Unpacking Last Night's Lollapalooza of a Board Meeting
Speakers:
One funny moment - Director Scott Pinkham talking about his availability but not during the US/Oregon football game this Saturday.
He also defended not changing the AL policy until after the work of the Taskforce is done. He said he wants to see ways to allow more students to access AL.
Director Rick Burke, calling in from a roadside in Baltimore, said he wanted to apologize for the C&E meeting. I tried to hear why but it was not clear. But he did say one thing - to the Board and the Superintendent - that I heard loud and clear.
We need to do more "by listening and not with authority and power."
I'll take the liberty of thinking it possibly meant "we listen to those we serve and not bully or shove down those people's throats" policies and procedures.
He said he was just trying to give the Advanced Learning Taskforce "the space to do their work" so they (the Board and Super) can build on it.
So I skipped most of the Action items and came in where an ailing CAO Diane DeBacker explained that the district had approved of creating Ethnic Studies and was working on a process to approve curriculum and had "approved a consultant or contractor" to help with the work. But I thought TCG wanted staff. If you end up being the consultant or contractor, good luck with that.
On the Research and Evaluation Plan, Director Geary said the work looked ambitious but the C&I committee had been "reassured they - R&E - can do the work." Well, that's a relief so I guess the Board's gaze can go elsewhere.
My notes reflect me counting down from 5 to 0 in anticipation of President Harris asking about the "case study" mentioned in the BAR on Garfield's Honors for All. And she did.
DeBacker referred to page 3 of the BAR under "Detracking." She said they "just started" that case study and will put the findings "in a Friday memo." Wait, what? If the Super and staff think that detracking is the way to go - and indeed have shaped the next Student Transition Plan to include detracking - how come parents don't get a report?
Harris asked if it would be a report with data or anecdotal? DeBacker said, both.
She also asked about the roll-out of MTSS and data on its efficacy.
Then there was discussion of Policy 2022 around "electronic uses of the Internet." Burke said this went thru C&I. Geary chimed in and flatly said "I won't vote for this."
There seems to be two threads of thought on the Board about this issue, specifically about cell phones in classrooms. (I'll have a separate thread on the news story on KUOW a couple of weeks back about cell phone usage in the classroom).
Hersey said education is moving into a landscape where kids will have phones and it's up to educators to teach them how to use them properly at school. (I note he has no children but I'll chime in and state that parents also have a right to chime in about cell phone use at school.)
He said there is more and more tech in classrooms and teachers will miss opportunities.
He then made the claim that every 2nd grader in his class "has a phone." Really? I think I might give his principal a ring and ask about that because I very much doubt every single 2nd grader in his class has a cell phone.
Director Mack said it was not right to expect that every single kid would have a phone AND that parents would allow its use in class. Good point. The district (and its teachers) have no right to expect a student to produce their phone and use their dataplan to do school work. And this is especially true if kids are working in a team and only one kid has a phone. I don't believe parents should have to pay for technology use without clear guidelines.
Director Burke also ask staff if the protections on computers in classrooms - via filters - would be there for phones. Staff had no answer. The district puts up walls to protect kids from accessing things they should not be reading or seeing.
Harris said she, too, "would push back on this" and "it's not ready for primetime" because of a lack of engagement with parents.
But they came to the Student Transition Plan discussion and that's where the wheels came off the bus.
Called to the podium for this discussion were head of Enrollment, Ashley Davies, and head of Student Services and Supports, Concie Pedroza. Pedroza read thru the new actions/changes for the Transition Plan.
Things like:
- moving Licton Springs K-8 to Whitman. It appears from the public testimony that some families are giving into this idea.
- new geozones for several schools
Then they came to the part about STEM by TAF at WMS. (Except that it wasn't in the Plan.)
Apparently there were two sheets with two different plans for this effort. President Harris said they had not been publicly available and therefore would not be discussed. Juneau earnestly asked if they couldn't just be read into the record. Even Pedroza blanched at that. Everyone was going to sit there for 15 minutes as these were read into the record? No thanks.
Director Pinkham asked about the transportation costs for Licton Springs K-8 students to the Webster Building in Ballard. He asked because it only had the costs for a year and what did that mean? Davies said year-to-year costs do change and that's why there was just one year (at $83K). Pinkham pressed on, would that mean forever transportation? Davies said students would be grandfathered in until they finished at LS K-8.
He also later asked about what happens to the LS K-8 section of the RESMS building. Would it need remodeling? Staff were vague.
Geary chimed in for the second time that night, saying she would not support this plan because of the Thornton Creek students who would go to JAMS instead of Eckstein. She said many students would be in the music program that flows from TC to Eckstein. I rarely have seen a director take such a direct stand for a single school population.
Mack said it was unclear to her if STEM by TAF at WMS could happen in the Fall of 2020. (The MOU signed by the district and TAF indicates a full plan by September 2019 and a vote in September 2019. Clearly, that didn't happen. And that MOU? It's for a 6-12 school, a fact which I missed.)
Juneau said the engagement with community was ongoing but said they decided against using Creative Approach. She did that without real acknowledgement that the teaching staff had firmly said no. (My intel is that teachers just didn't know what they were voting on - no one had elucidated the program and how it would work at WMS. Hard to vote for the unknown.)
There is a community meeting about this Saturday, October 19, 2019 from 10 a.m. - 12 p.m, at Washington Middle School to learn more about the proposed partnership with TAF.
Davies did explain that the difficulty of making a single change to the Plan "is that the Plan would live on and it could be confusing to parents."
Clearly, HCC as a cohort model is a thorn in the side to this process. But you can't change HCC just at one school (well, they did for Spectrum but I suspect it would be harder to do for HCC). But it appears that HCC is going to become a blended model but when is a good question.
Lastly, I do want to address a couple of speakers who may have changed the rules for public testimony all by themselves.
I had noted from the agenda that one speaker, Sebrena Burr, had stated her comments would be:
Racists on the School Board making decisions for "Those Furthest From Educational Justice" Lives; Amending Board Policy No. 2015, Selection and Adoption of Instructional Materials, and Board Policy No. 2020, Waiver of Basic Instructional Materials & Revisions to Board Policy No. 2022, Electronic Resources and Use of the Internet
I wrote to the Board to give them a heads up as I thought name-calling was not allowed. President Harris said the Board was asking district legal counsel about testimony and the First Amendment.
I'm confused.
Like the City Council, the Board has rules for testimony. Length of time, has to be a topic on the agenda, etc. An official public meeting can't be a free-for-all.
Also, the Board doesn't allow any district employee to be called out by name if a parent or community member is upset with that employee.
But apparently, I am wrong about all of that. Because there were two speakers who broke every rule and yet, nothing happened. I plan to keep it in mind for the future if I want to address the Board and Superintendent. Fair is fair.
Turns out Burr decided against calling anyone on the Board racist but she certainly called me a racist. Twice. (I'll just interject here that if there's anyone's opinion I don't give a rat's ass about, it's hers. She's desperately trying to remain relevant in SPS and her efforts are more than a little sad.)
But really, that was the least of it as her performance - and there's no other word for it - went (loudly) on. (And I don't want to hear about "calling a woman POC loud" - she was literally screaming.)
She talked about her meditation (or maybe medication, hard to know), how Emijah Smith's character was "lynched" and she is "our Queen." (And fyi, I did know about Smith's legal troubles but said NOTHING until KUOW and the Times did.)
She said black women built this country without pay or acknowledgement.
She went on a tear about Director Mack? at a cocktail party.
Totally unhinged.
Know what I know about public speaking? You never yell, call names or swear. Do that and you lose most of your audience and/or they won't know what you are talking about. I note that at the Democratic debate I could see so much passion from Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris but you didn't see them shouting. Great and important thoughts can be made in a calm manner but that's only if you really are putting forth an argument for change rather than a rant.
Burr went on for at least five minutes without a single Board member, particularly President Harris, calling a halt to it. There were children in the room who witnessed this and boy, I wouldn't like to be on the car ride home explaining that one. You know, because we teach children that we don't allow name-calling.
After Burr came Alex Tsimmerman who was a pain in the ass at City Council meetings and is now (sadly) a pain in the ass at School Board meetings. He started out his rant about the Board being fascists and when he took a breath, President Harris asked how his remarks related to the agenda. He called her rude and she backed right off.
So apparently, the rules of public testimony are out the window. Anything you want to say will be allowed at any length.
The times they are a'changing in SPS.
- (literally) screaming woman going way over time? Check.
- City Council gadfly jerk calling President Harris, rude? Check.
- Cute, polite kids thanking the Board and especially Superintendent Juneau for saving Licton Springs K-8? Check
- Out of nowhere parents of color having their statements translated about claiming no info at their schools about AL, wanting access for their child to AL and, amazingly enough, wanting said AL at their attendance school. Just like that.
- But also, a couple of parents pointing out that losing the cohort for HSS would actually not be equitable and hurt the students furthest from educational justice. One parent said other parents need "empowerment" to access these services, not changing the whole system.
- Librarian pointing out that some elementary schools have counselors via WSS, some via PTSA funding and some with none (usually low-income population schools).
- Chris Jackins pointing out that the IRB committee for curriculum adoptions by law is supposed to have members approved by Board. He also pointed out that several changes to Board policy, moving power from the Board to the Superintendent, would not be a good idea.
- An amazing realization, this is one of the few times I have seen the Speakers list made up of POC. Many teachers who are POC came to speak in support of Ethnic Studies.
One funny moment - Director Scott Pinkham talking about his availability but not during the US/Oregon football game this Saturday.
He also defended not changing the AL policy until after the work of the Taskforce is done. He said he wants to see ways to allow more students to access AL.
Director Rick Burke, calling in from a roadside in Baltimore, said he wanted to apologize for the C&E meeting. I tried to hear why but it was not clear. But he did say one thing - to the Board and the Superintendent - that I heard loud and clear.
We need to do more "by listening and not with authority and power."
I'll take the liberty of thinking it possibly meant "we listen to those we serve and not bully or shove down those people's throats" policies and procedures.
He said he was just trying to give the Advanced Learning Taskforce "the space to do their work" so they (the Board and Super) can build on it.
So I skipped most of the Action items and came in where an ailing CAO Diane DeBacker explained that the district had approved of creating Ethnic Studies and was working on a process to approve curriculum and had "approved a consultant or contractor" to help with the work. But I thought TCG wanted staff. If you end up being the consultant or contractor, good luck with that.
On the Research and Evaluation Plan, Director Geary said the work looked ambitious but the C&I committee had been "reassured they - R&E - can do the work." Well, that's a relief so I guess the Board's gaze can go elsewhere.
My notes reflect me counting down from 5 to 0 in anticipation of President Harris asking about the "case study" mentioned in the BAR on Garfield's Honors for All. And she did.
DeBacker referred to page 3 of the BAR under "Detracking." She said they "just started" that case study and will put the findings "in a Friday memo." Wait, what? If the Super and staff think that detracking is the way to go - and indeed have shaped the next Student Transition Plan to include detracking - how come parents don't get a report?
Harris asked if it would be a report with data or anecdotal? DeBacker said, both.
She also asked about the roll-out of MTSS and data on its efficacy.
Then there was discussion of Policy 2022 around "electronic uses of the Internet." Burke said this went thru C&I. Geary chimed in and flatly said "I won't vote for this."
There seems to be two threads of thought on the Board about this issue, specifically about cell phones in classrooms. (I'll have a separate thread on the news story on KUOW a couple of weeks back about cell phone usage in the classroom).
Hersey said education is moving into a landscape where kids will have phones and it's up to educators to teach them how to use them properly at school. (I note he has no children but I'll chime in and state that parents also have a right to chime in about cell phone use at school.)
He said there is more and more tech in classrooms and teachers will miss opportunities.
He then made the claim that every 2nd grader in his class "has a phone." Really? I think I might give his principal a ring and ask about that because I very much doubt every single 2nd grader in his class has a cell phone.
Director Mack said it was not right to expect that every single kid would have a phone AND that parents would allow its use in class. Good point. The district (and its teachers) have no right to expect a student to produce their phone and use their dataplan to do school work. And this is especially true if kids are working in a team and only one kid has a phone. I don't believe parents should have to pay for technology use without clear guidelines.
Director Burke also ask staff if the protections on computers in classrooms - via filters - would be there for phones. Staff had no answer. The district puts up walls to protect kids from accessing things they should not be reading or seeing.
Harris said she, too, "would push back on this" and "it's not ready for primetime" because of a lack of engagement with parents.
But they came to the Student Transition Plan discussion and that's where the wheels came off the bus.
Called to the podium for this discussion were head of Enrollment, Ashley Davies, and head of Student Services and Supports, Concie Pedroza. Pedroza read thru the new actions/changes for the Transition Plan.
Things like:
- moving Licton Springs K-8 to Whitman. It appears from the public testimony that some families are giving into this idea.
- new geozones for several schools
- Updating Advanced Learning (AL) assignment language and tiebreakers to reflect the fact that all schools offer AL programming and eligible students will be assigned to AL at their attendance area school.
Just with a snap of their fingers, all these changes. Oh and Spectrum is dead but no one in the district has the intellectual honesty to just say that outloud.
Then they came to the part about STEM by TAF at WMS. (Except that it wasn't in the Plan.)
Apparently there were two sheets with two different plans for this effort. President Harris said they had not been publicly available and therefore would not be discussed. Juneau earnestly asked if they couldn't just be read into the record. Even Pedroza blanched at that. Everyone was going to sit there for 15 minutes as these were read into the record? No thanks.
Director Pinkham asked about the transportation costs for Licton Springs K-8 students to the Webster Building in Ballard. He asked because it only had the costs for a year and what did that mean? Davies said year-to-year costs do change and that's why there was just one year (at $83K). Pinkham pressed on, would that mean forever transportation? Davies said students would be grandfathered in until they finished at LS K-8.
He also later asked about what happens to the LS K-8 section of the RESMS building. Would it need remodeling? Staff were vague.
Geary chimed in for the second time that night, saying she would not support this plan because of the Thornton Creek students who would go to JAMS instead of Eckstein. She said many students would be in the music program that flows from TC to Eckstein. I rarely have seen a director take such a direct stand for a single school population.
Mack said it was unclear to her if STEM by TAF at WMS could happen in the Fall of 2020. (The MOU signed by the district and TAF indicates a full plan by September 2019 and a vote in September 2019. Clearly, that didn't happen. And that MOU? It's for a 6-12 school, a fact which I missed.)
Juneau said the engagement with community was ongoing but said they decided against using Creative Approach. She did that without real acknowledgement that the teaching staff had firmly said no. (My intel is that teachers just didn't know what they were voting on - no one had elucidated the program and how it would work at WMS. Hard to vote for the unknown.)
There is a community meeting about this Saturday, October 19, 2019 from 10 a.m. - 12 p.m, at Washington Middle School to learn more about the proposed partnership with TAF.
Davies did explain that the difficulty of making a single change to the Plan "is that the Plan would live on and it could be confusing to parents."
Clearly, HCC as a cohort model is a thorn in the side to this process. But you can't change HCC just at one school (well, they did for Spectrum but I suspect it would be harder to do for HCC). But it appears that HCC is going to become a blended model but when is a good question.
Lastly, I do want to address a couple of speakers who may have changed the rules for public testimony all by themselves.
I had noted from the agenda that one speaker, Sebrena Burr, had stated her comments would be:
Racists on the School Board making decisions for "Those Furthest From Educational Justice" Lives; Amending Board Policy No. 2015, Selection and Adoption of Instructional Materials, and Board Policy No. 2020, Waiver of Basic Instructional Materials & Revisions to Board Policy No. 2022, Electronic Resources and Use of the Internet
I wrote to the Board to give them a heads up as I thought name-calling was not allowed. President Harris said the Board was asking district legal counsel about testimony and the First Amendment.
I'm confused.
Like the City Council, the Board has rules for testimony. Length of time, has to be a topic on the agenda, etc. An official public meeting can't be a free-for-all.
Also, the Board doesn't allow any district employee to be called out by name if a parent or community member is upset with that employee.
But apparently, I am wrong about all of that. Because there were two speakers who broke every rule and yet, nothing happened. I plan to keep it in mind for the future if I want to address the Board and Superintendent. Fair is fair.
Turns out Burr decided against calling anyone on the Board racist but she certainly called me a racist. Twice. (I'll just interject here that if there's anyone's opinion I don't give a rat's ass about, it's hers. She's desperately trying to remain relevant in SPS and her efforts are more than a little sad.)
But really, that was the least of it as her performance - and there's no other word for it - went (loudly) on. (And I don't want to hear about "calling a woman POC loud" - she was literally screaming.)
She talked about her meditation (or maybe medication, hard to know), how Emijah Smith's character was "lynched" and she is "our Queen." (And fyi, I did know about Smith's legal troubles but said NOTHING until KUOW and the Times did.)
She said black women built this country without pay or acknowledgement.
She went on a tear about Director Mack? at a cocktail party.
Totally unhinged.
Know what I know about public speaking? You never yell, call names or swear. Do that and you lose most of your audience and/or they won't know what you are talking about. I note that at the Democratic debate I could see so much passion from Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris but you didn't see them shouting. Great and important thoughts can be made in a calm manner but that's only if you really are putting forth an argument for change rather than a rant.
Burr went on for at least five minutes without a single Board member, particularly President Harris, calling a halt to it. There were children in the room who witnessed this and boy, I wouldn't like to be on the car ride home explaining that one. You know, because we teach children that we don't allow name-calling.
After Burr came Alex Tsimmerman who was a pain in the ass at City Council meetings and is now (sadly) a pain in the ass at School Board meetings. He started out his rant about the Board being fascists and when he took a breath, President Harris asked how his remarks related to the agenda. He called her rude and she backed right off.
So apparently, the rules of public testimony are out the window. Anything you want to say will be allowed at any length.
The times they are a'changing in SPS.
Comments
T
I agree with this comment. We know a couple of 2E students who have been in and out of the public school HCC program and several private school settings that did not work out. They have a really rough time.
Parent