Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Seattle Times Editorial Perspective

The Seattle Times has made their perspective clear: they support the current school board. Not only did they endorse the incumbents in the upcoming election, they have gone out of their way to claim that the Board is not to blame for the recent scandals. They write that the Board has learned from those mistakes - not that they made any mistakes - and will do better now - not they they hadn't done well enough before. The Times would have us believe that the Board isn't to blame, but that the system is to blame - nevermind that the Board controls the system.

To her great credit, Lynne Varner participates in the discussion of her Ed cetera. blog pieces. People have engaged her there with limited success.

And now today we have this myth of the "learned their lesson" chastised Board members who have re-doubled their efforts.


Melissa Westbrook said...

I can't believe Lynne Varner got huffy over Charlie's basic questions. I don't believe the Times even knows what accountability looks like.

dan dempsey said...

People have engaged her there with limited success.

When it comes to education that Newspaper should be renamed The Fantasy Times.

The Times is like MGJ, it never admits a mistake.... unfortunately we cannot give the Times a $363,000 package to just go away.

anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anonymous said...

I see the Times POV. Not everybody believes that we need an activist, or at least an extreme activist board, including myself. Not everyone believes that it's been all bad in SPS for the last four years, including myself. Some of us think that some of the incumbents have done an OK job, myself included. Personally, I like the direction the district is moving in right now, and I like Dr. Enfield. That doesn't mean I agree with everything that's going on, or everything that has been done, but I do like the general direction we are headed in.

That said, I am supporting two of the incumbents. I am supporting Sherry Carr. I like her, and I think her experience will be valuable. Plus I absolutely refuse to support a loose cannon like Kate Martin (and I didn't even know she was escorted out of Roosevelt by the police). She's outspoken, uninformed, and sometimes offensive. I don't think Kate would be effective. At. All.

And I am supporting Steve Sundquist because I don't want Marty McLaren on the board. She she was a member of SOS (Save our Southend schools)Coalition, and I find that activist group to be far to extreme for my taste. They tend to blame every action, and spin every issue into a racial one, and I find that to be divisive, and sometimes offensive. And she sued the district. I want people who are going to try to work together, not stamp their feet and divide. She's just not for me.

I don't find the Times article that far off. And, my prediction is that many people feel the same way, though they may not share their opinions here. We'll see what the votes say after the election.

flame proof

dan dempsey said...

It seems quite clear the Times will be avoiding the printings of facts and in depth discussion of the facts until after the elections.

dan dempsey said...

Flame proof stated:

And, my prediction is that many people feel the same way, though they may not share their opinions here. We'll see what the votes say after the election.


I do like the fact that Flame Proof had some basis for opinions ... I do wish that many people would share the basis for their opinions.


As long as too many voters choose to:
cast their votes founded in opinions formed by myths and half-truths, rather than the facts,
we will continue to have legislative bodies filled with purveyors of half-truths.

I certainly find Mr. Sundquist's performance throughly unacceptable. --

mom of 4 in sps said...

I'm with flame proof, almost to the word.

Melissa Westbrook said...

"Not everyone believes that it's been all bad in SPS for the last four years, including myself."

And who does believe it has all been bad the last four years?

Also, can you tell us some of the things that the incumbents have done to unit the district? I'd be interested in hearing about those.

anonymous said...

Melissa, I stated who I'm voting for and why I am voting for them. That should be good enough for you. I didn't try to convince you or anyone else to vote the way I am voting, nor prove that I am right. I just shared my view.

For the record I'm not enamoured with Sherry Carr or Steve Sundquist, though I do think they have both done adequate jobs, especially Sherry. Mainly I am voting for them because I do not like their challengers. At. All.

flame proof

anonymous said...

Thank you Dan. I know you don't agree with my choices for school board, but you were able to acknowledge that I stated my views and have a right to my (informed) opinion. I appreciate that.

flame proof

Charlie Mas said...

This may not be the time or place to admit this, but what the heck.

I don't think Sherry Carr is all that bad. Of all of the incumbents she is the one who, I think, has made some genuine efforts to step up to the job. It isn't enough and it's too narrow, but it is there.

The campaign I care the most about is District III, Harium Martin-Morris and Michelle Buetow. We really need to win this one. Harium is an anchor on the Board's progress. As bad as he is at the legislative meetings, you have no idea how bad he is in committee.

I think that winning this one - all by itself - might be enough to turn the Board. I think that Ms Buetow, with Director Smith-Blum, Director DeBell, and Director Patu would form a majority. More than that, I think they could bring Director Carr with them. I have no hope for Director Maier or Director Sundquist.

anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mirmac1 said...

Can this get any seedier?

Figure in schools scandal ran prostitution service.

Lorrie Kay Sorenson

anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing Charlie! I might have voted against Sherry Carr, and would definitely have voted against Steve Sundquist if they had stronger challengers, but I just can't support McLaren and Martin.

I did vote for Michelle Buetow. I like her and I think she is just what the board needs! I also voted for Sharon Peasly. I think it would be absolutely fab to have an ex-teacher on the board - we need that perspective, and I really like her!

And for the record I supported you when you ran! Wish you were on the board (and yes, I know you used to be a member of SOS, but I forgive you).

flame proof

mirmac1 said...

Okay, Hilarious. Have any of you actually Followed Lynne Varner's Twitter Feed?! Now THAT's a bonafide journalist!

"lkvarner Lynne Varner
Did the 3 angered by today's#Seattle schools edit think we might change our endorsement? Must not understand the care that went n2 choices.
Favorite Retweet Reply

lkvarner Lynne Varner
What is it abt newspaper commenting that turns people n2 bullies at a schoolyard brawl? Talk to them w/out the crowd & they're so polite."

I wonder if I'm one of the bullies. Not feelin' it. I'd say ST is the bully in this town and should get permanent expulsion.

Anonymous said...

varner is from Seattle?

In Seattle, bullies are people who disagree with you. Since your positions are just go along get along group think, you call those who disagree "bullies"!


dan dempsey said...

I would like to hear more from Flame Proof ... about Marty McLaren ... because I am interested.

I know that some folks are considered secular progressives ... some are liberals ... some are conservatives ... etc. etc. independents yada yada.

Me .. I do not think the school system can realistically do it all .. successfully. That is no reason not to make an attempt to educate "each child" as well as can possibly be done.

So Marty McLaren was a member of the SOS coalition, which FP considers extreme.

I wish to know more about the past SOS connection and how this might effect Marty's ability to govern.

As for me... I want Directors who are transparent and make decisions based on evidence intelligently applied. This is precisely why I oppose all four incumbents.

#1 Decisions have not been based on an intelligent application of the evidence.

#2 Fake transparency is used in explaining decisions.

Most recently Sherry Carr's statement about TFA evidence really hacked me off. She cherry-picked the most definitive study available "Heilig and Jez" for a piece of its summary that conveyed the exact opposite of what the study stated.

It has been four years of watching predetermined decisions ... justified with phony statements... by all four incumbents running for reelection.

I am really tired of the rule from the monied top and continued violations of existing RCWs, WACs, and policies. It has thus far been impossible to get the directors to follow RCWs and WACs and policies.

The reason we have filed the latest appeal and a recall for Mr. Randy Dorn is because this system in making decisions effecting academics ... is as bad as the Pottergate and MLK to AME fiascos.

The OSPI Associate Director of Certification states the the requirements of the WAC were met for the issuance of Conditional Certificates to TFA corps members .... but refuses to state When the required careful review of all other options to TFA for closing the Achievement Gaps was performed.

Our legal actions have produced a lot of CYA it appears.

Today's letter to OSPI Associate Director David Kinnunen. ... See the covering of behinds being attempted.

dan dempsey said...

OK let me try that letter in a smaller font as a web page.


Charlie Mas said...

I wasn't a member of SOS, but I was a member of CEASE for a long time.

The rationale for the CEASE coalition was that diverse groups would come together and work for each other's causes instead of allowing the District to divide and conquer by pitting us against each other. I had to leave the group when one member began a campaign against Advanced Learning (which I represented at the time) and the other coalition members would not bring this person into order. The rationale for the coalition had broken down, so I had to step away.

I'm still friendly with a lot of those folks and they are still active, as am I. I still seek to advocate for their programs and interests and I still work to keep the District from being able to effectively divide and conquer by pitting groups against each other.

anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anonymous said...

As I mentioned above Dan, "SOS" or Save our Southend Schools Coalition, which I believe partnered with CEASE, was a group of activists (Don Alexander and Theresa Cardamon to name a couple) that were very extreme. They were loud and outspoken, and found a way to blame nearly every issue in the district on race, which IMO was very divisive, and offensive. Don Alexander behaved like a thug and was escorted out of school board meetings by the police. And Theresa Cardamone was just as bad. You may know her name, as she ran, unsuccesfully, for school board several years ago. CEASE and SOS were generally thought of (at least in the mainstream) as disruptive forces, with some very extreme views. That Marty McLaren is, or was, part of that group is disturbing enough to me, to sway my vote away from her.

flame proof

dan dempsey said...

Flame Proof -- thanks so much for the History Lesson .. much appreciated.

Guichon said...

@flame proof: On your first post.....Well said, well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gavroche said...

Sounds like Steve S. and pals are nervous about McLaren's chances of unseating him. (Methinks some doth exclaim too much.)

I'm voting against Steve Sundquist because of his current membership on the frequently divisive and offensive SSB -- Seattle School Board.

Jan said...

flame proof: thanks for your perspective. Whatever we may think of the choices, there is always the possibility, when you elect someone new, that you are getting something different than what you bargained for (in fact, it is probably more common than not). IF I were going to vote for an incumbent, it would be Sherry, I think, because I do like her as well. But for so many reasons relating to District management, that technocrat versus humanist thing, etc., I am going with the challengers. It will be an interesting election.

Anonymous said...

Still not voting for any of the incumbents. Their decision to "unite" as a slate, ignore their own communities, and run as the chosen candidates of various uber-rich people and ed reform advocates has resulted in the choices that voters are facing. I'll say it again: I have seen the incumbents and challengers in many different settings and the challengers outclass the incumbents every time as far as smarts, guts, and good ideas. The four arrogant little emperors have no clothes. Let's send them all packing.


SeattleSped said...

Flame proof,

I'm not sure how you feel about elected officials lying to you. Did you know Sherry Carr campaigns on the district's "improvement" of Special Education and ELL services? HAH! And Sundquist rubberstamps closing or leasing schools, just to re-open them later, screwing both taxpayers and neighborhoods?

As for involvement in radical groups, holy crap! I hope nobody finds out what I've done! And I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU!

I know I won't convince you but there's plenty of reasons to vote for or against all the candidates. I suppose it depends on what's most important to the individual.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Flame, calm down. I just asked you why you are voting the way you voted. It's okay not explain.

I also asked you who said everything the last four years has been all bad. Who was that again?

"They were loud and outspoken..." Very scary. Charlie and I probably fall in that category.

And Don Alexander a thug? Don Alexander who marched with MLK,Jr.? Don Alexander who walks with a cane ever since I have met him? Yes, quite the thug.

anonymous said...

Yes, Melissa, that Don Alexander.

The Don Alexander that has been escorted out of public school board meetings by the police because he was so disruptive.

The Don Alexander that uses racial accusation in almost every sentence he speaks.

The Don Alexander that is the chairman for Save Our Southend Schools (SOS).

The Don Alexander that wrote this:
"myself and two other people had been engaged in a series of hold-ups. I was 16 years old and the smartest, baddest, toughest mother-fucker on the near north side of Chicago."

I'm not saying Don Alexander is a bad person, or that he is wrong to do what he does. I just don't agree with his opinions or views. And I don't want a school board director, whose job it will be to make policy for our district, that was a member of his radical group.

flame proof

mirmac1 said...

Seeing as how Don Alexander is now, what, 86 yrs old, I say those thuggery days are behind him.

Frankly, when it comes to any "achievement gap closing", I'd believe a little civil disobedience over a suit with a business plan sidling up to the trough.

Anonymous said...

Gosh, I wonder if Mr. Alexander made it in the Hoover file. Lots of thugs, thuggery, and radical groups there. So Mr. Alexander owes up to his 16 year old bad ass past, not to mention his survival because he was the baddest, who then does a weird turn and goes onto be an education proponent carrying the rock of Gilbraltar on his shoulder all this time. If you wondered how he came by that, and the quote Flame Proof used --in its proper context, you should read his article on: Guns and Grief- a personal story of regret."


Seattle mom

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Seattle mom, for that link.


Anonymous said...

Ok, maybe thug was too harsh a word. But honestly, I'm not trying to sway anyone. I'm sharing my own view. If you want to support Marty McLaren, a candidate that that belongs to SOS, which frames every position they take around race, and who's leader is escorted out of school board meetings by the police, and who Charlie parted ways with because they took a stand against advanced learning, go ahead.

flame proof

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your voice, flameproof, even if we disagree.


Anonymous said...

"I also asked you who said everything the last four years has been all bad. Who was that again?"

Just today you wrote in your thread titled Quick News Updates: "But interestingly, on a KUOW interview today, Peter Maier says he would give the district a "B+" and that parents should be "celebrating" the growth of our district. The grade is laughable and frankly, a little insulting to anyone who knows the history of our district over the last year or so (even taking in the good things). "

Could you see how I'd get the idea that you think this district is doing pretty bad? Peter Maier thinks the district is doing well and gives it a B+ and you find that to be insulting to anyone who knows the history of the district.

What grade do you give the district Melissa? That might help me understand just how good or bad you think the district is doing.

flame proof

Melissa Westbrook said...

Flame proof, why would I answer your questions, if you won't answer mine?

And just because I wouldn't give the district a B+ doesn't mean I think it's all bad. It seems you are trying to put words in my mouth that aren't there (and haven't been there).

Still waiting.

Charlie Mas said...

I'd give different people in the district different grades.

I'd give Dr. Enfield a B-. As I have written, she has done some very good work to change the culture of the district in every department except her own. If she brought the same reform to Teaching and Learning she'd get an A+ and would be promoted to the next grade.

I would give Pegi McEvoy an A. I've been very impressed with her work, but even more impressed with her total lack of guile. She has been transparent and responsive.

I would give Bob Bouche a Pass. He's strictly an interim and I don't feel entirely comfortable with his hatchet work to intentionally under-fund schools at the start of the year.

I'm not sure about Noel Treat. I like him. He seems really sincere and honest. But I don't really know what his job is.

I don't want to give Cathy Thompson a grade. I want to kick her out of the class.

Directors DeBell, Smith-Blum, and Patu would all get B- as well. It's not their fault, really. Their project needs four people to make it work.

Directors Sunquist, Maier, and Martin-Morris should be failed and dropped from the class for refusing to do the work.

Director Carr has a D. She has a lot of overdue assignments. If she turns them in she will pass. If she doesn't she will fail.

The District as a whole? I'd say a C. It's a solidly passing respectable grade but it won't get you into a four-year college.

Marks were taken off for broken promises, poor labor relations, and poor support for students with IEPs. They failed capacity management, budgeting, and Native American program. The score was supported by the work done in the schools. Let's just say that the district is lucky to have such great lab partners.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Hilarious, Charlie. I would probably give them a C- myself (too many financial issues - scandals and otherwise).

If this district is a B, I'd hate to see the district that Peter would give a D.

suep. said...

flame proof -- your claim about Marty McLaren is incorrect. Her brief affiliation with SOS was in 2001-02, nine years ago. Moreover, her efforts there involved constructive community organizing.

Maureen said...

Guichon said...
@flame proof: On your first post.....Well said, well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are posters in this thread under the impression that flame proof is a new poster? I would guess from her voice that she is the long time poster who changes her alias every week or so (daf recently). I think I understand why she does it, but I wish she would stick with one alias so we could keep her (always informed and often compelling) comments in context.

dan dempsey said...

OK ... time for a revelation

CEASE might largely be composed of many folks labeled as social progressives.... well I am not a social progressive but I am on the CEASE list server for emails.

I've also been to a CEASE meeting and speak to Don Alexander.... I've also been known to speak to Roscoe Bass.

There are a number of things I disagree with Don Alexander about. I even disagree with Roscoe on occasion.

Dr. Carol Simmons is one of my favorite people yet I disagreed with her on the termination of Caprice Hollins. I think that position needed to go. I failed to see any relationship to making the changes needed to close achievement gaps and her employment.

The point of all this rambling is..... I believe that Marty McLaren is not some pinko-commie Symbionese Army radical left over from the Patti Hearst days ... but rather someone who has a pretty good understanding of what is happening in a lot of different quarters and the intelligence to apply that knowledge in decision-making.

Like Charlie I see the four incumbents seeking reelection as folks who were rarely transparent and failed at oversight and governance.

I confess to having had a beer with Marty at the Pyramid Alehouse and a cup of tea in her kitchen.

I also helped her in the HS math adoption appeal that Porter, Mass, and McLaren filed.

She has done a lot to resist the SPS madness. We have I suspect some political differences but her trust and transparency slogan is genuine and that is a great deal more than Steve Sundquist has delivered over the last four years.

Marty is big on evidence based decision making. The four incumbents are big on Faked transparency.

DWE had it 100% correct HERE.

Anonymous said...

I am not flameproof or DAF, but I post under different sign offs because sometimes I ask questions and comment on behalf of others who cannot, mainly because of their poor English or don't work near a computer to log on or cannot use work PC for personal business. I know it's hard to believe, but I have a friend who does not own a computer and her kids go to the Library 3 x/week to get HW typed and printed. I suspect once the eldest gets older, they will have to bite the bullet, but it is still about money and cost to keep a DSL or cable connection.

Seattle mom

mom of 4 in sps said...

Way to stand up, flameproof!

Melissa, IMHO it's patronizing (and border-line intimidation) to say something like "calm down" to something as innocuous as "I stated who I'm voting for and why I'm voting for them, and that should be enough for you" It was a reasonable and matter of fact statement.

Re Don Alexander - I've never found him to want to do anything but talk - at least in the 5 years I've been seeing him - not taking anything away from his early days. He's been reached out to by the district any number of imes and is not interested.

He just wants to stand up at any given meeting (to whom all were invited and much outreach was made), and say "Where are all the people of color?" - without bringing anyone there himself or asking the people he speaks of why they haven't gotten themselves there. Yup, a lot of good reasons for that(discretionary time, transportation, child care), but they're not things Don should hold the district responsible for.

Maybe it's a rhetorical question he's asking - but there again - less talk, more doing, Don.

Anonymous said...

I am also on the CEASE listserve and email lists. I was involved with SOS years ago when SPS was threatening to close my daughter's elementary school (full and popular),

I live in SE Seattle. Many of my friends with younger children live here too. I care about what's happening south of the ship canal and I want to be informed by all players.

I've sat in many a meeting with both Don and Roscoe. They are outspoken characters with a different perspective based on their world view formed when they were younger men. I don't always agree with them, but understand where they are coming from.

Personally, I'd like to see Betty Patu get some back-up n the board. I'm definitely voting for Marty.


Anonymous said...

Oh Lord, here I am putting up a defense for Mr. Alexander. He is who he is and his voice is what he has left. There's a lot of anger there for sure, but I understand where the fire is coming from. My hero, Trish Dziko, has stood up to that fire in front of the school board members no less and prevailed.

Still this was about relating a relationship of a candidate to what was characterized as a radical group and a firebrand personality, not unlike Obama and his Rev. Wright or Perry and Rev. Jeffress It's all fair in politics I guess. So yeah, I think it was to persuade voters.

Seattle mom

Anonymous said...

Flame Proof: SeattleMom took the words right out of my mouth with the Obama/Reverend Wright example.

I greatly appreciate your viewpoint and your right to vote for whomever you want. But I'm going to challenge your reasoning. It seems your vote in support of Sundquist is actually a vote against McLaren, due to a tangential relationship or affiliation with a group that often defaults to racism as the cause of all problems.

I get where you're coming from. I think those accusations typically stop all communication and progress in its tracks, and I find it largely unproductive to label and insinuate against other groups. Like many others, I like Don and respect his views, even though I don't agree with all of them, and get tired of the "racism" allegations. Then again, I'm not in Don's shoes & neither are you.

What bothers me is the suggestion that, due to her membership in a group, Marty shares or endorses the same ideals or views. Gimme a break! By that logic, the Gang of Four share Maria Goodloe-Johnson's views, don't they? They voted in favor of every single one of her initiatives, didn't they? That's a helluva a lot more revealing than being a member of some group? Unless you, er, approved of MGJ's actions I suppose?

Judge Marty, up or down, on her record of actions, experience, and accomplishments. If you still say thumbs down, that's fine.

I will endorse her because she was dead right, and is, dead right, about Math. Math is the most critical component of my kids' education, and in SPS, it is terrible. Just look at the scores.

I also live in West Seattle, which has suffered terribly during Sundquist's tenure. I've been to his meetings. He does not listen. All he does is defend staff and act as apologist in chief for the district. It's very US vs THEM, and he's clearly with THEM. Aside from that, he's a real nice guy. It's a crying shame.

Vote however you want, but don't succumb to personal prejudices based on affiliations. I think it best to imagine how Marty will act as a board director, and not focus on what she did a decade ago, while marching in the street alongside a few offensive voices. To do any less is a disservice to yourself. WSDWG

Charlie Mas said...

After early promise, it appears that Ms Varner isn't really going to engage. Pity.

Charlie Mas said...

I don't know how much Lynne Varner values this dialogue, but I value it enough to create a thread on this blog for the exclusive purpose of continuing it.

Josh Hayes said...

I had exactly the same thoughts as Charlie and Melissa when I heard that "what grade would you give the district" question. I thought to myself, it's not monolithic, and in my head I divided the district into the schools, and the management.

I think the grades for individual schools are all over the map, but on the whole, they deserve credit for trying hard to do well with the limited resources they receive; probably I'd give out something like a B to most of the schools.

The administration, however, does far worse, but this is partly because of Earthquake MG-J and subsequent aftershocks. I'm inclined to give them an "incomplete" and suggest that they could raise it to a scant pass (C) by finishing their work. Lots of room for improvement, largely by ceding authority back to the schools where it belongs, and concentrating on the job of the administration: administering.

but "B+"? Really? Not on THIS planet. Talk about your grade inflation!

suep. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

WSDWG said " It seems your vote in support of Sundquist is actually a vote against McLaren"

That is true and accurate. I

WSEADWG said "Math is the most critical component of my kids' education, and in SPS, it is terrible."

That is your opinion. As far as I'm concerned the Discovering series ( while they wouldn't be my first choice of texts) are far better than the old integrated texts that were used prior to them, so, while not perfect, I see them as a HUGE improvement. My very average children are thriving with Discovering, and doing very well - without tutoring or extra help. I liked CMP in middle school too. I don't like EDM, but I don't believe EDM was this boards doing.

flame proof

dan dempsey said...

Dear Flame Proof,

Check the data in comment #12 HERE.

How are your kids doing on the End of Course Math tests from OSPI? ... Happy your kids are doing well.

For Algebra I it was NOT a pretty picture for way too many of Seattle's high school students.

dan dempsey said...

Dear Flame Proof,

You are correct that this Board did not adopt EDM, which was adopted in May 2007. What this Board did do was buy over $300,000 of additional EDM supplemental materials to keep the EDM program going as it had been going.

Auburn also was using EDM but decided NOT to reorder the supplemental materials... and instead began emphasizing the Auburn Power Standards... The change from when Auburn made that decision is amazing ... see OSPI change in results in Auburn v. SPS HERE.

"Math is the most critical component of my kids' education, and in SPS, it is terrible."

That is your opinion.

It is a lot more than opinion... Check the MATH data. Outside of Middle School ... it is an SPS math calamity especially so for many low-income and/or minority students.

Article IX of the State Constitution is likely not being fulfilled in math.... (ample education regardless of race or caste)

and the District is now putting Conditionally Certified teachers into some high-poverty/ high-minority classrooms .. yet failed to conduct a careful review of all options for closing achievement gaps.

anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anonymous said...

Dan, thanks for the data. FWIW, my son scored a 3 on his Alg I EOC exam. I wish he scored a 4, but am quite satisfied with his very average 3.

He's always been an average student (never tested into Spectrum or APP) and not very motivated either - I always have to push him along. And no formal tutoring, or intervention either.

In your chart you compared 4 school districts. Two used Discovering (Seattle and Bethel) and two used Holt (Spokane and Clover Park). What your chart shows is that 12.5 % of the low income kids at my sons school, Hale, scored above standard on the EOC exams, using Discovering, while 15.6% of the low income kids in the Clover Park SD scored above standard using Holt, and 16.1% of low income kids in the Spokane SD scored above standard using Holt. Sorry, but that's just not a big enough difference for me to get excited about Holt (if I'm reading the charts right, and please do correct me if I'm not).

flame proof