Culture Change
Interim Superintendent Enfield has spoken explicitly about bringing about a culture change in Seattle Public Schools. She has done more than talk about it; she has taken action as well. We can congratulate her for the steps she has taken, but it is hard not to notice the long way she needs to go. It is even harder to ignore the steps that she has refused to take. The Board is VERY pleased with the change they have seen and even MORE pleased with the changes that have been promised. This reflects the gullibility of the Board. When will they learn to withhold their gratitude until after the action instead of giving it upon the promise of the action?
Let's be clear about what needs to change. The dysfunctional culture was driven by the internal politics of the John Stanford Center for Educational Excellence. It seemed that every decision that came out of that building was made for purely political reasons. The consequences were:
* The emergence of fiefdoms within the central administration
* The deliberate misinformation of the Board and the public
* Refusal to share information with the Board and the public
* Refusal to consider public input
* Refusal to allow public input
* Routinely breaking commitments to students and families
* Routinely breaking commitments to the Board
* Routinely violating policies
* Routinely violating state and federal law
* Decisions that serve internal political purposes but do not serve students
* Decisions made without clear criteria or rationale (lack of transparency)
There is no need to review Dr. Enfield's statments about improving the District's culture. There are plenty of them. So, what actions have we seen from Dr. Enfield?
* She has fired a lot of people who were leading participants in the dysfunctional culture
* She has hired a lot of people who were not participants in the old dysfunctional culture and who do not appear susceptible to join a new, similar dysfuctional culture
* Public input may have influenced the decision to retain Mr. Floe at Ingraham
* Public input may have influenced the decision to move ALL of north-end elementary APP to Lincoln
* She has talked a lot about creating a new culture (not sure if this should count)
* She has made a lot of promises about increasing or improving community engagement (this definitely should not count until she actually does it, but I need to mention it and the fact that it does not count)
* Anything I've forgotten to include?
So why am I not convinced that she is all about culture change? Because she continues to either demonstrate or tolerate bad, old culture behavior.
* The deliberate misinformation of the Board and the public
- None of the reasons given for the TFA contract make any sense
* Refusal to share information with the Board and the public
- Dr. Enfield simply refuses to name the private donor paying the TFA fee
* Refusal to consider public input
- Public input had no influence in the TFA decision
* Refusal to allow public input
- There was no provision for public input (other than Board testimony) on a number of decisions including: TFA contract, Revision and Repeal of Homework Policies, Revision and Repeal of Promotion/Retention Policies, Revisions to Community Collaboration Policy (how ironic), Revision to Student Fees & Charges Policy, Revisions to Attendance Procedures, Revisions to Student Rights and Responsibilities. In fact, just go through all of the Board decisions since March and you will find that almost NONE of them came to the Board with any community engagement at all.
* Routinely breaking commitments to students and families
- Promises to APP community have not been kept
- Promises to Cooper community have not been kept
- Promises to NOVA community have not been kept
- Promises to update the School Reports were not kept
- Promise to name the donors when TFA corps members were hired was not kept
* Routinely violating policies
- The Program Placement Policy was violated, as it is every year
- The contract policy was violated so that contracts were not brought to the Board for approval on a timely basis
* Routinely violating state and federal law
- The emergency contract law was broken
- The IDEA laws continue to be routinely violated
* Decisions that serve internal political purposes but do not serve students
- The whole contract with TFA was driven by Dr. Enfield's desire to bring them in for her own personal reasons
* Decisions made without clear criteria or rationale (lack of transparency)
- Program placement decisions were made inconsistently and without rationale
- The decision to dismiss Mr. Floe lacked any clear rationale
- The decision to add a second Executive Director of Schools in the Southeast lacked any clear rationale
- The decision to buy a bunch of Apple Macintosh computers was made without any clear rationale
Let's be clear about what needs to change. The dysfunctional culture was driven by the internal politics of the John Stanford Center for Educational Excellence. It seemed that every decision that came out of that building was made for purely political reasons. The consequences were:
* The emergence of fiefdoms within the central administration
* The deliberate misinformation of the Board and the public
* Refusal to share information with the Board and the public
* Refusal to consider public input
* Refusal to allow public input
* Routinely breaking commitments to students and families
* Routinely breaking commitments to the Board
* Routinely violating policies
* Routinely violating state and federal law
* Decisions that serve internal political purposes but do not serve students
* Decisions made without clear criteria or rationale (lack of transparency)
There is no need to review Dr. Enfield's statments about improving the District's culture. There are plenty of them. So, what actions have we seen from Dr. Enfield?
* She has fired a lot of people who were leading participants in the dysfunctional culture
* She has hired a lot of people who were not participants in the old dysfunctional culture and who do not appear susceptible to join a new, similar dysfuctional culture
* Public input may have influenced the decision to retain Mr. Floe at Ingraham
* Public input may have influenced the decision to move ALL of north-end elementary APP to Lincoln
* She has talked a lot about creating a new culture (not sure if this should count)
* She has made a lot of promises about increasing or improving community engagement (this definitely should not count until she actually does it, but I need to mention it and the fact that it does not count)
* Anything I've forgotten to include?
So why am I not convinced that she is all about culture change? Because she continues to either demonstrate or tolerate bad, old culture behavior.
* The deliberate misinformation of the Board and the public
- None of the reasons given for the TFA contract make any sense
* Refusal to share information with the Board and the public
- Dr. Enfield simply refuses to name the private donor paying the TFA fee
* Refusal to consider public input
- Public input had no influence in the TFA decision
* Refusal to allow public input
- There was no provision for public input (other than Board testimony) on a number of decisions including: TFA contract, Revision and Repeal of Homework Policies, Revision and Repeal of Promotion/Retention Policies, Revisions to Community Collaboration Policy (how ironic), Revision to Student Fees & Charges Policy, Revisions to Attendance Procedures, Revisions to Student Rights and Responsibilities. In fact, just go through all of the Board decisions since March and you will find that almost NONE of them came to the Board with any community engagement at all.
* Routinely breaking commitments to students and families
- Promises to APP community have not been kept
- Promises to Cooper community have not been kept
- Promises to NOVA community have not been kept
- Promises to update the School Reports were not kept
- Promise to name the donors when TFA corps members were hired was not kept
* Routinely violating policies
- The Program Placement Policy was violated, as it is every year
- The contract policy was violated so that contracts were not brought to the Board for approval on a timely basis
* Routinely violating state and federal law
- The emergency contract law was broken
- The IDEA laws continue to be routinely violated
* Decisions that serve internal political purposes but do not serve students
- The whole contract with TFA was driven by Dr. Enfield's desire to bring them in for her own personal reasons
* Decisions made without clear criteria or rationale (lack of transparency)
- Program placement decisions were made inconsistently and without rationale
- The decision to dismiss Mr. Floe lacked any clear rationale
- The decision to add a second Executive Director of Schools in the Southeast lacked any clear rationale
- The decision to buy a bunch of Apple Macintosh computers was made without any clear rationale
Comments
She should also be demanding an explanation and justification from staff, especially Bob Vaughn, for deliberately misrepresenting the new classroom structure as cluster grouping. As currently implemented, the new Spectrum program has very little to do with the cluster grouping model as outlined by Winebrenner and Brulles; in fact, the new model directly contradicts several key points of the model altogether. The fact that Vaughn has let this occur with very little input or feedback shows a breathtaking lack of responsibility on his part, and Enfield should be calling him on the carpet for explanations.
- expected more from Enfield, frankly
Should Dr. Enfield be blamed for the failure to enforce the Spectrum delivery model or should she be credited for taking action in response to public input?
I would say the first, but the other perspective has merit.
What the situation really calls for is some Standards, criteria, and enforcement. So if Lawton is going to abandon authentic Spectrum in favor of "cluster-grouping" then shouldn't the "cluster-grouping" model be enforced instead?
What we have now is just a cluster.
Where Enfield is to blame is in not requiring Bob Vaughn to explain why he is allowing an unsupported model to be implemented at individual schools based on individual principal whims. She should be demanding explanations as to why Vaughn allowed this to be done after open enrollment with zero input from affected families. She should be demanding to know why the implemented programs vary so widely from the cluster grouping model as to make them unrecognizable (or why they are even being done in the first place, since the research states that self-contained is the gold standard when there are enough students for it). Spectrum is a district program, not an individual school program. Vaughn should never have allowed this to unfold the way that it did, nor should he have allowed individual principals to effectively dismantle a district program, and he should have been called out on it by Enfield from day one.
If there are problems with co-locating a Spectrum program in these new neighborhood schools, then that should be addressed as a district wide issue, with a well laid out plan. What is happening now is shameful - individual principals are upending and dismantling long-established, successful programs based on mob rule and personal agendas.
This is not a rant against breaking up self-contained classrooms, by the way, nor a rant about having different delivery styles in different schools. If that is what the research and the numbers indicate, or if it makes sense to move a program out of smaller schools and into larger ones, then so be it. But we do not have an actual written policy or plan for moving such programs, nor is there one shred of evidence supporting the model that is replacing the formerly self-contained models at Lawton and Wedgwood (they can CALL it clustering until the cows come home, but it is demonstrably NOT the model outlined in the research.)
The one concession that I will grant her is that she has a lot on her plate, and this has probably not bubbled all the way to the top yet. But if the enrollment numbers at Lawton continue to hold, she will be seeing the effects of it soon enough.
Oh, and don't even get me started on how badly the APP program has been handled recently. The entire Advanced Learning program is in utter disarray, and Susan Enfield absolutely needs to start paying attention.
- expected more from Enfield, frankly
You say: "Should Dr. Enfield be blamed for the failure to enforce the Spectrum delivery model or should she be credited for taking action in response to public input?"
What here are we to give her credit for? She allowed two schools to deviate, AFTER open enrollment, from the "self contained" model (while at the same time, fiddling with the program description language to allow "clustering" to count as Spectrum -- so are we to clap because she bothered to try to pull the standards in line with the behavior after the fact?
There has never been any honest conversation or staff presentation, on the District level, about the change from self-contained to clusters. There has never been any effort to explain the glaring problem -- that the clustering model they purport to follow expressly champions self contained, if there are enough students to support it. They have utterly failed to FOLLOW the model that they say allows them to deviate from self contained.
Why are individual principals allowed to terminate self contained Spectrum with no engagement of Spectrum parents -- AFTER open enrollment -- when it is obvious that Spectrum parents have problems with the change? Why is there NO fidelity of implementation to the new model? Why is there NO effort on the part of the District to figure out (over time) whether this will adversely affect the academic progress of the Spectrum kids (or increase or decrease the progress of the other kids in the classes.) Sloppy, shoddy, half-baked, haphazard management by someone, in my opinion. And I don't see anything from the District that acknowledges that they have created this problem or have any obligation at this point to try to fix it.
I was surprised that you didn't list it on the list of errors. And I am confused as to how you think the situation somehow might be seen on the "good" list -- where she has somehow "taken action in response to public input."
But, I heard last year that the "squelching" of the disastrous science alignment for high schools that would have barred many students from AP science courses, and further segregated APP kids at the high school level from other high achieving kids, and the "saving" of things like Garfield's Marine Science and genetics classes -- was at least in part due to the efforts of Dr. E. -- in which case, I would happily add that to the plus list.
- The whole contract with TFA was driven by Dr. Enfield's desire to bring them in for her own personal reasons
The fact that TfA had nothing to do with the achievement gap ... means Dr. Enfield fraudulently skirted state law to get conditional certification for TfAers. (I suppose just like the BIG MONEY backers wanted ... hey Steve please clarify for us why you support this TfA fiasco?)
As Charlie says --==>
For the Board to actually enforce policy and write clear enforceable policy.
As I say --==>
I am waiting For the District to improve its academic program through the intelligent application of relevant data. That is a badly needed culture change.
To substantially reduce the achievement gaps starting with Project Follow Through practices, which showed extremely strong academic gains would be excellent.
These two changes would make a huge difference ... but the district is no closer to making these changes now than they were 5 years ago.
======
The Board is contributing zilch to the needed culture changes. No need for admin to change with this Board. The Big Money bought this board in 2007 ... do not expect much other than:
TfA like fiascos
MAP fiasco
on going Math fiasco
etc.
What is wrong with buying Apple computers? Our schools and students need the best equipment available.
Nothing is inherently wrong with Apples. I love them too. BUT -- if the loss rate is high (and I believe it has been), it might be MUCH more cost effective to put out a bid for PCs, and see who can provide them at a much cheaper cost.
1) They are significantly more expensive to purchase than PCs.
2) It is easier and less expensive for our IT department to maintain a single, standard platform.
3) The District is buying Apples to replace Apples that were donated. So this means that a free donation has lead to a future expense by the District. It shouldn't work that way.
There are also folks who could see it as the central administration releasing some control to the schools, and therefore a positive.
Like you, I don't see it as a positive, but there are other perspectives.
I would buy that argument about more local building independence, but it is the inconsistency and the way they go about changing programs. Why can't school obtain waiver from EDM if it is about allowing more local independence? If you are going to change a program that affects the stakeholders, shouldn't there be some discussion BEFORE not some dog and pony show after to inform the stakeholders. There was never opportunity to understand or to discuss what was happening, the whys and hows. Our school principal and supporters appeared to fear dissent or take questions and so all discussion was stifled. That lack of transparency affected our community beyond our kids' academics. It tore at our community. There were definitely winners and losers and those who are in and out with the school leadership.
The spectrum brew ha ha has been a major unnecessary distraction, badly mishandled, and wasted a lot of people's time. People spent a lot of time trying to work with the Principal and teachers, studying the cluster grouping, reading up on the studies and books, attending meetings, etc. to try make things work. Now with class of 33 kids, and the whole clustering model gone kaput, it is pretty much just a division of numbers and figuring out what to do with the remainder.
That's my kid now, a remainder.
-trickle down
My remainder kid is not in spectrum
-trickle down
Spectrum changes?
Who wanted the change? On what basis?
Families of children in Spectrum really need to organize across the city as a group. It'd be nice if former Spectrum families spoke out about the benefits of self-contained as well.
-trickle down
"Both APP and Spectrum have advisory groups composed of parents and teachers.
The Spectrum Advisory Panel is in the process of being reformed. If you are interested in participating, please email Advanced Learning teacher Roger Daniels at drdaniels@seattleschools.org"
FYI
Mr. Ed
For me, much of the culture trouble was that there were no rules and even when there were rules, the rules weren't followed. Viewed through that lens, the changes in Spectrum are NOT positive culture changes but a continuation of the lawless culture of the District.
-trickle down
Actually, I liked the snarky way you put it the first time. You speak my lingo.
Mr. Ed
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you on this issue. It hurts so badly to see this program dismantled based on the whims of the staff at these buildings.
One thing I can't understand is how Enfield allowed this to happen now when she quickly quashing a similar proposed change at Eckstein the previous year when staff wanted to move away from the self-contained model. Enfield shut them down and made it absolutely clear that Eckstein was to keep their Spectrum self-contained. It gave me hope that she understands gifted ed, but now I'm shocked and appalled with the situation at Lawton and Wedgwood.
Jan, I appreciate that you don't like the changes in Spectrum programs, but there are people who do like these changes. They have been heard.
Charlie, I know you're just trying to point out that there are differing opinions on the issue, but there is virtually nothing positive to take out of the way this was handled. As Expected More said, this was based on "mob rule" and personal agendas, NOT as a response to public input. At WW it was shameful, Principal Cronas pitted the families against one another and divided the school community again after it had been mostly brought together in recent years.
For the most part, this was Spectrum families being dominated by non-Spectrum families. It wasn't a perfect divide, but most non-Spectrum families wanted to see Spectrum blended into the other classrooms, and most Spectrum parents did not. There are more non-Spectrum families in the building, so guess who won?
And as others have mentioned, this was sold to the staff and families as "cluster grouping", and when the parents quickly researched the matter and pointed out the obvious flaws:
1) Even the cluster grouping experts say cluster grouping is a fall-back method, it's what you do when you don't have enough kids to form self contained classes.
2) What is being implemented isn't even cluster grouping! It's essentially blending, it's a joke.
After this was pointed out, was there any change in attitude? Nope.
Lastly, above and beyond everything else, even if there were good reasons for the change, the district should never, ever, EVER, be allowed to change a program after open enrollment!. Well, emergencies do come up, like Lowell this year, but this was no emergency.
Shame on Chris Cronas and shame on those of his staff that pushed for this change.
Culture change (or more the lack of it) is intertwined in many issues. It's not necessarily an either-or.
Oddly, since Enfield was quick to put a stop to this at Eckstein the previous year, and now she lets a similar change happen in 2 elementary schools, is that a culture change?
If so, it stinks like a science lab culture change.
2. We are hoping for first-grade Spectrum for our now-K child, for next year. What happened at Lawton is very disconcerting, based on the stories told here. During school choice season, is there any way to pin down a principal on whether they're considering this "cluster" change for a school and dismantling Spectrum? Because I would not move my child if not for Spectrum.
There used to be a Spectrum Advisory Committee similar to the APP Advisory Committee. It used to be strong and about as effective as the APP Advisory Committee is now. It was able to protect the program and the students for a while, but it was strictly a rear-guard action. It was all about slowing decay rather than making progress. That group fell apart and was never restored.
Dr. Vaughan has said, on a number of occassions over the past three years, that he was putting together an Advanced Learning Steering Committee that would advise on all three programs and more (IB, AP, honors, etc.). This committee is no closer to being formed now than it was three years ago when originally promised.
Without a cohesive district-wide advocacy group, Spectrum is extremely vulnerable - as we have seen. It has no advocate within the District - not on the Board, not in the Superintendent's "cabinet", not in Teaching and Learning, and not in the Advanced Learning office. Nowhere.
I agree that it looks like Wedgwood was handled extremely poorly. If the majority community wanted to make the school a neighborhood-only school, and kick out the self-contained Spectrum kids, then Chris Cronas should have worked with the district to move the Spectrum program to a larger school that could better accommodate it, or he should have gotten buy-in from the Spectrum families to move to an egalitarian, blended model (which is, I repeat, NOT clustering.)
This is not what happened, and it sounds like Cronas unnecessarily and deliberately reignited old flame wars to get what he wanted. Neither Bob Vaughn nor Susan Enfield stepped in to slow him down or require him do this before open enrollment closed, no one urged him to get buy-in from ALL sides, and no one even discussed making arrangements to shift the program to a larger school. All these would have benefited the entire school population, because a cooperative decision would have been reached. Instead, personal politics trumped the needs of the affected students, and old wounds were deliberately reopened that had previously taken several years to heal.
Look, I get that some families do not want their kids in a Spectrum program. And I really get that as the district shifts to a neighborhood school model, then certain district-wide programs such as Spectrum start to collide with neighborhood desires, especially in the smaller schools. But the culture that allowed this outright, last-minute dismantling of a district program by parties not IN the affected program is still a highly dysfunctional culture.
Once we allow a majority of people NOT IN A PROGRAM to decide to dismantle a working program, then where does it end? Do we now allow individual schools to kick out Special Ed programs weeks before school starts, because the majority of parents don't use the program or think it takes up too many school resources? What about sports programs? Do we discontinue girls sports because the boys programs are more popular? Where does this end?
District-run programs are not popularity contests. What happens to district programs such as Advanced Learning must have rules, district oversight, and not be subject to the last minute whims of individuals. Bob Vaughn needs to find his backbone, and Susan Enfield needs to pay attention to this.
Because if there is no district plan for managing, moving, or changing programs, then we end up with exactly the sort of fiefdom/mob rule/kingdom-building that we are seeing now. This is the uglier side of the neighborhood school model (something I support by the way) that absolutely needs to be addressed. Because if individual principals are allowed to kick out programs that they don't like with no advance warning, no relocation plan, and no consequences, then all heck will break loose as the mob takes over. ANY minority program will be at risk if this is allowed to continue unchecked.
- expected more from Enfield, frankly
Realist
By the time the district admitted the severity of the overcrowding problem at Lowell it was an emergency. My only point being that it was a serious enough case to merit a change after open enrollment.
Other than that, I completely agree with your post. The district knew, or at least should have known what was coming many months earlier. For those of us paying attention, it was obvious the previous year. For that matter, this was one of the likely negative consequences that was repeatedly pointed out to the previous superintendent in opposition to the split of elementary APP. So while it was an emergency this summer, it was NOT a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.
For APP qualified Spectrum students - it may still be an option to move to APP for this year as open enrollment continues until Oct 1....
Which I'm surprised has not been deleted at of 8 PM since everyone has to sign a pseudonym.
Is this actually at all true? My understanding is that programs (like APP) run on an entirely different schedule and if you miss the: MAP then District paperwork in October then District testing (Dec?) then maybe private testing just in case, then notification in (Feb?) then signing up in March or April, then you have missed the boat until the next grade.
Or, alternatively, if you hit all of those marks EXCEPT signing up for APP in March or April then you are out of luck (unless maybe you just moved to town, maybe?) until the next year when, I'm thinking, you actually have to start the whole thing over, UNLESS your kid was enrolled in Spectrum (of any sort, even blended) or has an "ALO" (whatever that happen to mean at your particular school) In which case you do not have to retest (until maybe 5th grade, maybe?).
Until you are in 7th grade at which point you can relax and rest on your laurels and not be concerned (unless your parents didn't have it together earlier in which case you can not join the APP cohort. Ever.)
Am I wrong? Does anyone (NONAnonymous) out there know the APP enrollment rules?
Mr. Ed
What did happen was that Kathy T brought in the information Sherry had asked for -- and that incidentally, Michael has been asking for for YEARS -- which is details on the JSCEE bonds, including the board action report from 2001 authorizing the sale of bonds to build the SODO palace. There was candid discussion of what was supposed to happen vs what did happen in terms of paying off the bonds. Michael asked for further information. Then he asked when could they get the information, hoping it could be dealt with this school year. Duggan and Bob and the third guy whose name I should remember had an exchange as to where the info might be and how difficult to retrieve and replied that they would provide the information at the next month's meeting and would have some options for moving forward by the end of the calendar year. Sure, that's a promise more than a reality, but everything was straightforward, no excuses, no random blathering, no BS.
Tuesday's A&F had Ronic explaining an model that would actually start holding folks accountable, would require everyone to certify that they know their work was done correctly. To do it right and not just get folks to sign for the sake of signing will require work, lots of work. Could we do it? Was it worth the attempt? The board members sure would like it but not just them, staff in the room was on board as well and that's what was needed. Another candid conversation about how NO department was anywhere near where it should be. Sometimes this certification thing is to get C work to move to B or B to A, but here we have a lot of work to do just to get to C. So yes, it will be an effort, but nothing short of this sort of specific process was going to cause enough change.
Everyone just seemed so willing to be professional and frank and earnest and to be on the same side, to make the district a better place. Not at all like Kennedy's "I'll get back to you." Everyone behaved like an adult and no one obfuscated.
From the enrollment page:
2011-2012 School Choice applications may still be submitted at any time until September 30th and are processed on a first come/first served basis.
don't delete me
The A&F report is good news.
Now if only curriculum had a clue about where to even begin with accountability.
Sad Creepy Pathalogical
Is this actually at all true? My understanding is that programs (like APP) run on an entirely different schedule and if you miss the: MAP then District paperwork in October then District testing (Dec?) then maybe private testing just in case, then notification in (Feb?) then signing up in March or April, then you have missed the boat until the next grade.
Since the whole anonymous comment you noted is gone, I'm not sure of the specfic situation being referenced. re: your questions, and I am by no means an expert - I would defer to StepJ - but i think the answers to your questions are both yes and no.
The whole chart is here:
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/advanced%20learning/EnrollmentOptions.pdf?sessionid=d2b8024439d1f5f2fb8c1d9b02af1bb4
And might best be explained through examples.
For instance - A 2nd grader at, say, Lawton or Wedgwood who gained APP eligible status during the 2010-2012 testing cycle but remained enrolled in the Spectrum program at his/her school can submit an open enrollment application for APP to the neighborhood pathway APP school. That student will go to the end of the APP wait list for that grade at Lowell/Lincoln or Marshall (since it's past the April deadline). Placement at either school is not guaranteed for 2011-2012, and the wait list dissolves Oct1.
*That same student, should he/she not receive a spot at the APP school because the grade is full, still retains AHG eligibility/status if he/she remains enrolled in a Spectrum or ALO program. The student could apply for a seat at an APP school during the next open enrollment period (Mar2012) and be guaranteed a seat at an APP school for 2012-2013 school year.
I think. I'm sure there are exceptions and specific situations I'm missing or aren't addressed in the above example.