One Item of Note - District Sued Over Amplify
I’m going to provide this thread the interest of starting a discussion.
From KUOW:
Citizens' group files suit against Seattle Schools over controversial science curriculum
From KUOW:
Citizens' group files suit against Seattle Schools over controversial science curriculum
To note, I’m not involved and did not know this was happening. That said, I do believe there is a lot of info out there that may help the plaintiffs. And, of course, if it does go to court, I will be glad to testify.
Comments
watcher
Watching
Very concerning that board did not approve committee members. This reminds me of when the city pushed through a charter school and did not include Seattle Public Schools for committee selection- which was a violation of city law.
HP
Has the district already paid Amplify, or can they--like they did with the HC Services Advisory Committee, and as they seem to have done with the 24-credit requirement planning and implementation--hit the "pause" button?
HF
Robert
effectively paused
It is a good idea for many government officers and even some government employees to have at least a basic understanding of the doctrine, as its broad scope causes it to crop up in a variety of contexts.
First Mary Margaret WELCH got Amplify into public schools on a mass waiver (maybe she skipped that actual policy process too) — giving them a massive leg up when it came time for an RFP for science curriculum. She was featured in THEIR marketing materials. Hmmm...
AMPLIFY USED OUR PUBLIC ASSETS - our school buildings and computing resources and our teacher staff time and got out of it student data (a massively valuable asset even though yes it is an intangible asset) and therefore used public assets for private gain. AND THEY USED THESE PUBLIC ASSETS TO GAIN SOMETHING EVEN MORE VALUABLE - the 9 year contract to rent their crappy software to our district for multimillions of dollars. Are they going to sell professional development too to SPS?
ALL THIS skirted both SPS policies AND the RCWs about the conflict of interest/state ethic laws.
Bless whoever filed this law suit. I hope their lawyers really have a lot of experience not so much with education law, but with the WA state ethics code and the gift of public funds Doctrine. To the inexperienced, these connections may seem unfamiliar, but when you really stop and consider what the laws were designed to prevent, and what happened here, this exactly fits the bill. Welch may wish to consider hiring an attorney- because willful misconduct and gross negligence can fall outside of the indemnification shield for employees.
We either have the rule of law, or we don’t. It either applies equally and consistently, or were nothing but a banana republic. It’s not about whether you like amplify or not, it’s whether we have process or not. Certainly the assistant attorney general for the state of Washington will be apprised of these violations by whoever is suing and investigate thoroughly and appropriately. There’s so much documentation on this it is not even comical because there’s nothing funny about it.
When I read on this blog some big time attorneys had been hired I think back east, I figured it was the publisher who knew they had run afoul of the law in obvious non-defendable ways and so had started to ready resources to defend themselves. I laughed when the troll said those attorneys were hired to go after Melissa or another public advocate. That only revealed how ignorant those trolls were (which of course fits the profile of a troll).
Wheels of justice
SEA
"...in conjunction with the work of the Task Force, the HCSAC is pausing while we await the recommendations and any subsequent Superintendent and Board decisions. From there and if so charged, the HCSAC can continue..."
"...At the close of the Task Force work, and once the Superintendent and School Board have approved policy and procedure, we anticipate the Highly Capable Services Advisory Committee working alongside the district to ensure the implementation of established goals and outcomes as informed by board policy and superintendent procedures. "
"When the work of the Task Force begins to draw to a close, a refreshed Charge for the Highly Capable Services Advisory Committee will be developed and provided to the Superintendent. This new Charge will be tightly aligned to the refreshed mission and vision as well as the board and superintendent approved policy and procedures that will anchor the work of identifying and providing services to advanced learners and students identified as Highly Capable. "
Also, to be honest, I'm also not getting the same vibe that you are about this supposed un-pausing. Based on the above, it still looks kinda paused to me. I know there were emails sent out about a "re-launch" and merger that suggest more of an advocacy bent (from HiCapSeattle.org website: "HC FAMILIES BUILDING COMMUNITY AND SUPPORTING HICAP AND 2E STUDENTS BY ADVOCATING FOR BEST PRACTICES, EQUITY & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT"), and I think that is great--and much needed. However, it's not clear to me that it reflects the next phase of the district's HCS AC. It sounds more like its own thing, and the language from Tolley seems to suggest likewise.
If the "re-launched" organization is really the next phase of the HCS AC--if it really represents the newly un-paused version--I might suggest that communications to that effect could be greatly strengthened. Any communications I've received to date from this new group have been very unclear as to its relationship to the district, as well as how it fits with this newly anticipated role laid out by Tolley. As well, given that the existing language from Tolley suggests that many other things need to happen prior to the possible "refresh" of the HCS AC, it might be helpful to address that--and clarify that those things have already happened (or that this is early work to rebuild the group in advance of the completion of those things). It might also be a good idea to clarify why and how the HCS AC--which seems like a district entity--is being "replaced" by the this seemingly independent group. Finally, if this new group is truly the revamped HCS AC, it might be good to make sure the district gets that updated on their website ASAP, and that all this also get clarified on the new org's website, too. Based on all I've seen to date, I've interpreted this new group as a grassroots parent group that has no direct link to the district, and so I've not paid it much attention (especially given the lack of info on its website). I assume other parents may be similarly unclear.
HF
Can you please NOT involve other topics on this thread?
Please feel free to delete my earlier comment and I can respond to @Robert on the next open thread instead.
HF
They respected our well-reasoned advocacy and anatomy as a partner with the district under Bob Vaughn but staff had over the last 3 years eroded the committees long-standing independence to finally severe that independence.
Having served on the AC and interfaced with many of the long standing presidents of the committee going back to the 1990s I can tell you the group has evolved to nearly becoming a desired rubber stamp by SPS staff. I am proud to tell you that is no longer the case. And we have been advocating for best practices especially as it comes to the events at WMS and REMS this year.
So no HF you need to come up with another example of a district pause. There are many. You could also come up with examples of district being hypocritical. Amplify adoption is a fine example. You could also come up with cases where staff have purposely misled the board. I see it happen almost every board meeting I watch. Which brings us back to topic.
Why can't staff just follow the damn rules. Why can't best practices define how kids are taught at SPS.
Robert
Should have said/:
but some AC leadership and staff had over the prior 3 years eroded the committees long-standing independence to nearly a sham, doing busy work,in my opinion, instead of advocating for best practices. There were no meaningful updates to speak from AL. No building updates. We were just trying to figure out how to work MTSS into our charter without even explaining what that meant.
Robert
You had your 15 min, now shuffle along.
SAM
While it is a serious long shot that any legal action will cause a different outcome, hopefully, the legal action will cause SPS to be more circumspect in curriculum adoption, going forward. Budget, student assignment and curriculum are the big three reasons that school boards exist so that there is public oversight of these critical functions and that all the various WACs are followed.
Regardless of the legal technicalities, the entire process was simply not clean or clear. A committee that was commissioned in order to conduct a very MINOR ALIGNMENT, morphed into a full blown adoption process with the liberal use of waivers. But then again, the culture of lawlessness is likely to continue.
Careful what you wish for. Amplify may have a shiny new 21st century robot team they can lease us for a small fee.. Untested, of course, but it uses computers so is bound to be good, right?
HF
A Science Alignment committee met for TWO years. We ended up with an entire new scope and sequence. No other districts took such a dramatic approach....content was simply added to existing classes. To make matters worse, we ended -up with Amplify; a science curriculum that does not have a stable K-5 funding source. (!)
District spending has increased 25% in two years and doubled since 2013. The district is expecting a significant shortfall.
The district has now convened an Advanced Learning Committee. Are their guidelines navigating this work? Or, shall we expect another unfunded committee mandate in the midst of a significant budget short-fall?
So yeah it's going to be a ton more cash teaching far less with poorer results IMO. So like amplify.
MSRP
The school board made a huge error in approving Amplify Science, especially given its fundamentally inequitable nature. Let’s hope that judges step up where school board directors failed.
Melissa meticulously documented the Advanced Learning Taskforce on June 25, 2018. There is a UW Researcher (Nancy Hertzog) on the committee. Community organizers that don't have children in the district are also on the committee.
Did the board approve the Advanced Learning Taskforce Committee?
Both merit legal action.
MSRP
Worried for the Future