Seattle School Board Meeting, December 6, 2017 - Part Two

Part Two of the December 2017 School Board meeting covers one item - approval of the Student Assignment Transition Plan for 2018-2019.  Get a cup of coffee because this will be a long thread.  I have truncated some remarks as spoken so they will seem somewhat choppy at time (most people don't always speak in complete sentences).  I also note that a few directors really went to the mat for high schools in their region.

What was fascinating is how many people on the dais and staff at the microphone said:

- they welcomed discussion
- thought it should be a long discussion (the Superintendent said that he hoped to have a two-hour discussion - well, he surely got his wish)
- lamented that this discussion should have happened sooner (and that came from Board directors).

They are absolutely right.  These in-depth, multi-layers, intertwined issues should have been gone over much sooner and in a methodical manner.

I would fault both the previous Board for not pushing this harder and staff for their usual lack of full information to both the Board and parents and then getting to a "gotta get it done" place.

I will also cite the curious case of how HCC placement completely dominated the discussion and has dominated all discussions.  The number of HCC students, proportional to the overall student population, doesn't warrant that kind of status and yet both staff and Board made it so.  I have never seen it happen in other assignment plans to this level and I think there's has been a movement to elevate it in order to dismantle it.

FYI, here's the five-school pathway plan:


If you go to Ballard or Ingraham, it would be Ballard.
If you go to Franklin or Rainier Beach, it would be Franklin.
If you go to Garfield, it would be Garfield and Lincoln.
If you go to Roosevelt, it would be Roosevelt and Hale.
If you go to West Seattle, it would be WSHS and Chief Sealth.

I can't find the Options for boundaries (unfortunately, not in the BAR).  Anyone?

The BAR for this item had three amendments.  Per Robert's Rules of Order, the amendments were considered first, one by one, in order.

Amendment One came from Directors Burke and Harris:

Approval of this item would amend the Student Assignment Transition Plan for 2018-19 to delete assignment pathway changes scheduled for implementation in 2019-20 and combine them with high school boundary approval to be implemented in 2019-20.

Basically, combining the boundaries work with the assignment plan to "provide better clarity for families in their school enrollment planning."

Sounds good to me. 

The Superintendent weighed in, saying he wanted it voted down.  


There are a lot of moving parts here and putting them off is frankly, bigger challenge than we have now. I would really appreciate if we have the discussion, not having any understanding of where the Board is coming from (but there has been discussion). Words fail me. Too many options to go thru for boundaries. 

Question: who created those options?  I believe it was staff.

The Board then gave Ashley Davies, Student Enrollment, Flip Herndon, Facilities and Wyeth Jessee, Special Services, 15 minutes to cover the issues.

The number one request from staff was for "clarity" - over and over, they stated they had no idea what the Board wanted.  That may be true to some degree but I have been at committee meetings where the Board very clearly asked questions and asked for data in order to give that clarity and hadn't received it or it was incomplete.

Mr. Jessee stated that they had received 5,000 comment cards from the community meetings and summarized  the overall tone this way:


Parents want equitable access and we do have services at every single school. “I think we don’t always tell our good story. But we are at a place where our story needs to continue to shift.”

I have said this, over and over - the district does provide services at every single high school.  Saying they don't will not make it true.

The explanation of community engagement in the Assignment plan begins on page 49 of the BAR. 

Mr. Jessee started doing something that other staff members also did - he would make a blanket statement like "our story needs to continue to shift" without saying why.  The district rarely can tell a complete story and this meeting, this issue showed that off well.

He said that Garfield could not handle any more students and that there were over 4,000 students IDed for services in high school (and I believe he meant HCC but he was not clear).  He also said there were heat maps of where students are but, of course, were those in the BAR? No.  (I think someone asked and Nate Van Duzer of the Board office said they had been in a Work Session document but were not part of the BAR.  The Superintendent helpfully suggested parents "Google" it if they want to see them.

Side note: sometimes the Board but especially staff go on autopilot when they are speaking and expect the average person to keep up.  Even for someone like me who is fairly well-versed, I sometimes cannot follow the discussion.

He did bring out the oft-stated point that 90% of students in SPS AP/IB classes are not HCC.  I'm not sure what the big surprise here is - that there are many students who want to access rigor?  A good thing, one would think.  And, those classes are open to all which is also a good thing.

There was mention of "segregation" and that to sunset the pathways for HCC in 2021-2022 would be a "win-win for equitable access and opportunity" and then "work all smaller granular details with community and stakeholders."

Let that sink in.  One minute it is stated that the overwhelming majority of high school students in AP are not HCC and yet it's still not equitable.  And, let's eliminate pathways for HCC students and just have access to rigor in all high schools to the level needed as put forth by the State.  But, the details?  We'll figure that out later or as we go.  Sure, that's one way you could do it.

Comments/Questions from the Board

Mack

Super excited for more AL opps. Concerned referencing Jill and labelling and setting pathways. Just 5 schools as pathways and it may bump out neighborhood kids for AL kids. 

She said she felt she hadn't received enough data like info on Running Start.

I think she raises a good issue.  The district knows where HC students live and what neighborhood schools they will be returning to.  Where is that data so that principals will know how many identified HC students are in their schools AND how many would be returning if the district makes every high school a pathway?  Because while Mack is right about possibly bumping out neighborhood kids, other kids who may have entered a school that is not their neighborhood high school, could get bumped out as well.

Of course, this all begs the question - If HC pathways are gone, will the district grandfather everyone who has started at one high school but now should go to another?  I don't even think that could be possible except for seniors.

Burke
Director Burke was exceptionally on his game at this meeting and his remarks reflect that.


Pathways versus tracking. Pathways get on or off. That’s a destination. Don’t want pathways as a district because I think of high school experience and alt learning, skills center, Running Start, if you narrow focus of students because of label.

We have legal obligation to HC students and we also have MTSS. We should be able to build out and provide those social-emotional supports and interventions and not have it explicitly tied as a mandate (even though it is).

I see potential unintended consequences. Roosevelt would grow 305 students under this plan. Then shift boundaries to accommodate that.

Some communities don’t feel engaged with plan. Principals are part of team but wish we/communities had been engaged. Lincoln will be awesome and pair Lincoln with Garfield, and HC go to Garfield.

 Geary
 
I hear what you’re saying and I’m concerned about Lincoln. Difficult to redirect HC families to roll-up school. Between grandfathering this massive shifting and the adding of AP and many high schools have more robust AL options, to try hard to wrap around options. We can’t tell parents where to go. No certainty in the choices there are going to make.

So while I do understand we are a city that loves info and all options, the reality, we can’t satisfy public engagement with everybody.

Public engagement we have done “to some degree” make up your mind

With roll up and grandfathering, if we’re heading to all in schools by 21/22, it may be for naught.

Don’t push this off. 

Wait, what?  We can't tell parents where to go?  Yes, you can - it's called the Assignment Plan.  Now parents have some choices of where but the district can and has limited that in the past.   She also first says there was a lot of public engagement and those "community meetings" were more like open houses and had no options for real discussion that would help those who attended.  But then she says it was done "to some degree."

Patu


Thinking about AL, if we had it in south end schools. Franklin has no special programs and is successful and RBHS has IB and what if HCC and Cleveland, I feel that the programs are quite sufficient for schools we have. I would love HCC but how it connects with existing programs.

Kids are already advanced and how would it help our schools?

We have programs in 3 high schools that are raising bar for students and Franklin that doesn’t want special programs. Principal doesn’t want and wants all students to be treated the same way. We should use Franklin’s model for other schools.

How will benefit or advance students in SE? 

I was fairly disappointed in Patu's performance this meeting.  She seemed to know little about other high schools, kept calling HC "a program" and even Jessee corrected her "it's a service."  How would HC help SE students?  I would suggest she go ask the RBHS principal about how IB has benefited that school.  More rigor helps more kids.  HC kids help drive rigor.

On the agenda, the third amendment - Directors Geary, DeWolf and Patu - would take Franklin off as a pathway school because their principal doesn't want it.

This brings up yet another trend - powerful high school principals.  I would say that in all the time I have been an advocate, I have never seen high school principals with so much control over their schools.  I find it troubling.  Yes, every school community is different BUT without consistency in offerings, foundational issues, etc., you have a recipe for autocratic schools where parents don't get why one high school can have a very different curriculum/schedule/day than another.

DeWolf

Reconcile the fact, something I’m grateful for, that I come in with different perspective and not steeped in work, no kid in district, etc.

Policy 0030 – sticks out multiple pathways to success. Equitable access. How to achieve. How long to wait? 2011 Stranger article, parent said, two districts, one north and one south. Garfield as slave ship.

Some comments that came though Thought Exchange, equal access. We have a vision for racial equity – (what is that?)

It was good of Director DeWolf to acknowledge his greenness on issues because it was certainly on display.  To quote one parent from one article and believe that to be the truth is not a good thing for a director.  

There had been a 9th grader from Ballard who spoke this evening about wanting her sibs to also be able to go to Ballard.  Directors asked about this issue and Ms. Davies said current students would be able to finish where they start.  She said nothing about siblings so clearly that may be coming for some families.

Geary
Echoing Jessee' comment about changing the pathways and then getting the granular work done to support that:


Guarantee to community that we are moving in that direction. Serve students in assignment school and commitment that “we will get here.” 

I have to smile at that comment. What guarantees has this district ever made and kept? I can think of just a handful.  I think it hard to say to parents who had an idea of how their district-identified student accessing a state-required program "trust us." 

Mack
The queen of wonk made a solid comment at this point.

Policy we have that is confusing. 2190 addressed HC services, state mandated. Context and definition being offered to HC students. They need services and we have a policy and that adequate cohort size and other services in that. What does that mean? Take it out of policy for cohort.

Policy conflicts with amendment.

Geary

My understanding that sufficient cohort is IDed and Jessee can sufficient to plan around. My discussion with district is that number is satisfied.

We have to meet the policy and to the State for approval so if not, then we will have to 21-22, redirect resources or overall review. 


How to identify and then broaden it and will see more kids and racially proportionate and that cohort will be larger. 

What is confusing here is that no staff came forward to say that comment about the cohort is true.  I found that odd that didn't happen.  But it will be interesting to see what OSPI will say to this plan.  If rejected, that certainly could throw a monkeywrench in the boundaries planning.

I also think she mistakes the number of HC-identified students in a school for a cohort.  If the cohort doesn't have a baseline of classes together - as many gifted programs do - then I'm not sure you can call it a cohort.  I'd have to ask the State what that looks like.

Also, the community engagement, across languages, seems to reflect that parents see the need for the cohort. 

I'll pause here and point out one point that I will cover in a future thread.

Where's the change, the plan to make her last statement happen?  Where's her advocacy and action for that? Why does board after board decry the program and yet, nothing changes.  Former director Sue Peters had a great Work Session presentation from a noted expert with solid, doable changes and.... nothing.  Certainly no superintendent has undertaken this work and if the Board doesn't direct that, I have to wonder about the sincerity of the words.

She then said this:

Franklin doesn’t want it and it would be culturally inappropriate.

When is it "culturally inappropriate" to provide rigor to a high school?  I'm not sure I understand exactly what would happen at Franklin given they already have HC students there.  I suspect the school wouldn't be all that different, given that the number of HC students would be diffused going to five different pathways.

I also wonder why it would be okay for Roosevelt and Ballard - two very overenrolled schools - to have to take this on.

Burke
Super uncomfortable. Arm-chair quarterbacking. What I heard from staff – they want clarity on long-term vision.

Amendment 2 aligns with Option 4.

His concern with Amendment 3 if we pull Franklin, Id like to pull Ballard and Roosevelt out.

A discomfort with Option 3 is Amendment 1. Can we have two weeks to overlay that and consider Franklin and others removed. Can we build out HC at Sealth and Ingraham via IB. 

Burke brought up a point that other directors echoed - could they have overlap maps to see, "if this, then that?"  There are a lot of moving parts here.

Harris

We saw options but not amendments, at last work session.  Not enough discussion around pathways.

Believe Amendment 1 is value add.  In Operations and via community engagement;we have to work it out in the next month.

Pinkham

If student is HCC but doesn’t go HCC pathway, are they no longer HCC?
Davies – They still retain eligibility.
Pinkham – labels on students, seems like if HCC student in that area school doesn’t have what they need and can’t go to Garfield, is that a violation of policy?

Do all high schools have AP classes ?  

Davies– all do have AP courses (Editor clarification: all comprehensives have AP classes)
From moment a student is eligible, they need services at their attendance area school, if that is where they are enrolled.
Pinkham – conversation with Jessee and one native program at Sealth/Denny, how to incorporate tie-breakers for them?

Patu

Do Ballard and Roosevelt have special programs in their schools?   

Jessee – HC is a service not a program. Designation, not a cohort. 2190 policy. AP and IB and accessible to every student. 

Just to interject, the district DID use to have a cohort model and it would have been useful to remind directors of that change.  

Patu – Do both have HC?

Jessee – Not HC.  In north end 50% stay at high school.  They get individual schedule but not a cohort. 

Patu – Honors and advanced learning classes?

Franklin doesn’t want HC, if they don’t want it, why push into a school that doesn’t want it?

Jessee – (Principal)Wiley does have HC students and serve them.  Doesn’t want to “track” – travel on their own and not matriculate with other students. 

Patu – Franklin treats all kids the same way and look at that school as an example.  Such a separation because of branding.  “serving kids all the same way”

Jessee – That’s what we are trying to reverse.  Policy 2190, it’s dated and needs revision.  0030 are not aligned. We want to integrate that and we are top quartile in the nation urban districts for IEPs and students in advanced courses but not for students of color.

That last point was one I did not know about IEPs and students in advanced learning.  

 

Pinkham (seemingly frustrated)

Where they (HC students) go to school, once they get in , they will be HC but no cohort but if we are satisfying requirements at schools , then why did we do pathways?  How did we get here?

Again, if staff had explained the former cohort model, then it might have made more sense to Pinkham.

Mack

Garfield has able to accelerate a couple of years ahead and there are not entirely the same offerings at other schools.

HC designation is outlier and we have a lot of these 2E students and their needs are not the same thing and not same population of kids. They are not just studious smart kids and I don’t want that to get lost. We have a law for a reason.

District set-up has compounded situation. Not to take away needed services from HCC students in this process.

Not understanding how 5 pathways as an interim does that for all high schools.
Incentivize HC to make different choices. We have IB and space at Ingraham.

Burke

Struggling with worrythat give pathways don’t get to Option 4 but move backwards or sideways. High concentration aofstudents that are HC identified and overlay another structure and it’s moving where we want to be. Can’t support transition plan but Amendment 1 helps. 

Harris points out at this point, they have been discussing this for over an hour.

Geary

How do we regard this one. Great fear is we leave and talk and then don’t act.  We have been doing moving piece and they are all moving and you and I have talked to staff about CSIPS and making sure that HC offerings are outlined and not one-year growth.

Staff is working on and hone and refine. 

CSIPS are the gold standard for what schools offer?  The reality is not there for that belief.

She mentioned the thinking of high school principals.  Why didn't Executive Directors go to the high school principals in their regions, ask about these boundary issues and deliver a report to the district?  I don't know but it would seem to be helpful.

She spoke of “Cultural safety” and at Franklin, it would impact kids of color should that track be pushed in. 

What is interesting is that there seems to be a narrative about HC that is coming from from some on the speakers list and aligning with some on the Board.  Here's what one speaker said:

There should be "peer teaching where all academic tides rise” and "I believe in the ability to relate to my peers of many backgrounds versus assimilation pressure into homogeneous group in order to have access to higher education.” And the need for “holistic AP.”

First, I have no problem with kids interacting with each other on projects. However this idea that HC students should be student teaching is wrong.  Those students are there to learn as well (and yes, teaching can reinforce learning but why does their learning need to be different from others?)

Next , that sentence about "relating to peers" is a pretty loaded one and one that is based on assumptions that the speaker could not possibly know for certain.   (Another speaker said, "More than 90% of families want more inclusive program."  I asked how the speaker knew that and he said he "heard it from some families."  Well, that does not make 90%.   

Sometimes I wonder how directors take statements like these.

Harris

Making one of the few jokes of the night - "It's hard to keep my mouth shut and maybe that's why I was elected president."

Real concerns about polarization of this and dealing with redlining in this city which is 30+ years old. 

All services at all schools? Yes but can we afford it?

There's a GREAT question.  If the district wants to just do away with pathways, there will be a cost.  Like they must provide an AP class even for eight students if those are HC students.  No whining about cost because the district is making the choice end pathways so schools will have to have near the amount of AP or Honors or IB that other former HC pathway schools have in order to fulfill that promise.

I think there are cultural and attitudinal issues. We don’t keep our promises historically in this district and setting up 5 pathways is too big a leap and do it at a less sharp angle.

Distressed to get amendment this afternoon that talks about WSHS and nothing to me. Like to see us perhaps take a look to IBX at Ingraham, Chief Sealth, RBHS as pathways. Applaud Dr. Wiley for her candor to the Board. Disturbs me that she was advised of these pathway changes late in the game.

Engagement doesn’t feel good.

I understand parents that fear their kids be at top of college arms race. Raising the bar for their children.  But I understand hearing at community meetings in my district, "Principal Vance fellow did a great job at RHS with a strong, rigorous program but I’m not going to sacrifice my child" -  that language is distressing. 

I cosponsored Amendment 1 because this should be in boundary changes and reframe our conversation and whatever we do keep pressure on for momentum and being fair for all students. 

DeWolf

I disagree and I think it will alleviate pressure.  Not a leap but a move.  No more delay.  We were elected to make tough decisions.  

Davies – Last comment.  Good conversation and we are glad to hear from you.  Think about the conversation around boundaries. It is critical for staff to get guidance from the Board to narrow down the pathways definitively tomorrow and not look at this separately.  

I am worried that putting the HC pathway conversation with boundary conversation, pitting communities against each other, because we will be looking at geographics that are influenced by HC populations.  As a staff person working really closely with this, there’s a lot of data and I don’t want you to feel overwhelmed.  I don’t want our families to feel overwhelmed and so I want us to be really really careful about what may come if we don’t to start to provide and whatever you need, time with us to hone in and clear with families on where we are heading.

Too late, I think families who know about these are overwhelmed and for those who have no idea this is going on, will not be happy.

I will end Part Two here, realizing that I have more than 13 more pages of notes to write up.