Debate the issues facing Seattle Public Schools, share your opinions, read the latest news. Organize and work for high quality public schools that educate all students to become passionate, lifelong learners.
Interesting Take on the Floe Decision From the Weekly
Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
Over at the Seattle Weekly, Nina Shapiro took a big picture look at what it all means. She zeros in on some key points. It makes good points to ponder and mull over.
A heartfelt "Yeah!" to her third point - District management really does seem to regard families, both parents and children, as "the enemy" somehow. How else to explain the disdain in which they seem to hold us?
Perhaps it's just hubris. They believe themselves to be the best and brightest, and we should just shut up and do what they say, like the helpless, ignorant children we are.
And then they go out and make dopey decisions like this one. How are we supposed to take them seriously when they botch decision after decision?
Maybe this is too picky, Chris, but I will go with 2.5 out of 3. Nina says: This is a rather paradoxical comment from Hill, who is a big supporter of charter schools, which is all about parent empowerment. But it does indicate an all-too-prevalent attitude that reform has to be forced down the throats of the people who are actually in the schools everyday.
Charter schools SHOULD be about parent empowerment, but in many cases, big charter orgs come in with "their program," cut a deal to get tax dollars and district assets (school buildings, etc.), and then just tell parents what they "get," like it or not. Parents don't choose the curriculum, the principals; they have no input into suspension/expulsion policies, etc. And -- there is no one to "vote out" if they don't like it. "Parent choice" is just the sugar coating on the bitter pill - to get people to swallow it.
Charters COULD be community based and/or parent governed, but that is certainly not what a lot of ed reform seems to have in mind.
Anonymous said…
We do have Charter Schools, the real ones that are community based and controlled: Alternative Schools.
What is scary is that a few states are starting to include for-profit companies as possible managers for charter schools. This is a big leap towards privatization which is very troubling.
Anonymous said…
Starting? Melissa, private EMO's (Educational Management Companies) have been in the charter biz for over a decade, and continue to sprout up all over. That's what I've been screaming warnings about "privatization" for over the past couple of years. That's exactly the "privatizing" I'm talking about. And most of the so-called "non-profit" charters are only "non-profit" in that they don't pay dividends. But they take very good care of their CEO's and officers, by paying them multiple six figure salaries. Oh yes; non-profit? Indeed.
I also know that the man credited with inventing the Charter Schools idea (Shanker, I think?) is firmly against today's hijacked version of his original ideas. There are many authors and critics today who were original charter supporters who have also abandoned the movement as it was hijacked and torn away from the, and turned into for-profit ventures to launder public tax dollars through, usually into the deep pockets of charter owners and CEO's. I can't stop it in Ohio or Pennsylvania. But I'll do everything I can to stop it in Washington.
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.)
This may only be a partial list of reasons; please, add anything else in the comments. The deadline to file to run for the Board is May 19th. Entire Board Majority NOT vetting the Superintendent in any way, shape or form. Even the Seattle Times thought that was wrong. It was just absolute hubris and it was wrong. For the second time in just over a year , board members voted to negotiate a superintendent contract during a special meeting with no opportunity for public comment. This time, they showed an even deeper disregard for their responsibilities as public servants: Aborting a national search for a new superintendent and denying Interim Superintendent Brent Jones a chance to show students, parents and taxpayers that, indeed, he is the best person for the job. Government bodies can’t fast-forward through transparent processes just because they think they know the right answer. One other odd thing about the hiring of Brent Jones - most permanent SPS superintendent contracts ar
Update 5 It appears that there is another person running in Director Rankin's district, Michael Christophersen. He has run before. From past interactions when he was running before, he's not school board material in the least and he comes off as creepy. (The King County Elections listing is unclear; he's on there as both running and withdrawing.) If he stays in the race, it will mean a primary for that district. That could be interesting because then you would see if Rankin - after pretty much ignoring Ingraham High parents as well as Broadview-Thomson parents and their safety concerns - truly has support in her own district. As well, there is another contender in District 6 and she's Maryanne Wood. Ms Wood's LinkedIn page says she is a "shift lead" at Kinetic Builders but there are no dates for her employment. The company is a general contracting company. I can't find much more about her. end of update Update 4 - To make it clear: District 1 (Ranki
Comments
Perhaps it's just hubris. They believe themselves to be the best and brightest, and we should just shut up and do what they say, like the helpless, ignorant children we are.
And then they go out and make dopey decisions like this one. How are we supposed to take them seriously when they botch decision after decision?
This is a rather paradoxical comment from Hill, who is a big supporter of charter schools, which is all about parent empowerment. But it does indicate an all-too-prevalent attitude that reform has to be forced down the throats of the people who are actually in the schools everyday.
Charter schools SHOULD be about parent empowerment, but in many cases, big charter orgs come in with "their program," cut a deal to get tax dollars and district assets (school buildings, etc.), and then just tell parents what they "get," like it or not. Parents don't choose the curriculum, the principals; they have no input into suspension/expulsion policies, etc. And -- there is no one to "vote out" if they don't like it. "Parent choice" is just the sugar coating on the bitter pill - to get people to swallow it.
Charters COULD be community based and/or parent governed, but that is certainly not what a lot of ed reform seems to have in mind.
I also know that the man credited with inventing the Charter Schools idea (Shanker, I think?) is firmly against today's hijacked version of his original ideas. There are many authors and critics today who were original charter supporters who have also abandoned the movement as it was hijacked and torn away from the, and turned into for-profit ventures to launder public tax dollars through, usually into the deep pockets of charter owners and CEO's. I can't stop it in Ohio or Pennsylvania. But I'll do everything I can to stop it in Washington.
WSEADAWG