Meet Seattle Schools' Newest Partner - the City of Seattle
It's been a long day so I can only be brief here (but I'll write more another day).
Two fairly interesting things happened at the School Board meeting tonight.
One, there is considerable support for the Middle College High School program, both from community and some Board members. Speaker after speaker rose to support the program and ask that the Middle College High School at the High Point Neighborhood Center not be closed. Especially moving was testimony from a former student, Paul Campiche, who said that these were not "throwaway" students and "people who are the most disenfranchised need the most help." He had been thru the Middle College program, then went to Evergreen and is now in the Master's program at Antioch for counseling.
Peaslee, Peters and Patu (the Peter, Paul and Mary of the Board), in their Board comments, all said they want a second look at this decision (or at least more discussion). The other Board members were fairly silent on this issue. Oh wait, Director McLaren couldn't say enough about how good the program is but then said that she had been part of many discussions and it seemed like two different conversations but "that's all I can say." Very helpful.
One last oddity to this story is that it was noted that the Middle College program in West Seattle was no longer on the South Seattle CC campus and the program was started to align with community college. And yet, the Middle College at Northgate is in the Northgate Mall, not on the campus of North Seattle CC. Hmm.
Two, the Board voted, 5-1-1 (with Peters a "no" and Patu abstaining) to approve the agreement with the City of School for their preschool program.
Again, I'll go into more detail because the vote was baffling given what was said by nearly every single director about this agreement (namely, either just a "broad outline" or "too vague").
When this Board meeting is online, I urge you to go and listen. It was truly bizarre what was said and yet the majority of the Board said yes.
(Or not said, given that not a single Board member, despite misgivings, asked Legal counsel John Cerqui about the agreement). I checked with him before I left - the agreement, once agreed to by the Board and signed by the Superintendent, is a legally binding document.
The juxtaposition of the reality and need for a program like Middle College that saves lives today versus the City/District's unclear road forward for its preschool program was jarring.
Two fairly interesting things happened at the School Board meeting tonight.
One, there is considerable support for the Middle College High School program, both from community and some Board members. Speaker after speaker rose to support the program and ask that the Middle College High School at the High Point Neighborhood Center not be closed. Especially moving was testimony from a former student, Paul Campiche, who said that these were not "throwaway" students and "people who are the most disenfranchised need the most help." He had been thru the Middle College program, then went to Evergreen and is now in the Master's program at Antioch for counseling.
Peaslee, Peters and Patu (the Peter, Paul and Mary of the Board), in their Board comments, all said they want a second look at this decision (or at least more discussion). The other Board members were fairly silent on this issue. Oh wait, Director McLaren couldn't say enough about how good the program is but then said that she had been part of many discussions and it seemed like two different conversations but "that's all I can say." Very helpful.
One last oddity to this story is that it was noted that the Middle College program in West Seattle was no longer on the South Seattle CC campus and the program was started to align with community college. And yet, the Middle College at Northgate is in the Northgate Mall, not on the campus of North Seattle CC. Hmm.
Two, the Board voted, 5-1-1 (with Peters a "no" and Patu abstaining) to approve the agreement with the City of School for their preschool program.
Again, I'll go into more detail because the vote was baffling given what was said by nearly every single director about this agreement (namely, either just a "broad outline" or "too vague").
When this Board meeting is online, I urge you to go and listen. It was truly bizarre what was said and yet the majority of the Board said yes.
(Or not said, given that not a single Board member, despite misgivings, asked Legal counsel John Cerqui about the agreement). I checked with him before I left - the agreement, once agreed to by the Board and signed by the Superintendent, is a legally binding document.
The juxtaposition of the reality and need for a program like Middle College that saves lives today versus the City/District's unclear road forward for its preschool program was jarring.
Comments
West parent
It is not unusual for Martha McLaren to talk out of both sides of her mouth. When push comes to shove, McLaren will rubber stamp and vote in lock step with the district.
McLaren's campaign web page is from 2011 and endorsements no longer apply.
I'm looking forward to a board meeting report
Very, very bad form.
I read the prek MOU. It is important to note- all that was missing. I look forward to watching the board meeting. Judging from Melissa's comments, I can only say that I'm glad Director Peters and Patu are independent thinkers.
Nyland, Carr, Peaslee, Martin Morris and hopefully McLaren won't be around to clean-up the prek mess.
Also, when I pointed out that it was Carr, at the last Ex Ctm meeting, who said that she didn't want something that would leave new directors in a less-than-favorable position and didn't want to leave something someone could get "creative with" she claimed that I got it wrong and that she was talking about within SPS and not with the City.
Language related to prek-third grade alignment. It is not clear if the city will insert themselves into K-3. There is NO reason for the city to insert themselves into K-3; SPS has plenty of staff.
The city's prek program is a research project and an Investigational Review Board will be needed to protect humans from psychological harm. The MOU was not clear whether or not the research team will insert themselves into the K-12 system.
Shocking that this agreement was approved. Peaslee, Carr, Martin Morris and McLaren can't be removed from office soon enough.
Again, with this partnership agreement, the District is now locked in until 2019. They can only negotiate some items in it but if I were a newly elected Board member, I'd make sure to defang it as much as possible. (Or just say "no" a lot.)
As for McLaren, it appears she does have a new campaign website but couldn't be bothered to take down the old one that has many more endorsements including mine (with a quote from me).
I have asked her to take it down immediately as I am not endorsing her this time.
Saying that the district is contracting, with the city, for TWO prek classrooms is false.
SEMom
I watched part of the board meeting. Blanford makes a good point:
A. The district does NOT offer a timeline for agreements/ contracts etc. Toner and Wright state that there needs to be multiple agreements. These agreements are non-existent and the district does not have a timeline for getting this information to the board. Language regarding contracts/agreements are missing from Partnership Agreement. I find this interesting because the prek program has had a timeline and the timeline began several years ago.
B. Wright tells Blanford that he meets with the Executive Committee once a month. Yet, an agreement with the city will have an enormous impact on facilities, operations and finances. These issues need to be discussed in the Audit and Finance, and Operations Committee.
The board should not enter into any agreement until costs have been determined.
An Institutional Review Board will be used to protect humans, participating in research, from psychological harm. Is it the intention of the city to extend their research project into K-12 system? The evaluation component is being developed, and the district will "inform" the board. We're talking about children being used for research. At a minimum, the board needs an agreement with terms fully explained.
Third Sector Intelligence will develop prek evaluation strategy. 3SI works with the BMGF.
http://team3si.com/
Peaslee asks if the district will have an opportunity to exit the contract. Wright tells Peaslee the contract is good for 2 years. The Partnership Agreement is from 2015-2019.
At best, this project is sloppy and poorly thought out. The board would be smart to refrain from involving administration and insisting on a 2-3 year implementation plan.
No, there is no exit to this thing, only renegotiation of terms.
I think four years is too long for this thing but they said yes.
I went to the BTA IV levy meeting which was sparsely attended. I asked about the money in BTA III to build four new preschool classes. Only one was done at Gatzert because there is no room at the three other sites. Herndon said the money is just sitting there until they find the room "because that's what voters wanted."
First of all, that money can technically be used for any purpose.
Second, that room is not going to crop up anytime soon and SO many buildings have capital needs.
I wish they would not wait and just use it.
W. Seattle blog quotes Martha McLaren as saying " I couldn’t make a strong case against the impending decision to close the site. Staff knows that I am adamant that SPS needs to find a way to serve the kinds of students who have thrived at MCHP."
Toner is a former elementary school principal. While her intentions are good, I highly doubt she has the skills to write MOUs that will deal with millions of dollars. She has no business leading this effort. Mirimac is correct. The MOU between SPS and the district does not contain a dispute resolution.