Quarterly Program Placement report due today
Today is July 31st, the due date for the quarterly program placement report.
I was recently reminded of an email I sent to the Board at the end of January in which I asked about the status of the program placement process and the equitable access framework - both of which were overdue then. I was reminded of that email because I just saw it among the documents sent to Linda Shaw of the Seattle Times as part of a public disclosure request about all email traffic between Director Smith-Blum and Mr. Banda in January.
Director Smith-Blum forwarded my email to Mr. Banda and asked him:
Here we are, six months later, with no progress on the program placement procedure or the Equitable Access Framework during the past six months. I don't expect the quarterly report on program placement to be any more compliant with the policy than any of the previous reports - which did not meet the requirements of the policy.
This work has been passed around like a hot potato. The last person to have the job was Phil Brockman. I don't think anyone has it now.
I was recently reminded of an email I sent to the Board at the end of January in which I asked about the status of the program placement process and the equitable access framework - both of which were overdue then. I was reminded of that email because I just saw it among the documents sent to Linda Shaw of the Seattle Times as part of a public disclosure request about all email traffic between Director Smith-Blum and Mr. Banda in January.
Director Smith-Blum forwarded my email to Mr. Banda and asked him:
"Just fyi below, and it is accurate - would love to have an update on the EAF - program placement - so we can start to get on top of the process and comply with the policy. Is it possible for Aleta to set a date for us and whoever else might be appropriate in the conversation so I can determine where on the Board calendar we might need an entry point in the plan as well?"
Here we are, six months later, with no progress on the program placement procedure or the Equitable Access Framework during the past six months. I don't expect the quarterly report on program placement to be any more compliant with the policy than any of the previous reports - which did not meet the requirements of the policy.
This work has been passed around like a hot potato. The last person to have the job was Phil Brockman. I don't think anyone has it now.
Comments
Why is that? Is it that the superintendents are powerless to correct it? Or that they don't care to?
So I stopped doing work the first time he asked for it. Three-quarters of time he forgot that he ordered the work and didn't repeat the request. Sometimes the request wasn't frivolous and he really did want the work done. In those cases he would ask about my progress and I would start work on the project then - on the second request. Of course some of those were still just his idle curiosity and not actual need.
The Board has a long history of making frivolous demands of the staff. Think of all of the times that the Board asked for something, the staff promised it, time passed without delivery, but the Board never followed up. The staff has learned not to do anything for the Board until they ask a second time. It has saved them a lot of time and effort by not doing a ton of work that the Board didn't really need.
The problem isn't with the staff or the superintendents. The problem is with the Board.
If the Board only ordered work that they really needed then the staff would do everything that the Board asked. Because if they didn't the Board would follow up until they did.
The staff would comply with the policies if the Board demanded their compliance. The Board has no problem with non-compliance so the staff doesn't bother to comply. The staff is behaving rationally. The fault lies with the Board.
Because nearly all of the Board's requests for work are unnecessary and quickly drop from interest and because the Board never enforces policy, the staff ignores it all. The Board never follows up on any of them because they don't really care about any of them because none of them really matter. The Board never enforces policies because they don't know how. They have never done it and they no process for it. Also, as with the projects, they don't really care about them.
Second, I had an interesting conversation with Peter Steinbrueck who, as I have mentioned previously based on my interview with him, cares deeply about SPS.
I mentioned this very issue and he said they did have some of this on the Council when he was there with a few departments. When they got the message that the Council either wasn't so interested in THEIR interests and/or the Council might have to pause on some funding requests, apparently things got done.
The Board, afraid of that "micromanaging" tag, now just won't call the staff on items that are crucial to the Board's duties. It's just wrong.
That does make me think, again, that the Board should focus its attention and limit its work, focusing almost exclusively on policy and legal compliance and detailed audits of the budget.
OSPI rejected the district's proposed corrective actions that were due on June 30th.
The issues are not just about paperwork as one of the central office admins is putting out (mccrath smith). One of the advocacy organization has pulled together a good analysis of the OSPI findings. Could somebody please post that. It shows that the OSPI findings are far from mere paperwork minutia.
Reader
Wanting Answers
Like all of the previous report it fails to meet the requirements of the policy.
It lists these changes for the 2013 - 14 school year:
* Closing SM 2i at Montlake Elementary
* Opening SM 4 at Montlake Elementary
* Closed SM 2 at Leschi Elementary
* Opened SM 4 at Leschi Elementary
* Opened SM 4 at The Center School
* Closed grades 9-12 at Cascade Parent Partner Program (very low enrollment 9-12)
While the report says:
"The changes that were made were in collaboration with Special Education, Enrollment Planning, Human Resources, Transportation, and Budget departments, as well as Principals."
No community engagement was mentioned so we can conclude that none was done.
The policy, however, requires the superintendent to:
"Engage stakeholders in a timely and publicly visible manner by informing, involving, and/or consulting with them as appropriate, and consider their input in the decision-making process when feasible;"
The Superintendent is also supposed to document, in writing, the relevant factors considered and the basis for each change, but there are none in the report.
Lynn