Geary Pushing Change in SAP...for Washington Middle School

Some directors, on their way out the door when they don't run again, try for a big flourish action. Usually, it's something like renaming a school in honor of a community member.

Director Jill Geary is doing something else that I don't even think is legal under Board policy, no less passing the sniff test.
She has put forth an amendment for this week's Board meeting to end the HCC cohort model at Washington Middle School to support the STEM at TAF initiative as part of the approved of the Student Assignment Transition Plan for 2020-2021. She is the sole director on the amendment which is somewhat unusual as most of the time, when directors put forth amendments, there are two or more directors on them.

Her amendment:

This amendment adds additional language to the Student Assignment Transition Plan for 2020-21 stating that if a Joint Operating Agreement between the Technology Access Foundation (“TAF”) and the District has been executed to implement the TAF model at Washington Middle School beginning in the 2020-21 school year, then beginning in fall 2020 6th grade students assigned to Washington Middle School who had been receiving HC services in the cohort model in 5th grade will continue receiving HC services in a blended model.

Now, of course, if Juneau enacts all the changes in the SAP, this amendment might be a moot point as, by Fall 2020,  all HCC students will be "receiving HC services in a blended model." 

However, the STEM by TAF agreement has not been approved by the Board.  How can there be language in the SAP about something that isn't a done deal?  

This is just wrong.

It's wrong because there has been no public discussion changing AL except perhaps at this blog.

It's wrong because the Board has to approve SAP changes and yet the district is claiming something - that AL services will be available at all schools - when there is zero evidence of a plan to do that.

To claim the district can - with any type of fidelity - provide AL services at 100 schools, in less than a year and with what resources?, is just wrong.  It is window-dressing of the highest order.*

I again state - I am for STEM by TAF and they probably can support all learners in their model.  But there is a process for the Superintendent and staff to follow and it does not appear that is happening.
Her amendment claims:

TAF would implement the STEMbyTAF educational model, which would contribute to the District’s strategic plan priority to “support students of color who are furthest from educational justice.”

The amendment also says:

Washington Middle School’s population is 67% nonwhite, which is above the middle school district average for a comprehensive middle school

Except that both Mercer Middle School and Aki Kurose have higher numbers of students of color. Why Washington if you are trying to reach as many of those kids as possible? Hmmm.

As well, we see a dollar figure on the amount that TAF will be investing - $250,000. 

There is a letter petition to object to this amendment.

Let's review where the district sits in this time and place.

- The Superintendent is moving quickly on ending the HCC cohort by Fall 2020.

- However, the Advanced Learning Task Force hasn't even issued their recommendations.  As well, there seems to be unhappiness among members of the ALTF to the point where a "healing circle" has been proposed.

- The minutes from the Operations Committee have NOT been updated since August which makes it difficult to figure out if the TAF issues has been vetted by that committee.

- In the Action Item list on the agenda is the Student Assignment Transition Plan for 2020-2021.
- Current Board Policy 2190 explicitly says: "A self-contained cohort option is available in grades 1-8."  I'm not sure that the Board can vote to override certain sections of Board policy.

- The district seems to be justifying its placement of TAF in WMS, saying it is a "program." However, program placement is the Board's purview and requires board approval.

- I believe in the past staff has said - and I think the Board agrees - that the student assignment plan does function as policy.


Here are the proposed changes:

The provisions of this action are to update information in the Student Assignment Transition Plan. The Transition Plan for 2020-21 continues most of the assignment rules in effect during 2019-20. Some highlights and changes are:

• Changing the location of Licton Springs K-8 to the Whitman Service area and updating the Licton Springs GeoZone to extend to the west boundary of the district;
  
• Expansion of GeoZones for Cleveland HS, Cedar Park ES, South Shore PK-8, Hazel Wolf K-8, Orca K-8, Salmon Bay K-8, Stem K-8, and Thornton Creek ES to align GeoZones with walk zones; 
• Increase of the native/heritage set aside to 20% from 15% for John Stanford (JSIS) and McDonald International Schools; and
•  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.

So, Licton Springs K-8 to Whitman service area is a move that has barely been discussed and yet, it's a done deal.  I have heard rumblings that Juneau will be coming after Option Schools next so anyone at one of those, don't get too comfortable. 

What is interesting is the BAR has the language about taking HCC out of Washington Middle School (or rather, not having a cohort model) crossed out.  That is likely because of Director Geary's amendment.

The red-lined version also still states - 

Assignment to AL in grades 1-5 depends on space available; tiebreakers apply during Open Enrollment. 

when they are speaking of Spectrum. They crossed out Spectrum as a program but they did not cross out that language about "space available." Page 38.  Is this just an error or will they limit the number of AL students served in any given school?

It appears that the Superintendent is pushing the envelope about what can be done and when. The Board should refuse to play along. The Superintendent cannot be the sole arbiter about what is a done deal.

(I note that if you check the red-lined SAP that is attached to the BAR, look at pages 28-29.  Staff had all kinds of other ideas which got kicked out like RBHS becoming the SE pathway for international/dual language immersion as well as one at Lincoln High, updating Sped language on services and placement and clarifying that students in a K-5 can enroll in a K-8.)

* Also of interest, Geary has another sole amendment, this one attached to Board policy 2022 on the use of electronic devices in schools.  This was not introduced at any committee.

(The new title of the policy is "Digital Resources and use of the Internet."

Her amendment:

The revisions to Policy 2022 include a prohibition on use of personal electronic devices that is not uniformly supported throughout the district, nor by different communities. However, it is recognized that policies providing direction on the proper use (or not) within schools and classrooms would be of benefit to students and teachers alike. Therefore, this amendment requires each school building to engage in the conversations and outreach necessary to develop a policy that will maximize educational benefit, minimize disruption to the learning environment, and make provisions for emergencies and special needs.

From the red-lined version of the policy:

Use ofEvery school building shall develop a policy governing the appropriate use of student personal electronic devices during school hours is prohibited in all schools grades K-8,. Policies shall address maximizing educational benefit and permitted in high school only on a limited basis as provided by individual

schoolminimizing distraction in the learning environment; and classroom policies. make allowances for emergencies or special needs. Students having an IEP, 504 Plan, or Individual Health Care Plan (IHP) that includes specific accommodations for assistive technology may use a PED during the school day following the process outlined in the student’s IEP, 504 Plan, or IHP. 

Students shall not be required to own or use a non-district supplied PED for any lessons or instruction. Detailed guidance on PEDs shall be provided in Superintendent Procedure.

The Districtdistrict acknowledges the need for digital and online policies that are dynamic and responsive to diverse community standards and student learning outcomes. The Districtdistrict shall annually review its policies and procedures on electronicdigital resources, Internet safety, digital citizenship, and media literacy. The Districtdistrict authorizes the Superintendent to develop further procedures and guidelines.

This is interesting because it ties into Geary's absolute belief about each school in this district being able to make their own individual decisions on cell phone use.

I find that a bit crazy-town because:

1) not all principals are good at their jobs,
2) what if teachers and principal disagree - is each teacher in control of their classroom? and
3) the use of cell phones in classrooms without clear notice to parents about when, how and why.
4) Also about parents, if cell phones are used for classroom teaching, the school has to  recognize that not all students have a cell phone nor do parents whose child has a cell phone have to approve of their child's phone to be used in class.

 I mean, if your child is working in a group where they are sharing a cell phone and one member of the group, who is not your kid, drops the phone and it breaks, is the district going to pay for a new phone?