What They Say vs What They Do
Tell me that I'm not the only one troubled by the wide gap between what the District leadership says - mostly the Board, but senior staff as well - and what they do.
They say that they are committed to transparency, but they never offer any. We went through this long process for the BEX IV plan with all kinds of community meetings and you would think that every idea was aired and discussed, but then, at the 11th hour, they interject this weird Jane Addams to Pinehurst idea. It comes out of nowhere and there's no time left to discuss it. And what, exactly, is the process for program placement decisions? What is the rationale behind under-funding the "non-traditional" schools?
They say that they are committed to community engagement, but look at the motions that come before the Board. The vast majority of them have had no community engagement at all. The Board's primary community engagement, public testimony, has been squeezed and reduced and diminished.
They say that they support advanced learning, but they have made a mockery of ALOs, they have destroyed Spectrum, and they are actively ripping APP apart. When have they ever supported advanced learning in any way? What would they have done to APP if they did not support it?
They say that they care about Special Education, but they have abandoned it completely. There is no effort to make the fantasy inclusive classrooms real.
They say that they want equitable access to programs, but they put the programs in attendance area schools and deny access to students living outside the neighborhood. What more could they have done to reduce the equity of access? Oh! Right! They could put language immersion schools adjacent to each other.
They say that they want to make decisions based on data, but they never collect or review any data prior to making any decisions. They didn't regard the data before entering into a contract with NTN or before closing schools.
They say that they want to create a culture of compliance but they never enforce any of the rules or complain when people break them. They violate state law when hiring Teach for America corps members, they engage in unfair labor practices, they ignore their own procedures on investigations, they usually don't even bother to check what the rules are.
They say that they want to build the public's trust in the District, but they never keep any of their commitments and prove themselves utterly un-trustworthy. Over and over again. What do they think builds trust?
I sometimes feel like I'm living in some kind of inverse reality - or maybe they are. When I confront them with these things I just get blank looks. It's as if they are surprised by it. It's as if they don't realize that they do the exact opposite of everything they say. How can it be unknown to them when it is so obvious to us?
They say that they are committed to transparency, but they never offer any. We went through this long process for the BEX IV plan with all kinds of community meetings and you would think that every idea was aired and discussed, but then, at the 11th hour, they interject this weird Jane Addams to Pinehurst idea. It comes out of nowhere and there's no time left to discuss it. And what, exactly, is the process for program placement decisions? What is the rationale behind under-funding the "non-traditional" schools?
They say that they are committed to community engagement, but look at the motions that come before the Board. The vast majority of them have had no community engagement at all. The Board's primary community engagement, public testimony, has been squeezed and reduced and diminished.
They say that they support advanced learning, but they have made a mockery of ALOs, they have destroyed Spectrum, and they are actively ripping APP apart. When have they ever supported advanced learning in any way? What would they have done to APP if they did not support it?
They say that they care about Special Education, but they have abandoned it completely. There is no effort to make the fantasy inclusive classrooms real.
They say that they want equitable access to programs, but they put the programs in attendance area schools and deny access to students living outside the neighborhood. What more could they have done to reduce the equity of access? Oh! Right! They could put language immersion schools adjacent to each other.
They say that they want to make decisions based on data, but they never collect or review any data prior to making any decisions. They didn't regard the data before entering into a contract with NTN or before closing schools.
They say that they want to create a culture of compliance but they never enforce any of the rules or complain when people break them. They violate state law when hiring Teach for America corps members, they engage in unfair labor practices, they ignore their own procedures on investigations, they usually don't even bother to check what the rules are.
They say that they want to build the public's trust in the District, but they never keep any of their commitments and prove themselves utterly un-trustworthy. Over and over again. What do they think builds trust?
I sometimes feel like I'm living in some kind of inverse reality - or maybe they are. When I confront them with these things I just get blank looks. It's as if they are surprised by it. It's as if they don't realize that they do the exact opposite of everything they say. How can it be unknown to them when it is so obvious to us?
Comments
Signed,
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me
I can't figure out what question one has to ask in order for "guaranteed improvement can be made on that front with charter schools" to be the truthful and honest answer.
Oompah
On the other hand, the poor performance of charters indicates that isn't a very good solution to the problem.
A better solution would fix district administration. My favorite approach would be to move decision-making down to the schools, then shrink district administration and shift its role to advice and support, but there are other structural changes that could be considered and might help.
Charters would bypass district administration, but, sadly their track record on yielding actual improvements is very poor. It's a shame, really. I'd be inclined to support charters if they worked, but the data says they don't.
http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html
This is a widely cited and well regarded study out of Stanford. The study says 17% of charters had academic gains, 37% actually reduced gains, and the rest were the same as their equivalent public schools. In net, charters, as implemented, appear to do more harm than good, which I agree is unfortunate.
If you're wondering why this could be the case, the problem appears to be that most states find it very hard to close nonperforming charter schools. Usually, the company running the charter sues to try to block closing their school.
I couldn't make this planning debacle up if I tried.
For Seattle taxpayers, this means more levy money that Seattle schools hasn't told anyone about two days before it is put to a board vote.
Or perhaps Seattle Schools will decide to put an additional school on the Jane Addams site...that is now also being dangled...but who knows if that is feasible or what it costs.
So to your point Charlie, again ---2 days before a vote the district is insisting on taking --- we have potential displacement of hundreds of students, no knowledge of cost of displacement, assured knowledge that this will kill a program, make elementary crowding worse in the Northeast, and not even solve the middle school overcrowding issue that started this farcical and irresponsible musical chairs.
This is the leadership of the district. And that 'leadership' is taking orders from some very self-centered Ravenna-area parents who want to solve a problem by throwing 2 other schools under the school bus.
Seattle Schools has learned nothing since the ill-fated school closures under Goodloe-Johnson. Taxpayers shouldn't bother allowing Seattle schools to use hundreds of millions of dollars of their money on BEX.
Disgusted Near 130th
- former Summit parent
It is true that the neighborhood near Summit had not filled that program to capacity, but the idea to repurpose that building came from SPS staff via the board and driven by - who else - the Eckstein area parents who saw overcrowding on the horizon. Newsflash: It is here and NOW we are reaping what the pathetic planning of long-gone staff and some still-current board members sowed.
At that time, the Board had a chance to decide whether Jane Addams stayed as Summit, repurposed to an option program, or opened as a middle school. It managed to choose the worst option - kill Summit, not address boundary changes to fix overcrowding at Eckstein and vote in an option program that was bound to be attacked as crowding got worse. That day is today.
Let's also remember the famous last nail in Summit's coffin Harium Martin-Morris promising to look for a "solution" for Summit...and then at the board meeting when this all went down, suggesting that Summit move to RAINIER BEACH HIGH SCHOOL. Like any parent was going to bus their kids from North Seattle to the southern most point in the district. At that point, Rainier Beach High School itself was threatened to be closed.
When Summit parents' jaw dropped at Martin-Morris' "solution" he washed his hands of the affair. He and Sherry Carr and Michael DeBell were A OK with Jane Addams becoming a K8 option school. Of course not one of the three will own up to that today.
But make no mistake: Staff and board's refusal to do long term planning a few years ago have led to today's situation. Eckstein parents are now beyond frustrated, which explains but does not excuse their current cutthroat behavior to north end parents. (For shame, Eckstein parents...that you stoop to "harm" instead of insist the board and staff do its job to think of other out of the box solutions and "resolve"...)
The story is depressing, most of all because no one ever owns up to their mistakes, especially the board.
I am telling everyone I know not to vote for BEX. If it fails, perhaps the board and staff, urged by a collaborative community, will come back with reasonably thought out plans. Meantime, I will not be fooled twice and yes, I still mourn Summit's tawdry demise.
-skeptical-
I expect it.
Large organizations (particularly a government organizations) do not respond very well to the needs of its constituents or consumers.
Bagley Mom (who drives from Magnolia for Montessori, but who kind of cringes that my daughter goes to a literally crumbling school that isn't deemed worthy of repair.)
Wait, what? Our child was enrolled in Jane Addams its first year after Summit was closed. I don't remember any rallies to create a K-8 there. As far as I can tell, that idea came from District staff. Only after that decision was made and the principals were announced did we decide to enroll there, and I think that was typical of the 1st year parents.
It's always sad when a school is closed. But keeping a school with, what, 400 students with no increase in sight in a building that could hold 700 is a problem. Yes, frequent threats of closure make it hard to attract students to an option school, and I wish the District found a smaller building or a site in a less crowded neighborhood for the Summit program to continue.
-former Summit parent.
I'll update the post to include it.
I guess I'm just saying don't assume the current Jane Addams K-8 families had it in for Summit, especially a few years down the road.
Thank you very much to supporters of the community we call Pinehurst.
I struggle with the size of Pinehurst vs. the need for space, but I would never advocate for closing an academically successful program, especially one serving diverse students as well as some students who haven't been able to succeed elsewhere. If this is truly the case, how dare SPS building people trample an academic gem.
Anyhow, please share if possible.
EdVoter
However, in the end, SPS decided that the era of all-city-bussing was over and killed Summit outright while removing AS1's transportation. It was dishonest of the district to not just admit that transportation was the reason to dissolve rather than relocated Summit.
There were ample opportunities to relocate Summit in a way that would have benefitted the district and families. One option was to colocate Summit and Meany so that Summit was centrally located and to preserve middle school capacity in an area that a few short years later needs a middle school.
The district makes the decisions that it makes - plain and simple. Parents and communities often try to make a better argument to create a better outcome. However, sometimes, it is simply coincidental not causal that there were some parents making an argument that was the same as the final decision.
If parent lobbying had any effectiveness whatsoever, the 08-09 closures would not have happened. Meg Diaz's enrollment presentation with corresponding critique of the closure plan should be required reading for any person working on capacity issues. It was thoughtful, well reasoned and contained substantial data that was footnoted. Meg's presentation was also incredibly articulate and beyond thorough.
Every word was completely disregarded. Why? Because staff said something different and that Meg was wrong.
Parent lobbying is not the issue here. I don't blame any parent for advocating for their student, their community or their part of town.
Summit had over 500 students (K-12)in 2008-09, before it was closed, not just 400. I think their middle school was probably about as big as the current middle school at Jane Addams K-8, but their elementary grades were very small, and the kindergarten wasn't filling.
By 2008, there was a severe shortage of kindergarten seats in the NE, and many schools were having to add kindergarten classrooms to already full schools. Elementary capacity was the big need then, so I guess that is why they repurposed the building as a K-8.
As far as what the neighborhood wanted... I live in the neighborhood, and all I've ever heard from my friends and neighbors (pre and post-Summit) was that they wished the building was a middle school. I don't think the neighborhood got what they wanted when a K-8 went in the building, but at least it helped with the elementary over-crowding. Sure, there are some parents up here who really want their kids to go to Eckstein, but I think most of us would be happy with a reasonably-sized good comprehensive middle school closer to home.
-JR Mom
Exhausted Teacher
-JR Mom
They are undoing every single decision, but they are insisting - as they reverse themselves - that they were not wrong in the first place.
Why can't they admit error? Don't they see the absurd position they assume when they try to insist that they were right when they were clearly wrong - and were told that they were wrong at the time and are now reversing themselves? Why resist acknowledging error? What is gained from that sort of hubris?
They closed Meany Middle School, moved NOVA out of Mann, and relocated the S.B.O.C., then, just four years later, decided to re-open Meany Middle School, move NOVA back into Mann, and relocate the S.B.O.C. again. That's costing the District about $100 million dollars. No kidding. They spent $50 million to do it and now they are going to spend another $50 million to un-do it. All without ever admitting any error or any regret.
They closed Viewlands, Rainier View, and Fairmount Park, then re-open them a few years later. Without admitting any error.
They tell people that there is no way to re-open McDonald and Sand Point when the people say they need to. Then, within months, announce that they are going to do it.
Don't even get me started on the math.
I don't see any value in replacing an incompetent but accountable and elected board of directors with an equally incompetent but un-accountable and un-elected board of directors.
That pretty much says it right there. Sadly ...
--monnkeypuzzled
@StrawberryTech
Charlie says: They say that they are committed to transparency, but they never offer any." Read the charter legislation. Where is there anything that obligates charters to be transparent? To whom will you complain if they are not -- and why would anyone believe that complaining to a state-wide Olympia based "charter commission" about lack of transparency at your dinky school will (or legally can) yield any results (you don't even elect THOSE commissioners -- they are far less accountable to you than board directors).
Charlie says: "They say that they are committed to community engagement, but look at the motions that come before the Board. The vast majority of them have had no community engagement at all." Once a charter has started (and gotten whatever votes it needs for conversion, if it is a parent-conversion charter), where in the legislation is there any process defining or requiring ongoing community commitment? There is none. If you don't like it -- withdraw your kid (if she hasn't been kicked out already). Just like private schools. They are as accountable (or not) as they choose to be." And they don't have to have parents on their board. And they can appoint, rather than elect, their board -- so don't be getting any ideas there either.
Charlie says: "They say that they want equitable access to programs, but they put the programs in attendance area schools and deny access to students living outside the neighborhood."
Charter schools? Well, they will be required to take "everybody," but on a lottery basis if there are too many -- so if they convert your neighborhood school, neighborhood kids not already enrolled will lose access to it, and while they have to take everyone -- they get to discriminate against any who can't fit within their "mission," whatever that is. This is better than immersion schools as attendance schools, I guess, if you want to go back to lottery admissions -- but there was an awful lot of sentiment during NSAP about how parents wanted access, predictability, etc. to local schools. Mostly, that will be gone.
cont'd
Charlie said: "They say that they want to make decisions based on data, but they never collect or review any data prior to making any decisions. They didn't regard the data before entering into a contract with NTN or before closing schools." I see nothing in the 1240 legislation that requires charters to make data based decisions, to conform to any standard for collecting or reviewing data, to remaining open if they want to close (it happens overnight in other states, I am told), to maintain a particular focus if they decide -- after your kid enters, to change from say a project-based STEM school to an "all basics, all the time, uniforms and fines for infractions" school. But it's ok. Your kid can stay. Just everything else may change.
lie said: "They say that they want to create a culture of compliance but they never enforce any of the rules or complain when people break them. They violate state law when hiring Teach for America corps members, they engage in unfair labor practices, they ignore their own procedures on investigations, they usually don't even bother to check what the rules are.
Charters? They can do this too! We already know that many of them rely far more on TFA teachers, and they don't have to hire union teachers, or comply with union rules. So, I suppose if these are pluses, bring it on. Charters will make all your "noncompliance" rules come true!
Charlie says: "They say that they want to build the public's trust in the District, but they never keep any of their commitments and prove themselves utterly un-trustworthy."
Will your new "charter" be better? Who knows. Certainly, there are no penalties in the legislation if they choose to break commitments. If parents vote to "convert" a neighborhood school to a charter, and then find themselves in a "nightmare," I see nothing in the legislation that gives them a right to a second vote to revert the school, or to "oust" the charter managers or the school's board (which may be self appointed, not elected). Easy as pie to create a charter under this law. "Crickets" on how to unring the bell if it proves a disaster! Hmm. Who would write such legislation? Surely not anyone profoundly committed to good governance. But maybe someone simply interested in a vehicle to convert public assets to private use.
It is like people who want to use planes as missiles, and thus don't need to know how to land them. If the purpose of charters is to move public assets to the private side -- there is no need for the legislation to have (or contemplate) mechanisms for "returning" those assets to public School District status -- because that "choice" is one that the legislation writers never intend to happen.
Well said!
For shame the board and district, for letting things get so bad.
Goldsmith
So yes, Charlie I want to see this District held accountable to the fullest extent! I want people in positions of power to step up and take responsibility and HAVE to take responsibility. If my job is potentially on the line, then it's only fair that the management of this District go on an Improvement Plan too! Do we need to sue to get our point across? What is it going to take? I'm tired of having my feet held to a fire, but no one else.
Signed,
Feeling the Heat
As a current Jane Addams parent I would like to address your statement that our community is "reaping what we sowed".
#1 The majority of the parents currently at the school had nothing to do with the programs inception nor the demise of the Summit program.
#2 The Jane Addams K-8 parents who have been diligently advocating throughout the BEX IV process have expressed regard for other communities and have refrained from throwing any other communities under the bus.
#3 The Jane Addams K-8 community never suggested relocating to the Pinehurst site and we have made other suggestions in since the latest proposal was released(like building the new building on the JA north field).
#4 The community members who were advocating for a new Middle School in the Jane Addams building when Summit was closed are the exact same people who are advocating for the same thing now.
How our community is reaping what we sow is beyond me, knowing what I know.
When your kid gets assigned to ExcessKidOverflow Middle NE (most likely with ExcessPrincipalScrewup) - you might just wish you had a JA or a Pinehurst instead!
-parent
I would guess that students living in the Olympic Hills, John Rogers, Sacajawea and Olympic View attendance areas will be assigned to Jane Addams while students living in the Sand Point, Bryant, View Ridge, Wedgwood and Green Lake attendance areas will be assigned to Eckstein.
It is possible that Green Lake students could be assigned to Pacific Middle School instead.
This is fun! Let's guess how the District will divide Whitman and the new Pacific Middle School service areas!
I'll guess that Broadview-Thomson, Northgate, Bagley, Viewlands, and Greenwood go to Pacific while North Beach, Loyal Heights, Whittier, and Adams go to Whitman.
That leaves West Woodland, B.F. Day, JSIS, McDonald, and Laurelhurst for Hamilton - just as it is now, but it won't be as crowsed because APP will leave Hamilton and be divided between Pacific and Eckstein.
the smell of internal and communtity strife when "professionals" and "leaders" don't do their jobs in a professional or leader-like manner.
Sue in Zen Field
p.s. now do you know why she took the Highline job?
Now we are already getting graffiti popping up in response...see site for pix of these awards etc. http://www.pinehurstk8.org
They don't fear lawsuits as they have unlimited resources (our tax dollars) to fight against us.
And they spend that lavishly.