Sunday, January 01, 2017

Seattle Schools This Week

To note; even though SPS is not open tomorrow, Monday the 2nd, you can sign up for the speakers list for public testimony for Wednesday's Board meeting.  Starting at 8 am, either call 252-0040 with your info or send an e-mail to boardagenda@seattleschools.org.

Tuesday, January 3rd
Final Community Meeting on the Budget Gap at Franklin High from 6:30-8:00 pm.

There was to be an "Orientation:New Charter School Application" in Yakima by the Washington State Charter Commission on Jan 3rd, but it was canceled without explanation.  There are two others; on January 5th in Seattle and on Jan. 11th in Vancouver.  Also, on January 6th, questions that charter applicants were to have submitted about the process by December 20th, will have answers posted. 

Wednesday, January 4th
School Board meeting, starting at 4:15 pm.  Agenda

- annual report of the Native American Education program
- amending the Board policy on Advertising and Commercial Activities at athletic events.  From the BAR:
This Board Action Report makes edits to Board Policy No. 4237, Advertising & Commercial Activities, in order to provide equitable opportunity for all District athletic teams to receive financial benefits from advertising and commercial activities.
Current Board Policy No. 4237, Advertising and Commercial Activities, permits advertising on District property on high school fields, stadiums, and scoreboards. As a result, there are a number of high school sports that are unable to receive the monetary benefits of advertising because they do not use fields or stadiums as a venue for play. Sports such as basketball, tennis, and cross country are therefore limited in their ability to receive the benefits that may be available to sports such as baseball and football. In order to provide equitable opportunity to all high school sports, this motion will amend the policy by removing “fields, stadiums, and scoreboards” and adding “athletic venues” in its place.

There is an additional edit that adds marijuana to the list of items that cannot be advertised, as it no longer fits under the category of illicit drugs.
With the exception of advertising placed on athletic venue scoreboards, advertising on athletic venues in school buildings, e.g., gymnasiums, is only permitted to be visible during interscholastic athletic competitions.
Revenues from athletic venuedistrict property advertising will first and foremost enable equitable funding of the Associated Student Body (ASB) accounts. Advertising is also allowed on the school calendar and revenues received will support the publication of such.
Okay, so when they had advertising in the calendar, it was to go to ASB. Did it or does it? I don't think so. It was promised especially for ASBs in the south end that have a harder time raising funds.  
Do I believe new revenue from this policy change will go to ASB? I doubt it. But again, the district rarely makes good on transparency around claims of potential benefits to policy changes.

- compliance for website accessibility for those with disabilities.  Some of the language would be funny if it were not such a serious subject:
The proposed contract allows the District to wisely manage Seattle Public Schools resources and ensure compliance with the policy, laws and decree noted.
Yes, it's a rather long laundry list of laws that the district wasn't complying with and so got dragged into court.
Under Background Information, there's a bit of defensiveness:
In 2015, SPS entered into a consent decree with a parent of students in the District and the National Federation of the Blind, Inc. 

This decree provides timetables, standards, and specific steps that SPS will follow to provide individuals with disabilities equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from SPS’s services, programs, and activities, as SPS increasingly relies on web-based, digital, and emerging technologies. 

One of the main components of the Decree requires that all District web pages comply with the WCAG 2.0 AA level of accessibility. The Decree covers the approximately 4000 web pages that are available to the public under the www.seattleschools.org domain. 

Over the past 11 months, staff in the Office of Student Civil Rights (OSCR), Communications and DoTS have worked to bring the District’s website into compliance. This has been a daunting task and one that is extremely arduous and time-consuming with the present staffing levels. 
I'm not sure anyone, least of all anyone who is disabled and attempting to access information about public schools, should worry that coming into 21st Century compliance of the law for that access was hard on staff.

I'm also going to point out that the BAR states that "pages 32-33 replaced" in the contract.  However, the attached items are not numbered in any clear manner that would allow anyone to know exactly what pages were replaced.  Not good.

- And then we come to the Student Assignment "Transition" Plan for 2017-2018.  I first want to thank those eagle-eyed parents who told the Board and the staff that what was originally being put forth was an actual "plan", not a transition plan.  I'm glad that got changed.

There are now just three amendments.  Director Burke withdrew his amendment to remove the HCC Geo-split to Decatur and Move Entire Cohort to New Cascadia site.  So there is:

Amendment 1 is sponsored by Director Peters to "allow grandfathering with transportation for all rising 8th graders."  This would be for all comprehensive middle schools for 2017-2018 who live in a region where a rising 8th grader would have to change schools because of a new school being opened in their region.

I have pondered this one.  It's a choice between truly rolling out a full 8th grade at new schools or note.  One thing I believe will happen - no matter what - is that some students may choose to stay  put and some will go to a new school.  That means the old school will have fewer students and therefore, less funding.  I think that weakens both 8th grades and I think it better to spend that transportation money on having the best opening 8th grade at the new schools.

Amendment 2 is sponsored by Directors Pinkham and Burke to adjust the elementary feeder school patterns to move Greenwood and Broadview Thomson K-8 into the Whitman Middle School service area.  This one seems to make sense to me.

Amendment 4 is also sponsored by Director Peters and it would establish Decatur school site as an optional, rather than geo-split pathway for northeast elementary HCC students.  Director Peters is on some fairly sound territory here as Ingraham and Fairmount Park are both optional HCC sites for students in those regions.  Even though Decatur is a lesser building, the smaller size might appeal to parents as well as the opportunity to create an optional school. 

As for the SAP Transition Plan, well, it appears that the "fiscal impacts" certainly have gone up.   I understand adding in Decatur reopening but everything else is about the same.  (The jury is out on the district's claim that an Optional school is more expensive to open than a Gen Ed school.)  

I also note that adding Chief Sealth as the SE dual language immersion pathway high school has had virtually no notice or public discussion.  I have to wonder why this is being ignored and not truly vetted.

There is also this:

Adding language clarifying current Special Education services and placement

I looked but the Transition Plan attached is not redlined and so I am unable to see what language has clarified what. 

I also see that the Boundary Maps page says:

Updated maps are in production. Thank you for your patience.  

This brings me to a major point - why were boundaries and the Student Assignment Plan changes done separately from each other when, in fact, they are intertwined?  This suggests to me a couple of things.  

1) I sincerely doubt that any parent in this district can truly say they know how both the boundary changes and the SAP Transition Plan changes will play out for any given region.  To allow parents to figure it out AFTER the Board vote seems suspect.

2) My belief that there is more going on here than just boundary changes and SAP changes is growing.  I think that there is some major social engineering going on here towards a couple of district wishes (that have NOT been clearly articulated.)  One is this issue of "segregation" and "equity" (and I put both in parenthesis because I'm not sure of the district's definition of either and how they intersect.) And second, I believe that the district truly wants to control who goes where to a far more fine-grained degree than they have in the past in the name of MTSS.
Under Introduction Items, the most interesting one is the JUA between the City Parks Dept and the district for use of fields.  It's a long contract that I haven't read thru yet.
Thursday, January 5th
Executive Committee meeting, from 8:30-10:30 am.  No agenda yet available.

Robert Eagle Staff Middle School Planning meeting from 6:30-7:00 pm at Broadview Branch Library.  Given that it's a half-hour meeting after a long holiday break, I'm wondering if it is worth attending.

Saturday, January 7th
Community meeting with Director Blanford from 10 am to noon at the Douglass-Truth Library.


Anonymous said...

Melissa, regarding grandfathering of 8th graders, are you aware a group of about 70 Hamilton current 7th graders slated for Eagle Staff will start anew at 3 schools in the next 3 years?
1) 2017-18 change from 7th grade Hamilton to 8th grade Eagle Staff
2) 2018-19 change from Eagle Staff to 9th grade high school
3) 2019-20 move again for 10th grade at new Lincoln High School

That's 3 consecutive years of starting over at a new school during puberty/adolescent years which can be hard in itself. Most of these kids changed schools at least once in elementary schools. Add starting new schools in 8th, 9th and 10th grade is a total of starting at 6 new schools (3 non promotional). This is not putting students first. One year of transportation costs to grandfather these kids is paltry compared to long-term academic, social and mental stability for these humans. It's ONE YEAR.

I'm genuinely curious to know if this factors into your thinking of not supporting grandfathering rising 8th graders for this one year.

--Supposedly Students Come First

Charlie Mas said...

The designation of Chief Sealth as the language immersion high school for the Southeast is a terrible decision that was made through a process completely different from the process required by the policy. It is also intended to be a temporary siting. That means that only a year or two of students from the Southeast will go to Chief Sealth then the program will be moved to Franklin. What will become of the children at Sealth? Will they then transfer to Franklin?

The program will eventually be sited at Franklin, but it is being sited at Chief Sealth because the principal at Franklin doesn't want it. There is no other rationale provided.

Anonymous said...

Some students who went through both the elementary APP split and the middle school split to JAMS could possibly attend 7 schools prior to graduation:

K at neighborhood school
Gr 1-3 @Lowell
Gr 4-5 @Lincoln
Gr 6 @Hamilton
Gr 7-8 @JAMS
Gr 9-11 neighborhood HS
Gr 12 Lincoln

This does not justify so many moves for students, but simply shows it's not unprecedented. Given the looming budgetary issues, how do you think SPS will prioritize?


rising 6th said...

Supposedly, That comment is pretty selfish. All kids are switching schools when starting high school and you don't know who's attending Lincoln yet much less if your child will have to split. You're trying to overly-dramatize a situation that has been known for years.

What about current 6th graders? They are in the same boat as your current 7th grader. Please explain why your child should be grandfathered and not current 6th graders?

2016-2017: Changed from 5th grade to Middle School
2017-2018: Changed to REMS from HIMS or Whitman
2019-2020: Changed to high school

Bam, now you need to advocate for ALL kids to be grandfathered or none. "I thought it was students first". I'll rephrase your comment for you. "I want the best for my kid and I don't care about the greater good".

Director Peter's should pull this amendment based on the apparent conflict and lack of financial data when we are facing a massive budget shortfall. The costs will be significant.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Supposedly, again, I said that I felt it better to support a full roll-out of 8th grade at the new school than to create a situation where some kids might stay, some might go and you'd end up with possible lesser 8th grades at two schools.

I agree the Hamilton kids' experience doesn't sound great. I'm unclear why they changed elementaries, though.

It appears that many of these kids are HCC. That points to a district that clearly thinks these students - and their high test scores - are a movable feast. Talk to your Board members about how AL - and the students in it - are being used and it hurts their academics.

Anonymous said...

even better! Supposedly, "we're stronger together."

Melissa, HCC kids start program in 1st grade or later, so many changed from their neighborhood schools to Lowell or Lincoln/Cascadia during elementary. Many wouldn't have opted to uproot then if the neighborhood school was a better fit.

-- Supposedly Students Come First

Anonymous said...

@ Supposedly, do you really want to get into a debate about which year of students has it worse? Someone already mentioned 6th graders, so let me address current 8th graders. They may not be impacted by the REMS opening, but they WILL be starting high school next year, and then many of them will likely get pulled to Lincoln two years later. I realized that's 3 schools in 4 years as opposed to the 3-in-3 you were complaining about, but I think most people would agree that being forced to switch high schools halfway through is a lot more disruptive than being made to move after your freshman year--especially when the new high school you're moving to for your junior year is brand new and may not have all the classes necessary to continue on track, nor may it have all the expected extracurriculars. Add in the fact that current 8th graders are the first cohort to be subject to the new 24-credit graduation requirement, and the fact that our current high schools are so overcrowded that it may be tough to get the classes they need to meet this requirement, and the fact that SPS is delaying implementation of any 24-credit-based changes for at least another year due to cost concerns, and I'd say 8th graders have it worse than 7th graders. And opening a new school can present opportunities as well as challenges. It could be a good year despite the move.


Anonymous said...

That comment was cut off.

Rising 6th, I'd swap a rising 8th grader's situation of attending one year and for the last year of middle school with a 6th or 7th grader's that allows 2-3 years and graduating from that school and be ok with switching schools.

It's great we advocate for our kids, whatever our beliefs. Doing it without spewing vitriol toward those with another view is even better. We're stronger together! We're all in this together and can choose to stay strong and kind while we advocate based on our different beliefs.

Anonymous said...

(Ack, didn't sign. Third time a charm?) That comment was cut off.

Rising 6th, I'd swap a rising 8th grader's situation of attending one year and for the last year of middle school with a 6th or 7th grader's that allows 2-3 years and graduating from that school and be ok with switching schools.

It's great we advocate for our kids, whatever our beliefs. Doing it without spewing vitriol toward those with another view is even better. We're stronger together! We're all in this together and can choose to stay strong and kind while we advocate based on our different beliefs.

--Supposedly Students Come First

Melissa Westbrook said...

One, Supposedly, two-word moniker please, per our comment guidelines.

Two, there is a difference between having a choice and not having a choice. Do I wish this district cared enough to have rigor and differentiation in place so that more parents could make the choice to stay local? I do. But that is a choice versus being assigned to a school.

Three, I can only say that the money issue for this grandfathering will weigh heavily on Board members' minds. Then again, the district seems to pull figures out of somewhere that never seem to be believable. So how much will one thing cost over another? I don't know.

I will say that if it's to be no grandfathering, the rollout of 8th grade at the new schools better be handled very well.

Anonymous said...

Amendment 1, if it's passed, requires a supplementary amendment to retain HCC at Hamilton for 8th graders in the REMS and Whitman areas. Grandfathering would only apply to students already at HIMS, not students joining HCC in 8th grade. As the SAP creates REMS as the HCC pathway location for those in the REMS and Whitman areas, the handful of new-to-HCC students in 8th grade wouldn't have a cohort. Or classes, likely.

Director Peters, if you're reading, your amendment needs a 2nd piece that says 8th grade HCC in the north end will only be at Hamilton and JAMS next year.

Or is the idea that there will be a few 8th graders who opt for REMS anyway, so there will be a small cohort of non-HCC 8th graders and a smaller cohort of HCC 8th graders? What a nightmare. I'd say either open REMS as 6th and 7th only, or implement the full geosplit without the grandfathering. Commit to making it work for everyone, or do a partial roll-up. This half-assed approach isn't likely to work well.



Watching said...

I plan on reading documents at a later date.

Looking at Melissa's write -up, it appears Director Peters seeks to offer 8th graders 'choice ' and stability'. ,Choice' is something parents desire and some seek to privatize our education system to provide parents and students with 'choice' . Given the developmental stages of an 8th grader...it would seem some 8th graders would benefit from a stable environment.

Anonymous said...

@HF, yes, you're right. No one wants anything less than great for any of our kids.

There's a specific amendment for grandfathering rising 8th graders. It's reasonable and expected parents will advocate for it if they want it. It would be odd if they didn't, especially while those who oppose it are aggressive, not so much assertive.

--Supposedly Students Come First

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Melissa, about moniker. Now I know.

--Students First?

Watching said...

Melissa makes a good point about the number of students in each grade. I don't have the numbers at the moment.

We are looking at a very complicated issue.

Anonymous said...

There is an issue here regardless of whether there is "grandfathering". Whitman is under capacity and many 8th graders who can will choose to remain. In fact, they have been promised they can remain and have been given instructions on how to remain. It is not known how many will leave or stay. Transportation may be part of that equation with those who rely on it leaving. There will likely be few 8th graders from Whitman who will matriculate to Eagle Staff. Grandfathering provides transportation for those who would like to stay but cannot.
-Whitman issue

Anonymous said...

The addition of “choice” based on amendment 1 is an illusion, at least for schools in the north.

Which 7th grade HCC student would choose REMS when all of their program classmates are still assigned to HIMS? Many would take it in stride if reassigned to REMS, but there wouldn’t be a REMS “choice” for individual HCC 8th graders assigned to HIMS without basically leaving the HCC program.

6th and 7th graders at Whitman already have the option of choosing to stay at Whitman through open enrollment because there will be space at Whitman. So the amendment doesn’t add choice, especially if 8th grade students at the north end of the Eagle Staff area lose the option of transportation to REMS because they are grandfathered at Whitman. In fact, it creates a bad option for rising 8th graders who might prefer to move to REMS or who are new to the area, especially those who live near or east of 99---many of whom would find benefit in an attendance area school more accessible from their home. There wouldn’t be much of an 8th grade program at REMS for anyone with grandfathering. That’s not a equitable “choice" by any stretch.

On #s… per Enrollment Planning data, there are about 111 HCC 7th graders at Hamilton, who will be reassigned to REMS next year. There are 105 Whitman 7th graders being reassigned (or there would be about 60 assuming Greenwood and Broadview Thomson continues feeding to Whitman). A majority of that 60 is likely go where they are assigned rather than proactively seek reassignment back to Whitman.

(There are also about 8 current 7th graders slated to be moved from JAMS to Eagle Staff. If anyone should be grandfathered, its JAMS students, so that they aren’t moved in tiny numbers. And since Eagle Staff would have space, they could probably choose Eagle Staff if they preferred.)

Reluctant Data-wonk

juicygoofy said...

The Whitman under-capacity issue makes the opening of Eaglestaff so much more complicated. I suspect that students who are well informed and can manage their own transportation will opt to stay at Whitman, but those who are unaware or have no access to transportation will enroll at Eaglestaff. Add to this the enormous cohort of Whitman service area HCC students being moved from Hamilton to Eaglestaff, and we end up with mostly HCC students far outnumbering general ed students. This will be most extreme at the 8th grade, less so with 7th. I can't imagine the district agreeing to this inequity on so many levels.

Charlie Mas said...

I just reviewed each of the CSIPs for references to advanced learners, a new requirement this year.

I count 42 of them that either make no reference to advanced learners at all, or utterly fail to offer any plan for addressing their academic needs.

So we have a situation in which the Board directed the Superintendent to do something - include plans for Advanced Learners in the CSIPs in this case. The Superintendent says he'll do it, The Chief of Schools attests that it was done. The Executive Directors of Schools say that they reviewed the documents and it was done. But when we make a quick review of the documents we find that it wasn't done. So the Superintendent is refusing or failing to follow a specific direction from the Board. The Chief of Schools is misinforming the Board. The Executive Directors of Schools are failing in one of their few objectively measurable tasks (what is their job?) and are likely lying to the Chief of Schools.

What are we to make of this situation?

What does the Board do? Do they just pretend that everything was done as claimed even though they can see that it wasn't? Do they insist that the CSIPs be fixed? Is there time for each school to fix their CSIP before the vote? Will the fixes mean anything or will the schools simply add some blah-blah-blah band-aid language about how the teachers will all meet the needs of advanced learners by providing differentiated instruction?

Does anybody even care? Are CSIPs meaningful documents or are they just a form that the State requires schools to complete? And if the CSIP is a pointless exercise, then why even do it?

Anonymous said...

Do you understand Charlie that if all the schools have a plan for advanced learners the district will severely reduce the cohort size and make students return to their assignment area school?

It's better if Nyland doesn't do what the board requested.

Green Lake

NO 1240 said...

Construction will begin on the charter school which will open in W. Seattle. Do these charter operators not understand that charter schools are not under local and elected oversight?

Melissa, SB 6194 is in the court system. Charter schools are not under local and elected oversight. It appears the Charter Commission is just fine with opening additional schools while SB 6194 is in the court system. Has the Charter Commission commented on this issue?

Anonymous said...

@Greenlake-advanced learning is not just for the cohort. There are many kids needing AL services in neighborhood schools, and many HCC students who would LOVE to leave the cohort.

Fix AL

KB said...

@Green Lake
Advanced Learners are kids who have tested in the 87th percentile or above on the CogAT and 87th percentile and above in reading and math. Obviously there are plenty of kids out there who would qualify as advanced learners if they took the tests in question but haven't taken the CogAT. This is a whole lot more students than just the HC cohort.

The district NEEDS to teach these kids. Many principals and teachers have decided not to teach these kids anything beyond "benchmark" or "grade level," but many of these kids start each school year already having completed that year's learning goals. So in many classrooms around the city, these kids (who are no better or worse or more valuable or less valuable than any other kids) are just sitting there year in and year out doing busy work. Because they **already** know the material they're being "taught." SPS should not be warehousing any children like this. If kids already know the material to be taught for the year, what is the district's plan for teaching them something? Surely the point to school is to learn something? The schools can't just lock them in a janitor's closet with a game of Tiddlywinks and let them out in June.

This problem is only tangentially related to the HC cohort, which is a much smaller pool of kids. HC is 98th percentile on the CogAT or above and 95th percentile or above in reading and math achievement. Way fewer kids.

For a city with 50,000 school kids it is pretty inexcusable to just not have any plan for how to teach the kids who test in the top 13th percentiles.

Our daughter's kindergarten teacher assured us there was no way our daughter could be bored. "Five year olds can't get bored," she said. They can if they're asked to spend a whole year reviewing how to count to ten and sit quietly and wait for all the other kids to finish learning their alphabets and how to read.

If the schools actually taught advanced learners anything, it wouldn't matter so much if the cohort size got reduced and kids when back to their assignment area schools because they would be getting to learn something there instead of just playing Tiddlywinks. Right now, if your kid is at least one year ahead of benchmark, you pretty much need to get them into HCC if they're going to learn anything at all in a given school year. And obviously that's not possible or desirable for most advanced learners.

Anonymous said...

Melissa--I would add three considerations regarding Director Peter's Amendment 4 to make Decatur an option school HCC pathway:
Pro: this provides for the opportunity to cap enrollment and control numbers at a site that will be shared with a less-than-excited neighbor, Thornton Creek.
Pro: this opens the school to the northeast HCC students, not just those in the Eckstein feeder schools, which could provide more diversity and these are all kids who likely will attend JAMS together.
Con: this recommendation could mean the first year(s) is under enrolled and there likely is no mitigation funding. This is a gamble, it could fill up the first year...or not.


Anonymous said...

So far we are not hearing that students are choosing to leave Whitman. This great news, because it will most likely mean Whitman will be able to keep all it's programs strong.

The school, the PTSA and many active parents are aggressively promoting the school choice option. We have the forms ready for the first day of open enrollment and notifications have been sent home with those students assigned to move to REMS.

Good News

Anonymous said...

@Good News: "We have the forms ready for the first day of open enrollment”

Weird. Do you mean that you have enrollment forms ready when they aren’t being produced until after the SAP votes and not released until February 6? Are you a time traveler?

Dr. Who

Anonymous said...

@Charlie, regarding the CSPI's: do you think the schools have been given resources to support advanced learners? If you were a Principal with an unsupported mandated, would you leave that section blank or make up BS to satisfy the powers that be?

Fix AL

Anonymous said...

Sorry, S/B We'll have the choice forms ready for open enrollment.

No time travel required. Last time I checked, open enrollment or school choice is not dependent on a vote by the board. Is the board playing to try an end around on school choice?

Good News

Wild Cat said...

At one point, school were to reserve 10% of seats for "choice". With growing enrollment, I'm not sure the 10% number still stands.

I'm glad there are people actively trying to retain Whitman students. A lot of energy has gone into transforming that school. I'd hate to see the school break.

Charlie Mas said...

@Fix AL, Have the principals been given the resources to support advanced learners?

The most common way schools offer advanced learning is through walk to math and walk to reading. Every elementary school is capable of that and has the resources to do that.

As for the middle schools, let's remember that every single one of them is a designated Spectrum site. Yet only three of the comprehensive middle schools, Aki Kurose, Hamilton, and Jane Addams, offered any sort of plan for advanced learning services in their CSIP. Not Mercer, Washington, Denny, Madison, McClure, Whitman, or Eckstein.

By the way, a shocking number of designated Spectrum sites make no reference to Spectrum in their CSIP.

Since there are schools that can and do offer advanced learning services and do so without extra resources, we can conclude that those who offer nothing do so because they choose not to. Either they have other priorities which preclude them from providing support for students working beyond Standards or they simply don't believe that they should be providing support beyond Standards - read the McClure CSIP, it voices active opposition to advanced learning while acknowledging that 25% of the students are Spectrum-eligible. They are intentionally refusing to serve a quarter of the students in the school.

"We have no 'honors' math courses; students are placed in math courses
based completely on the previous year’s math course mastery (i.e. students
taking 6th grade math will move into 7th grade math). McClure does not
'skip' students in math but focuses on genuine mastery of grade level

Some claim to be offering something, but it's nothing real. They only offer the magic pixie dust of "differentiated instruction". Unless they can quantify this differentiation and guarantee it, I don't believe in it. I believe in what I can count and measure; not elegant narratives. There is no data on differentiated instruction - none - there are only fairy tales and ad copy about parallel curricula and project-based learning. If you can actually name examples of differentiated instruction, then there are too few of them. They are events rather than practices.

The school district and some of the schools are trying to sell the idea of differentiated instruction for advanced learners through MTSS, but when you read the CSIPs it's clear that most of the schools see MTSS as a tool for finding and serving struggling students, not high achievers. If the District thinks MTSS is a tool for advanced learners, they need to get that message out to the schools.

It comes down to this. If there isn't something in the CSIP that a student's family can read and correlate to the child's everyday school experience, then there's no real service for the student. If there is no clear statement that says "Here is what we are teaching advanced learners that is different from what we are teaching general education students." then there is no service.

Some of the schools - about half of them - can do it. So the schools are getting the necessary resources. The rest of them aren't doing it because they don't want to do it and they don't think anyone can make them do it.

Anonymous said...

"We have no 'honors' math courses; students are placed in math courses
based completely on the previous year’s math course mastery (i.e. students
taking 6th grade math will move into 7th grade math). McClure does not
'skip' students in math but focuses on genuine mastery of grade level

so it's bad to require mastery? Isn't that a big problem in the hcc, kids who are behind?


Anonymous said...

Good News-- Great news for Whitman that so many students (and almost all 8th graders I hear) will be choosing to remain at Whitman. Not such good news for Eagle Staff who will have a few 8th graders to mitigate into correct classes who choose Eagle staff, unless those 8th graders enroll in Licton Spring at Eagle Staff instead. Not such good news for HCC 8th grade kids who will be split from HIMS (if grandfathering does not pass) and have less 8th graders at the school. That happened at JAMS when so many Eckstein kids remained at Eckstein. That weas not a true Geosplit either for those who remember. It was really rough on the 8th graders. This school should be 6 & 7 to start.
-another perspective

Anonymous said...

Reluctant Data Wonk-- "The addition of “choice” based on amendment 1 is an illusion, at least for schools in the north."

There is a fatal flaw in your argument. Grandfathering would allow 111 HCC kids "choice" who currently have no choice but being split. Whitman kids it sound like will have choice. It would allow 111 HCC kids better assurance they will get the classes they need for continuity during a "levy cliff" crisis when mitigation funding which will be needed to run small classes is at risk.

I also wonder if people will be advocating hard against grandfathering those future 12 graders who will be spit from their schools to open Lincoln. I have a Roosevelt bound child who may be split to Lincoln in 10th. I for one, will not be advocating against grandfathering 12 graders. Grandfathering kids who are in their last year of a school is a common "best practice" across the country.

-The whole truth

Melissa Westbrook said...

No on 1240, they haven't but I'll ask. It is interesting - given the outcome of the last charter law - that the WSCC might not hit the pause button in order to NOT have more students suffer school upheaval but I think the powers that be want it to be full steam ahead.

Fix AL, well, AL as an unfunded mandate? First, the schools have to serve HCC students just as if they were serving SPed students. Second, it's a program in the district; doesn't the district have a responsibility to either change that program or invest it in if it exists?

Wild Cat, that 10% was only for comprehensive high schools and I don't think it happened even one year. That was another "feel-good, on-paper" kind of promise to parents.

Another, good points.

Thanks Sue said...

Whole truth, I think you should change your name to half truth. What you say isn't untrue, but you are leaving out half the details. Such as, the current 6th graders at HIMS and Whitman will be left with less than they currently have if the REMS numbers drop dramatically due to grandfathering. You don't care about the current 6th graders who are also invested in their middle school, on a language path, on a music path, on a sports path. To deny them the 8th graders and subsequent funding is selfish. You've known about the move for 3 years.

That said, moving in 8th grade is an entirely different ball game than moving in 12th when college is on the horizon and not getting classes could be detrimental to your application success. To equate that to moving in 8th grade is ridiculous. By arguing against the current grandfathering amendment doesn't mean I'll argue against 12th grade grandfathering when the time comes. I actually think 11th grade is the more important high school year so they should get to stay, too, unless there are HUGE guarantees that ALL necessary courses will be available.

And, unless I am missing something, you have no idea who is going to Lincoln so that's another 1/2 truth.

It's sad that Sue Peters pit us against each other instead of ensuring a successful start for REMS. It's completely unlike her past performance. We've lost so much time that could have been spent planning a great school. Now, we'll have to recover from whatever the outcome is tomorrow night before we can start the planning. And, ironically, the LAST of the REMS planning meetings is Thursday. No one really knows who is going there yet and the planning is "done".

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but what does sue Peters have to do with REMS. Isn't that another director's school? Also, isn't Whitman still another director's area.

So we have 3 director's covering the issue, but it's being driven by an outside director. Why hasn't a single one of these directors attended any of the REMS meetings?

No clue

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous Thanks Sue said...

What are you recovering from? Whitman's parents and students have been very vocal in opposing the change to REMS. That opposition is not going to change regardless. You are wrong to assume if they build it people will come. Tearing apart Whitman to make REMS work is not going to happen, so get over it and work with what you have and stop demonizing people for wanting to keep Whitman as is. We have worked hard to make Whitman a decent school with great programs.

Good News

Anonymous said...

@ whole truth,

You're missing the point of Data Wonk's post. Choice WILL be an "illusion" because the choice will basically between something and practically nothing. I suppose that's technically a choice, but for practical purposes it isn't (and you know it).

Yes, grandfathering would allow 111 HCC kids the "choice" to stay at Hamilton, but given the tiny 8th grade HCC cohort that will be at REMS--and the lack of appropriate courses it will mean--it's really a no-brainer. Choosing to move to REMS isn't a feasible option for most, so how can that really be called choice?

Yes, it sounds like Whitman kids (regardless of grade?) will have choice, too. But then again, Whitman is pushing for students to stay based on current enrollment projections, which don't account for Amendment 2. Amendment 2 gives Whitman 2 additional feeder schools over what's in the projections. Amendment 2 makes a lot of sense and is necessary because the draft SAP put too many feeder schools in the REMS area and not enough in the Whitman area. So with Amendment 2 addressing that problem, what would Whitman's revised numbers be? Would there still be enough room for everyone who submits a Choice application to stay?

As to your grandfathering comparisons, middle school and high school are completely separate beasts.

I wish those pushing the "stay at Whitman" agenda were willing to talk honestly about the potential negative impacts on other schools if Whitman gets it way on this one. We're all in this together, folks. What's the best solution for all--not just for Whitman?


Anonymous said...

Another meeting that may be of interest:

This Thursday, January 5, Ingraham is hosting a Town Hall meeting for the 46th legislative district with Sen. David Frockt, Rep. Gerry Pollet, and Rep. Jessyn Farrell. Doors open at 7:00 pm.



Anonymous said...

I find it a disingenuous argument by the pro-grandfather group that these same 70 HIMS 7th graders will be moved to Lincoln in 10th grade, forcing them to attend "3 schools in 3 years".

Most of these 70 students are HCC students from NW Seattle and the likelihood that they will be drawn into the Lincoln boundary is small.


Another NW said...

Just clarifying that this amendment is about grandfathering all 8th graders - students are being moved from McClure, Washington, Mercer, Eckstein, JAMS, HIMS & Whitman middle schools next year so students from across the district are being affected.

Anonymous said...

@Melissa--I believe Advanced Learning is an unfunded mandate because there is no curriculum or program structure and clear sequence or pathways in place. There are no District-wide goals for advanced learners and the priorities and communications from the top do not support AL. As they say...sh$t rolls down hill.

Fix AL

Anonymous said...

Current Whitman 6th and 7th graders will by choice get to remain at Whitman, that is not going to change. We don't know the impact on 6th grade yet, but I believe the school will stay around 900+ for 2017-18, that's about where it is now. In my opinion the Cascadia, REMS and LS situation is a hot mess of multiple competing interest and that mess is compounded by a terrible location.

REMS itself is not my concern, but for those of you working on REMS you need to work with what you have and stop trying to cannibalize Whitman, because it's not going to happen.

Good News

Charlie Mas said...

Ah, I understand. Fix AL is saying that Advanced Learning is an unfunded mandate from the district to the schools, not from the state.

And, just so you know, the schools are rolling it down onto the teachers with AL plans that consist of nothing more than "Teachers will differentiate instruction." which is, of course, no plan at all.

Anonymous said...

DisAPPointed- HCC 8th graders will remain at HIMS if grandfathering is approved. Only HIMS can give them assurances of classes. If newly qualified HCC students or new students move to the area it will be a handful, they will likely need to join the 8th grade cohort at HIMS for their program.
REMSparent- If Lincoln becomes a designated north end HCC pathway school, relieving Garfield which will be far over capacity, than likely many kids will be moved again to Lincoln.
- likely scenario

Anonymous said...

@Charlie-yes! This is what I am saying. And the Board is doing nothing. This is a leadership problem and a culture issue. The people driving the ship support divisiveness and confuse equality for equity. They ignore expert opinions and consultation. We may have a lost cause if the board doesn't quickly do something to support ALL students quickly after sorting out the SAP mess.

Fix AL

juicygoofy said...

Thanks Sue said:

"moving in 8th grade is an entirely different ball game than moving in 12th when college is on the horizon and not getting classes could be detrimental to your application success"

8th grade is very similar to 12th grade in terms of taking pre-requisite classes and choosing high schools. Many 8th graders will also be testing for and applying to special programs, private and parochial high schools.

juicygoofy said...

REMS parent said:

"I find it a disingenuous argument by the pro-grandfather group that these same 70 HIMS 7th graders will be moved to Lincoln in 10th grade"

The district has not yet determined who will be attending Lincoln, but there is a good possibility north end HCC students will be included. If this happens, yes, it will be certainly be the same HCC HIMS students who have to move in the middle of high school.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Sue-- " You don't care about the current 6th graders who are also invested in their middle school, on a language path, on a music path, on a sports path. To deny them the 8th graders and subsequent funding is selfish."

Who said anything about not "caring" about younger kids, you are making an assumption. Can you see beyond your argument to how this move will negatively affect 8th grade kids?

BTW Most of Whitman's 8th grade kids will likely remain at Whitman as this is not a true Geosplit. Same as what happened at JAMS when Eckstein kids remained. History is being repeated.

In addition, moving students during a fiscal cliff crisis which may impact mitigation funding may impact not only elective but core classes.

And data wonk did not mention the whole situation in his/her argument, which is why I added the information. Data wonk seems to be a bit biased.
-Whole Truth

Anonymous said...

Read this one,

"Approval of the Annual SAP Software Maintenance and Licensing Agreement - (Ops, Nov. 17, for approval) Approval of this item would authorize the Superintendent to execute a one-year agreement extension with SAP in the amount of $284,761.98 to provide enterprise and Business Systems Incorporated (BSI) software support."

SPS has no business running SAP, this has been an ongoing expense. I not sure of the cost, but it's most likely above 3-4 million and these type of support agreements NEVER go away until they move on to the next big thing.

Places like Boeing, Costco and MS use SAP not SPS...Stop the bleeding!

--Peoples Monies

Anonymous said...

We are losing our highly capable to a communistic, equity obsessed gaggle of bureaucrats at JSCEE. Why won't the board reign them in?


Anonymous said...

@Peoples Monies,

What would you suggest as an alternative? Many large districts use SAP, what's better?


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I was paying attention during the start up of JAMS and I don't remember that in-coming 8th graders were allowed to stay at Eckstein. I thought all 8th graders from Eckstein and APP@Hamilton had to move to JAMS, no exceptions. Eckstein was severely overcapacity before JAMS opened, but once it did, they removed most of the portables and got to a more reasonable number.

Am I mis-remembering? Or did some kids get to stay at Eckstein sort of under the radar, without most people realizing it?

Either way, though, tt's frustrating that the district feels the need to reinvent the wheel over and over. There should be a clear policy that guides how new neighborhood schools open (geosplit versus roll-up, grandfathering or not) so that everyone knows far in advance what to expect. The fighting about who goes where and who gets to stay where else is maddening. We went through all of this 3 years ago, yet the district learned nothing?

-Wheels Exist

Anonymous said...

@ Wheels Exist
You are spot on. Yes, we have done this before and actually, there have been 3, almost 4 years, to prepare for this split. But in the 11th hour, or should I say in the last 2 1/2 months, it was the SPS BOARD that made this decision to put a grandfathering amendment in place, not SPS. I can't imagine that SPS has the appetite to open a new Middle School in the midst of a capacity crisis AND budget crisis with the possibility of a completely under-enrolled middle school on the North End with only two grades present. That is effectively what we are talking about here. If there is culpability by the school district, it's around a complete lack of parent communication and engagement around this topic for ALL impacted families. Those impacted families are NOT just the current 7th grade families. Everyone who attends or will attend these schools, but especially the families attending REMS, are impacted. So really, who is responsible for communicating these proposals and impacts to the community? Is it the PTA? I don’t think so. Is it the SPS/SPS Comms? I think there’s great responsibility there. Is it the sponsor of the amendment? I think there’s also great responsibility there. You know whose job it isn’t? It isn’t the job of parents to communicate this to other parents, but in the absence of any real leadership from the Board or the District, parents will fill in the gaps, leading to mistrust and fractured communities.
I understand that if Amendment 2 passes and Amendment 1 passes as well, there could be as few as 340 kids @ REMS but still huge crowding @ HIMS (1100+ students), JAMS will be 1000+ and Whitman will be 600+. That is just in the north. Nobody can seem to answer the question about numbers in the south. The problem with catering to special interests is that once you start, you can’t stop because you have set precedent. This is an ill thought through “remedy” that is doing nothing to solve either short term or long term Middle School rebalancing efforts. One last thought, these decisions should not be made based on the loudest voices, but instead should be about the smartest voices and the best decisions for all.
-Long Road

Watching said...

Thanks Sue,

First of all, it is Director Peters. Second, Director Peters does not pit groups against each other.

Try attending one of her community meetings regarding this issue. There is more probably more information to garner. I've been through boundary issues. Sometimes it takes time, but there are solutions.

Melissa Westbrook said...

I would chime in to say that no, Director Peters is not offering this amendment to "pit" any group against another. She has always gone out of her way not to do that.

Again, I do not think that the boundary changes plus any SAP changes have been clearly vetted - to parents or the Board - so it is tough to know what might happen. But given that, it sure might have been a good idea for staff to survey middle school families to what they want to do. Going on real information might help make the decision about how to open RESMS.

Anonymous said...

So take 300 from JAMS and 300 from HIMS and send them to REMS...problem solved.

So let's not create problem where there isn't any. Leave Whitman alone and if any parent wants their children to attend REMS there the school choice during open enrollment option. Seems really simple to me.

Good News

Anonymous said...

There are a couple of feeder schools into Hamilton that could be redirected to REMS.

11th hour

Lynn said...

The year JAMS opened 40 students in the new attendance area attended Eckstein and 13 attended HIMS.

HIMS has only three attendance area (non-option) feeder schools. Rerouting those kids away from their neighborhood school would make HIMS our only option middle school. That's not the direction the district seems to be wanting to go.

Moving kids out for the last year of middle school to shore up the resources available to other students is not OK. 6th and 7th graders can be educated without 8th graders in the building.

Whitman is not in OK shape. There are 16 portables on site, which indicates the cafeteria, gym, lunchroom and bathrooms are over capacity.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but most of the portables at Whitman are not used.


Anonymous said...

@ likely scenario, yes, most HCC 8th graders will likely remain at HIMS if grandfathering is approved, but some might opt to move. They are not forced to grandfather--it's being presented as an option. Will REMS be able to serve any who move?

You said newly qualified HCC students will likely need to join the 8th grade cohort at HIMS for their program, but there's not a mechanism for that. The draft SAP identifies RENS as the HCC pathway school for students in the NW starting next year, not HIMS. The grandfathering amendment also does not apply to these students. A supplementary amendment is needed if grandfathering passes.


kellie said...

Director Peters and the grandfathering amendment did not cause the current state of uncertainty.

In 2014, in response to concerns about Wilson Pacific starting in 2016 in the John Marshall building and then moving in 2017 to the Wilson Pacific campus, and the multiple splits and moves this would create for students, SPS promised that "Whitman" students would be grandfathered. This information was posted on the SPS website for almost two years and I have a screen shot of that promise.

The exact words were ... "Students who will be assigned to Wilson Pacific (or whatever the name may be in the future) and start at Whitman can follow one of two paths. They can stay at Whitman for the duration of their middle school experience or they can attend Whitman for the year(s) before Wilson Pacific opens and then attend Wilson Pacific when the building is complete."

All of the challenges of this current issue started with that promise made ONLY to Whitman families.

Anonymous said...

"Students who will be assigned to Wilson Pacific (or whatever the name may be in the future) and start at Whitman can follow one of two paths. They can stay at Whitman for the duration of their middle school experience or they can attend Whitman for the year(s) before Wilson Pacific opens and then attend Wilson Pacific when the building is complete."

Sounds legally binding to me. Let's see what my lawyer friend says.

Good News

Eric B said...

Does keeping many/most HCC 8th graders at Hamilton cause major capacity problems? The current portables on the play top are a very short term solution.

Anonymous said...

@ kellie, how were they planning to populate a new school that was clearly intended to draw from the Whitman area later (after the grandfathering years) if they were going to allow Whitman students to not move over in the early years? Wouldn't that mean they'd need to fill it with students from a bunch of other schools, only to later find it overcrowded when the Whitman grandfathering expired? Or was the idea that they'd open it with a smaller population, then gradually increase over the next three years?

Or, was there maybe no real consideration to any of the consequences of such a statement in the first place? In fact, who made that promise, and did the school board approve it?


Anonymous said...

Sounds like the recent miscommunication around assignment of HCC students to IHS/IBX. The assignment plan clearly stated assignment was on a space available basis and not guaranteed, even though the AL website indicated it was guaranteed (not having been told otherwise by enrollment). When enrollment decided to limit IBX numbers for the first time this year (despite RHS, GHS, and BHS being incredibly overcrowded), parents were thrown for a loop and they cited the referenced info on the AL website. Students were taken off the waitlist and assigned to IHS. The wording on the AL website was quickly revised, leaving this year's 8th graders wondering what enrollment has planned for the coming year.

Just another year in SPS.

-same old

kellie said...

At the time that promise was made, FACMAC had been dissolved and capacity management had been removed from the top 3 board priorities. As such, I have no detail or insight into how that promise, that directly violated the "plan" to geo-split would be implemented.

Wildcat going REMS said...

I respectfully disagree, Kellie. The Peter's amendment does create a large part of the uncertainty. Tomorrow is the last REMS planning meeting and we won't know until tonight who is attending. Whitman was allowing ALL kids to stay since their numbers would drop perilously low otherwise. The kids allowed to stay at Whitman are "neighborhood" kids. Their ability to stay at Whitman was known from the get-go. Peter's amendment is, for the most part, protecting NW APP 8th graders - benefiting a few at the expense of many. These are kids that chose to leave their neighborhood school to attend APP unlike the kids being pulled out of Whitman who were assigned there. The current NW APP 7th graders being protected have known for three years that they would be pulled out of HIMS and sent to REMS. The last minute amendment did create significant uncertainty as well as inequity. Instead of fighting each other over this situation, we could have spent this time working on a great start for REMS.

Inequities said...

That's interesting Jenny, thanks for the information. It's a sad and inequitable thought that neighborhood kids who were previously assigned to Whitman due to NSAP technically could stay due to low numbers, but the actual ability to stay might not be possible due to loss of transportation. This while a privileged group of NW APP 8th graders get the CHOICE of two schools AND transportation to whichever school they choose.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know how many HIMS HCC families assigned to Eagle Staff do not have an email address?

Jenny Young

Anonymous said...

Lynn said...

"Whitman is not in OK shape"

Really, how would you know?

We love Whitman, we love the staff, the parents and the location. We drive our son to and from there everyday and if he did need to walk then we feel he would be safe with an overpass across Holman road and with the fact that the school is located in a beautiful and safe area. I do not have the same warm and fuzzy feeling about RESMS, because of all the unknowns including, lack of school history and the location. I'm also completely turned off by aggressive comments by APP student's parents on this blog.

Whitman Parent

Less Harm said...

Inequities - Please do not name call, not sure how when NW APP families are given a choice (and only the 8th graders - the 6th/7th are moving) they are privileged when Whitman families were the ones who are given the option/choice with no amendment whatsoever and have been the ones demanding that they are entitled to it. Also, not all NW APP 8th graders will receive transportation to REMS - we won't as we live 1.98 miles from Eagle Staff. My child will be walking to & from school crossing 80th, 85th, Greenwood & Aurora to get to school or taking Metro. Exactly like any other child who lives less than 2 miles away - it's the middle school transportation standard.
I have been completely surprised by the aggressive comments on both sides of this issue - we all want what's best for our individual families and I see no reason for the hostility towards one another. I would hope that we can all accept others might have a different viewpoint, respectfully disagree and also know that we all want the best for all kids - all at the same time.

kellie said...

@ Wildcat,

You are correct that all of the amendments create uncertainty. However, you are incorrect in the assessment of the timeline and the confusion. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the strong start to REMS was lost long before any amendments were proposed.

The plan to open Wilson Pacific was made in Nov 2013. As such there was ample planning time and no need to any of this last minute ambiguity. The entire push for establishing boundaries for REMS was so that every single family in the future REMS area would know when their student started middle school at another school, they would finish at REMS.

Last spring there were two planning meetings for REMS. There was a total of 11 parents who attended the two meetings. That one data point, should have been a huge warning sign that something was amiss and that families were not thinking of REMS as their future school. This is in direct contrast to the JAMS planning meetings that typically had over 100 parents.

Once again, I can only simply state, that all of us are feeling the loss of long time head of Enrollment Tracy Libros. When Tracy retired a tremendous amount of institutional memory went with her. If Tracy were still in charge of enrollment, all of these details would have been handed last year.

Anonymous said...

@Less Harm

How does a fellow Phinney ridge parent train their child to deal with all the social economically challenged homeless people that will be interacting with your child when traveling to and from school each day? Do you feel comfortable subjecting your child to the risk each day?

From my experience, 85th and Aurora is no place for a child to be at anytime of the day or night. You could have them walk up the north side 85th from Greenwood to Fremont continuing north on Fremont then use 90th to cross Aurora, but keep in mind 90th is also very sketchy especially with the proposed homeless encampment being build on 89th and Aurora.

Also, I think your distance measurement is wrong. No homes in the area you described are 1.98 miles from the RESMS site. The furthest home in the SW corner of RESMS attendance area east of 3rd is 1.9 miles, but I was told SPS measures by straight lines which is then 1.32 miles.

I'm not worried about the distance as much as other things. It appears that SPS drew up the southern bounds to avoid having to provide transportation. In contrast, NW attendance area furthest home is 2.62 miles straight line and 3.72 miles walking ,very similar for the NE area. I left out the Sherwood area in the NW area because I doubt any children from that area would attend SPS.

I hope we don't see any jay walking tragedies on Aurora. Aurora's traffic has surge 2000% since the days of Wilson middle school and now SPS is going to have K-8 kids by the hundreds crossing Aurora twice a day. I hope parents are ready to man each crossing area and some places in between to help stop jay walking be the kids.

Another Parent

Anonymous said...

Why all the weird gerrymandering MS attendance area boundaries in the North end?

Look. http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Enrollment Planning/Growth Boundaries

Just Goofy

Anonymous said...

We can see the chimney at Whitman from our roof!, why should we go to REMS? What a mess and it's a mess we just found out about in December.

Just Goofy

Anonymous said...

Just Goofy - I can see Eaglestaff from my house. By your logic my children shouldn't be reassigned to Whitman.

-Just As Goofy

Melissa Westbrook said...

Given that the vote has been delayed, I think we will end the conversation here.

Anonymous said...

Will the work session on the SAP be broadcast live, or did they effectively make the decisionmaking less transparent?

Anonymous said...

Kellie-- Agree 100%.
As Sue Peters has said, "de-facto" grandfathering for Whitman in placed that will affect 8th grade enrollment at Eagle Staff with our without the amendment. The kids without choice are those who rely on transportation from Whitman and the HCC HIMS kids who have a full school.

Eric B- 110 8th graders will not make or break the capacity issue at HIMS. They project less students next year due to losing 6th and 7th to Eagle. If 8th graders leave number is 1030, if they remain is 1130. This year we have 1200, last year we had 1100.

HCC 7th graders overwhelmingly want to remain at HIMS which is the ONLY school that can provide them certainties of HCC and core classes (not just electives) they will need. No HIMS 7th graders are advocating to go to Eagle Staff.

JAMS principal Paula and the district made promises to offer kids the classes they would need at JAMS when they split from HIMS.

That same promise is NOT being made this time around due to the mitigation funding being on the table to be cut.

Does it make sense to spread out funding among three grades or two? Nyland pointed out they cannot meet expectations in FALL at the board meeting. Eagle Staff is in trouble.
- JT

Melissa Westbrook said...

The Work Session will not be broadcast (they never are) but who knows, for something this big, maybe.

Tell your Board member you want it broadcast. I will be there and will report out on it.

Farhan Khan said...

Thanks for sharing this info,To see your board's date sheet, click on the link given below.
AP SSC Time Table 2018
AP Intermediate Date Sheet 2018
Bihar Board 10th Date Sheet 2018
Bihar Board 12th Date Sheet 2018
CBSE Board 10th Date Sheet 2018
CBSE Board 12th Date Sheet 2018