Banda's First Year Reflections
Dear Seattle Public Schools community:
As
the 2012-2013 school year draws to a close, I want to thank you all for
welcoming me in my first year as your Superintendent. It has been a
pleasure to get
to know the schools and community and learn about the ideas and
concerns each of you have. My conversations with educators, students,
families, staff and community members have provided insight for changes
and priorities, both for this year and for the future.
Throughout
the year we’ve celebrated successes and addressed challenges. The 2,900
students graduating from high school this year are a visible reminder
that
our primary purpose continues to be ensuring that students graduate
prepared for college, career and life.
We are building for the future
Our
enrollment continues to increase, with more Seattle families choosing
to send their children to Seattle Public Schools. Thanks to approval by
Seattle voters,
two key levies will help us address running the District and improving
our schools to better meet student needs and our growing enrollment.
We are setting high academic standards for all of our students
Closing
the achievement gap continues to be a key focus for Seattle Public
Schools. Implementing Common Core State Standards (CCSS) plays a major
role in our
efforts. CCSS have been adopted by 48 states, including Washington, to
provide consistent learning goals in English Language Arts (ELA) and
Math. Students learn transferable, 21st century skills,
including critical thinking, collaboration and self-assessment,
to help them thrive after graduation from high school. CCSS foster
equity in education as all students are ensured of comparable learning
expectations no matter where they live.
Safety of our students and staff remains a top priority
The
safety of our schools was brought into sharp focus in December. After
the tragedy in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, we conducted safety audits of
all 95 schools.
One result has been to increase security patrols of our elementary and
K–8 schools. We will continue to use safety protocols and drills and
work with the Seattle Police Department to keep safety a focus each and
every day.
We have a plan for the next five years
One
final item I’d like to mention is our work to update the District’s
Strategic Plan. This plan will guide our District for the next five
years, and has included
participation from families, staff, teachers, students and community
members. It is expected to be presented to the School Board for approval
this summer.
As
part of our work moving forward, it is our goal to continue to develop
strong family-school partnerships in every school, in order to help our
students achieve.
We will also build upon our strong community partnerships. I look
forward to meeting families, students and community members to ensure
success for all of our students.
I hope you all have a safe and enjoyable summer! And thank you for supporting Seattle Public Schools.
Sincerely,
José
José Banda
Superintendent
Seattle Public Schools
Comments
I am more bottom-up in overall approach than Starr is, but inequity issues have to be dealt with top-down because they are system-wide problems. And I applaud what he has accomplished in Stamford and currently in Montgomery County, MD.
I hope Banda is paying attention. I would be delighted if he would emerge as the kind of firm, independent thinking, practical problem solver that Starr has proved himself to be. Maybe it's unfair because too early to say so, but so far it looks like the system is running Banda rather than he the system. It's a tough gig, I know, but I hope he has a better second year.
See also here.
Enthusiasm Please
Come on. Who wouldn't fall asleep with endless babble?
I am curious to know which parent, teacher, school leader or community groups are feeling that he is a strong advocate based on actually interfacing with him? I would be happy to stand corrected. I am raising concerns because I have been hearing them from many quarters.
Enthusiasm Please
Yes, I would like him to be more hands-on, particularly when it comes to decisions he leaves up to the Asst Supts. I see them as the problem these days.
That said, I have heard some concern over his lack of face time at JSCEE (being more visible). I also have concerns that he may be ceding too much power to some of the assistant superintendents.
This from an autoreply email:
After 30 years in education, I'm retiring. For assistance contact advlearn@seattleschools.org. I will also check email, but infrequently, until I formally separate service on June 30.
-Northender
- reader
He has received that direct message from me. Whether he will heed it from us parents has yet to be seen. I know a number of us have held off on criticism because our kids come first and the churn must end. Furthermore, he is a genuinely warm, very smart superintendent. That said, patience wears thin...
Not a big deal? Consider:
The kids in North APP at Lincoln are still listed, according to a phone call today with OSPI, as part of Lowell on Capitol Hill, after two full years in separate locations. The state records Lowell having 614 children, of whom 106 (17%) qualify at the poverty threshold, and thus Lowell is NOT one of the 33 schools receiving federal Title 1 funds. However, more than 500 of those "614" students the district reports at "Lowell" are actually sitting in Lincoln, and almost all of the 106 who qualify for Title 1 funds are in the Lowell building. The Lowell building has extremely high rates of Title 1 eligibility. The children in the Lowell building would, if separated from the other group, absolutely qualify for a share of Title 1 funds. As it currently stands, they DO add to the total $ the district receives - but they DO NOT receive any of those dollars.
However, because SPS has separated the children (due to capacity, NOT APP wishes), the ones still at Lowell do not receive any financial benefits. That one particular group of children has been completely #$%@ed by SPS - for the last two years, and also for next year -- total of three years -- they have not been given their appropriate share of Title 1 funds b/c the Superintendent has not applied for an OSPI number for the other school.
The APP parents at Lincoln didn't want to leave the community on Cap Hill - but the district has really made it worse and worse for the kids still there, by taking away the extra support from within the APP community and yet not following up with the one form required to get them the replacement support Title 1 would provide. Why? The Superintendent can fix this. It's not hard. It's a form.
-- sign me 'wishing I was a civil rights attorney'
He seems content to let power-hungry and mediocre administrators like Shawna Heath lead the show. He never acknowledges or apologizes for missteps, and it's hard to tell that he's even there.
From what I can tell, it's the Shawna Heath and Carmela Dellino show bullying principals and teachers without restraint, especially in West Seattle.
In a meeting related to a complaint filed by a parent against a principal, Banda sat completely impassive, without once responding, even to nod, smile, acknowledge, etc. Useless and pathetic, even if Ron English directed him to be in that mode.
If he's not going to help the students and families of the district, the money could go to better use. Sorry to be harsh, but I'm fed up.
-Disgusted
shaun skeptic
" He consolidated middle schools tracked by performance, saying that the distinction led to racially- and socioeconomically-divided classrooms...He also sparred with the school board and some parents, who claimed the approach undermined high-performing students."
So much of what was good about SPS has already been dismantled. Is meaningful advanced learning next? Maybe I'm paranoid, but Chronos? yikes.
--looking at private middle schools
Can't we make someone else a priority?
We've given up on him and his talking head act.
- Shed Light on Lowell
-- from Wishing, Second Post
On the other hand, the Exec Directors have plenty of power when it comes to reassigning/dropping principals without notice/explanation/community involvement, such as with Madison and Sealth, among others.
The word around Madison is that the district has known for months that Carlisle was going to be replaced, but that they didn't announce it until mid-June so that they could announce a (controversial) interim principal, Dr. Robert Gary Jr. He's coming to Madison from the Interagency Academy and Skills Center, which was included in an initial letter to families from Banda, but was dropped in the press release version from Banda. In that version, it says that Gary is coming from Rainier Beach. They don't mention that he left there unceremoniously after an incident of failed reporting after abuse allegations. Another great choice by Carmella Dellino, apparently sanctioned by the MIA Banda.
As far as Michael Tolley, he's the counterpart of Carmella Dellino in the Southeast region. They're both Exec Directors running a muck. Again, either Banda approves of their decisions, or he's showing no leadership, and ceding his authority to these people.
I'm not sure whose brilliant idea it was to put Jo Lute-Ervin at Kimball. The Exec Director territories are supposedly listed here, but I'm not sure if they're current: http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/executivedirectors/edassignments1213.pdf?sessionid=67cce2cd2883a308262c6b4babd17423
-Disgusted
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/School-staff-failed-to-act-on-alleged-sexual-1286405.php
-Disgusted
Unfortunately, Mr. Banda thinks Tolley is the cat's pajamas. I think he will see the error in his ways, but who will suffer in the interim?
Wouldn't it be kinder and better for everyone involved to reassign failed administrators like Ms. Lute-Ervin back into the classroom as teachers again?
She must have been successful in some way as a teacher. Let her go into her own classsroom and teach in peace as long as she can do so effectively.
As far as I know, there's no law that says that anyone who tries and fails at administration can't return to doing something more appropriate. If she can't even succeed well enough in the classroom, then that's another matter for another day.
-JustAskLafayette
They're putting her in charge of an elementary school with 497 students. She lacks the judgement, skills and ability to be in that role. Strictly from an administrative perspective, she has told both parents and teachers that she doesn't know how to complete online forms in the district's database, and she wasn't able to properly complete the budget or teacher's evaluations. Those are absolute requirements for a principal.
I don't actually have any ill will toward Jo Lute-Ervin as a person. I'm sure that outside of her principal's role, she's a perfectly pleasant person. She probably means well. She's just not fit to lead a school, though, and the district is opening itself up to liability to place her in that position with the history that precedes this placement.
As just one example, she turned a kindergartner out onto California Ave. without a parent, and the child was rescued while crossing California Ave. alone and in tears by another parent who recognized him. The district was alerted in writing to this incident, but failed to act. What if that child had been hit by a car or kidnapped? I am only speaking up because I don't want a tragedy to occur without at least having raised the alarm.
-Disgusted
If you look at the pdf of the 2013 school budgets on the SPS website, it's pretty clear that Lowell and Lincoln are totally separate for budgeting purposes.
The reason Lowell isn't a Title 1 school has nothing to do with Lincoln--Lowell by itself is below whatever the FRL threshold is.
Signed,
Satisfied Lowell Dad
P.S. I do agree that Lincoln should be registered at OSPI as school separate from Lowell.
I would LOVE to believe that Lowell is above the poverty threshold for Title 1 funds. That would be a positive for the school.
But I'm relying on the 2012-13 numbers I heard this week from OSPI - 614 students in "Lowell" (which is only the Lincoln group and the general ed at Lowell), of which 106 were listed as Title 1 eligible.
When Lincoln was having a teacher cut in the fall, people went over the statistics in the building closely to consider the weighted staffing standard. Lincoln has roughly 520 or so kids (a few have moved since fall) and roughly less than ten FRL. (#please, bloggers, don't get on the "rich privileged" horse - the FRL threshold is far, far too low in our city - many of the students in every school who do not qualify as FRL are nevertheless NOT wealthy and not privileged, but that's a different issue).
Honestly, the OSPI numbers shocked me at many levels. First, b/c I thought there were about 200 students in general ed at Lowell, but subtracting the 520 Lincoln kids from 614 yields about 100 general ed. What's the real number? Is the district completely miscounting one of the groups? Misreporting to OSPI? If there are approximately 200 at Lowell, which is what I had thought, then is the district under-reporting how many are at Lincoln by 100 students?
So the basic population numbers aggregated from the two schools are inaccurate, somehow, aren't they? Is Lowell only about 100 gen ed kids?
I don't want anyone to think I'm criticizing any school - but I'm a numbers person. I believe having the numbers right matters. It certainly matters for both receiving and fairly allocating state money, so if the district isn't counting correctly, then their budget isn't correct.
It's possible OSPI gave me old numbers from 2011-12 (first year apart) or 2010-11 (when the schools were still together), I suppose - but I asked repeatedly if those were the 2012-13 numbers b/c they didn't fit with the total population I thought I knew.
Insight?
--still wondering
The number of K-5 kids at Lowell-- in 8 Gen Ed classrooms and 4 Special Ed classrooms--has been right around 200 for the past two school years.
Marion Smith investigated the issue of Title 1 funds early in the school year and confirmed with staff and families that Lowell (without Lincoln) is below the threshold. He also shared that the amount of funding that comes to Lowell in the form of LAP funds is comparable to the funds that would come from Title 1.
That's all I know.
-Still Satisfied