Student Assignment Transition Plan Work Session
Update 2: It looks like Amendment one is NOT going to pass (grandfathering). Director Burke is going on a very long-winded explanation about why he (appears) to be voting no. Blanford and Geary are saying it's equity versus equality and it's not fair to the kids who will be going to RESMS.
Geary is trying to make a point that all the parents in the room that want grandfathering will be there for their kids, no matter what. (Not sure that particular lands well with these parents.)
Pinkham was worried people would think he would support this amendment in order for there to be more room for Licton Springs.
Final vote 2-4-1 with Peters and Patu in favor and Pinkham abstaining because of the pending vote on room for Licton Springs.
Update 1: well, they created a new amendment around wording in the SAP. It's a bit complicated to compile here but it's more a clarification than any direct effect on the plan.
Staff also wants to take out the word "formerly" in front of "Spectrum" in the SAP Transition Plan. Peters asked if that means Spectrum still exists and Ms. Davies said yes. (I did laugh a bit to myself.)
End of update
The room is quite full for this portion of the Work Session. I expect that it will run late as the original Work Session for both topics - budget and SAP - was supposed to have ended at 7:00pm and this portion is just getting started at 6:53 pm.
General Counsel Noel Treat opened this with the explanation that first the amendments will be addressed - there are now three. Then they will vote for the plan with whatever amendments that are approved (if any.)
Sorry, apparently, they are starting with the plan; Treat says it doesn't really matter.
Geary is trying to make a point that all the parents in the room that want grandfathering will be there for their kids, no matter what. (Not sure that particular lands well with these parents.)
Pinkham was worried people would think he would support this amendment in order for there to be more room for Licton Springs.
Final vote 2-4-1 with Peters and Patu in favor and Pinkham abstaining because of the pending vote on room for Licton Springs.
Update 1: well, they created a new amendment around wording in the SAP. It's a bit complicated to compile here but it's more a clarification than any direct effect on the plan.
Staff also wants to take out the word "formerly" in front of "Spectrum" in the SAP Transition Plan. Peters asked if that means Spectrum still exists and Ms. Davies said yes. (I did laugh a bit to myself.)
End of update
The room is quite full for this portion of the Work Session. I expect that it will run late as the original Work Session for both topics - budget and SAP - was supposed to have ended at 7:00pm and this portion is just getting started at 6:53 pm.
General Counsel Noel Treat opened this with the explanation that first the amendments will be addressed - there are now three. Then they will vote for the plan with whatever amendments that are approved (if any.)
Sorry, apparently, they are starting with the plan; Treat says it doesn't really matter.
Comments
Most despicable is that, after dismissing the reasonable changes put forth, only one word change remained. It could have meant something, except the directors and staff decided it was only "stylistic", laughed and figured, eh!, let's pass this token change.
In my years having listened to lies; seeing disabled children physically and emotionally harmed, neglected, bullied, and suicidal; their parents treated like dirt - this board discussion is rock bottom. Marianas Trench bottom. We've always suspected where we stood. But now it is as clear as the water 36K feet under the ocean. I look forward to seeing HCC, dual language, Option programs down there with us someday. The more the merrier.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I often feel you send mixed messages--complaining that the non-Sped communities are't active enough in support of Sped issues, while also treating us as if we couldn't possibly understand so it's not worth your time to explain. Your rants are probably warranted, but it might be more helpful in the long run to build more awareness. Unless you're just here to vent, which is totally understandable.
Reality bites
Given that I haven't posted in months, I presume you haven't given much thought on the concerns of the disabled in for some time. Personally, I don't expect to be spoonfed on civil rights issues. I would find it very helpful if you expanded your thinking on what all children in this district are due under federal law, and how we could deliver on that.
Vent? What are you here for but to snark? Do you ask your African-american friends to explain racism to you and tell them otherwise to quit ranting? Do you ask recent immigrants to explain why they can just speak English already? I don't need to put out an FAQ for you. Yeah, it bites.
If I were one of the board members who voted no, I would be very worried. Payback is a bitch
1/11/17, 9:42 PM
Actually, there are many people who agree with the board members who voted no on grandfathering. SPS does not have that money for that luxury. If they are to open new schools, those schools need to be full of kids. Personally, I hope they put these new school plans on hold, keep kids where they are (thus no need for grandfathering) and figure out how to pay for essentials and cut central office staff big time. - Cap Hill
What a mess. Next time I see Burke at the massage parlor I'm going to give him an earful.
Out
-watching- (who has been barked at to change the moniker so this is the end of -watching-)
sorry mirmac you have been going after hcc for years for special treatment. and yet no i don't find any merriment in sped getting short shifted. i just wish hc kids had half the protections sped kids do. if it wasn't good for the district's capacity issue hc services probably would consist of grading honors for no one essays. they are already tutoring ss at tm. but district needs a warehouse for those kids away from gen ed so welcome to cascadia. what is that sps' co op program you advocate for? seems like a great accommodation for a few.
on the bright side at least you aren't being called a racist for for the program that education researchers and district staff said is the best program for your kid.
no caps
I saw you at the Board meeting. I have missed seeing you and have missed your posts. You have been consistent and dedicated in your advocacy for not only special education students and their educational needs and rights but also other underserved students.
The Board majority vote was such a disappointment for Special Education students, Alternative education students and Native American students also. It is a description of Institutional racism at its best. For 4 members of the Board to vote against the necessary number of rooms at the Robert Eaglestaff building for the Licton Springs community (that includes the Native education program students and Special Education students) is disgraceful. Thank you to Directors Pinkham, Patu, and Geary for voting for this underserved population by giving them enough space to grow and thrive. They took away the necessary space they now have at Lincoln. They may have killed the Program, once again.
And when there's a capacity crunch, where will SPED students be served? Would it be nowhere if there's no room? The district's very own special education program consultants have no problem prioritizing every other student above special education students, allowing principals to move students anywhere, and even opting for the most expensive 6 figure educations available privately on the eastside - so long as SPS doesn't have to educate the kids nobody "likes".
But here's the real thing. If sped families came out like HCC families, there would be movement on this issue. They don't. If more of them filed OCR and OSPI complaints or wrote to the newspaper or showed up for anything at all - the board would take notice and maybe change this. When the EEU issue got in front of the board - Wyeth Jessee was defeated. He looked like a complete fool. As it is now, only a few ever complain and raise issues about special ed placement. That is - where programs are actually placed, or where and how students are assigned. The board thinks this issue is really not an issue because people don't complain about it. Maybe they are right. The people who would complain and raise issues are the same ones who can force the right thing to happen for their kids. In fact, they have even more choices than everyone else. Which reiterates the original point. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
-reader-
WonderingWorker
sped-question
Thank you for your advocacy Carol.
Not voting for the 14 rooms at LSK8 tells staff it was okay to lie to prospective parents and say our school was full, and then when when our numbers were down, to take away room at our future home.
If you try to apply to Licton Springs k-8, and are told it is full, please contact the school directly.
Lawless
The cost of living is just too darn high to have such a poorly managed school system.
San Fran
-GameOver
Hoping somebody asks the Special Education PTSA "head" whether she actually took such a position. If so, it would indicate quite the disconnect.
Reader
The district loves to assume if it's mentioned to SPED PTSA then it's good to go.
SPED Parent
Better Together
mirmac 1, cut it out.
Thanks to Better Together for bringing it to our attention.
Now I'll call you out. You regularly complain about, and ridicule what's in Friday Memos authored by, yes, specific staff? Did I say Treat was a BSer? No, although I could very well have.
Who among these readers was at the board meeting in 2010 or so (can't say precisely because videos and agendas are no longer available! I'm sure I could find it in my archives) I was there and I heard the newly-appointed General Counsel tell the School Board that the 9th Circuit Board of Appeals '09 decision (Renee' et al v USDOE) regarding providing non-HQT (not-fully certified teachers) to poor students violated NCLB, did not apply to Washington. For the uninformed the 9th District covers the West Coast, Alaska and Hawaii. This was "bad" advice to a legislative body in a public forum. If a General Counsel gives such flawed advice, then we need someone better. Yet he has been welcomed back with open arms.
More bad advice was provided at the SAP meeting. What could be the motivation for saying things that encouraged the board to retain language that violated the WAC cited in the policy? Is it ignorance? Poor judgment? I say it is done "to maintain (SPS admin's) ironclad grip on the future of our kids with disabilities."
no caps