Seattle Schools Updates
School Board Retreat tomorrow - agenda. It's open to the public and at the JSCEE from 10 am to
2 pm.
What the heck? How many times will they discuss governance issues and communication issues? They have been over this territory so many times and yet every retreat agenda, there it is. And, that part is for two hours. I do note the addition of the issue of communications "how does the Board interact with the media and how is a spokesperson assigned." It appears there is a policy but they seem to feel the need to discuss it.
Update:
Here's the agenda for the Special Board meeting next Wednesday. As of now, I know of two topics; approval of negotiation of a contract with Dr. Nyland to be permanent superintendent and approval of a contract for new computers. This process for the purchase of new computers is way behind schedule and there are no vendors or prices yet available. The new computers will cost between $1.2-1.4M but they have no vendor yet. Again, this does NOT bode well for this testing cycle that includes the brand-new Smarter Balanced assessment.
The Board seems to have made this a rather full "special session" with the addition of a couple of items:
- Intro of Capacity Management
- and looky here - the extension of the MOU with the Alliance. Except, there is no extension document attached. When will that come?
I note that there is no question that there should be an MOU but it's a good question. Oh I know, the Alliance makes money now off of managing school accounts. (They claim it would send the wrong message. If that's true, how come the district doesn't have MOUs with other community groups?)
End of update
The Board has decided there will be public comment.
Good News
Broadview-Thomson middle school PE teacher, Shelly Ellis, was named regional middle school PE Teacher of the Year by SHAPE America. Congratulations, Ms. Ellis.
Among many accomplishments, Ellis:
The award is given by the National Scholastic Press Association and the Newspaper Association of America Foundation and recognizes outstanding coverage and content, quality of writing and reporting, leadership on the opinion page, evidence of in-depth reporting, design, photography, art and graphics.
A team of 12 journalists from the Ballard program learned about this and other awards last month at the Journalism Education Association/National Scholastic Press Association convention in Washington, D.C. More than 6,000 students from around the country attended the national convention in November and more than 2,000 students competed.
The crew from Ballard got to tour one of the most storied newspapers in the country, The Washington Post. And five select students were treated to a special tour of The White House's West Wing, which they chronicled for the Talisman.
It was the first time The Talisman placed at a national level.
The Board office often has a student newspaper out on their lobby table and I agree; the Talisman is a great example of excellence in student achievement. (Also, you can learn things from the student newspaper that you don't hear about at home. Support your school's student newspaper with a subscription and you'll be surprised at what you learn.)
2 pm.
What the heck? How many times will they discuss governance issues and communication issues? They have been over this territory so many times and yet every retreat agenda, there it is. And, that part is for two hours. I do note the addition of the issue of communications "how does the Board interact with the media and how is a spokesperson assigned." It appears there is a policy but they seem to feel the need to discuss it.
Update:
Here's the agenda for the Special Board meeting next Wednesday. As of now, I know of two topics; approval of negotiation of a contract with Dr. Nyland to be permanent superintendent and approval of a contract for new computers. This process for the purchase of new computers is way behind schedule and there are no vendors or prices yet available. The new computers will cost between $1.2-1.4M but they have no vendor yet. Again, this does NOT bode well for this testing cycle that includes the brand-new Smarter Balanced assessment.
The Board seems to have made this a rather full "special session" with the addition of a couple of items:
- Intro of Capacity Management
- and looky here - the extension of the MOU with the Alliance. Except, there is no extension document attached. When will that come?
I note that there is no question that there should be an MOU but it's a good question. Oh I know, the Alliance makes money now off of managing school accounts. (They claim it would send the wrong message. If that's true, how come the district doesn't have MOUs with other community groups?)
End of update
The Board has decided there will be public comment.
For the 12/10 Special Meeting of the Board,
public testimony will be limited to the agenda items for this meeting
and will be for 2 minutes per slot, with a maximum of 20 speakers. All
public testimony rules apply, including those identified
in 1430BP.
Members of the public who wish to address the
Board may sign up to do so by either e-mailing or calling (206)
252-0040, beginning Monday, December 8 at 8:00am. The public testimony
list will be posted Tuesday, December 9.
Good News
Broadview-Thomson middle school PE teacher, Shelly Ellis, was named regional middle school PE Teacher of the Year by SHAPE America. Congratulations, Ms. Ellis.
Among many accomplishments, Ellis:
- Goes beyond basic curriculum to challenge her students, with engaging lessons on topics ranging from muscle groups to bullying to nutrition.
- Helps fellow teachers find ways incorporate physical activity. She has led staff development on how to provide “brain boosts” – short physical activities – in regular classrooms.
- Forms community partnerships, such as working with REI to teach her students how to snowshoe.
- Has identified relevant Common Core principles and helped incorporate them into physical education standards through her work on committees at both the state and district levels. (Ellis’ students read articles while speedwalking, for example.)
- Serves as Broadview’s athletic director and coaches girls basketball at nearby Ingraham High School.
The award is given by the National Scholastic Press Association and the Newspaper Association of America Foundation and recognizes outstanding coverage and content, quality of writing and reporting, leadership on the opinion page, evidence of in-depth reporting, design, photography, art and graphics.
A team of 12 journalists from the Ballard program learned about this and other awards last month at the Journalism Education Association/National Scholastic Press Association convention in Washington, D.C. More than 6,000 students from around the country attended the national convention in November and more than 2,000 students competed.
The crew from Ballard got to tour one of the most storied newspapers in the country, The Washington Post. And five select students were treated to a special tour of The White House's West Wing, which they chronicled for the Talisman.
It was the first time The Talisman placed at a national level.
The Board office often has a student newspaper out on their lobby table and I agree; the Talisman is a great example of excellence in student achievement. (Also, you can learn things from the student newspaper that you don't hear about at home. Support your school's student newspaper with a subscription and you'll be surprised at what you learn.)
Comments
"Timing of the exchange of information between staff and the Board" This is about defining the time limits for when the staff says that they will "get back" to the Board with information, right?
"What to do when violations to the Code of Conduct occur" Holy Cow! A conversation about enforcement and accountability!! That's brilliant!!
"When delegating authority to the Superintendent, how do we align to Board policies and exercise oversight" Again, this looks like a conversation about accountability and what it will look like.
Or am I completely wrong about this?
Shall we add: Timing and exchange of information between board and public?
1. Who provided Nyland with
the Gates grant? Charles
Wrighr?
2. Did Nyland seek legal
advice before signing Gates
contract? If Nyland did NOT
receive legal advice, I have
to question his ability.
3. The numbers regarding Garfield
student enrollment numbers
need to be reconciled. Why
are we seeing a discrepancy,
and where are the dollars
that go with the students?
Failure of the board to have these answers equals failure of
the board to oversee the superintendent.
One person who I know simply would have not just put it in front of him? Long-time superintendent office adminstrator Aleta H. (and I know I'll screw up the spelling so I won't try). She never would have done this.
Staff at JSCEE ought to have their bathroom access limited to the equivalent of Schmitz Park's.
This is disgraceful. For the $450,000 cost of those portables, Schmitz's third, fourth and fifth graders could be transported to the building Westside is vacating.
Wright says negotiating A4E MOU without including the board
Geotsch says not putting SAO contract before the board before work started.
Nyland said...well, we all know.
English these were one-of situations so maybe we need to figure out how to apply the riules to these huh? moments
In the immortal words of Rod Stewart.
What is the point of the Board having this conversation NOW, or, for that matter, at any time?
THIS Board -- except for Patu and Peters, ultimately, when push came to shove, CONDONED Dr. Nyland's "shoot first, 'apologize' later" brazen 'management style'.
Oh, wait, he never really apologized (that would involve stating how what happened happened and why it was inappropriate and why it won't be happening again - what will be different).
Yup, Nyland let himself off the hook, and, so did this Board, except for Patu and Stevens, and, this Board then REWARDED his behavior with a glowing love letter (Marty), and a fat-paycheck permanent job (Peaslee).
No performance/bad performance = glowing job offer... not much incentive here for anyone to do the right thing.
-tired reluctant-cynic
http://school-board.district.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/school%20board/14-15%20agendas/121014agenda/20141210_CapacityManagement_RecdMgmtProjects.pdf
Thirty one new portables are proposed; mostly elementary/k-8 except Nathan Hale is getting two and Mercer MS is getting 4.
Ten are in the northend, 5 in West Seattle.
If I'm reading it correctly, they are also re-purposing preschool rooms (the initials are PS- what else would that be?) to regular classrooms at Montlake, Sandpoint, McDonald, and Thornton Creek. While losing preschool is not great, at least this proposal is prioritizing K-12 over other uses, as we legally must.
Hazel Wolf K-8 (given as an Eckstein AA school): former geozone/attendance area was Eckstein, but its former location (the Jane Addams building) is now in the JAMS AA, and Hazel Wolf will be in JAMS AA in the future (at the Pinehurst site). Interim location at John Marshall is in the Eckstein AA.
Licton Springs K-8 (given as a JAMS AA school): former geozone/attendance area was in the Eckstein AA, but the Pinehurst site is now part of JAMS AA, future attendance area will be Wilson-Pacific (but is currently part of the Whitman AA). Interim location at Lincoln is in the Hamilton attendance area.
It is kind of confusing and inconsistent. Neither school seems to be classified according to its future attendance area/assignment geozone. Maybe it doesn't matter for this document, but it seems as though it could matter for planning purposes (i.e. determining how many seats there are available by middle school attendance area).
- North-end Mom
I took a look at what you pointed out. I think those are "P5" not "PS," probably referring to specific portables that are being renovated/converted, P3, P5, P6, etc...).
Not sure though.
- North-end Mom
What is Nyland's position on APP? WE don't know because the board knows Nylsnd's "plan" and we don't.
Leslie
Leslie
Sorry to tell you but APP (now HCC) is already dismantled.
- LL
With the exception of Peters and Patu, we won't see accountability, oversight or enforcement.
"And "signing authorities and thresholds are a structural impediment". "
I understand district staff wants to increase spending threshold to $300K.(!)
District staff should have LESS authority. The board needs to balance the budget at the end of the budget cycle. I'm tired of administrative staff acting like it is Christmans- everyday of the year.
Peaslee's campaign promises can be found here:
".... has gained traction in the campaign with fiery rhetoric about what she considers the district's woefully inadequate efforts to solicit community input.
"Parents in this district are ignored," says Peaslee, who also has been active in recent disputes over math textbooks. "This is our district, this is our tax money, these are our kids. The community must be included in the conversation."
Peaslee also supported "alternative pathways to learning". What is PEaslee's position on advanced learning?
Peaslee on Creative Approach Schools:
"I'm pushing for a thorough and highly transparent vetting of the proposal before we vote on it."
More from Peaslee's campaign:
"We also need to flip the top-down governance of the district that ignores parents, teachers and students until bad decisions are followed by public outcry. We need to remember that public schools belong to their communities and restore local control. School communities must be genuinely involved in the entire process of making major decisions that impact their schools and children.
If elected I will address these two fundamental issues head on, and many others. I’m a proactive, creative problem solver and will do whatever it takes to be sure all students have what they need to succeed, and that communities are involved in all major decisions."
Dude you work for a municipal government agency. You are sooooo in the wrong line of work if you think you can do away with pesky things like "policies and procedures" - this is just so much....whining. Wow.
reader47
Because we are moving towards the era of what I called, "The Smartest Guys in the Room." Usually powerful, wealthy people, impatient for "change" and "innovation" who believe if only the little people (the public), the concerned but clueless (parents) and the annoying people (the activists) would just shut up and sit down, the SGR would be able to lead the way to greatness.
Oh, and those elected officials there to oversee and provide accountability? The fewer of them the better. The less power they have the better. The less they can oversee - the better.
Any attempts to curtail or diminish the Board's authority should be ignored by the Board and loudly shouted down by the public.
HP
Unfortunately, I think with the exception of Peters and Patu, may be on the path to a rubber stamping and back high fiving board.
Central administration needs LESS spending authority- not more.
-- Ivan Weiss
What is Director Peaslee's position on Advanced Learning?
She hates it, and brings tonne of baggage, missinformation, ignorance and and prejudice to the subject and students and community. Not unlike a lot of folks. The things I have heard her say...
By 'law', i.e., WAC, etc., there are 'special students', who have their particular education rights ENSHRINED in statute. Those include ELL, SpEd, and Highly Capable. A District policy for Highly Capable just went through a drafting-revision cycle to get adopted.
Like any defined group, there will be some who fall just above and some who fall just below the line of what defines them as ELL/SpEd/Highly Capable. Kids whose English is just barely good enough to pass a test, but, far from strong -- they get booted from resources; kids who can manage their dyslexia or ADD/ADHD or are ASD 'well enough' to be gatekept from an IEP or 504, and bright kids who strong students but not gifted.
The ELL and SpEd Board adopted policies are restricted specifically to just those students who meet the definition of what ELL and SpEd students are; the policies are targeted and unmuddled.
Then, there are the Superintendent procedures that can meet the policy spirit and requirements and go beyond. However, Peaslee wanted the Highly Capable policy to be different from the SpEd and ELL policies, she wanted it to be a catch all for students who do not qualify. Result? Despite excellent efforts by the AL Department, it will be easy to see all kinds of families whose children are not defined as Highly Capable nevertheless demanding services -- which is outside of the WAC. Confusion will abound. In the SpEd universe, even kids who do qualify by definition as being SpEd have a hard time getting 'greenlighted' for an IEP, let alone getting the IEP respected.
Peaslee doesn't understand the needs and attributes of students who are highly capable, kids whose cognition means they only occur at most once in every 50 persons, who don't have intellectual peers in a regular classroom, and, the affect of having no peers has on such a student. Tolley and Heath don't get it or respect it either.
On this blog, anything having to do with HC seems to be a lightening rod, nevertheless, consistency in scope amongst such Board Policies dealing with exception-by-law students should have been done per best practices. If she and the others wanted a Board Policy for students who are not called out by statute, like for barely-adequate-English speaking students, or, for somewhat-impacted by a mild-learning-disability kids, etc, they could have done too -- nope, just muddled HCC. You know it will trigger lots of angst, and so it is foreseeable that services/programs to these students risk being compromised. Which goes against the WAC.
--you asked
Schmitz Park is an elementary school with 16 portables - and they're getting three more next summer.
I expect North End high schools will see more portables before the capacity crisis forces us into split shifts.
You don't know what you talking about.The program has needed affirmative action since it started as IPP and now it's finally here. The few kids of low SES who managed to get in have been recruited to privates, which are more diverse than HCC. Hopefully this will make some of these kids want to stay in SPS.
Why does the program need affirmative action? What would be the benefit to the program of using variable admissions criteria? Could you describe the characteristics of a child who needs the program - and what it should provide them?
Nobody at any level of SPS cares when a family chooses to remove their child(ren) from the district's schools. What makes you think that's a concern for advanced learning programs?
And please, please, SPS, evaluate the actual results of any such changes, ok?
One other thing: it's hard to agree with Sam that this will likely have much impact on whether minorities stick with SPS. A little more diversity likely doesn't make up for the fact that there's not really much "meat" to the program. If you're getting offers from private schools, there's not much in HCC that would woo you to stay.
HIMSmom
What value is there in diversity? It seems clear that many posters have not read the scientific literature or have lived under a rock for a time.
Charlie had it right--it's only "better" for the students who need it. For kids who are bored at school, are not learning anything, don't relate to their peers, and who don't have schools/teachers willing to work with them effectively, the program may in fact be "better" (but not always). However, it would likely be "worse" for those who don't "need" the program in the same way. I know kids who started in the program and were miserable, so dropped out for Spectrum or gen ed instead, where they were much happier. They would call HCC "worse", not "better."
HIMSmom
Yes - CogAT, math and reading scores correlate with SES. Those scores are also indicators that a student needs something different in the classroom. Our general education program is designed to meet the needs of most children whose scores are below HC levels. Not being identified as highly capable is not a judgement of a child's worth - or an indicator of their future success in college, career and life. A child does not need an IQ of 130 to be successful.
It sounds from the rest of your post that your interpretation is that kids born into low SES families will be of lower cognitive capacity, and thus don't need HCC, so our low numbers make perfect sense. Is that an accurate interpretation?
I feel otherwise. While heredity has been shown to be an important factor in intelligence, I believe SES and environment can also influence performance on cognitive and achievement test results. Students with these additional challenges may think in the same ways as those who typically qualify for HCC, and may be just as bored/unhappy at school, but due to these outside influences and barriers they might not perform quite as well on initial testing. It's similar to how HCC kids might not perform as well on a test if they didn't eat breakfast or sleep well the night before, or if they are sick, etc. Low SES kids, ELL kids, etc. who perform at levels approaching the current HCC cut-offs are likely to be every bit as gifted as kids who qualify. Plus, they bring a lot of other valuable experiences to the program, too.
HIMSmom
You said "SES determines CogAt scores significantly. Best practice is to norm scores against peers in age as well as opportunity, so if the top 10% of northend kids are in HCC, 10% of southend kids should be also. Or go by school."
Your argument assumes intelligence is equally distributed geographically, and I don't believe there are data to support that. From what I have read, heredity is a key factor in intelligence, although SES likely also plays a role (and if it doesn't play a role in intelligence itself, it does in the testing used to measure intelligence). Assuming that highly intelligent parents are (a) likely to have highly intelligent children, and (b) likely to end up in a higher SES group, then it follows that they are more likely to afford expensive neighborhoods and thus there will be a higher percentage of highly intelligent children in those neighborhoods. The gen ed program in those local schools, however, would likely still be targeted to kids of more typical intelligence, so a larger percentage of kids might need access to gifted programming. In a low SES school, the numbers would be expected to be lower--although probably not as low as what we now see.
I feel a better approach would be to use a combination of some general criteria, as well as some subgroup-specific criteria designed to address perceived biases in eligibility. That would ensure that we adequately serve all those in the top x%, as well as those who "should" have been in the top x% were it not for circumstances beyond their control.
HIMSmom
We agree on different HCC qualification criteria and expanded outreach. As an immigrant Roxhill kid with (fluke) IQ scores, I know there are a number of children in my part of town who should be evaluated for entry.
HIMSmom
ergo, if parents are not in a "higher SES group", they are not highly intelligent.
I don't think that that kids born into low SES families will always or generally have lower cognitive capacity. I do think that (as you said) "highly intelligent parents are (a) likely to have highly intelligent children, and (b) likely to end up in a higher SES group."
I think IQ is largely heritable - I've seen estimates of 60-70% heritability. I think that genetic component sets an upper limit for a child's IQ. An impoverished environment reduces the likelihood a child will reach that upper limit.
The point of having different requirements for HC identification is to identify those children who, given a different SES level or background, would have met the HC thresholds using national norms. Are we assuming that HC services will provide sufficient enrichment to allow them to overcome the negative affect on IQ of their environment? I've seen some interesting references to studies that show that while the effects of pre-school interventions on IQ generally fade over time, when those children are enrolled in elementary schools with higher achievement levels, they maintain those IQ increases. On the other hand, there are studies that report that enrollment in gifted programs has no effect on the achievement test scores of children whose baseline scores barely qualified them for the program.
Of course we want to meet the needs of all children. I just want to understand the benefit we think we'd provide to children identified as highly capable under new rules.
Here's some information on the heritability of IQ.
There's no assumption that people from lower SES backgrounds are not highly intelligent in HIMSmom's statement. The reality is that in general highly intelligent adults are likely to have intelligent children.
SES is based on income, education and occupation. Of course a person can be highly intelligent and have low income, little education and an occupation that requires less skill and provides less autonomy. Generally though, highly intelligent people do have higher SES levels.
I know crowding is occurring and is likely to get worse. My kids LA class is in the 'blackbox' theater. They have already had to move to the library a couple of times so that the 'blackbox' theater can be used for what it was intended, a theater.
HP
But yes, in general, income and intelligence are correlated. Does this mean that "if parents are not in a 'higher SES group', they are not highly intelligent", as you suggested? Of course not. That would be absurd.
But data matter. There are some disparities and patterns we see in society that seem unfair--and that are unpleasant to acknowledge. But we have to be honest about the facts in order to better understand them, so we can figure out and what to do about them.
HIMSmom
-sleeper
So I think we're actually in agreement, no?
HIMSmom
Was that not you, at 10:11, on 12/8? Are there two posters using the same moniker? That is what I was referring to, when I was saying race is not allowed.
-sleeper
Yeah, that was me. Very clumsy, I apologize. What I really meant by that "good plan" bit was one that wasn't specifically race-based, but that might help with the racial disparities. So something like SES. To me, a "good plan" has to address the root of the problem.
You'll notice that in a later comment I had also said "I feel a better approach would be to use a combination of some general criteria, as well as some subgroup-specific criteria designed to address perceived biases in eligibility. That would ensure that we adequately serve all those in the top x%, as well as those who "should" have been in the top x% were it not for circumstances beyond their control."
Thanks for pointing that out and letting me clarify. This is an awkward conversation to have online, but there's not really another forum...
HIMSmom