New Procedure for Advisory Committees
The superintendent has issued new procedures for advisory committees. This new procedure distinguishes between "Advisory and Oversight Committees", "Task Forces and Focus Groups", and "Working Groups, Teams, and Planning Committees". The new procedure offers significantly less transparency than the previous procedure.
Comments
I understand that recent high-profile task forces were encouraged to use the Delphi method to manufacture consent, stifle dissent, and discourage open discussion of the workings of the task force.
I did get an e-mail with a terse "thank you for your service" from Shauna Heath. I did appreciate that but I didn't see that it went to other Taskforce members so I have no idea if they were thanked. Actually, it would be nice if there were some public recognition for a year's worth of time and effort for such a large group.
She did say that "a task force is a group that is short lived and focuses on one issue." The policy syas "time-limited and often formed for a short-term assignment" and "are formed to address a clearly defined topic."
Kind of nebulous wording but I suspect that's for a reason.
We did get our charge directly from Superintendent Enfield and it was pretty clear but somehow it got waylaid by concerns over APP location.
Ms. Heath says another task force is to be formed that will focus on:
- highly capable identification
- highly capable service model
- academically gifted service model
The members of the AL taskforce were asked to continue on AND most of us wanted to because we did not have the opportunity to address Spectrum and ALOs at all. The new policy seems to be saying the members should change after some period of time but I certainly would welcome the opportunity to finish the work that was asked of us (and that is included in the current wording by Ms. Heath).
These new definitions seem like a cya by the Distrct to limit community involvement. Is that your take?
These new definitions seem like a cya by the Distrct to limit community involvement. Is that your take?
These definitions are vague and I suspect the district wants to control the committees' actions at all times.
All SEAAC meetings have been open. I haven't been a member, yet all volunteers are welcomed to participate fully. So this policy is a step back.
Interestingly, we could never really claim staff "support" (though we've certainly had staff attendance). It took considerable agitation to get a webpage like FACMAC, that we have to maintain ourselves. I don't mind that last point because we like to control the content as much as possible.
My concern is that staff-led translates into staff-controlled. And I've noticed how, many times, members of various task forces/committees are discouraged from discussing what transpires at meetings and offering dissenting opinions in a public forum. Can you shed some light on whether this has happened w/ FACMAC?
As for public acknowledgement, I have yet to see any district PR announcement related to SEAAC that wasn't initiated by parents. In fact, new appointments were made recently. Here is some information about it, found on our (self-maintained) district website (thanks to a great parent!)
FACMAC has generally been discouraged from talking about specifics and encouraged to offer support for what the committee consensus. I think that the co-chairs do a good job of finding and reporting when there is consensus and when there isn't. I have been frustrated by the lack of open meetings at times, but it has made it easier at times to have (as the diplomats say) frank and open discussions. It has always been civil, but I think there were some things that needed to be said that might not have been if there was general public in the room.
One thing that was suggested for FACMAC is to have every other to every third meeting public. The public meetings would be where recommendations were made, based on lists of pros and cons developed in earlier brainstorming meetings that might not be open. That might work for some committees, and not for others.
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.
If he's not going to help the district, the money could go to better use. Sorry to be harsh, but I'm fed up.
-Disgusted