Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Seattle Schools Math Adoption: Apples to Apples?

A reader who is deeply concerned about the math adoption conducted a public records request to SPS for e-mail about the math adoption.  She got about 237 pages of e-mails.  I have not yet read all of them but the ones I have read do concern me about both the process and the outcomes.

We all realize that, in our jobs, when we are asked to help formulate decisions on what direction to go or products to use for a job, we need to do a couple of things.

 One, making sure we cast the net far enough so that we are doing a thorough job, both for quality of product and cost of product. 

Two, that there's a fair comparison - the "apples to apples" comparison - both to allow the end user/buyer to accurately compare items and to do due diligence for each product/company we are considering.

(As we saw from the recent Board meeting with the Network Wireless upgrade, when the district changes the rules, repeatedly, during the RFP period (no matter the explanation), companies feel confused and some feel duped.  That this particular process saw three different RPF periods and multiple challenges to those decisions should tell you something.

My take on that wireless issue - frankly - was that someone wanted a particular outcome and wasn't getting it and so tweaked the RFP until they got it.  I say that because I found the actual explanation to be somewhat tortured.) 

Well, I'm getting a whiff of a feeling that there was a particular outcome desired by staff  for the math adoption and now they have it. Don't get me wrong; those who are doing the work are bound to see a favorite rise to the top but how it gets there and stays there is something else. 

Again, I haven't read all the e-mails but I find it concerning that Director Peters has to repeatedly ask for these comparisons in order to try to understand not just what would be taught but what the costs/cost options are. 

(There may be a chart out there with just such an apples to apples comparison but I haven't seen it.  That there are these detailed and lengthy explanations when a simple chart could allow you to compare and contrast and THEN ask questions, well, you have to wonder.)

There is very interesting reading from about page 112-120 where you see this issue as Math Adoption Committee members struggle to understand what they are being told.

The most interesting reading is from page 228 on where the principal at Schmitz Park, Gerrit Kischner, tries gracefully to make the case for their school continuing on with Singapore math.  He does not so much push back against what Shauna White is saying but he buttresses his own argument with good and thoughtful points. 

Alas, I think that those efforts on his part  are doomed unless two things happen.  One, SP comes up with the money to fund the math they want as White makes it clear the district won't.  Two, they still would need to get a waiver to do so and I would look for that waiver process to tighten up a lot to stave that off. 

To note, Ms. Heath is nothing but pleasant to Principal Kischner (and vice versa) but I don't see a meeting of the minds here.


Anonymous said...

Following Heath's reasoning leads SPS down a road to more inequity not less. Her suggestion pushes "one size fits all" when clearly one size does not fit all in math or any other subject. The schools which apply for and are granted a waiver will be paying for their own materials, so which schools will do that? The wealthy ones. It's a classic Choice for wealthy families and for everyone else You Get What You Get and You Don't Throw a Fit.

At least with a dual adoption of K5 math ALL schools would have some choice in choosing math materials to fit student needs.


Melissa Westbrook said...

DW, but do understand, I think the waiver process will get so tight that virtually no school will get it. This seems to be not about the cost but CC.

Anonymous said...

@MW: If CC is what Heath is using for reasoning, it's a bunch of hooey. I'm not a teacher. I looked up the Common Core standards, looked through what my kid learned last year, and filled in the couple topics that weren't covered. If I can do that, teachers, schools and districts can do it. There is NO REASON to throw out MIF or any other structurally sound math course just because it doesn't spoon feed, day by day, CC standards to a class.

Look, either teachers are professionals or they aren't. I prefer to think they are, even if JSCEE seems to think they are uneducated drones who can't think for themselves. Isn't the deal that CC is supposed to be standards, not curriculum and not materials? Again, if a parent can get it, why can't a 6-figure-salary employee sitting in an academic office downtown not get it?


Anonymous said...

And if all three programs were good enough to make the final cut, weren't they all considered sufficiently CCSS-aligned?


Linh-Co said...

I find pp 80-81 alarming, especially the comment, "In me, you’ve got a Seattle boy through and through.. but I know how to work the public process and make sure people feel good about options.

It looks like the public is being manipulated again.

Here's the entire thread:

Hi Shauna,

No, I didn’t hear about the C&I meeting, but yes, I can attend. Just before, I have a BLT meeting in which this is going to be the number one issue, so maybe I’ll be fresh with some ideas. That said, I’m happy to offer my opinion on this, but I don’t want to be in a position of contradicting you or Michael. I have great respect for the heavy lift the two of you have with this adoption, so please know that my suggestions are truly in the spirit of trying to find a politically feasible as well as instructionally effective approach. In me, you’ve got a Seattle boy through and through – maybe a little too much resistance to towing a party line, but I know how to work the public process and make sure people feel good about options. I really want to help figure out a solution that’s good for all schools, not just Schmitz Park. I heard you loud and clear that we need to be careful at Schmitz Park not to foment a lot of MIF energy because that could derail the whole process. At the same time, for better or for worse, I think Schmitz Park has built an identity around Singapore. I took over a school in 2008 that had been very successful at flying under the radar screen. Teachers told me that my predecessor would simply tell teachers when they needed to jump to the District off their backs, and then they could go back to filling out worksheets, etc. I’ve tried hard, especially with our growth, to make it clear that we are part of the District, we have to join in with District initiatives (for the most part;), and we are not a little “private-public” school where entitled parents get what they want. I’m proud, for example, that while our enrollment has increased 85%, our PTA budget has only increased 27% in the same period. We don’t pay for any FTE with PTA money, for example. But the consolation prize, as I see it, has been the identity we have had with Singapore Math. The comparison I made today to the international schools isn’t far off – every school needs an identity, and building this identity has been very powerful for teachers and students both. When I evaluated MIF, I was pleased that all the pieces were in place that could continue our work I this regard plus the supplemental resources looked very good. I just don’t see how to shift this building to enVision without a major uproar from teachers and parents alike. This afternoon I tried getting a price on what MIF would cost for SP alone, but I can’t as an individual. Would you let me work directly with Shawn’s contact on this to see what we could come up with? If I can’t put a specific price tag on this, then I’m not going to have any credibility with my final recommendation to my staff and PTA. I’m also going to ask REA to get the middle school math scores for our kids up at Madison: that’s probably the best comparison of the math base that kids come to middle school with. There are a lot of reasons why I don’t think our simple data tells the story or can be compared with any other school.

Sorry, probably more than you needed to know, but I’ll be there next week. Let me know if anything more comes up this week.


SPSLeaks said...

More documents related to this request are located here:


Anonymous said...

Quote from the letter posted by Linh-Co from the Schmitz Park Principal: I heard you loud and clear that we need to be careful at Schmitz Park not to foment a lot of MIF energy because that could derail the whole process.

So Heath is worried that schools whose students, teachers and parents are happy with their materials might object to being force fed a different selection? A selection from which they will be unlikely to opt out?

Sounds like a valid worry, because OF COURSE students, teachers and parents are going to be p***d at being railroaded by an administrator who doesn't live the daily reality of their classrooms.

This is bad. Really bad.

Math Mom

Melissa Westbrook said...

I actually don't see his comments as manipulation of anyone. I think he is being carefully honest.

Heath has not been here long and I think he is trying to help her understand how this could all play out.

Anonymous said...

The district needs to develop a realistic approach to this problem. Not going with dual adoption is not a good plan.

When the concerns about the math curriculum started bubbling up years ago, the district lacked the vision and will to solve the problem at the time. So what happened? The schools tried to solve the problem on an individual basis, requesting waivers, and getting parents to pay for the curriculum. The individual schools had the will.

So fast forward to now. Now the district has the will to solve the problem. However, they have no vision for how to work with schools and parents. Not allowing dual adoption will completely alienate many parents and teachers, penalizing all the schools that stepped up and tried to fix this issue on their own for their students. Why are you going to punish the schools for better serving their students? Is this what schools get if they dare get out in front of the district's snail paced progress?

And what about the kids who switched from EDM to another curriculum that is working--only to be told that now they are switching again? It sends a schizophrenic message to kids about math. Yes, math is so important that we are going to whiplash you back and forth because we really know what we are doing here! And we expect you to do well on the Smarter Balanced Assessments next year too, etc.

This all makes the grownups in the room (district) look silly.

FWIW, my kids don't attend one of the schools that had the will to request a math waiver. But if they had and we risked losing it now, I would be up in arms.


SPSLeaks said...

Collection of Math Adoption public records

Anonymous said...

Melissa you read my mind:
"Heath has not been here long..."
Back to the days of flying under the radar. How far behind is the fear? I really think it's only been 5 years since Enfield said "There's no math police" but then I am getting old.

Chris S.

Robert Cruickshank said...

So what's the best way to stop this and allow the current waiver policy to continue? Is the Board showing any interest in standing with parents on this?

Linh-Co said...

Some members of the board are sympathetic. Parents should write emails expressing their desires for a dual adoption and cc all the directors.

The vote will take place June 4. There are 3 director's meetings this Saturday. Please attend and make your wishes known. It is the last face-to-face meeting you'll have before the vote.

Anonymous said...

I thought someone said the Board couldn't authorize a dual adoption by SPS Board policy? Maybe I understood wrong? I hope so!

Savvy Voter

Melissa Westbrook said...

Savvy, I think you are correct but the Board could reject the motion and say, we believe a dual adoption is in the district's best interest.

That's my read of it. Anyone?

Mr T said...

the Seattle School District has more problems than just math

Linh-Co said...

This is a response I received from one of the members of the MAC:

Ron English, chief legal counsel for SPS, addressed this very topic in a committee meeting. His message was clear and simple:
from a legal standpoint, the School board can do one of three things:
Adopt the curriculum recommended by the committee,
Adopt one of the curriculum that was reviewed, but not recommended
Choose not to adopt any new curriculum

Melissa Westbrook said...

I find it odd that the Board could adopt a different curriculum but not say, we'd like to revisit this and adopt two (upon the rec of the Committee).

Po3 said...

Odd, response from Ron English as the current K5 math curriculum was a dual adoption - EDM and Singapore - but never implemented.

The Singapore books are still warehoused somewhere in the district.

My BS meter is going off on that one.

Po3 said...

This is also reminiscent of the high school math adoption where it was clear that staff wanted Discovery brought to vote. And then we realized all the BS that had gone on behind the scenes to get the desired result.

Anonymous said...

Po3 is absolutely correct. The district did a dual adoption last time of both EDM and Singapore Math. This was the compromise that some brave Board members worked out because the Math Adoption Committee was biased towards two curricula (EDM and TERC). Recall that many people associated with that debacle were (in effect) given their walking papers after the EDM adoption. Remember Rosalind Wise? This cycle's Rosalind W. is Adam Dysart.

The precedent has been set and R. English needs to do his due diligence to determine how it was justified last time.

Deja Vu all over again…

Anonymous said...

Shauna Heath just issued a two-year waiver for K-5 STEM at Boren to continue using Singapore Math. Confirmed, not rumor!

Deja Vu...

Linh-Co said...

EDM and Singapore was not technically a dual adoption. Singapore was a 25% supplement. Of course the staff ignored it.

Melissa Westbrook said...

If that is true, Deja Vu, then the door is now opened for others. (I'm getting this whiff that K-5 STEM is the new darling of the district because they seem to be getting a fast track for a lot of things on their wish list. Hmm.)

Charlie Mas said...

Rules? Rules? You're wondering about the rules? There are no rules. This is Seattle Public Schools. The Board, the senior staff, the principals, and the teachers can do whatever they bloody well wish. No one will stop them. In the absence of enforcement, there are no rules.

The Board may very well go ahead and adopt enVision, particularly if the superintendent makes it clear that doing anything other than what was recommended by the MAC would be micromanagement, meddling in matters outside their expertise, and an insult to the superintendent and staff.

Most schools will get the enVision materials and PD and start using the books as their primary instructional material for math (with some supplemental material). They will do fine. Maybe not great, but fine.

Some of these schools will use the adopted materials because they are not motivated to use anything else. Some will use the adopted materials because they can't pay for the texts they really want. A few might use the adopted materials because they think the rules require it.

Some schools - schools that would rather not be named - will make primary use of other materials. They will find a way to pay for it on their own - quietly - and they will use the other materials - quietly - and the District will allow it - quietly. Their students will also do fine. A couple of them will do very well. When they get noticed for doing so well people will discover their use of alternative materials and try to attribute the success to the use of those materials. It won't be true, but the District will claim that they knew about it all along and that it was all within the rules (despite a number of statements to the contrary made to cow the timid into obedience).

This is how it has always been nd this is how it will always be.

Math in Focus could be a choice for the Tier II instructional materials. If it is, then get ready for a lot of kids in Tier II.

StringCheese said...

"Shauna Heath just issued a two-year waiver for K-5 STEM at Boren to continue using Singapore Math. Confirmed, not rumor!"

"(I'm getting this whiff that K-5 STEM is the new darling of the district because they seem to be getting a fast track for a lot of things on their wish list. Hmm.)"

*The waiver is not "new."

STEM adopted Singapore math during its design team process in 2012. The official, Cathy Thompson at the time, swore that she had all of the paperwork signed and submitted. THEN, we get a call from Heath in 2013 stating that they had no record of our waiver anywhere. Adam Dysart, who did a wonderful job leading the subcommittee that adopted Singapore, could have cleared this up with Heath but did not. We went through the whole process for a second time in Spring of 2013. Honestly, this last email from Heath is the first official notification from the district that they had managed to file our paperwork appropriately. Meanwhile, we kept using our own funds to purchase materials.

*I can also state, unequivocally, that STEM has never felt like the "darling" of anyone.

it has felt like our entire 2 years in existence has been hard fought -- for our existence; to avoid a poorly planned, last day of school announcement of a co-housing with a high school that would not be beneficial for either school; to get the district to follow through on their commitment to find us a permanent home; to not dismantle our community in the process of co-housing with Arbor Heights. It even took us pressuring the district for a year to get them to openly admit that we were a "school" community and not merely a program they could shove about willy nilly.

We were given a principal with ZERO elementary experience and ZERO experience with SPS, with ZERO communication skills for speaking with elementary parents. She was on leave when the time came to work with facilities on the AH co-housing and she left for 2 weeks immediately after the announcing her departure to the community.

Where has our principal been on this math adoption issue? Silent. Absent. Checked out. STEM is achieving amazing results with Singapore across broad ethnic and socio-economic lines. Who is fighting for our right to continue this work? Parents.

We are amazingly optimistic about the interim placement of Ben Ostrom as principal next year. Despite the fact that he is, in essence, doing 3 people's jobs, he has found the time to meet with staff, the BLT, and the PTA. He has also attended almost every community event we have held since his placement was announced.

So, before you go on thinking that STEM is getting anything easily, try talking to the parents.

Anonymous said...

"(I'm getting this whiff that K-5 STEM is the new darling of the district because they seem to be getting a fast track for a lot of things on their wish list. Hmm.)"

Melissa, I'm curious what you mean by this. Could you please elaborate on what those fast-tracked wish list items are?

West Seattle Mom

btdt said...

Ron English is giving bad advice if he is saying the board can do anything more than approve or disapprove a recommendation. Here is the law:

RCW 28A.320.230
Instructional materials — Instructional materials committee.

Every board of directors, unless otherwise specifically provided by law, shall:

(1) Prepare, negotiate, set forth in writing and adopt, policy relative to the selection or deletion of instructional materials. Such policy shall:

(a) State the school district's goals and principles relative to instructional materials;

(b) Delegate responsibility for the preparation and recommendation of teachers' reading lists and specify the procedures to be followed in the selection of all instructional materials including text books;

(c) Establish an instructional materials committee to be appointed, with the approval of the school board, by the school district's chief administrative officer. This committee shall consist of representative members of the district's professional staff, including representation from the district's curriculum development committees, and, in the case of districts which operate elementary school(s) only, the educational service district superintendent, one of whose responsibilities shall be to assure the correlation of those elementary district adoptions with those of the high school district(s) which serve their children. The committee may include parents at the school board's discretion: PROVIDED, That parent members shall make up less than one-half of the total membership of the committee;

(d) Provide for reasonable notice to parents of the opportunity to serve on the committee and for terms of office for members of the instructional materials committee;

(e) Provide a system for receiving, considering and acting upon written complaints regarding instructional materials used by the school district;

(f) Provide free text books, supplies and other instructional materials to be loaned to the pupils of the school, when, in its judgment, the best interests of the district will be subserved thereby and prescribe rules and regulations to preserve such books, supplies and other instructional materials from unnecessary damage.

Recommendation of instructional materials shall be by the district's instructional materials committee in accordance with district policy. Approval or disapproval shall be by the local school district's board of directors.

Districts may pay the necessary travel and subsistence expenses for expert counsel from outside the district. In addition, the committee's expenses incidental to visits to observe other districts' selection procedures may be reimbursed by the school district.

Districts may, within limitations stated in board policy, use and experiment with instructional materials for a period of time before general adoption is formalized.

Within the limitations of board policy, a school district's chief administrator may purchase instructional materials to meet deviant needs or rapidly changing circumstances.

(2) Establish a depreciation scale for determining the value of texts which students wish to purchase.

If the EDM adoption involved the board tacking on a second core set of instructional materials, that would have been contrary to the law. But if it was to allow for supplementation, that would be fine because supplementary materials don't require IMC or board removal. I think that is the technically used to explain what was done with EDM. But that was about ten lawyers ago and I don't think Gary Ikeda was as apt to provide his comments in public the way Ron English does.

Melissa Westbrook said...

"..to not dismantle our community in the process of co-housing with Arbor Heights."

Well, that would be one example of what I am hearing about vis a vis K-5 STEM. Arbor Heights, in the crappiest building the district is going to co-house with K-5STEM and K-5 STEM thinks they are getting the raw end of the deal?

That is not what I have heard. The fact that AH was going to be at the end of BEX IV's timeline, then keeps getting moved up points more to someone's (?) desire for K-5 STEM to expand. (Get AH in and out as quickly as possible.)

I'm not saying K-5 STEM is - in any way - a "bad"school. I know how hard it must be to start a school from the ground up. But all schools should remember - you're in this together. Not jockeying for position because, like with parents, the district likes when communities pit against each other instead focusing on the people making most of the decisions that affect those communities.

Anonymous said...

"K5- STEM is getting stuff fast-tracked"

Roll up, roll up folks and come and see what the SPS circus does best folks - pitting school communities and programs against each other.
You'll see...
No transparency in their processes (do they even have consistently applied processes?).
Nepotism, favoritism, and back door deals (or at the least the appearance of such)
Lots suspicion and rumors.
The perception that other* schools or communities are getting something better, or some kind of special consideration or treatment (* insert K5-STEM, APP, Thorton Creek, ….. others).
School communities and families wondering whether the axe is going to fall on them next (cuts to services administration changes, program changes, moves etc).
More and more fat cat administrators being stuffed into that bureaucratic clown car that is SPS.
The blind leading the blind.
Principals jumping through hoops.
…...It's the greatest show on earth.

Honestly, this district missteps at every opportunity - math adoption, rezoning, WP planning, and on and on.
Hiring more administrative fat cats with fat salaries to do what (see other post)? What tangible results will we see for it? What academic gains? How can we justify that sort of money for those sort of bureaucratic black hole positions when actual kids in actual schools go without basics.

Take back Seattle Schools

Libby said...

"I'm getting this whiff that K-5 STEM is the new darling of the district because they seem to be getting a fast track for a lot of things on their wish list. Hmm."

I'm sorry, Melissa, but how does your comment move the conversation forward? Not constructive at all and does more than StringCheese's comment to pit schools against each other. K-5 STEM has an excellent relationship with the Arbor Heights folks, as far as I can tell.

Anonymous said...


Let me start by saying I don’t have a child at either Arbor Heights or K-5 STEM. I do know families at both schools. And, from what I’ve heard, there has been much frustration on both “sides” about the lack of leadership and communication from the district regarding planning for the co-housing. My understanding is that both school communities recognize that they each have their own challenges with the situation and are now working hard to make the building a positive, productive environment for all involved.

I have a few responses to what you wrote:

1)My original question was: “Could you please elaborate on what those fast-tracked wish list items are?” I truly am curious about this.

a.To clarify: Are you saying that one of those items is that K-5 STEM wants to expand into a K-8 and, because of that, AH’s timeline has been shortened—resulting in other schools’ timelines being lengthened?

b.Could you please share a couple other fast-tracked wish list items?

2)When someone in your position makes a statement such as “(I'm getting this whiff that K-5 STEM is the new darling of the district because they seem to be getting a fast track for a lot of things on their wish list. Hmm.)”, it raises big red flags of concern to me. This kind of statement is a great way to prime the pump for a flow of defensiveness from the K-5 STEM community—which can then easily devolve into school communities throwing accusations at each other, when instead they could be really listening to each other and having solution-seeking conversations.

You suggest, “…all schools should remember - you're in this together. Not jockeying for position because, like with parents, the district likes when communities pit against each other instead focusing on the people making most of the decisions that affect those communities.” I completely agree. I also know that, because of the incredibly strong emotions we all have about our children, it’s not easy to “walk that walk”—and those same emotions make it very easy to get fired up, defensive and/or accusatory—responses that are not conducive to building a district-wide community of parents that fights for the right of every student to get an excellent education. I ask you to please keep these things in mind when you are writing about inequities—and to consider the ramifications of suggesting that one school (or group) is getting preferential treatment.

West Seattle Mom

Melissa Westbrook said...

I see that this makes for some uncomfortable reading. That is to be expected when what seems to be obvious gets said out loud. I accept that criticism.

I will say that, for example, there the rather large and glaring example of South Shore and most everyone - including the staff and the Board - prefer that not be stated out loud. I don't know why but that seems the case.

That K-5 STEM wants to be a K-8 (and seemingly quickly) seems to be happening and I have to wonder - with so much to do,both academically and for capital needs - how that is moving forward. I don't recall the district making that announcement.

StringCheese said...

Wow. Just wow. What a way to take an attempt to clarify some false assumptions and turn it into school v. school warfare. Uncool.

STEM and AH are working the best they can to make the co-housing work. When I say "dismantling" I mean the district ignoring or dismissing the vision and mission that our school has created (with district help, I might add). Any frustration and resentment that has fomented in either community could have been prevented by the district actually having the stakeholders (STEM and AH admin) in on the planning from the beginning. Lack of knowledge and transparency leads to fear and defensiveness.

It didn't have to be this way. As it stands, in spite of the district, the co-housing will be fine. There are actually some really great and creative things that are coming out of the process. If you were at the BEX meetings, you would have seen every STEM parent present standing beside AH in their quest for an expedited timeline. We also publicly invited them to share Boren if needed. It is only the implementation by the district (through the lack of true stakeholder engagement) that ruffled feathers in either community.

As for the K-8 roll-up, the School Board unanimously voted on this expansion and roll-up last November.

This is a blog and clearly you are within your rights to assert your biases. You have been against the creation of K-5 STEM from the beginning. I get it, but let's move on and not feed unsubstantiated rumors. Please.

Thank you Libby and West Seattle Mom for bringing in the voice of reason.

Melissa Westbrook said...

You invited them to share Boren?

I've been in the district a long time but I've never heard of a school having the ability to invite any other school to share what has been an interim site. I must have missed something.

I welcome all input but when I get a steady stream of it - all saying the same thing - from one direction, it does cause me to wonder.

I was not against K-5 STEM; I was worried about where it would go given the lack of space in our district. The district has a bad habit of creating programs AND then figuring out logistics. They did that with Cleveland as well.

Emily Giaquinta said...

As a parent at Schmitz Park Elementary, I am fighting to protect Singapore Math at our school. I am in opposition to the Math Adoption Committee’s recommendation to implement the enVision Math Program as the new math curriculum for all elementary schools and strongly support the continuation of our Singapore Math-based curriculum and the rigor it has created for our students.

In 2007, our teaching staff determined Singapore Math was the best way to teach math. We are proud to be a part of a community who identifies Mathematics Mastery as a key element in elementary education. Our families, past and present, have supported the development and advancement of Singapore Math for our children. This commitment has required persistent fundraising and we are incredibly fortunate that through the generosity of families, and later the District, we have grown this program at Schmitz Park into what it is today.

As a PTA, we have asked the Board Directors and District Staff to support our choice and respect the investment we have made in Singapore Math at Schmitz Park and take action on one of these alternatives:
1. Reject the Math Adoption Committee’s recommendation of enVision and adopt Math in Focus as the new K-5 Math Curriculum.
2. Approve a Dual-Adoption giving schools the choice to implement enVision – OR – Math in Focus
3. Amend Policy No. 2020 on the Waiver of Basic Instructional Materials to allow schools using, or desiring to use, a Singapore Math-based curriculum like Math in Focus and ensure funding will be provided from the district to support an approved alternative math curriculum.

Schmitz Park has worked hard for 7 years to build, develop and achieve the results we see year over year. Those results were hard earned and completely driven by the passion of teachers and the buy-in from parents who believe in Singapore Math. Imagine what all schools could accomplish with support from District leaders.

Depending on the final vote, our fight may continue past June 4th.

StringCheese said...

Our invitation was a gesture of solidarity and good will. Of course we knew that it wasn't up to us. Geez.

mirmac1 said...

Melissa was not against a quick-fix STEM school in an interim location, but I was. I saw how Director McLaren was easily swayed by staff's pronouncements that it could be done on the cheap with "free" capital money. Then from the onset there was the outcry because nothing's free. Then I saw Enfield hire a knock-off (who was a career-climber like her) and plunk her there as principal. And the Ed Reform WASTEM foundation ponied up some bucks. Then I witnessed the PR campaign with soccer scarfs, baby strollers, letter-writing and manufactured area-wide "consensus" that that this school of 350-some take control of one of the last remaining pieces of property in this district, despite the looming WS MS and HS capacity crisis. Finally, I heard from my neighbors that access to Boren for AH was being limited by...who and why? It's a frickin' huge building!

I know why Melissa would say what she said. And I fully expect that Denny will need to move into the Boren building to give Sealth back its property.

Anonymous said...

Everyone: Push for a dual-adoption! At least 3 board members are publicly in favor of it, and what's Ron English going to do? Sue the Board? Get an injunction? Right.

E-mail your school board reps now. Do not wait or let this opportunity go by. Do it.

We have a chance to make a historic and significant improvement in our schools and the daily lives of our kids. DO IT!

E-mail board members NOW and let them know you support a dual-adoption. If any of you watched hour 2 of the 5/21 board meeting, Peters, McLaren and Peaslee were AWESOME in their questioning and advocacy. Give them the support they need! This is HUGE!