Seattle Schools, Week of July 9-14, 2018
Monday, July 9th
First meeting of the Facilities Master Plan Taskforce from 2-5 pm at JSCEE. Agenda.
Wednesday, July 11th
School Board meeting, starting at 4:15 pm. Agenda
This Board meeting heralds the arrival of the new superintendent, Denise Juneau.
The agenda finds a lengthy list of Consent items as well as Action items. There are no intro items. Given most of it looks most facilities-based or pro forma, I would think you could speak to the Superintendent and the Board on most any topic. I know that members of the Native American community will be asking for an explanation to the unilateral decision by the principal at RESMS to end allowing 2 evenings of space for programming that directly supports those students.
The one notable item is this:
Resolution 2017/18-18, Fixing and Adopting the 2018-19 Budget (A&F, June 11, for consideration) Approval of this item would adopt Resolution 2017/18-18, to fix and adopt the 2018-2019 Budget, the four-year budget plan summary, and the four-year enrollment projections.
Highlights:
They seem to have the money they need for the General Fund already- $955,448,694. It would appear the district is transferring the money from Capital Projects to hold....for something?
First meeting of the Facilities Master Plan Taskforce from 2-5 pm at JSCEE. Agenda.
Wednesday, July 11th
School Board meeting, starting at 4:15 pm. Agenda
This Board meeting heralds the arrival of the new superintendent, Denise Juneau.
The agenda finds a lengthy list of Consent items as well as Action items. There are no intro items. Given most of it looks most facilities-based or pro forma, I would think you could speak to the Superintendent and the Board on most any topic. I know that members of the Native American community will be asking for an explanation to the unilateral decision by the principal at RESMS to end allowing 2 evenings of space for programming that directly supports those students.
The one notable item is this:
Resolution 2017/18-18, Fixing and Adopting the 2018-19 Budget (A&F, June 11, for consideration) Approval of this item would adopt Resolution 2017/18-18, to fix and adopt the 2018-2019 Budget, the four-year budget plan summary, and the four-year enrollment projections.
Highlights:
- The School Board is being asked to adopt the 2018-2019 Recommended Budget. This
adoption includes approval of operating transfers from the Capital Projects Fund to the
Debt Service Fund up to the amount of $2,688,325 and transfers up to the amount of
$20,696,877 to the General Fund.
Then this:
The 2018-2019 General Fund Budget is recommended at $955,448,694. General Fund
resources are comprised of $ 860,243,231 in non-grant resources and $ 95,205,463 in
grant funds. Included in these amounts are capacity reserves of $ 18,139,758 in non-grant
capacity and $8,000,000 in grant capacity. The capacity reserves are placeholders for
potential spending in the event that new revenues are received or unspent funds from
2017-18 are transferred to 2018-19.
As well,
The 2018-2019 Capital Fund is recommended at $303,424,622 The Capital Fund revenue
is comprised of: $194,058,167 of Building Technology Academics IV and Building
Excellence IV levy collections; $12,575,249 of State Assistance Funding; $4,200,000 of
E-Rate; $671,923 of investment earnings from Building Technology Academics/
Athletics IV, Building Excellence IV, Building Technology Academics III, Building
Excellence III, Building Technology Academics II, and Capital Eligible Projects;
$1,410,356 in rentals and leases; $7,616,638 in Capital Grants and $60,000,000 in a cash
flow bond, less $2,688,325 million in funding transfers to the Debt Service, and
$20,696,877 million in funding transfers to the General Fund.
I'm confused. Because when I voted for those highlighted items, I didn't realize the district would be holding some part of each to use for investments. I thought it would be going to those items named in the levy. I don't care if the "investment" goes to Facilities; I want it to go to what was named in the levy. What might be helpful is if the district actually put out a very detailed accounting of all the projects and the dollars. The district damages its credibility to voters on school levies when they do this.
And take a look at page 2 of the BAR - the chart labelled Four-Year Forecast. Look at the General Fund. Total resources for 2018-2019 of over $1B but the next year it drops to $927M. Meanwhile they show a growth of between 500-1000 kids a year for the district and so expenditures rise.
Friday, July 13th
BEX/BTA Oversight Committee, JSCEE, 8:30-10:30 am. No agenda yet available.
I'm confused. Because when I voted for those highlighted items, I didn't realize the district would be holding some part of each to use for investments. I thought it would be going to those items named in the levy. I don't care if the "investment" goes to Facilities; I want it to go to what was named in the levy. What might be helpful is if the district actually put out a very detailed accounting of all the projects and the dollars. The district damages its credibility to voters on school levies when they do this.
And take a look at page 2 of the BAR - the chart labelled Four-Year Forecast. Look at the General Fund. Total resources for 2018-2019 of over $1B but the next year it drops to $927M. Meanwhile they show a growth of between 500-1000 kids a year for the district and so expenditures rise.
Friday, July 13th
BEX/BTA Oversight Committee, JSCEE, 8:30-10:30 am. No agenda yet available.
Comments
I have heard from some parents and others that science teachers participating the Amplify pilot did not allow their kids to participate in the science fair this year as it did not fit within the Amplify curriculum. A school official denies this. If your kid is in an Amplify pilot classroom, could you ask your kid if they did science fair this year and if they did it last year? I will start:
School: Whitman
Amplify pilot: Yes
Science fair 2017: Yes
Science fair 2018: No
-NW
School: McClure
Amplify pilot: Yes
Science fair 2017: Yes
Science fair 2018: No
No fan
-Not Blinded
Scientist&Educator
Scientist&Educator
Wee Gifted
Please be sure my remarks are also forwarded to the board.
Amplify please
Amplify, in fact, does operate as one extended science project. That is the foundation of the phenomenon-based approach. And I completely agree with you "Amplify please" that this is a very poor way to teach science. Please educate yourself a bit more before you shoot yourself in the foot by aligning with the corporate-approved curricula.
Scientist&Educator
The classroom experience is changing. We have opportunity to do so much more now. Embedding the technology in the learning process is essential. This also levels the learning field with everyone having equal access to the same sophisticated experience and materials.
What’s not to like?
Amplify please
Having equal access to the same sophisticated experience (like watching a video) and materials (like baking soda and a measuring spoon)? Good thing they sell refill kits.
Their marketing materials look slick and they mention NGSS in the first sentence. Great marketing materials.
This article is 3 years old now, but... hmm.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/news-corp-s-amplify-education-experiment-what-went-wrong/
They don't sound as noble or interested in education when you look at them as a business. With the millions of public school students and phenomenal research universities and science corporations in the U.S., it's weird that we can't get a quality science curriculum that's less slick advertising intensive and more focused on teaching and science.
My child did not have access to #1, and #2 was a perpetual problem. He basically lost a year of science, along with every other "normal," struggling, or advanced learner in the class. ALL students missed out.
And to top it off, students who enjoy science fair projects and wanted the opportunity to do hands-on independent learning were told "sorry, not this year." Yes, many parents probably breathed a sigh of relief. But I don't think it was for the right reasons.
No fan
If some schools have better tech or IT support/resources than others, classyime access may be an even bigger issue than before. If teachers give HW that requires online access, this will create even greater disparities. So your “equal access” claim? Suspect.
Then there’s the issue of “equal” access vs “equitable.” Isn’t SPS all about equity? Students don’t come in only one flavor, and the idea that all students benefit from the same basic curriculum is wishful thinking. Or perhaps the real idea is that they won’t? That advanced learners will be intentionally stymied to level the playing field? That’s not how equity is supposed to work.
Finally, what’s this “sophisticated experience” to which you referred? Surely you don’t mean just because itt uses computers, so I’m curious to hear more about this supposed sophistication.
All types
Nw
Out is language about annual program review and assessments, including "Parents who wish to examine any assessment materials may do so by contacting the Superintendent or his or her designee." Instead the Board will be presented with "The Plan," more specifically an annual "District Educational Research and Evaluation Plan."
parent
parent
Teachers, scientists, science museum designers and planners have all been part of building Ampify. It has been vetted by countless other school districts around the country.
Science has been poorly taught for eons, perhaps partly on account of boring materials that fail to hold student interest. It has also suffered from hierarchical classroom modeling. Amplify is an attempt to move the experience of the typical science classroom into a more experiential and technologically relevant direction. How we teach and learn must be reflective of how we live in the world. It must be contemporary, progressive and not conservative with a rigid disdain for change.
Amplify please
And hey, while you are looking at funding - maybe suggest to your board members that they buy classroom tech with the money designated for that in the levy, instead of debating whether we should even have tech in classrooms and refusing to approve purchases. I am not talking about MORE tech, but ANY tech. There has been reluctance to even replace out of date technology.
Seattlelifer
And how does removing any hands-on science experiments and demos make kids more excited about science? I heard that Amplify only allows for two hands-on experiments (as opposed to computer-simulated demos) per year. As a scientist I can tell you the moments in class that made me most excited about science were the labs. What 12 year old can forget their first dissection of a sheep's eye?
Not all science in performed on a computer. There is no need to limit a middle-schooler to computer simulations and computer assessments in the name of misguided "progress."
-NW
Those PhDs are being granted to a very small percentage of the population and many to non Americans. The growth of the American university system after the Second World War accounts for America’s lead in granted doctorates, but other countries are catching up, and they don’t leave the selection of school materials to amateur school boards.
Amplify please
NW
I can tell you that the head of Tech is pushing very hard to change this.
Based on the parent feedback here, Amplify sounds like a high cost program with little return for the investment. Or difficult to implement well with limited resources. It's unclear.
olden days
Through this collaborative partnership, our school will participate in a field-test of the AmplifyScience program using laptops provided by the district. Science teachers in our building who are participating in the field-test will not use the current middle schools science curriculum kits and will instead the AmplifyScience units.
A robust evaluation system will be implemented to assess the effectiveness of this technology-based program The University of Washington School of Education will serve as partners in the data collection.
...AmplifyScience and Lawrence Hall will support teachers with detailed instructions for each lesson. Ongoing, personalized support and will be provided by AmplifyScience.
curious
sidneyd
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsf18304/report/about-this-report.cfm
The number of US citizens earning PhDs in STEM fields has been increasing - from 20K to 25K per year over the past 20 years. And "the proportion of S&E doctorate recipients with temporary visas has held steady at around 36% since 2011."
I am beginning to wonder what the motive behind all this fear-mongering is. Is the current US public school science curriculum perfect? No. Does it need to be thrown out and rewritten from scratch? Absolutely not.
-NW
Bad science
-Scientist&Educator
-Former Ingraham
generally speaking
In this sense, based on personal experience as a parent in SPS, I completely disagree with "generally speaking". Instead, I believe what is more common is that poor SPS curriculum is sometimes delivered by great teachers, so it treads water. If the teacher is inexperienced then the curriculum is horrible. This was our experience with Discovery Math for example..
-Scientist&Educator
-Scientist&Educator
When the curriculum is poor and a good experience is dependent upon a good teacher who has enough time to seek out better resources to supplement (in breadth and/or depth) and/or replace what's in the curriculum, that's asking a lot of already overburdened teachers and is a lot less likely to happen.
If Amplify does not inspire both students and teachers, it's not gonna work in terms of strong science learning. However, it may be effective in furthering the what seems to be SPS's primary goal--equity (rather than learning)--if students and teachers across the board are equally turned off.
amplify mediocrity?
That has been an ongoing issue with SPS. We have been stuck with discovery style math for what, over 10 years now? Readers and Writers Workshop does not explicitly teach grammar and vocabulary - it's somehow supposed to be "caught." SPS only recently adopted new K-5 math and LA materials. Even then, the district tried to do an end run around the adopted math materials. Science? High school level science may have been the first time my children came home with texts. Unfortunately, some of them were out of date or too basic for honors level courses.
When SPS does a poor job of selecting materials (are texts now considered "old school?"), or simply fails to keep up to date with adoptions, and material purchases come out of a school's limited budget, you get a situation where schools might be more inclined to go it on their own. They sometimes skimp when it comes to texts and materials. Others are incredibly resourceful and purchase alternate texts, perhaps used, but maybe better quality content wise than SPS chosen texts.
Where is the happy medium? An imposed curriculum may end up unused, yet leaving it up to individual schools and teachers leads to a mishmash of experiences for students.
just rambling
For elementary school students, maybe more flexibility makes sense. By the time you get to middle and high school, however, solid texts should be standard. Not only is it a matter of education, it's also a matter of equity.
amplify mediocrity?