Board takes back program placement authority

The Board has long delegated authority for program placement decisions to the Superintendent. Policy F21.00 made that explicit and Policy 2200 reinforced it. All the Board required was a coherent process, community engagement, and a report.

Since the Superintendent has never provided a coherent process, community engagement, or a report, the Board is now preparing to take back the authority. The Board is preparing to amend the policies to require all program placement decisions to have Board approval. See the documents starting on page 58 of the packet for the upcoming Executive Committee meeting.

There can be no doubt that this is a direct response to recent decisions (EEU, Middle College, InterAgency at Queen Anne) and the historic failure/refusal to conduct community engagement, provide any coherent rationale for decisions, or make sound decisions.

Is this what accountability looks like?

Comments

Robert Cruickshank said…
This is a very important step for the school board to take. The district staff have made a series of damaging and, in the case of Middle College, racially offensive and discriminatory decisions regarding program placement. On that basis alone it makes sense for the board to take back the final decision-making power.

After all, that is the essence of democracy and why having an elected school board is so important. The district staff will still be able to make recommendations, but final decisions regarding program placement should be made by the elected representatives of the people.
3/4/16, 9:40 AM
mirmac1 said…
I hope that the Board will now put in place a predictable special education program and assignment pathway. As Flip Herndon alluded to in his nonanswers re: City PreKs; there are annual changes to where our children are assigned. Parents are left guessing where their child will attend school.
3/4/16, 9:42 AM
Anonymous said…
The reality is, these issues still come to the Board in one form or another, through protests, public commentary, lobbying, petitions, etc. But the Board is not
currently empowered to influence them, and so the District is perceived as acting without transparency and the Board failing in its duties

wow - someone appears to finally be getting a bit of a clue ;)

reader47
3/4/16, 11:22 AM
Watching said…
The district has abused their authority and transparency is a problem. Kudos to the Seattle school board!!

I'm thrilled.
3/4/16, 3:02 PM
Z said…
Thank you directors Peters and Patu for submitting this proposal!

Please ask your directors to support this.
3/6/16, 11:41 AM
Anonymous said…
After years of Ready-Fire-Aim, the Board is finally ready to rearrange the process into a Ready-Aim-Fire (when they say "fire") process. It's about time JSCEE staff, including the SI, re-discovers democracy.

WSDWG

3/21/16, 11:05 AM
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