. So I went back and looked through some other data (and talked to some trusted sources). I believe I now understand the reasoning behind this firing but I think the district has a fight on its hands, nonetheless.
At Level 5 there are only certain things that can be done. One of them is to contract with another entity and turn the school over to them (charters). Not in Washington State, so that's out. Another is to restructure the activities of the day (longer school days, supplemental activities). Well, we have no money so the district went to the last thing which is to replace the school administration.
So if all this is all true, then the district is within its rights to fire Mr. Floe to fulfill NCLB requirements.
Or are they?
First, I'm not sure the feds are even enforcing this stuff anymore given how NCLB is in this netherworld of possible restructuring.
Second, there's 2009-2010 document, It is odd because the document explains how the district's groupings are different from the Feds. So I think the grouping in this document is SPS's but why wouldn't they put what each school's federal ranking was? It's very confusing.
• Seattle’s school performance framework is different from the federal government’s No Child Left Behind policy. The district created its own framework in order to measure student growth in a more fair and accurate way than the federal government measures it.
• No Child Left Behind requires all schools to make “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) every year. This means hat the percentages of students in every subgroup who pass state tests must increase. Unlike Seattle’s system, it does not take into account student growth unless students pass tests. Schools that do not meet
AYP are put into federal “Steps of Improvement.”
• Federal Steps of Improvement are different from Seattle’s grouping of schools.
• Schools must make AYP for students in every ethnicity, students in poverty, students with limited English, and students receiving special education services.
– AYP Step 1 – Schools not making AYP for two years
– AYP Step 2 – Schools not making AYP for three years
– AYP Step 3 – Schools not making AYP for four years
– AYP Step 4 – Schools not making AYP for five years
– AYP Step 5 – Schools not making AYP for six years.
Update note: I totally got this wrong about schools and their rankings. For whatever reason, the district's rankings go from Level 1 (the worst) to Level 5 (the best). NCLB ranks Level 1 (Alert) to Level 5 (Restructuring). Why the district did this is a mystery to me. I find it confusing (and I obviously got it wrong the first time around).
But again, my question is when Ingraham was at Federal level 4, it requires the following:
Level 4
Corrective Actions
In addition to continuing all the requirements for Level 3, the district is required to take at least one of the following actions: replacement of staff who are relevant to the school not demonstrating AYP, implementation of a new curriculum, significantly decrease management authority at the school, appoint one or more outside experts to advise the school, extend for that school the length of the school year or school day, or restructure the internal organization of the school.
Did any of the above happen last year? (Thank you to Monkey Puzzle for pointing out my error.)
Third, while Ingraham was slowly slipping downward, where was Michael Tolley who was in charge of high schools the last several years? What was he doing?
Fourth, did parents and staff realize the gravity of what was happening? Were they warned by anyone in the district?
Now I looked at Ingraham's CSIP plan for this year and it's not the most impressive document. You don't sense a lot of urgency. Is that because Mr. Floe didn't take this all that seriously or because the district didn't give him the sense of urgency?
If Level 2 is SPS's notation and Level 5 is the feds, what was Ingraham supposed to be doing and was that clearly translated to them by Michael Tolley and Susan Enfield in the past couple of years? I mean, the CAO for the last year was Susan Enfield. I wonder what her communications to Principal Floe and/or Michael Tolley on this matter were?
Also, Director Carr said a hearing examiner will be appointed to hear his appeal (if he does follow thru). This is from an RCW but it also contradicts Board policy which states the Board has this job. Naturally the RCW rules but it would behoove the Board and its Governance Officer to make sure Board policy doesn't have this kind of error.
Both Mr. Floe and the district have to agree to the examiner selection. The district has a good record of winning in these kinds of cases but I have to wonder if the examiner will turn and ask the district what it was doing to push/support Principal Floe. If he can prove that they were not telling him, in detail and in a timely manner, about what was coming, they may not come out of this looking all that good. In fact, they might even lose the case if the examiner finds that yes, Mr. Floe didn't do all that he could but no, the district did not communicate the facts clearly to him and/or support his efforts.
Comments
And what sounds easier for communities to do: Completely restructure and hire all new staff and leadership? Or hire pre-packaged teaching staffs and administrators from private Charter chains, all pre-packaged, pre-certified and ready to go in a jiffy?
Do you all see how it works, and how it was designed to work from day one?
As Diane Ravitch says, it would be the same thing as saying, you failed to solve enough crimes, Seattle, so now you must fire your most experienced cops, replace them with rookies, or contract out your police services to private security forces.
Fact is this NCLB level 5 classification will screw up things even worse for struggling learners.
----------
Background ... low income students score substantially worse than non-low income kids
Thus schools with a high percentage of low income kids are far more likely to reach level 5 sooner.
<>Toppenish High School was the first High School in the state to hit level 5<> 98% low income.
----------
Inspecting each of four federal models mandated for failing schools reveals that none of them are based on solutions known to improve achievement for struggling students.
US Dept of Ed is currently on a DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION push.
Students who in many cases have way too much disruption in their lives will not be well served by more disruption.
==========
Despite this AYP classification of level 5 .... would not Mr. Floe be reassigned rather than fired?
==========
If the reason for the Floe Firing is the AYP level 5 issue, why didn't Dr. Enfield say so?
It would seem like something you could reveal given it's public knowledge available at the SPS website.
That's why I said that it makes sense as a reason but it's not at all clear that it will stand at decision time at the examiner's session.
Key questions may become even more troubling, such as: What job have the various directors that supervise principals been doing? Are they being held accountable? The situation at Ingraham did not simply happen in a period of days or even months. What did the former directors that earn $160,000 plus each year do regarding the principal? What were the yearly goals that each principal must establish each year? How were these goals measured for success achievement? How did the former supervisors process the work, or lack thereof, that the principal was doing? Are other well paid directors actually working with principals or maintaining the 'old-boy' type network and doing nothing of substance to ensure principals are adequate instructional leaders in their buildings? "
I'll add- Where was the Chief Academic Officer?
I think you're mixing up the Seattle school reports ranking system (where higher ranking = better) with AYP levels. Bagley for instance is a level 5 (ie we are a school of distinction); we made AYP in all areas. This applies to the other schools you list, too. Just wanted to clarify.
Interestingly, on that school reports ranking Ingraham is a "Level 2."
ITK
Because last year, Cleveland was on the state's lowest performing list and had to be eligible or be receiving federal Title 1 funds. (This from a Times article of March 2, 2010.) But I note in Cleveland's CSIP that they say they only get LAP funds.
Cleveland becoming a STEM school had as much to do with wanting to create one as the fact that Cleveland did not meet AYP for 6 years straight.
So now I'm getting very confused and wondering if this is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Cleveland was elligible to be a SIG school because it was a chronically under performing school elligble for Title I funds. Term of accepting the SIG funds was to restructure or replace leadership.
NCLB restructuring is different. To be subject to NCLB, the school actually has to accept the Title I funds it is elligible for.
SIG is a carrot, you do this you get money. NCLB is a stick, you fail to do this and these are the consquences because you have already taken the money.
ITK
Maintain the persistence as the next several weeks will be an interesting time in the recent history of the district. Hopefully it will not be overlooked that another person responsible for Mr. Floe has been Phil Brockman; what was the nature and substance of his supervision of Mr. Floe?
AYP
Improvement
School Step
Ballard 4
Center none
Chief Sealth 5
Cleveland 5
Franklin 5
Garfield 5
Home School Resource Ctr 3
Ingraham 5
Interagency 4
Middle College 1
Nathan Hale 2
Nova 3
Rainier Beach 2
Roosevelt 3
Secondary BOC 4
South Lake 3
West Seattle 5
Phil Brockman has no supervision role related to Mr. Floe. Mr. Brockman is the Exec Director for the Northeast area, Mr. Floe is in the Northwest area, and is supervised by Ms. Duessuelt. To my knowledge, Mr. Brockman as gracefully gotten at least one long troubled principal to retire/resign. If there was really a problem with IHS and he was the director of that area, I am sure he would have handled the situation with the grace and tact that is so obviously missing in this matter so far.
Reluctant Poster,
Any ideas as to why the district accepted these funds? Who makes the decision to accept such funding?
Would like to see which HS receive Title 1 Part A funding and amounts.
Are funds distributed centrally?
School -- Step -- F&R
Ballard -- 4 -- 25.2%
Center -- none -- 18.8%
Chief Sealth -- 5 -- 58.4%
Cleveland -- 5 -- 72.5%
Franklin -- 5 -- 64.5%
Garfield -- 5 -- 36.0%
Home School -- 3 -- 25.0%
Ingraham -- 5 -- 56.3%
Interagency -- 4 -- 59.3%
Middle College -- 1 -- 47.0%
Nathan Hale -- 2 -- 25.6%
Nova -- 3 -- 24.4%
Rainier Beach -- 2 -- 73.2%
Roosevelt -- 3 -- 21.0%
Secondary BOC -- 4 -- 95.0%
South Lake -- 3 -- 83.7%
West Seattle -- 5 -- 48.0%
Here is the best example of what is so wrong with NCLB and AYP.
And not that it matters, but the Education Bill that NCLB is funded by has expired.
By the district's numbers, Ingraham was at Level 2 which is only one level above Level 1 which is the district's worst number. This is for 2009-2010. I don't know where Ingraham is for this year by the district's level.
But again, there are a lot of schools not doing well. What prompted firing Floe? Does this signal more actions to come at more schools?
Po3 is right. NCLB has expired so does the district have to do something? It's not clear. Is the Board going to ask questions until it is totally clear to them what is happening? I wonder.
Mr. Brockman was Mr. Floe's supervisor for a couple of months towards the end of one school year. A year in which the director before Mr. Brockman didn't do anything, including mid-year evals. To non-renew a principal for performance (as opposed to cause, which happens when someone is arrested for flashing or having sex with students to name a few SPS examples) you have to first give a principal an unstatisfactory mid-year eval then put them on a plan of improvement and then demonstrate they haven't improved. I am not aware of Mr. Floe doing anything during Mr. Brockman's few months as his supervisor to warrant a cause dismissal, and based on everything I have read, including that he is to remain at the school until the end of the year, believe that he is being non-renewed for performance.
If you think Mr. Floe was doing a poor job and are unhappy nothing was done before now, hold Mr. Tolley and Ammon MacWashington responsible, they were his only supervisors before Ms. Duesseult who were in a position to non-renew him for performance. Personally, I think he isn't the greatest principal out there. He is better suited to be an AP or Dean of Students because he is good with kids but not a strong instructional leader. But I certainly think that there are a lot of worse principals who should have gone first. At the high school level alone, IMO Drs. Robert Gary and Jennie Willey should have been shown the door long before Mr. Floe.
BTW, what you think an Exec Director makes is pretty inflated. I looked online, the open Exec Director position has a salary range of $102,939.00 - $142,147.00. Not bad money, but when you consider that high school principals already make more than $120k (salary range for open RB position, $114,961.00 - $120,432.00, not considering the raises stipends), not an extravagant increse in salary.
What job opening bothers me? Small Works Project Coordinator. You know, Sillas Potter's old job, at $65,541.00 - $90,459.00. Really? that is what SPS wants to spend money on right now?
So...I'm not following the assertion that this has something to do with NCLB. Unless the school has accepted Title I funds, there are no sanctions for not meeting AYP.
I'm sure some astute readers will correct me if this is wrong.
Signed, Also a reader
So, in hopes of being in step with the culture and process: My previous posts being focused on the do-nothing directors and headquarters administrators that were submitted anonymously on this thread can be identified as my writing.
Mr. Brockman may be a real nice guy and very charming or likable; people in positions of supervision must actually perform their duties and hold their direct reports accountable....those above them in the org chart hold them accountable as well....that way a system works.
Again, see the block of type above this box? It states our policy. We have this policy to make it easier for readers (not having multiple "anonymous" comments that are difficult to track or answer). You certainly can pick any moniker you want; just pick one.
We have disagreement on this blog. I know some feel pounced on at times but we try to keep it civil and on point.
A Reader, I, too, am confused. One thing that I want the Board to keep in mind (and the hearing examiner if it comes to that) is that NO school fails alone. No teaching corps and principal stand alone. Behind them stand many administrators whose work should be as carefully examined and changes made (just as they are made at the school level).
Ms. Westbrook as usual has an understanding of the issues and solid focus, providing a valauble community resource.
The Board of Directors must serve as good stewards of our public schools and supervise the superintendent appropriately, holding that individual accountable. The superintendent must be responsible and accountable for supervising the headquarters adminstrators and directors, holding these people accountable. The headquarters administrators and directors are responsible for supervising the building principals, holding the building administrators accountable.
These foundations of running a large, urban school district in an efficient and sound manner have not been in place for years in the Seattle Public Schools. A void in real leadership and no true accountability create fertile ground for the mismanagement and million dollar scandals we continue to observe.
The culture and cronyism that permeates headquarters must be addressed. Mr. Brockman, Mr. Tolley, Mr. McWashington, and all others that have followed the old boy mentality receive taxpayer dollars for nothing. The termination of the principal at Ingraham is just the tip of the iceberg; people at many levels over a long period of time not doing their work and maintaining an unhealthy status quo.
I disagree with you in regards to the examples you have given, except Mr. MacWashington. Mr. Brockman has been nothing but effective in my book, including getting rid of a useless administrator at my child's school without any of the drama that has been associated with Mr. Floe. Mr. Tolley isn't very flashy, but responded well and throughouly to an issue taken to him last year. Mr. MacWashington was a fester. But, on a postive note, he is gone.
If a principal is not being held accountable by her or his director, and the director in question is not being held accountable by the superintendent, the Board of Directors fails to hold the superintendent accountable....it should be of no surprise when the district is noted for being mismanaged and abuse, fraud, theft and waste of taxpayer funds/resources is rampant.
Distraction and obfuscation....focus attention on problem teachers that are not held accountable; business as usual in the Seattle Public Schools.
High Schools did not have MSP scores last year. High Schools had HSPE scores last year that were testing the same standards as the WASL before it did.
This year for High School Math there will be course ending tests for Algebra and geometry.
I have no idea what is happening in regard to other OSPI testing for high school in spring 2011.
Would someone please tell me?
This void in accountability impedes any progress to improve the academic achievement level of students. The culture of cronyism and mismanagement of funds and resources creates dysfunctional operations throughout the district.
Dr. Enfield appears to be grasping for the magic bullet that will allow her to become the permanent superintendent for a year or two until her career climb takes her to the next district. Insisting upon accountability and having high standards applied arbitrarily for one principal that has been promoted through the status quo of headquarters operations reeks of an ill planned or poorly considered move on her part. The documented and well-known systemic issues that have plagued the district for years will require more than political machinations or public relations maneuvering.
Dr. Enfield cannot be expected to initiate or support a forensic audit of headquarters operations, too high a risk of implicating her in the culture of intrigue, intimidation, retaliation and ineffective management that has reigned supreme in headquarters. It will take pressuring members of the Board of Directors and replacing them if necessary; good to hear Ms. Martin will oppose Ms. Carr and hopefully another candidate will oppose Mr. Maier and all members that abdicate their responsibilities.
Drain the swamp and clean house to put the district on track and provide the support schools will need to raise academic achievement levels and increase opportunities for all students to succeed.
"Mr. Brockman was Mr. Floe's supervisor for a couple of month's towards the end of one school year."
Yes, and RCW's require all certificated staff to have an annual evaluation performed at the end of each school year. Mr. Brockman was in a position to document concerns and issues regarding Mr. Floe's performance and work. Did Mr. Brockman submit an annual evaluation of Mr. Floe?
"...hold Mr. Tolley and Ammon McWashington responsible, they were his only supervisors before Ms. Duesseult who were in a position to non-renew him for performance."
Mr. Brockman and Mr. Tolley should not be given a pass here as some suggest because at some point they were helpful or nice to a constituent or group of constituents. Bottom line is did they do their job properly with effectiveness; evidence certainly indicates that Mr. Brockman, Mr. Tolley, Mr. McWashington and other directors have not been doing their jobs.
gekogill also stated:
"At the high school level alone, IMO Drs. Robert Gary and Jennie Willey should have been shown the door long before Mr. Floe."
As I do not know the personnel issues involved with these two principals, I am unable to agree or disagree. I do know that indications certainly are that at least a few principals should not remain in their positions for a variety of reasons, but when district administrators do not do their jobs supervising principals removing them is next to impossible.
gekogill also stated:
"BTW, what you think an Exec Director makes is pretty inflated. I looked online, the open Exec Director position has a salary range of $102, 939.00 - $142, 147.00 not bad money, but.."
The current Executive Directors in place are not confined to the salary range of the posted position; one of the problems is that these educators are not tied to a state salary schedule as teachers, principals and other staff are..they have been able to receive raises and benefits with merely the approval of the superintendent. Perhaps most importantly, regardless of how high the six figure salary may be it is wrong for anyone in the district to be compensated without accountability.
In all of the years I have been involved with the Seattle Public Schools, this is the craziest I have witnessed. A Board of Directors that continues to defer to an ill-prepared superintendent that brought a troubling thin resume to her interim position; this interim is struggling so horribly that she needed to create a Deputy Superintendent position to help her finish out the school year.
Area Directors/Executive Directors or whatever title you wish to provide these people that are also ill prepared for their work are not consistent in holding principals accountable and supervised.
Principals that create courses for three star athletes to keep them on track for their college scholarships while key courses are overenrolled and being dropped. Retire/rehire administrators that remain on the payroll and occupy positions in headquarters that have questionable purpose or impact for learning. A Chief Operating Officer that inexplicably went from school nurse to Director of Security to her now interim position. Who is responsible for ensuring these key headquarters administrators are qualified and prepared to perform their duties? Oh, that is right....Human Resources is in a shambles with top people not having a clue about how to perform basic HR functions.
The only response from the Board of Directors regarding the call for a forensic audit of district headquarters administrative and financial operations has been the claim that such an audit is cost prohibitive. I am certain that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations and other benevolent philanthropists that support our public schools would be more than happy to contribute to the costs of an audit that would truly allow headquarters to be brought to the light of day and documentation provided as to the systemic work that needs to be done.
I agree this is what SHOULD be done. But I wish I had your confidence that Bill, Melinda, their Foundation, or their foundationy friends had any passion at ALL for good governance. They are in with a crowd that welcomes and encourages chaos, because it creates sufficient disruption to implement radical change -- which is what they are after.
I wish I knew how we could really force an audit. Because you are correct in thinking that an audit is (part of) what we need.
Ms. Westbrook, Mr. Maas and other concerned members of our community can keep up the good work and advocate for a campaign to bring about the first bold and substantial step towards getting the district operations on track and out of the dysfunctional category.
Dussuealt, 3 1/2 yrs experience (middle school principal with 50 students), $120K
Hmmmm, if I were Brockman I'd ask for a raise. Of course as a taxpayer and his boss, I'd say NO.
Mr. Ed