Tuesday Open Thread
It feels like a "let's get ready to rumble" kind of day. Lots to cover.
The speakers list for tomorrow night's Board meeting is up: I made the list along with 24 other people with 45 (!) people on the waitlist. Sadly, there's one annoying gadfly guy who used to harass the City Council and is now becoming a regular at the Board meetings. The head of Science, Mary Margaret Welch, is on the list which I find inappropriate (I suspect she's holding a place for someone else.) I'd have to go check who's on the adoptions committees against who is on this list. The majority of speakers will be speaking to the Science adoptions. There are several on the waitlist who wanted to speak to "White Supremacy in Seattle Public Schools."
If anyone has a child who has used Amplify and would like to express an opinion against it at the Board meeting, let me know. (sss.westbrook@gmail.com)
New entries for the School Board races as Friday, May 17th is the last day to register as a candidate.
Update: there is the PDC where candidates register their campaigns and King County Elections where they register to run. Here are updates in red on the candidates:
District 1 (Scott Pinkam's seat - he announced he is not running again)
- Eric Blumhagen (previously announced)
-I am hearing that SCPTSA board member Liza Rankin may be running; her name is not at the PDC yet. Liza Rankin has filed.
- Sanaz Saadat - a UW grad student with a PhD in oral health science
District 2 (Rick Burke's seat - he has not announced if he is running again)
- No one yet
I will call King County Elections and ask them what happens if Burke doesn't run and no one files to run.
District 3 (which Jill Geary is vacating has the most number of candidates at 3)
- Rebeca Muniz (previously announced)
- Benjamin Leis (SPS parent)
- I am hearing Chandra Hampson, SPS parent and SCPTSA President, may be running. Chandra Hampson is running.
District 6 (which Leslie Harris represents and she is running again)
-I am hearing of a contender against Harris but again, no one yet registered at the PDC. Molly E. Mitchell has filed with KC Elections.
end of election updates
An Eckstein sixth grader’s older brother was the victim of gun violence at 21st and Union in the Central District last week. There is a GoFundMe organized by the PTSA for the family.
What's on your mind?
The speakers list for tomorrow night's Board meeting is up: I made the list along with 24 other people with 45 (!) people on the waitlist. Sadly, there's one annoying gadfly guy who used to harass the City Council and is now becoming a regular at the Board meetings. The head of Science, Mary Margaret Welch, is on the list which I find inappropriate (I suspect she's holding a place for someone else.) I'd have to go check who's on the adoptions committees against who is on this list. The majority of speakers will be speaking to the Science adoptions. There are several on the waitlist who wanted to speak to "White Supremacy in Seattle Public Schools."
If anyone has a child who has used Amplify and would like to express an opinion against it at the Board meeting, let me know. (sss.westbrook@gmail.com)
New entries for the School Board races as Friday, May 17th is the last day to register as a candidate.
Update: there is the PDC where candidates register their campaigns and King County Elections where they register to run. Here are updates in red on the candidates:
District 1 (Scott Pinkam's seat - he announced he is not running again)
- Eric Blumhagen (previously announced)
-
- Sanaz Saadat - a UW grad student with a PhD in oral health science
District 2 (Rick Burke's seat - he has not announced if he is running again)
- No one yet
I will call King County Elections and ask them what happens if Burke doesn't run and no one files to run.
District 3 (which Jill Geary is vacating has the most number of candidates at 3)
- Rebeca Muniz (previously announced)
- Benjamin Leis (SPS parent)
-
District 6 (which Leslie Harris represents and she is running again)
-
end of election updates
An Eckstein sixth grader’s older brother was the victim of gun violence at 21st and Union in the Central District last week. There is a GoFundMe organized by the PTSA for the family.
What's on your mind?
Comments
-best luck
There is a large group of racial equity champions working together to get Chandra Hampson and Liza Rankin on the school board. It is too bad they have put their hopes in them, as candidates with better experience and greater successes could have been found. Hampson and Rankin's roles this year on SCPTSA are part of that strategy, as SCPTSA is often a springboard to the school board. Their agenda on SCPTSA involves fighting white supremacy (both are white, although Hampson has personal ties to Native groups but is not an enrolled member of a tribe) and ironically enough dismantling PTA's or at least PTA funding. I also suspect they will be vigorous opponents of any and all forms of advanced learning in the district, based on public comments and arguments they have made in the past, and they will likely want to dismantle both HCC and what's left of Spectrum and provide all advanced learning via MTSS and CSIP in neighborhood schools (which if true may not actually be that equitable because of the impact of historical redlining on school demographics). They were probably directly involved in the formulation of the district's new strategic plan, as verbiage they have used in the past was included verbatim to the plan. My suspicion is that they are the hand-picked candidates to represent the interests of the superintendent and staff on the board. Likely more Jill Geary types.
While Hampson likely doesn't have the social skills to function well on the board, Rankin has better social skills, potentially making her a more formidable opponent.
I wonder how the ed reform folks will take to either candidacy? They seem to be anti-tax (SCPTSA did not clearly, and only reluctantly, endorsed the levies last year), so that might appeal to more conservative and older voters. I suspect they fall in line with other equity champions and support Amplify (again, misguided but heart in the right place), but is that enough to be favored by ed reformers overall?
Good Candidates?
In addition as our district is focused on equity, lower income schools have lower classes sizes and also receive much more from our district as well. They are also less likely to take teacher & staff cuts as well during times of budget crisis. Middle to higher income schools in Seattle are much more likely to have crowded classrooms, much less resources etc.
This is on the agenda for tommorow's board meeting:
"This Board Action will approve acceptance of the Kids in the Middle grant for $690,596 from the Nesholm Family Foundation to provide support to the three highest poverty middle schools: Aki Kurose, David T. Denny International, and Asa Mercer International."
JK
Future Board
there's more
MS
sign me
science forever
Fairmount Parent
Harris has dedicated her life to public service. She is a hardworking and dedicated school board member that has earned respect of individuals and high ranking individuals throughout all of Seattle. I'm glad that she decided to run for election- again. She would be an enormously difficult candidate to beat!
NW
So now we're acting as the pedigree police? Isn't there enough settler colonialism in this city without adding this toxic talk?
Ms. Hampson is not only Native but she has amazing social skills. YOU try navigating through Stanford as blonde Native woman.
She is brilliant. Unlike your comments and your poor observation or deduction skills.
So now we're acting as the pedigree police? Isn't there enough settler colonialism in this city without adding this toxic talk?
Ms. Hampson is not only Native but she has amazing social skills. YOU try navigating through Stanford as blonde Native woman.
She is brilliant. Unlike your comments and your poor observation or deduction skills.
JR
When will this blog put a stop to race baiting comments!
I thought you were moving on?
Runt
This fact confuses many people because it doesn't mesh with the narrative that is commonly accepted: south end schools are underfunded.
If we found out that Denny is able to spend more dollars per pupil that Whitman or that Franklin outspends Hale per pupil, then the uneven performance becomes about something other than money, and the Democrats and WEA/SEA lose their biggest claim to more money, and then they have to look at pedagogy or something else as the cause, and they don't want that.
SP
I wonder if the board has considered creating additional rules for speaker slots, such as reserving 5 or so slots for other topics when the list of speakers goes beyond 25. There are a handful of speakers on the waitlist wanting to speak about HVAC and maintenance issues at John Muir, for example, but they've been crowded out by other speakers.
abc
Here is the link to the current BAR which includes a complete revision to online learning inside the consent agenda. This means that there isn't even a separate vote on this time.
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/18-19%20agendas/May%201/I05_20190501_Policy%202024%20Online%20Learning.pdf
While this policy has been revised based on feedback from earlier in the year, there is still serious problems with this policy. Core 24 is here and students are going to need MORE flexibility, not less.
This policy is not student friendly. It is a policy based on an unknown number of students who are looking for easier options and frankly its does not fix that problem. Because OSPI can legislate what is a credit in the State of Washington, student will ALWAYS have direct access to a few options that are most likely easier. This policy will then make the Washington State MINIMUM, the MAXIMUM that will be allowed to SPS students.
JK
The outcome will be a bunch of wealthy white people and the corporations they lead will have an even greater role in our schools and teachers, especially teachers of color, will be marginalized. That's what Amplify is designed to do.
Six
ABC, you said this:
"the SCPTSA President" is on the waitlist for tonight's Board meeting.
Actually, it's the former, not current, SCPTSA president on the list. I did hear of talk where that group - White Supremacy in Seattle Schools - was asking people on the Science Adoption committee to cede some time to them. Apparently not going to happen.
Kellie, I did a write-up about that issue of online learning and the changes coming. I hope middle and high school parents paid attention.
iffy policy
It is a pity that the Board meeting will mostly be about one issue.
PTO
Bottom line is that no matter the resources provided it will always be a challenge with lower income households.
However, we also cannot be blind to the fact that many middle class schools have so little being allocated, they depend much more heavily on raising funds to provide what we consider basic education. I also suspect the schools in the middle with higher FRL lunch, but not the lowest in SPS face the most challenges.
As referenced above the poorest schools listed are receiving huge grants that undoubtedly also have alot of flexibity in how funds are used. There are also lots of intervention type programs funded by our local universities and other entities.
But kids from lower income households at schools in the middle class schools facing many of those same challenges you mentioned are also harmed when their school not getting any of those resources receive staffing cuts, have high class sizes etc.
Another view
Harris claimed all of SPS's problems were due to racism. Seems like the same groups are claiming nothing has changed. What did Harris do to fix the charges of racism?
Burke said we needed to get back to learning and bring back shop classes. What has Burke done to bring back those shop classes?
Geary said a lot about special ed problems. What did she done about them?
Pinkham said a lot about native issues. What did Pinkham do to help RESM/Licton springs?
Hopefully none of these people seek reelection because the only thing they did was pat each other on the back for sitting at the dais. In the meantime a full blown budget crisis manifested on their watch.
NoMore Excuses
Robn, I never claimed that Title 1 schools have it better than non-Title 1 schools. I said that the per pupil funding is murkier than everyone is making it out to be and that we don't know: does Denny have more dollars to spend on each kid than Whitman? Does Franklin have more dollars per student than Hale? We don't know because no one aggregates all of those income streams into a per-pupil yearly outlay, so instead, we resort to stereotypes about the schools and stories designed to gin up money for schools. All we have is rhetoric, but I can share my experiences working both Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools in other districts; their day-to-day opportunities and resources were comparable, and I've had colleagues at my northend high school who used to work at southend schools say that they've had resources that we don't because we don't have Title 1 dollars like they do.
These mis-readings suggest I've touched a nerve. There are a lot of people who make a lot of money and generate a lot of support for public education by pathologizing people of color and making their lives out to be as horrible as they can and making their schools seem as destitute as possible.
I'm not asserting that people of color and their schools don't face difficult challenges. I'm asking you to consider the rhetoric and who benefits from it because until we have real, complete data, we're just doing rhetoric here.
SP
And P.S.--PTO: any time you're dealing with money, you ought to have a scarcity mindset; money, unlike love, isn't abundant and infinite. It's finite, so it's subject to scarcity--a fact that teachers often don't seem aware of.
99% of the time in life you reap what you sow.
NoMore Excuses
It’s super easy to see why the individual who made these attack posts maligning Chandra Hampson and Liza Rankin did so under the cloak of anonymity.
Maybe this anonymous poster can shake things up a bit next time by taking 2-3 minutes to fact check before subjecting this blog’s readers to more (seemingly personal) nonsense attacks? Whether one’s name is on it or not, no one should be this busy sitting around making stuff up about local mothers who spend the lion’s share of their time volunteering in schools, participating on community groups and councils, advocating for education & programming for public school children, working to end racism & expand equity, & assisting local non-profits, & so much more.
For example, “Anonymous” falsely asserts Hampson has a ‘long history of silencing women of color’. Again, she is a Native American woman of color herself. Not for nothing, I am a Black woman who met Hampson for the first time years ago while she was leading a family engagement initiative she started as the President of our local pta. She was in my community, (a low income NE Seattle neighborhood made up primarily of people of color) engagement families for the pta. She has since mentored countless neighbors (primarily women of color) regarding how to navigate their children’s education. Her continued involvement & volunteerism has inspired many of us to get involved in our communities so our voices would be at the table.
Hampson’s extensive history doesn’t just talk the talk, she walks the walk.
It’d be great to know where this (nonexistent) mysterious “big group of equity champions working to get them on the board” is hiding out while they’re backing school board members. I’d love to join up so I could support Hampson & Rankin too... do I just collect my protesting check, and buy an underground Soros railroad ticket to pizzagate and take a left, or? Because this is about as realistic as the anonymous commentary regarding Hampson.
Two amazing candidates.
HP
FYI all schools , including wealthy schools by law receive title 1 funds according to the number od FRL students.
I have read and are very aware of articles and conversations around this issue.
MS
ST reader
(from King County Health Dept. info)
-parent
Kids need to learn to read and comprehend. Maybe learn how a spreadsheet works lots of math involved, learn how banking works.
Don't expect handouts because of the color of your skin! I know it's very popular in Seattle to give free everything to "people of color" but all that's running out of steam and by steam I'm mean people who are willing to fund the never ending gravy train.
There are many many adults earning a nice living off of handing out other peoples money to people who don't want to work. Ah now you see ...follow the money!
JS
There are plenty of programs for children where they do not need to live in a tent with junkies all around. These parents who choose to should lose custody of the children.
And you may ask yourself
How do I work this?
And you may ask yourself
Where is that large automobile?
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful house!
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful wife!
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
Same as it ever was
NoMore Excuses
In some low performing elementary classrooms in Seattle, teachers are specifically required, as part of their performance goals, to divide their classes into groups based on student ability. Teachers are then instructed to “focus” on the lowest performing groups, be it in math, science, reading, or writing. What Amplify at least partly allows is for science to be self-taught, allowing teachers to focus on small group activities with the most struggling students, and to let the high performing students teach themselves.
Conversely, in a high performing class, such as an HCC class, there is far less need for remedial instruction. In such a class, Amplify is probably not a great curriculum, but without the need to focus on low performing students, an experienced teacher generally has enough time to supplement with other materials, if allowed.
There are a lot of other scenarios. For example, principals that require absolute fidelity to the curriculum. Teachers that are new, or that are long-term substitutes, and don’t have the ability to supplement. Schools which are 100% focused on math and ELA and ignore science. Etc.
Perhaps a computer-based curriculum (or supplemental curriculum) that really differentiated could help all students achieve more. For example, the new middle school math curriculum has a supplemental online interactive component which is quite good. Unfortunately, in the case of the new math program, the supplemental activities are only accessible when specifically assigned by the teacher, which neither of my kids' teachers assign.
Given the district’s top goal of “closing the achievement gap for certain racial sub-populations”, Amplify is probably a good choice as it will dumb down science for many students trapped in mixed classes and free up time so teachers can focus on the lowest performing students. Personally, with nearly half the software developers in Seattle now foreign born and educated, I happen to believe the district’s goal is misguided. But assuming the Amplify license is only for 10 years, perhaps when it’s time to select the next curriculum, the districts priorities will have changed.
Another Parent2
I understand how teachers may feel threatened by AI, but like other industries it's now time for a modernization of public schools using AI to maximize learning. There are several big tech companies rolling out these types of programs.
Byte time
That said, I am truly an engineer in my heart and I always return to the basic engineering question. What is the problem you are trying to solve?
There are a few things that this adoption committee has done really right. They have identified that there are serious challenges in this district with the ability to hire and retain quality science educators, particularly in high poverty schools. They have also identified that the failure on the part of downtown to provide building funds for lab equipment has led to strong inequities. I agree with these conclusions. These are serious district wide problems.
Byte Time has nailed this process. The "solutions" to "this problem" is not to solve the problem of recruiting and retaining high quality teachers. This solution basically says ... that's not a realistic option, so let's replace "teaching" with "instructing". The big difference is that any warm body can follow the instructions and play the videos.
But none of the options on the table solve the problem of the hands-on supplies. The current proposal is for only the online curriculum. Per the Amplify quote in the C&I materials, it is nearly $10M to add the science kits and workbooks. And that was not for all grade bands.
The bottom line is that materials cost money. That is a big problem the committee identified. But none of the options on the table are addressing this.
Amplify, fully-loaded with all the supplies, is likely the solution the committee has presented. My best guess is that a fully loaded Amplify curriculum will total about $30M. That is for kits, supplies, computers, PD and the "rented curriculum." For $30M, there are a lot of great solutions.
-hmmm
Ponder: Per Harvard Professor Joshua Benton “Using broader community data means that the richest white kid and the poorest black/Hispanic kid in a given high school are assigned the same “adversity score””
SAT is now going to assign a secret adversity score to each student writing the SAT and report that score that they’ve ascribed to the testee without telling the
SAT to Give Students ‘Adversity Score’ to Capture Social and Economic Background
New score comes as college admissions decisions are under scrutiny
Douglas Belkin
May 16, 2019
The College Board plans to assign an adversity score to every student who takes the SAT to try to capture their social and economic background, jumping into the debate raging over race and class in college admissions.
This new number, called an adversity score by college admissions officers, is calculated using 15 factors including the crime rate and poverty levels from the student’s high school and neighborhood. Students won’t be told the scores, but colleges will see the numbers when reviewing their applications.
Fifty colleges used the score last year as part of a beta test. The College Board plans to expand it to 150 institutions this fall, and then use it broadly the following year.
How colleges consider a student’s race and class in making admissions decisions is hotly contested. Many colleges, including Harvard University, say a diverse student body is part of the educational mission of a school. A lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants by holding them to a higher standard is awaiting a judge’s ruling. Lawsuits charging unfair admission practices have also been filed against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of California system.
The College Board, the New York based nonprofit that oversees the SAT, said it has worried about income inequality influencing test results for years. White students scored an average of 177 points higher than black students and 133 points higher than Hispanic students in 2018 results. Asian students scored 100 points higher than white students. The children of wealthy and college-educated parents outperformed their classmates.
“There are a number of amazing students who may have scored less [on the SAT] but have accomplished more,” said David Coleman, chief executive of the College Board. “We can’t sit on our hands and ignore the disparities of wealth reflected in the SAT.”
The SAT, which includes math and verbal sections and is still taken with No. 2 pencils, is facing challenges. Federal prosecutors revealed this spring that students cheated on both the SAT and ACT for years as part of a far-reaching college admissions cheating scheme. In Asia and the Middle East, both the ACT and SAT exams have experienced security breaches.
Yale University is one of the schools that has tried using applicants’ adversity scores. Yale has pushed to increase socioeconomic diversity and, over several years, has nearly doubled the number of low-income and first-generation-to-attend-college students to about 20% of newly admitted students, said Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale.
“This [adversity score] is literally affecting every application we look at,” he said. “It has been a part of the success story to help diversify our freshman class.”
Colleges could glean some of the information that the adversity score reflects from other parts of a student’s application. But having the score makes comparisons more consistent, Mr. Quinlan said.
Average SAT scores, broken down by income, race and parents' education levels, show disparities.
James Conroy, director of college counseling at New Trier High School, which serves several affluent and mostly white communities north of Chicago, said the focus on diversity by elite colleges is already high and the adversity score would magnify that.
Continued...
WP Bound
“My emails are inundated with admissions officers who want to talk to our diversity kids,” Mr. Conroy said. “Do I feel minority students have been discriminated against? Yes, I do. But I see the reversal of it happening right now.”
The College Board tried a similar effort two decades ago but quickly dropped it amid pushback from colleges. In 1999, after California and Washington voted to ban affirmative-action preferences in public education, the College Board created a program it called Strivers.
The program aimed to measure the challenges students faced. It created an expected SAT score based on socioeconomic factors including, if schools chose to add it, race. Students who scored at least 200 points more on the SAT than predicted were called Strivers. Because minorities often had lower predicted scores, they were more likely to be Strivers.
The adversity score, by contrast, doesn’t take into account race and is superior because it is steeped in more research, said Connie Betterton, vice president for higher education access and strategy at the College Board.
“Since it is identifying strengths in students, it’s showing this resourcefulness that the test alone cannot measure,” Mr. Coleman, the College Board CEO, said. “These students do well, they succeed in college.”
At Florida State University, SAT adversity scores helped boost nonwhite enrollment in the incoming freshman class, said John Barnhill, assistant vice president for academic affairs.
The new score—which falls on a scale of one through 100—will pop up on something called the Environmental Context Dashboard, which shows several indicators of relative poverty, wealth and opportunity as well as a student’s SAT score compared with those of their classmates. On the dashboard, the score is called “Overall Disadvantage Level.”
An adversity score of 50 is average. Anything above it designates hardship, below it privilege.
The College Board declined to say how it calculates the adversity score or weighs the factors that go into it. The data that informs the score comes from public records such as the U.S. Census as well as some sources proprietary to the College Board, Mr. Coleman said.
The College Board began developing the tool in 2015 because colleges were asking for more objective data on students’ backgrounds, said Ms. Betterton. Several college admissions officers said they worry the Supreme Court may disallow race-based affirmative action. If that happens, the value of the tool would rise, they said.
“The purpose is to get to race without using race,” said Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. Mr. Carnevale formerly worked for the College Board and oversaw the Strivers program.
The dashboard may also be an advantage in a tight competition for market share with the ACT, another college-admissions exam. A spokesman for the ACT said it is “investing significant resources” in a comparable tool that is expected to be announced later this year.
At Florida State University, the adversity scores helped the school boost nonwhite enrollment to 42% from 37% in the incoming freshman class, said John Barnhill, assistant vice president for academic affairs at Florida State University. He said he expects pushback from parents whose children go to well-to-do high schools as well as guidance counselors there.
“If I am going to make room for more of the [poor and minority] students we want to admit and I have a finite number of spaces, then someone has to suffer and that will be privileged kids on the bubble,” he said.
WP Bound
The first lock down was due to a student and it wasn't clear exactly why the school was locked down and the police were called.
The second lock down was due to a shooting suspect possibly on the lose near the school.
The police were still in the area of Carkeek Park as late as 10:00PM using K-9s and a helicopter searching for the suspect.
Checking the Seattle Times this morning I find no information on the status of the man hunt.
Telling residents to stay indoors but never telling them is now safe to leave your home or take your child to school is very irresponsible. These lock downs are causing
more harm than benefits, if you have a student that you need to lock down the school over then that student does not belong in a SPS building EVER!
Mind games
Data
Except, that's not Amplify. It is in no way personalized.
There are several big tech companies rolling out these types of programs."
I'm sure there are; there's money to be made in them there classrooms. But as I previously stated, during online time, the teacher is there to "instruct" not teach.
Thank you Kellie for that summary. I told the Board last night they had no business saying yes to ANY curriculum without a full accounting of costs. If it's a computer-based curriculum, then include tech costs.
Hmm, I try to get a write-up. In brief, majority pro (nearly every single adult pro-adoption speaker was on one committee), much diversity and passion, several kids speakers. There were people on the waitlist who had wanted to talk about "White Supremacy in Seattle Schools" who came and just held signs (no one ceded time to them). I spoke as well as several other people with very good points against adoption.
I note for this important discussion, Director DeWolf was AWOL.
As for you, for someone claiming to be moving on from Seattle public schools you can't seem to keep your word.
Weeble wobble
Board members had remarks that were thoughtful and incisive and, frankly, skeptical of the curriculum selection process and outcome. They have obviously heard much feedback from many, many constituents, and their questions for staff reflected this.
DeBacker, Welch, and Kinoshita were there and responded at length to all questions. DeBacker and Kinoshita were professional and respectful in demeanor toward the board at all times. Welch was initially assertive in a good way, but over the course of the very long meeting she did tend to take a patronizing and condescending tone with the board. Her self-righteousness was palpable. At one point, she criticized the board for announcing something after hours on a Friday (I didn't catch exactly what), "forcing" her staff to work hard over the weekend to come up with requested information and responses, because she was in Michigan tending to her dying mother. For that, she has my sympathy and compassion, since it is a heartbreaking thing for anyone to go through. That said, I think it was unprofessional to mention it in this context, and her staff are paid, unlike the board, who are volunteers and have no staff. Burke pushed back on that, pointing out that staff had been alerted it was coming up a full week beforehand.
(continues)
I was struck by how unified the entire board seemed in asking incisive questions, almost all financial and procedural. Staff seemed taken aback by how assertive they were. Even Geary, who has defended Amplify and the process in the past, asked some hard-edged, skeptical questions that made it seem like she was not a fan of the process. Mack was obviously frustrated by unclear or unforthcoming answers at times. Harris was relentless and did a great service to the children of Seattle really pushing for clarity unanswered questions and calling staff to task on not providing requested information. Pinkham was also very skeptical. He did not want to be too confrontational with staff and was his collegial, pleasant self the entire time, but he nonetheless joined in on the incisive questioning and obviously has major concerns about the adoption. DeWolf was absent (not sure anyone noticed), and Patu didn't participate in this part of the conversation except that she earlier announced she's leaving the board early in June.
The new legal counsel was up a few times to answer questions, but one of the most interesting things was that he is working with Amplify to develop a chronology of events around the "donation." No one seems to know if there was a donation or not, how much it was for, what it was for, and Amplify's and SPS's understanding of whatever transpired seems different. So a detailed statement about that is forthcoming. Geary asked point-blank that Amplify make clear SPS is not on the hook for the $400,000 that may or may not have been donated. My guess (purely a guess) is that Amplify thought they would slide materials in for free for the moment but then back-bill for the "donation" later on.
On the Burke-Pinkham amendment to consider HMH instead of Amplify for elementary: everyone was tired by this point in the evening, and I don't think this got the consideration it needed. Burke is interested in a less polarizing solution to the elementary selection process. He and Pinkham noted that the selection committee's own rubric did recommend HMH actually. Welch and Kinoshita spent a great deal of time explaining the deliberations by which they came to that decision. Burke said that with all the same input (research, vendor information, community feedback, everything) that they had, board members came to a different conclusion. Welch seems to think that her committee's choice is infallible or uncorruptable, and Burke did a service pointing out that she is not the only adult in the room with a background in science and education. Welch and Kinoshita also seem to define "tech-based" more loosely or at list quite differently than the board members and probably the public, and they made the argument that HMH is actually more tech based than Amplify at elementary level. Amplify looks very different at the K-2, 3-5, and 6-8 levels, so one difficulty with this curriculum adoption is that very, very different forms of the same curricula are under consideration.
One astute observation made by Mack was that the board needs to provide a philosophy and guidance around the role of technology in classrooms, and moving forward will likely do so so that curriculum selection committees understand the board's preference about technology and curriculum.
(continues)
Staff, including DeBacker, were very clear that NGSS alignment was paramount. But the legislature has removed the science test for graduation, which radically alters the importance of planned changes to science course sequencing. They didn't discuss that issue at length, although DeBacker conceded it was going to have a strong impact on what they do and will have to be revisited. However, the legislature's change also lowers the importance of strict NGSS alignment. The committee was tasked with finding an NGSS-aligned curriculum, but now with the changes in graduation requirements, this may have been less important. This issue was only touched on, but I suspect the board on the whole is interested in this angle.
Harris pointed out several times over the evening that communication has not been great by the board with staff and with staff to the board, and that improving communication has to be a major part of moving forward. Everyone in the room seemed to agree with this. There also simply has to be data; the board seemed very interested in evidenced-based decision-making. There were many times that staff could and should have let the board know about this or that, and there were many points where the board could have been more thoughtful or clearer in its intentions and preferences (hence Mack's comment about technology).
Overall, this was a strong showing by this board. They displayed courage, asked tough questions, expressed their impatience with a muddled process, and they were sharply focused on their fiduciary oversight role. Everyone in the room agrees on the role of equity in all these considerations, and that was not really under debate because it is the foremost concern on everyone's mind. If there was a loser tonight, it was certainly Welch, who was condescending if not imperious in style and made no friends on the board that way. They will be voting on May 29.
The district needs to change and fast or face a huge backlash by voters.
The current board has let cost run amok with little to nothing to show for it.
The idea that Harris should continue is laughable, I've never seen someone almost lay down on the dais while lecturing staff before.
--Time's up
district 1
Thank you Meeting Summary for that wrap-up; I had a cold and left after the public testimony.
And you sell JSCEE and where does everyone there go? It certainly was a boondoggle but those people have to be somewhere.
I think the district IS changing but I'm not sure it will turn out to be what anyone truly wants (in any direction).
Or would you like to see the district split up? I say lets go local and see what happens , how could it be worst?
district 1
Weeble wobble
-Ha Ha
LOL. Yeah, her folks made their choice last year before they even began the adoption process. So, of course they're sure.
Principles can princibltate." Not sure what you meant but principals should act on their principles.
DUck Duck, good question. That MWW apparently told a 4th story at last night's Board meeting is astonishing. But more data is coming my way so we may have an answer soon that she cannot refute. There's nothing like public disclosure to make a hazy view clearer.
hmm
Did you get the sense they will still move ahead with the high school Chem/Physics hybrid science courses that the students and teachers are complaining about?
A Parent
Owler
district 1
Anna Regina
It seemed so often in the past our choice for board members were bureaucrats who didn't want to interfere with staff or activists who caused so much ruckus that nothing could get done. It's nice to have someone effective like Rick Burke.
-HS Parent
Burke was very effective and kind when dealing with some goofy things pushed by other board members.
I'm still waiting for the Voc Tech he pushed in 2015. I guess someone else will need to forward that effort.
Rick, good luck in your next endeavor.
Sam
IF this is true, then someone needs to let the union know. Admin cannot require teachers to have a certain goal and certainly not something as specific as tracking students into ability groups. They should call let the union know about this.
The provenance of Amplify and total costs remain murky. There is still no data from staff about the 3-year pilot at Mercer or any of the waiver schools. Professional development was a hot topic and has loomed as a major cost in the BARs ($5 million alone for K-5). And a 1.0 FTE curriculum specialist has been slipped into the MS BAR since the BAR was last seen in committee. (This significant change, along with the addition of $565,000 in MS PD costs, was not highlighted in the document.)
It was revealed that printing costs for Amplify curriculum will be passed onto schools. Dir. Pinkham asked for those costs to be calculated. MaryMargaret Welch compared it to teachers of yore using mimeographs. Apparently Amplify will not be providing any textbooks. Welch said SPS science teachers have never had books. If true, is that a precedent that should be continued?
Staff critiqued the Burke/Pinkham amendment. They claimed HMH is more tech reliant than Amplify. No evidence was given, though staff said the two products do licensing differently for classrooms.
Supt. Juneau chided directors for creating an amendment. But the fact is, without it, many questions would not have been addressed. And it's the right and duty of directors to create amendments. They can even amend from the dais if they choose. Policy is one of the board's chief duties. It's not clear that Supt. Juneau understands the responsibilities and rights of the Board (and the role of supt).
Among the highlights, some of the public speeches, including this one:
"I’m Patricia Bailey, a retired Seattle teacher.
It is evident, to those watching the unfolding of the science adoption, that there are so many underhanded dealings, it is difficult to keep track of them all. We see the “gifting” of huge sums of money from Amplify Corporation without the required board approval. We see the illegal implementation of pilot programs without the required board approval. We see the hiding of pilot data from board oversight. We even see violations of state law, and much more.
Because the skulduggery is being exposed, the argument switched to insinuating that board members are engaging in racism if they reject the Amplify science program! Quite the opposite is true. Low-income students were performing much better before the use of this program as you have seen from data already presented. It is the accuser who is engaging in racism with callous disregard for the achievement and interest of minority students.
Race baiting is the groundless accusation of racism to push a different agenda. The individual using such a tactic may appear “socially conscious” as a facade, but they are cynically using race to manipulate the board to promote a big business venture. Board members should ignore individuals who stoop to such cynicism and who disdainfully dismiss citizen input as “noise”. This is intolerable in a democracy.
Imagine the precedent set if Amplify is adopted, supported by these kinds of tactics. It invites corporate predation on children and representative school boards everywhere. This situation requires a thorough investigation.
Thank you for your hard work and oversight!"
Burke specifically mentioned wood shop, metal shop and Auto shop.
Voc Tech
She very deliberately said textbooks because both the Carolina and Foss kites provide Student Guides and not textbooks
While they are old the district has never had to make copies and we could buy more if we wanted
HP
In the end, it was abundantly clear that Seattle was the fastest growing city in the US and the "reason" that triggered the school closures was no longer valid. New schools started to be opened one year after the closures and eventually SPS opened far more new schools that were closed in the 00's
At the final closure vote the theme was ... "we have to close schools, because we said we would close schools and because we have invested so much into the process of closing schools." The sane thing would have been to hit the pause button.
This entire "adoption" process was triggered by a high stakes test that no longer exists. The adoption committee has done a very good job of daylighting inequities. But the entire concept for the process is no longer valid and the proposed solution is clearly going to perpetuate the same inequities, that have been highlighted, because the proposed solution does include any money for science kits, workbooks, textbooks and other "consumables". The current proposal is for video rentals.
Per the vendor quotes, I estimate that a fully loaded Amplify adoption that includes the workbooks and science kits and other consumables will cost at least $30M. For $30M we have a lot of options to solve this problem.
I have purchased a copy for my students to use at home and then donated that extra copy back to the school at the end of the year. I thank the adoption committee for highlighting how this practice has contributed to the inequities. But there have been physical text books in my house, over the years.
How would it play out at a school like Garfield? From a PBS Newshour report: "An underlying theory of the system (backed by most demographers) is that most high schools and neighborhoods in the United States are not terribly diverse economically. So it is the rare high school that has many wealthy and many low-income students."
very interesting
Has there been any discussion about at an at-home component? Middle and high school students should be getting homework and should have an opportunity to access content outside of class time (and not just poor B/W photocopies!). How does that work with CarbonTime and Amplify, especially if students have limited access to computers?
Watching clips of the last two Board meetings, the science committee's domination of the comment time seems like an abuse of the public testimony period. Almost bizarre. Many comments were incredibly scripted, especially those of the students.
random blogger
Liz
We were lucky to have Rick Burke serve on our school board.
Sounds like the finances around Amplify need to be sorted-out. Perhaps it is best for the waiver proves to run it's course and conduct an audit. The board would have another year to figure out if there were financial irregularities.
Watching also
No science homework?
Watching also, how is Harris the problem?
Watching also
HeHe
HeHe
Rick had good intentions and intellect but didn't have the spine for the job.
Is Melissa running? I thought she recently said she wasn't. But, then again, on a slow news day this week she said she was not going to have any more info on this blog except for a few weekly open threads.
That sounds like a politician to me.
Dull Moment
You’ve written in this blog in support of the Adoption Committee‘s work.
As you’re aware, there are appearances of impropriety in the process, including several versions of how Amplify was piloted in SPS (anonymous donor, etc).
What is your understanding of that, and of some of the other process questions that have been raised?
Integrity Matters
Io
Flawed Science Curriculum Adoption Process.
The SPS Science Adoption Committee's recommendations have NO legal standing to the Seattle School Board, because the SPS Instructional Materials Committee (IMC) was never approved by the SPS School Board. The IMC must certify that the Adoption Committee's work was done in compliance with both State Law and Board Policies.
Yes, this issue matters.
Board Members should not be pressured by District Staff into accepting the Science Adoption Committee's recommendations.
These recommendations have No legal standing.
Vendors that have been affected by the SPS-Amplify "Partnership", and undisclosed donations from Amplify to SPS, should be aware of this issue.
The SPS School Board has a legal obligation to follow Washington State RCWs. They have chosen not to.
Unaccountable
Secondly, I don’t think anyone at SPS knows exactly how the donation of Amplify was accomplished to allow its use in some SPS schools. I think SPS legal is trying to sort this history out with Amplify based on comments Wednesday. So we will probably know soon. But I believe it does not impact the current Adoption Committee Recomendation and that Amplify is the best current choice, just as was decided in Bellevue, Edmonds, and other schools.
https://bsd405.org/departments/curriculum/curriculum-adoption/middle-school-science-adoption/
https://www.change.org/p/bellevue-school-district-ban-amplify-science-curriculum-in-bellevue-school-district
A curriculum called FOSS is the K-5 curriculum.
https://bsd405.org/departments/curriculum/curriculum-adoption/elementary-science-adoption/
Thank you for commenting here.
The wonderful thing about a democracy is that many people can watch the same information and come to radically different conclusions. I am confident that the adoption committee is happy with their work. I also believe the adoption committee did a great job outlining many of the issues with science education across the district. If you were on that committee, thank you!
That said, this current committee as well as the prior versions of this committee over the last four years have done a terrible job of stakeholder engagement and transparency. The committee is recommending a radical departure form current practices. The more radical the departure the more critical transparency and engagement needs to be.
I want to be clear about this. Those problems are management problems and not a reflection on the committee members.
Here is a small example. At the board meeting, it was mentioned that all of the science materials would be available for the public to view for the two weeks between introduction and vote. I happened to be at JSCEE for a different meeting on Friday and I asked to see the materials. I was unable to find anyone who could direct me to viewing the materials.
The committee may or may not have reached the best result. I have no way of knowing that. But I do know that the process, from the point of view of someone knowledgeable about committee work, is quite opaque with too many conflicting narratives.
But even if there weren't any conflicting narratives, I have a big problem with the simple fact that the current version of the BAR is the LEAST EXPENSIVE option and does not include any money to fix the problems identified by the committee. The only thing this current BAR does is provide for some very expensive video rentals that were designed to prepare students for a test that no longer exists.
I'll have more to say in a new thread on the adoption but seriously?
It's been months and months and story after story about how Amplify came into the district. To say it just needs to be "sorted" out is nonsense and a HUGE red flag.
It DOES impact the decision because if Amplify wasn't playing fair (and the district went along with it), other vendors could sue the district.
It DOES impact the decision because Amplify itself said, in its RFP, that it was working in "partnership" with the district to "offer support for adoption."
All the whitewash in the world does not change that.
Before any funding is given for professional development for the Amplify curriculum, adequate funding for professional development in every school for Native and Ethnic studies curricula must be assured and Board adopted
Melissa, please be a little more specific in your comments as far as hearsay vs what is known vs what you believe. How is my belief that it needs to be sorted out a huge red flag?
There is no whitewash in my opinion.
New teachers have not gotten PD in science for the past several years. There was a time when that happened, however it was pre-alignment team time.
If you believe that MMW knows the truth, that’s great. I’ve heard her explain and it makes sense to me. She may be the one who knows because of her involvement and longevity compared to other staff and board.
I would characterize your comment as “what you believe “, except agree that there is known documentation of the meetings in the public records
Per the BAR and the Vendor quote attached to the BAR.
We have completed the pricing form provided with the solicitation with all required costs, including digital licenses for a duration of 9 years. There are consumable elements in the materials kits included as Classroom Supplies on that form. The District may choose to source these materials from Amplify, in which case there would be an additional cost that would vary based on the rate at which the materials are actually consumed. Based on our best projection for the consumption of the consumables, if the District chooses to use our Refill Kits to replace the consumables, we would project the following costs (please note that the prices below do not include the 12% shipping charge or the 10.1% nominal sales tax):
Per the vendor quote, all the costs are broken out into various buckets. The charges for "licensing" the online curriculum is separate from any of the other wrap around support materials. When you examine the licensing components of the contract, the contract essentially looks like your standard tech contract. AKA it looks just like licensing Microsoft Office or your standard Netflix subscription.
All of the "conversation" around Amplify seems to be comparing a fully supported and fully loaded Amplify adoption to your more standard curriculum adoption where you are simply buying text books.
I can really understand the point of view of the adoption committee and Amplify supporters. A "fully-loaded-and-fully-supported" Amplify adoption looks great. But my best estimate from reading the contracts is that a "fully-loaded-and-fully-supported" Amplify adoption will cost around $30M and for $30M, there are a lot of other options out there that would also be pretty awesome.
The BAR that is being presented is a very economical and pared down version that is really only the licensing fees for the online materials. By the time you are doing this, you are really not doing anything more than Crash Course provides for FREE. (Crash Course is pretty awesome BTW)
I have read lots of contracts in my professional experience. The materials for the C&I committee meeting were over 800 pages. The devil is in the details and when all is said and done, SPS is effectively renting videos and not actually PURCHASING anything.
Lots of folks have various concerns. My concerns are related to the the technical aspects of a curriculum adoption and to the best of knowledge, curriculum adoptions are intended to purchase materials and the final BAR has little or no purchasing aspects.
Moreover, the proposal as currently configured really does nothing to address all the inequities that were identified by the committee.
Those are my concerns and the presentation on Wednesday night did not answer those concerns.
Digital student books (Grades K–5): While each unit’s kit contains physical copies of the relevant student titles, the teacher also has access to digital versions of each student book, as well. Teachers can use these digital versions to project the book to
the class. Classroom licenses for student access to the digital books are also available.
Everything has an additional fee. You either need to purchase the kits to support the lessons, which in addition to the cost of the kits, also includes a per-year-per-kit licensing fee. If you don't purchase the kits, then you need to purchase a classroom license for student access.
The bottom line here is that curriculum adoption committees were essentially created to evaluate and purchase textbooks. This is a whole new ballgame. A digital curriculum adoption is fundamentally different from the standard rubrics used to evaluate hard copy textbooks.
Also in the BAR is a provision to delay the purchase of anything for a few years so that downtown can find the money. In a year where we just RIF'ed teachers and nearly lost counselors and librarians, this seems expensive.
"There is a lot of misinformation floating around and I am trying to be more specific and drill down through sloppy language and innuendo."
That sloppy language? MMW. Multiple stories? MMW. Not me, not the real press, MMW.
If the Amplify Science adoption goes down, it's on her.
Kellie, you are wrong; they are purchasing workbooks. Consumables.
And all the printing to be done to support the lessons comes out of each school's budget. What's that cost going to look like.
It is abundantly clear that all of the Science Curriculum BARs need to be sent to the Audit and Finance Committee for evaluation.
Director Mack called for a discussion and Statement of Values, to anchor decisions on EdTech Curriculum Materials.
Some people say textbooks are dead. Others say textbooks are essential. It is time for the Board to carefully review the implications of shifting to Tech-Heavy Science Curricula.
Director Burke brought up the need to discuss the funding of Ethnic Studies at the last Board Meeting.
This is yet another reason for the Board to postpone decisions on Science Curriculum Materials, until they look at the funding landscape for the next several years. Funding for Ethnic Studies needs to be prioritized. Budgets reflect Values.
There are so many good ways to teach Science, without restricting teachers and students to one mode of learning.
One size learning does not fit all.
Penny Wise
I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong on any specific detail at this point. I have only reviewed the documents the went to the C&I committee, prior to the work session and things seems to be shifting rapidly. I re-read the vendor proposal before responding to Dick so that I was clear about what Amplify was proposing.
This is what the C&I documents said.
I further move that the Seattle School Board authorize the Superintendent to purchase AmplifyScience as the core instructional materials for all grade K-5 Seattle Public Schools classrooms for an amount not to exceed $2,368,870 in a three-year phased-in purchase and implementation plan, covering licensing through school years 2019-2020 through 2027-28, and an amount of $5,040,674 for in-house professional development and collaboration for a total nine year amount of $7,409,544.
I should note, that I have never felt a need to review any documents related to any curriculum adoption work. I typically only review capacity related documents. But this whole process has been muddy enough that I wanted to check.
Do you know if the cost analysis in the BAR was increased to include the workbooks?
Any questions I should ask at ITAC tomorrow?
Please ask for the list of SPS Schools that have Amplify in them, at the ITAC meeting.
The Bid from Amplify claims that its Curriculum Products have been piloted in 69 SPS Schools, through its "Partnership" with SPS.
There are only 20 Schools with Waivers (which includes 4 K-5 Schools). This would suggest that Amplify has been placed in 69 - 20 = 49 additional K-5 Elementary schools.
Presumably Without Waivers. Presumably without prior Board knowledge.
Unaccountable