More Nonsense about the City's Preschool Program and SPS
Despite the fact that most Board committees only meet once a month, here's another meeting of the Executive Committee for June. With just a single item on the agenda. What's that? Why the next City/SPS Preschool agreement, of course.
The odd thing here is that the Executive Committee meeting of the Whole, which was two weeks ago, saw this particular partnership agreement rejected by the Committee to even move it forward for consideration by the Board.
Now the Executive Committee meeting of the Whole two weeks ago never had this preschool agreement attached to their agenda so I can't compare what has changed from that one to the new one.
From the BAR:
Space/Facilities: Seattle Public Schools is experiencing significant enrollment growthand does not have adequate capacity to meet it. Given the opportunity that exists with SPP, the City will be leading conversations to identify space.
I almost do not have to write one more single word on this subject because that statement above should scare every single SPS parent. The City thinks that THEY have the best "opportunity" in the world for SPS and THEY will lead the conversations on how to find space.
I have one word for them on that subject - NO.
This district has so little space that it is insulting to current school communities to believe that the City is going to sweep in and tell SPS where the space is. (I also have no idea what Charles Wright does except work on this project. I mean, he was telling the Operations Committee just weeks ago that he needed $1M for consultant to help him with his job.)
PLEASE - write the Board (schoolboard@seattleschools.org) and tell them NO to this newest pre-K partnership with the City.
The first thing that strikes me is the three district locations for these preschool classrooms is that one of them is already operating. The three are:
(FYI, I believe the two Van Asselt locations are a bit confusing. Van Asselt (the school) is in the old AAA building.)
Page 2
FAMILY ENGAGEMENT: The District will provide a culturally relevant plan for partnering with families and communities to improve child outcomes on an annual basis.
No, no and no.
The odd thing here is that the Executive Committee meeting of the Whole, which was two weeks ago, saw this particular partnership agreement rejected by the Committee to even move it forward for consideration by the Board.
Now the Executive Committee meeting of the Whole two weeks ago never had this preschool agreement attached to their agenda so I can't compare what has changed from that one to the new one.
From the BAR:
Space/Facilities: Seattle Public Schools is experiencing significant enrollment growthand does not have adequate capacity to meet it. Given the opportunity that exists with SPP, the City will be leading conversations to identify space.
I almost do not have to write one more single word on this subject because that statement above should scare every single SPS parent. The City thinks that THEY have the best "opportunity" in the world for SPS and THEY will lead the conversations on how to find space.
I have one word for them on that subject - NO.
This district has so little space that it is insulting to current school communities to believe that the City is going to sweep in and tell SPS where the space is. (I also have no idea what Charles Wright does except work on this project. I mean, he was telling the Operations Committee just weeks ago that he needed $1M for consultant to help him with his job.)
PLEASE - write the Board (schoolboard@seattleschools.org) and tell them NO to this newest pre-K partnership with the City.
The first thing that strikes me is the three district locations for these preschool classrooms is that one of them is already operating. The three are:
- Bailey Gatzert, 1301 E Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98122
- Van Asselt, 8311 Beacon Ave S, Seattle, WA 98118
- Van Asselt, 7201 Beacon Ave S, Seattle, WA 98108
(FYI, I believe the two Van Asselt locations are a bit confusing. Van Asselt (the school) is in the old AAA building.)
Page 2
EARLY ACHIEVERS & MERIT: Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the District will adhere to the requirements of Early Achievers and the Merit System. The District will plan to be fully enrolled in these programs by December 31, 2015.
Okay, I'll bite. What are these requirements? What does "fully enrolled in these programs" mean?
STUDENT ASSIGNMENT: For the 2015-2016 school year, the District will enroll students into District-operated classrooms pursuant to SPP guidelines.
STUDENT ASSIGNMENT: For the 2015-2016 school year, the District will enroll students into District-operated classrooms pursuant to SPP guidelines.
What are these guidelines? And wait a minute, after 2015-2016, does this mean ANY students in the city can enroll, not just those within the district's student assignment plan boundaries? That's not what we were told by Cashel Toner, SPS' lead on this initiative.
page 4
FAMILY ENGAGEMENT: The District will provide a culturally relevant plan for partnering with families and communities to improve child outcomes on an annual basis.
On whose dime will this "culturally relevant plan" be paid?
As well, the District only gets 75% for a "baseline payment" with a 25% "performance commitment. According to the BAR, there are some mystery grants the City has that will backfill that 25%.
Where's the big money? Well that would be here in the document, Budget Proposal, where the City lists, under "Facility Costs" "rent/mortgage" at a whole $9.72 an hour. So we have capacity issues in this district, maintenance issues in this district and yet the District can rent space to the City at about the minimum wage?
Now in this budget narrative, it says that there "is no basic rental fee for Seattle School District educational programs." Problem is, this is NOT an SPS program - it's a City program. The reason I know this is because the District would not need all these "agreements" for its own programs.
No, no and no.
Comments
See:
http://bfy.tw/LCU
NotHard
http://sps.ss8.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/committees/Exec/2014-15/June%204,%202015/20150604_Agenda_Exec.pdf
Thought I'd share
It is becoming clear: The city will enroll and lead efforts to find space within SPS. Get the picture? What is missing from the picture? The state is mandated to lower class size. The board would be smart to strike any language, in an agreement, that allows the city to determine space.
The Partnership Agreement made NO mention of the district paying 25% for teacher performance. The board would be smart to put language into the original Partnership Agreement and make it clear that the city will pay for all aspects of
teacher pay.
The city has been working on this prek initiative for years. They know exactly what they are doing.
Thought I'd share
District officers and employees will demonstrate the values of integrity in the performance of the District’s business, accountability to the law and to the people we serve, stewardship of the District’s resources, and independence in the performance of our jobs. District officers and employees have been entrusted with a noble and important task, educating our community’s children, and should strive to live up to the highest ethical standards.
So are district employees and the board following 5251 purpose?
Board of Directors 2015 Code of Conduct
2. Uphold Board Policy No. 5251 , Ethics, and avoid any conflict of interest or th e appearance of impropriety which
could result from misuse of my position.
3. Uphold all applicable federal and state laws and regulations. I will acknowledge that decisions can be made only
by a majority vote at a Board legislative session and I will not represent myself as having individual legal
authority within the district.
sheepness inSEattle
"Budget considerations:
The SPP funding model is designed to fund 75% of projected costs in an initial installment and
the remaining 25% in an incentive pay model. SPS is projected to meet the criteria for the 25% performance pay". (!) Where are the guidelines?
Who is paying for heat and water?
"Rent/mortgage –4260 SPIII. Rates and Charges for Various Groups: A. Seattle School District
Programs, There is NO basic rental fee for Seattle School District educational programs."
The district is planning 0.12 FTE for planning and compliance with SPS Collective Bargaining- laughable:
"0.12 FTE Planning, Conference and Preparation teacher time (PCP) at average cost. This would
support one section of Gym, Art, or Music per day depending on the PCP offerings at a particular
school. This will allow for compliance with the SPS Collective bargaining agreement."
SPP wants access to nurses. Good luck. Most buildings share a nurse. Nutritional services, too.
IMPACTS TO SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
The latest Seattle Public Schools capital program, BEX IV, ensures adequate capacity to meet enrollment projections for the 2021/21 school year, 13 years short of the comprehensive plan update planning horizon of 2035 (Wolf 2014). Student enrollment would likely continue to grow as population increases in Seattle, affecting school capacity in the long run.
(from page 28 of the "impacts" section)
Of course, maybe the theoretical capacity meets the theoretical 2020 projections, but aren't those projections already out-dated?
- North-end Mom
If SPS administration can't bring their managerial selves to say NO to this overrun on K12 funds, hope the SEA takes a hard look and kicks these sorts of 'sharing' agreement bullet points to the curb in their summer contract negotiations.
DistrictWatcher
Most elementary schools are already struggling to provide this. Ten years ago, it was typical that all students would get gym three times per week in the gym with the gym teacher. This model met the state standard but also maxed out with about 16 homerooms per school.
As schools started to get crowded, this was one of the first things to go as there was no longer the possibility of scheduling the gym efficiently enough to provide the state standard. The same things began to happen with art rooms and music rooms and then came "art-on-a-cart" because there was no longer an art room.
It sure looks like the SPP wants to have all the amenities that come with a Kindergarten classroom but not pay the direct costs of these services let alone the full loaded costs. I can't imagine the .12 staff time would come close to covering this.
One just needs to look around to see the huge change in demographics in Seattle and wonder if SPS can really serve the new Seattle and it's rapid growth. We have to admit SPS hasn't handled capacity issues well and it might be too late to gain control and save the district from radical changes in management. What a perfect plan, the pre-school program is a Trojan horse, but no one sees it.
CC
At least they will be a record somewhere.
I do sense a hurry-up attitude from DEEL as they may worry about who gets elected to the Board. Taking the district WILL take time. They need a docile superintendent (check) but they also need the Board's okay. Legally, there is nothing they can do about that.
The Partnership which was signed by Peaslee, Carr, Martin Morris, McLauren and Blanford stated that enrollment would be handled by the city. Now, we have a BAR that states SPS will enroll students and the city will enroll in 2016. One thing is clear: You can't trust the city. Here is exact language:
"As outlined in the Partnership Agreement, the City intends to centrally manage applications for
and enrollment in SPP for 2015-2019.
Bailey Gatzert:
Currently enrolled students will be grandfathered into the classroom 2015-2016
Van Asselt:
Seattle Schools will enroll students for the 2015-2016 school year.
Original Van Asselt:
Seattle Schools will enroll students for the 2015-2016 school year.
In 2016 Seattle Preschool Program classrooms will be enrolled by the City of Seattle."
It is worth noting that tuition collection goes with enrolling students.
Charles Wright can't manage his present work-load and there is NO way he'll be able to manage this project, too.
Therefore the best case scenario is 100% reimbursement and the most likely scenario is less than 100% reimbursment and no scenarios where there is more than 100% for great performance.
How is that a payment plan??
KT
The Partnership which was signed by Peaslee, Carr, Martin Morris, McLauren and Blanford stated that enrollment would be handled by the city. Now, we have a BAR that states SPS will enroll students and the city will enroll in 2016. One thing is clear: You can't trust the city. Here is exact language:
"As outlined in the Partnership Agreement, the City intends to centrally manage applications for
and enrollment in SPP for 2015-2019.
Bailey Gatzert:
Currently enrolled students will be grandfathered into the classroom 2015-2016
Van Asselt:
Seattle Schools will enroll students for the 2015-2016 school year.
Original Van Asselt:
Seattle Schools will enroll students for the 2015-2016 school year.
In 2016 Seattle Preschool Program classrooms will be enrolled by the City of Seattle."
It is worth noting that tuition collection goes with enrolling students.
Charles Wright can't manage his present work-load and there is NO way he'll be able to manage this project, too.
"Enrollment Services
The City intends to centrally manage applications for and enrollment in SPP for 2015-2019. The
City and District acknowledge that aligning enrollment services is a shared goal."
Translation: The City intends to centrally manage applications, except for 2015-2016. Then we will have the district manage all enrollment, which also includes tuition payment.
"SEATTLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION: Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement,
the District will work with the Seattle Education Association (“SEA”) to ensure the
District will meet the requirements of SPP. The District agrees that work with the
SEA will begin upon execution of this agreement and conclude by December 31,
2015."
Maybe they'll get Scott Walker in to negotiate.
Ditto on Charles Wright who is positioning himself for something bigger (like Cashel Toner).
Where's the PTSA when you need them?
Children will be in SPS schools. Is it the expectation of the city for SPS to pay for legal costs? What happens when a kid falls and breaks their arm on the playground. Who is responsible?
The agreement kept talking about the "Agency" that will conduct developmental screenings, maintain records etc. who is the "Agency"?
Where is SPS legal in all this? Why aren't they upholding the interests of the district, particularly in light of the district's legal responsibilities and State and board-established scope of work? I wouldnt syand for this contract in my business and the dollars at stake here are much higher, the implications far greater.
On the other hand, the level of the District's involvement and the extent of the District's commitments appears to have gone much too far. The District has devoted staff time - which it does not have but the City has stacked to the ceiling. The District is being asked to devote building space - which it does not have but the City does have (community centers). The District is being asked to devote personnel - which it does not have but the City does. And I don't see the City paying the full freight. This is not a good partnership. The school district needs to pull away a bit and the City needs to step up a lot. More than anything else, the City has to start writing some checks. Big ones.
NGC
I honestly think the City thinks SPS is dumb or malleable or both. That's why I said the SCPTSA should step up and tell the district - we as parents in overcrowded, underfunded schools are worried about the time and costs being devoted to pre-K.
'Where is SPS legal in all this? Why aren't they upholding the interests of the district, particularly in light of the district's legal responsibilities and State and board-established scope of work?"
That is my question, too.
The amount of poorly drafted documents are proliferating and they are getting attached to the BAR. The board (minus Peters/Patu) made an enormous mistake not getting clarifying language into the main Partnership Agreement; language that would protect the district.
After the Partnership Agreement was signed, the district learns that they are to be responsible for 25% of teacher pay. What other surprises are in store for the district?
The Partnership Agreement stated that the city was going to enroll students. Now, the city wants the district to enroll students. What other surprises are in store for the district?
Let's just look at the issue of legal costs and liability issues. How will this be handled and who will pay the bill? Legal costs and settlement agreements loom into millions of dollars.
Seattle Public School houses Head Start and it is the intention of the city to partner with Head Start. The amount of children in the city/district prek could rapidly extend beyond 3 classrooms.
While it is highly reasonable for the district to support the city, the manner in which this is being rolled-out is a mess and I'm not confident the district is protected.
The WSS includes funding for high risk and vulnerable populations i.e. elementary school counselors. Presently the WSS is unfunded by $11M and atleast one community is protesting and wanting counselors. Look at the school budgets- elementary school counselors are missing.
It is fine to support the city, but not at the expense of underfunding the WSS. I'm not at all confident the district has a grasp on financial implications.
I don't think this is entirely true. What the BAR says is that SPS said they would not pay that 25% and that the City has found some mystery grants to backfill that amount.
HOWEVER, how long is that for? One year, two? No idea.
And the mystery grants for the 25% backfill? Who is that?
I'll have to ask.
The city's Department of Education has enough staff to run SPS, and the department is combined with Health and Human Services. The city needs to do this work.
The board should reject this portion of the contract and put this work onto the city. The city appears to be taking little responsibility and putting enormous amounts of work on the district. The district already has too much on their plate.
http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/committees/Exec/2014-15/June%2016,%202015/20150616_Exec_SPP_DRAFTServiceAgreement.pdf
1. SPS has NO space.
2. Bailey-Ganzert isn't even fully enrolled this year despite the "high need" (hmm, maybe because a 6 hr day with no before/after or transportation isn't feasible for many?).
3. All of this raises an even bigger space issue than it looks like on the surface. Right now SPS can get away with providing a crummy 2.5 hour day, 4 day a week preschool with minimal access to typically developing peers because preschool isn't required, no public option is available (this is pretty similar aside from the peer group to the Seattle Parks and Rec programs). But parents can and should fight that poor experience if there is moving towards universally available preschool. And SPS has no room to have preschoolers there for a full school day, let alone to expand to actually include any meaningful amounts of typically developing kids in their program. If nothing else they should their current opposition against delivering itinerant services in private preschools since they will now demonstrably be failing to provide LRE.
North Seattle
http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/inclusion-policy-executive-summary-draft-5-15-2015.pdf
After SPS made the decision to fully load 12:1:2 Dev PreKs with ONLY students with disabilities, PreK teachers had to file a grievance to ensure the 12 INCLUDED some typical peers.
Of course when I filed a complaint about the discriminatory treatment of SpEd PreK kids at the Old Van Asselt "support facility", suddenly SPS says the CBA provides for typical peers and will have four in OVA next year. What a bunch of lying weasels.
I think it's easier to get away with since there's no real public options for preschoolers now, but with the city program? No can do. Of course, as best I could tell reading through all of the city docs, they theoretically want to include kids with IEPs, but there is no way with their ratios (1:10) and the limited extra funding they've proposed for kids with IEPs they could actually resource up to support them...
North Seattle