More on Happenings at Washington Middle School

I confirmed yesterday that the Technology Access Foundation (TAF) has had its contract with the district ended and their program - which runs Washington Middle School - will cease. SPS said they could no longer support the model. Earlier in the year, SPS had stated that teachers hired for the program would be cut from WMS but now the entire program is leaving. TAF surpassed enrollment projections for three years. 

The district has sent a letter to families but I have not seen what they have said. It is likely that both TAF and SPS will issue some kind of public announcement. 

The Times had a scathing editorial this afternoon as they announced this turn of events. Its title is "Any way you slice it, Seattle Public Schools’ woes are self-inflicted." 

On TAF:

Consider accelerated learning. Rightly concerned about racial segregation between kids in so-called “highly capable” classrooms and everyone else, Seattle has been working to abolish these divisions. It found a creative solution — at least, at one site — by bringing the highly touted Technology Access Foundation to Washington Middle School, where most of the students are low-income children of color.

TAF worked with all of them. There were digital literacy classes, web- and game-development and STEM-focused field trips. Math scores rose by double-digits for 7th and 8th graders. Results in English were, in general, similarly impressive — even during the pandemic’s unprecedented toll on learning.

Yet now, just three years into their partnership, Seattle is showing TAF the door. “We have to operate within our means,” Associate Superintendent Concie Pedroza said at a February budget meeting.

Founded by former Microsoft executive Trish Dziko, TAF had been contributing almost $800,000 annually to pay for its own team of 10 at Washington Middle School. Those educators worked alongside Seattle teachers, seven of whom were added to the middle school to enable smaller class sizes. But next year, the extra Seattle teachers — as well as half of the school’s award-winning music program — will be pulled to cut costs.

The Times then gets down to business:

The issue here is not cuts per se; schools across the district are weathering fiscal problems. Rather, it’s vision. 

They lay the blame squarely on Superintendent Brent Jones (but stay silent on the Board). Unbelievably, Jones says SPS needs to get "better at telling their story." Well, a couple of years ago, they hired a group - Upper Left Strategies - to:

"Upper Left will develop and implement public relation campaign, in conjunction with SPS Public Affairs, to amplify one or more of the positive outcomes of School Board and Superintendent leadership, e.g.: COVID mitigation, student outcome focused governance, updating isolation policies, anti-racism, and community engagement.

Upper Left will help develop and promote content that informs the community about the function and role of School Board, critical trends in education as they pertain to Seattle and WA state, and strategies the Board and Superintendent are taking to bring best practices and innovative systems change to SPS.

The focus is on positive changes in adult behavior."
 
New communications associate superintendent and Upper Left in the last couple of years and the district STILL can't communicate? No, the problem is they want to control the messaging to the nth degree and claim transparency and community engagement.
 
Upper Left may still be in the employ of the district; I'm still waiting for more public disclosure documents.

The Times also wonders out loud about the district's hellbent vision on enlarging some elementaries. 

If there’s a logic to these decisions, and their timing, it’s difficult to decipher. Seattle Public Schools declined to make officials available to answer questions for this editorial.

In my comment at the editorial, I explained about how it is VERY likely the district will merge some small elementaries into these new larger buildings (see McGilvra going into Montlake).  

I made an offer in my comment which I will repeat here:

I'll make SPS an offer - I will pay the teacher's salary for three years. Two caveats: one, they pay benefits (skin in the game) and two, if they close Washington Middle School, the jazz program stays intact at the new school. 
 
The ball's in their court. They allow PTAs to buy teachers and I'm happy to donate the amount to WMS PTSA. 

Comments

Wondering said…
TAF had a 10 year contract with the district.

Do we know if there was a settlement agreement between SPS and TAF?
TAF had a 10-year Joint Operating Agreement that allows either party to terminate the relationship. No settlement needed because TAF was not getting paid (sans PD costs of about $25K/year for the STEMbyTAF Summer Institute) and there are no contracted services.
Outsider said…
So wait ... SPS ejected TAF to save money? That sounds implausible. It would be interesting to hear the real story.
Anonymous said…
So I’m confused as to who is offering what? Melissa, are you personally offering to pay a fulltime music teacher’s salary (without benefits, which the district will pick up) for 3 years so long as a jazz band is retained?

Curious
Curious, that's absolutely right. I will pay the teacher's salary for three years if the district can pay benefits and puts, in writing, that the program will go on (and if they close WMS, the program travels to the new school). Considering the parents and the teachers do the bulk of the work for the program, I don't think that's asking a lot from the district.

I made this offer here, in the Seattle Times, to one Board member (who did not answer) and to the Superintendent.
Anonymous said…
Melissa -- It's my understanding that PTSAs and other donors cannot fund any SPS staff positions now. That's been prohibited in the last few years. Can anyone provide more information on that policy?

Spike
Anonymous said…
On top of the regular staff allocations which are based on the student enrollment, the district paid for an extra 6.8 teachers and an extra assistant principal plus additional money for PD and fees to support TAF…so they are saving at least $1.2M next year by dropping TAF.

Numb3rs
Uh, if that's true, it was done on the downlow because that is not my impression. From John Stanford International School's PTSA website:

"64% funds school programs like language immersion staff and curriculum, classroom supplies, PE equipment, teacher expenses, and year-round staff appreciation."

McDonald's PTA pays a monthly stipend for food for host families for guest teachers. That seems the same as a salary those teachers would get and using the salary to buy their food.

From McGilvra PTA:
McGilvra PTA-funded staff and resources:

Art Teacher
Math Specialist Tutor
Reading Specialist Tutor
Sound Partners Tutor Program

Yeah, I think it's still a going thing. I know there on those on the Board who want that to stop but they have been quite busy with their new governance model.
John said…
It's not true...yet. But the idiots in "Take Back PTSA" are fighting for it along with the equity heads on the PTSA board. Unfair of those lousy PTSAs to put back the librarians, art teachers, music teachers, etc...SPS is cutting. Inequitable. We should just let our kids do worse to close gaps.

It is obscene really, but let "take back" and SPS have its way and the PTSAs will become fundraisers for equity, transferring most of their money to tier 1-2 schools. Of course, no one will donate for that so PTSAs will just mostly die.

Looking to move to private soon. The cult of equity will drive SPS into the ground. Even the targeted equity recipients want academic excellence for their kids, not educrat jobs and gobbeldygook.
Anonymous said…
WMS parents were told by our principle that we would not be allowed to pass the hat and pay for an FTE to keep our band director. I thought this seemed shady since I've heard from friends at other schools that their PTAs are still funding FTE. It all perpetuates the inequities, in any case.

Frustrated WMS Parent
Frustrated WMS parent, well, your principal is just wrong. I easily found three schools doing it and I have no doubt there are many more.

I understand your issue about inequities. But I listened to the testimony from WMS students and parents at the last Board meeting. I see that many steps have been taken to make the jazz band program more inclusive and accessible. Because of that, I believe the program needs to be saved because it benefits so many kids across the spectrum.
Budgets said…

I would not think that most schools would operate in an environment where a person - or a group of people - would come to the principal and say "we want to staff this one teacher and here is the money." Principals are unlikely to cede that power to make decisions about scheduling/staffing and programs, and anyway the contract dictates how seniority and displacement works in the public schools. I think when PTSAs are paying for any FTE, it is because the school administrators come asking for that support.
Budget, that could be true; no one has ever openly explained how or why the district allows outside groups to pay for staff. Good point on seniority. All I know is that it’s nuts for the district to let decades of effort dissolve away. They have tons of consultants and I don’t see that on the chopping block.
Anonymous said…
The drama about the Jazz teacher at Washington Middle School is what I don't like about the school system in general. As far as I can tell, Washington isn't losing a jazz teacher. They're losing a specialist - either because ratios have gone up or enrollment has gone down or because the WSS is screwed up AND then because of how the principal/BLT gets to arrange their staffing/how SEA contract dictates who's first to go. There is a REAL problem here, but it's how things are budgeted and hidden. So SPS can have us all fight against each other and for a Jazz teacher and against or for PTA funding, but the actual issue is obscured and will happen over and over and over again.

In this case if you dig through the planning budget, it looks like Washington has lost students. At a certain point, losing students has to translate into losing teachers. The bigger thing that looks like an issue is the adjusted AAFTE. This is the bullshit WSS thing that people may not realize is a huge part of what makes class sizes larger than ratio. Every kid with an IEP counts as less than a full kid for classroom purposes, even resource, if they take the fake "study skills class" they lose 20% of that kid for Gen Ed teaching time, but the kid only is in Special Ed 16% of their day. The difference between Washington's adjusted AAFTE and straight AAFTE is HIGH - 472.6 vs 564. That's a big penalty.

Per the budget book:
The factors used to estimate contact time with teachers in specialized programs are:
- 40% Transitional Bilingual (TBIP/ML) program
- 20% Special Ed Resource program
- 60% Special Ed Extended Resource
- 60% Special Ed Focus program
- 80% Special Ed Distinct program
- 80% Special Ed Medically Fragile program
- 60% Special Ed Deaf/Hard of Hearing program
- 60% Special Ed Transition program

NE Parent2
Anonymous said…
@Budgets

Principals who want or need to staff a position can bypass the silly no-PTA-funds rule by having the PTSA provide grants for non-staffing budget items, freeing up money in the school budget to fund the staff position "itself." That whole conversation about PTA funding is so inane.

A reminder for everyone is that PTA grants of any kind represent less than 1% of the total $1.2 billion district budget. Despite this, PTA funding takes up almost al the air in the room during any school funding conversation when we are facing a $130 million shortfall.

What should be happening is every conversation should start and stop with an admonition for parents: E-mail your 3 state legislators today about education funding. And keep e-mailing them once or twice a week.

There is no fix to the school funding problem that doesn't need the legislature to act. Remember: the federal COVID money was meant to add onto total education funding, but the legislature lowered the state contribution so there was no actual increase. Add onto this the artificial special education cap, you have a recipe for financial ruin. Many people are not understanding this. Local media are not covering it properly. (Also: capital funds can't be used in other categories, so local media leads the public to think schools have this capital money we would redirect, but we cannot. KIRO7, Seattle Times, Axios, The Stranger, and more, are all guilty of this.)

With declining enrollment, SPS should see around a $30-60 million drop in funding, absolutely, but our shortfall is actually over $130 million. That is totally the fault of the state legislature, which is the only group of people who can fix it. SPS is not alone. Local districts from Edmonds, Shoreline, Bellevue, to Eastern Washington are all feeling the effects. That's what a systemic funding problem looks like.

Every bit of time parents are distracted from lobbying their legislators on education funding is harmful to children. Contact them today and ignore, for now, the BS discourse trying to focus your attention on other issues.

Ample Funding
Anonymous said…
Operating policy

Rereading the board's policy on TAF and Washington Middle School, the ending of TAF would mean they would need to spin back up the "Highly Capable Services & Advanced Learning Programs" for the school.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?

Upcoming Seattle School Board Candidate Forum