ALPTF Recommendations Sent

On Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 6:28pm. Dr. Robert Vaughan sent an email to Dr. Enfield with the recommendations from the Advanced Learning Programs Task Force regarding placement considerations for elementary students in north Seattle attending the Accelerated Progress Program.

Nothing has, as yet, appeared on the District web site about these recommendations. I'm not sure why the recommendations could not have been sent to Dr. Enfield within a day or two of the final task force meeting.

Nevertheless, it's done. Dr. Enfield now has 90 days to implement the recommendations or explain why she hasn't. Except, of course, Dr. Enfield doesn't work for the District any more. She is using her vacation days for the remaining days of her contract.

Comments

Linh-Co said…
She's pretty much been on "vacation" when she decided to move on in February.
6/14/12, 9:33 PM
Dorothy Neville said…
Linh-Co, make that since last December. Nothing done, no AGREE, no work on student discipline inequity, no four pillars... nothing. Not professional, not at all.
6/14/12, 10:06 PM
suep. said…
So in effect, Enfield quit SPS after just 9 months -- perfectly in keeping with her short-term, peripatetic resume.

Still, a number of questionable things happened on her watch this year, including the Lafayette principal scandal; her decision to leave the two Lowell Elem. principals found guilty of misconduct in charge of their schools, liability and all; the inconsistent and inadequate way the district handled security during the recent at-large gunman emergency; the MAP recalibration fiasco, to name a few.

Heads up, Highline.
6/14/12, 11:08 PM
Anonymous said…
in the last few days I've read that this Vaughan guy has been with the district for 12 years? I've heard his name for many years, and in the last few days of the pending consideration of the possible thinking of the supposed recommendation ...

does this guy epitomize what is wrong with the downtown bureaucracy of artful dodgers?

I have the sense that most of those who read and comment on this blog have enough sense to realize that life has trade-offs, and that the entire district doesn't revolve around YOUR child. However, parents sure would like some clarity!

What do parents get from these artful dodgers who kick the can down the road by getting everyone to argue about which can we're kicking and where is the can and who gets to kick the can and which road are we on and where do we kick the can ... ?

Are the artful dodger just hand wringers trying to avoid the CONFRONTATION AND ANGER AND NEGATIVITY of ... doing their jobs and making a decision,

or is it so the artful dodger bureaucrats can keep their good paying job for another year or 5?

It sure looks like

ArtfulDodgerWinsAgain
6/15/12, 5:58 AM
word said…
I don't know if he epitomizes what's wrong but he epitomizes SOMEthing.

I cannot figure out how the district administrators balance their (presumably) once sincere interest in education with administration politics.

I called Robert Vaughan once with a simple yes or no question and he talked my ear off for an hour about aspects of advanced learning. This made me feel like he has a sincere and profound interest in advanced learners, particularly twice exceptional learners.He also appeared seriously concerned about the cost and efficacy of advanced testing. However, when he/the district removed our Spectrum program midyear he threw up a defensive wall in the face of irate parents at our school. It was hard to know in that situation where his sympathies laid but I kind of felt (and I am speculating) that maybe he is not as interested in Spectrum/ALO and in pushing the general population of high performing but otherwise "normal" kids to their full potential.

That's my impression based on very little data.....
6/15/12, 7:58 AM
Jan said…
word: I have had the same sorts of Jekyll and Hyde experiences with Dr. Vaughan. I am wondering whether his reaction may have been because, in this instance, he was simply told what the deal was going to be -- and that he had to support it. He is smart. I am not sure he is a great implementer (if he were, I think we would have better criteria for admission into APP, better implementation of ALOs, etc. -- but in many cases-- I think he is handed the very short stick of "this is what we are going to do -- your job is to defend it."
6/17/12, 6:42 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

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.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, gr...
Read more

Education News Roundup

From the ever-amusing Washington Policy Center : Vouchers are Pell Grants for students under 18.  Vouchers are no different than Pell Grants or GI benefits, except the money goes to the families of students younger than age 18.  Except they are. Pell Grants were created to help needy students and that's not really the goal of the voucher program.  The Pell grant website does have a couple of great studies on why low-income students drop out before finishing their higher ed and what makes a difference.
Read more