Live Blogging - Math Adoption, Part Eight

Patu reading the BAR for adoption.

McLaren said it came forward to C&I committee and they voted to move it forward.  

Peaslee asked for questions on original motion.

Carr asked about procedure because in the past, they didn't discuss the motion before the amendments.  Ron English said that amendments come first for discussion and then go back to original motion (with or without amendments depending on amendment votes).  

Peters and McLaren were asked to move on their amendments.  

McLaren is author of Amendment 1 and is withdrawing it.  

Peters - we came forward with the first amendment for dual-adoption - choice, equity and upholding Board policy. Clear they tried hard and in good faith.  But Monday they were informed by legal counsel that the MAC was not asked about dual adoption in the first place.  Peters said she wasn't sure she believed this ruling.  

She understands the problematic issues of dual-adoption and will second amendment to withdraw Amendment 1.  She said everyone wants this math adoption to suceed.  

McLaren regrets having to withdraw this idea because she believes it to be  a good one.  Cannot surmount the issues around a dual adoption.

Voted 7-0 to withdraw amendment for dual adoption.

Comments

Anonymous said…
So now Dr. Wright (sic?) is, with great grace, charm and aplomb, is telling the board if they adopted MIF, because the staff asserts it is $3.1M more, her is the extraordinary list of things that we MUST sacrifice. It is a big scary list. It is essential items, like 5 SpEd supervisors... Sigh.... So it's either math or disabled kids. Nursing support for medically fragile children. Poor staff in department of data. Middle school athletics. You get the picture. If only I could really, actually, truly believe his facts. They found money for some big hires recently, right? This just seems so hollow. Obviously, I am far too skeptical.

I hope the Directors see through this.

WASTE NOT
6/4/14, 7:23 PM
Anonymous said…
So the District choice to select enVision is not at all based on $, but instead based on the best outcome for our students. Right?

Why then have the first two staff speakers focused solely on costs and nothing else?

The first speaker on how expensive Singapore will be. The second speaker focusing on all of the staff positions and services we will lose if Math in Focus is adopted.

For reals - after the District has just added multiple NEW six figure income positions?

Why is staff not talking about the curriculum that will best allow the majority of our students to succeed in learning math! Ummm...isn't that what is being debated?

Pretty heinous really.

I shy away from watching these meetings because I never have enough TUMS or other stomach calming substances in the house. Case again tonight.

-StepJ

6/4/14, 7:27 PM
Anonymous said…
@Waste Not: No amount of skepticism is too much in SPS. Your hunches and suspicions will invariably turn out to be accurate.

@StepJ: Spoken like an SPS veteran.
You have to admire staff's stamina.

WSDWG
6/4/14, 11:47 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more