First Seattle Schools Community Meeting on Well-Resourced Schools

I watched the entire meeting; it felt like a very mixed bag, viewing it online. The district stated the crowd was about 100 people; I think in terms of participants, more like 75. They started nearly 10 minutes late. It took until nearly 6:25 for the discussions to get started and the meeting ended around 7:35 pm.

Who Was There?

- Hosted by Bev Redmond who said she was the Chief of Staff (which she is but interim) but she's also the head of Public Affairs which I thought might be more her role for this event. 

- Superintendent Brent Jones

- Fred Podesta, Assistant Superintendent of Operations

- Directors Song Maritz, Rivera Smith, Sarju, Harris and Hampson (The directors were asked to stand at the beginning of the meeting but the camera only caught two. I saw the others as I watched the video so maybe the entire Board was there but I had no way to know that.)

- Dr. Rocky Torres, the head facilitator and head of Support Services

- General Public - Joanna Cullen, long-time ed advocate in the Central district, Chris Jackins, district watchdog

What Was Said?

Superintendent Jones was brief and said the district wants to "curate" what the community wants. He said "to accept the fact that across the nation compared to other school districts, Seattle is a great school district to be in." He said on consolidation that "I have no plan, really I don't." 

Oh please, that's just ludicrous to say. I would guess they have no plan on HOW they plan to announce their intentions but do they have a list of schools? Absolutely. He also brought up not closing schools this school year and said, "that might be a plan for out years." Might?

He also said they needed to figure out how to pay for "a just system" of schools. That underenrollment meant there are some schools not providing services that are needed but that they wanted all schools to "have a broad spectrum of schools and services." And fyi, he used several adjectives to talk about input from the community and one of them was "demand." Remember that for the future.

Interestingly, Ms. Redmond also brought up consolidation both in her beginning and ending remarks saying that no schools would be consolidated in the school year '23-'24. What she left out is that while the district probably would do that if they could, legally there is a process they have to follow and they couldn't have gotten it done this school year. 

She also stated there would be other ways for parents/communities to give input than just these meetings. 

She said this was the start of "a journey." She also said something curious, given the topic was well-resourced schools. She said they were there "to reimagine the school system" which I'm not sure is the same thing as just schools. Hmmm.

Dr. Torres explain the evening's plan of three topics for each table to discuss. There was a district facilitator at each table as well as a scribe. The topics were buildings and facilities, supports and resources and academics/extra curricular activities - each of those got 15 minutes of discussion. Before the discussion, participants got to write ideas/thoughts on oversized sticky notes and these were put on large whiteboards throughout the room.

The first topic - buildings and facilities - was phrased this way to participants: What are your favorite things about your child's building? 

Here's the thing about that question - is asking about "favorite things " the same thing as "what should a well-resourced building have?"

The themes that the facilitators said were in these answers were "large spacious buildings, modern facilities, new cafeteria, security and green space in neighborhoods." 

The second topic was about support services and resources. The framing question - How can we make services and/or resources at each school stronger? And again, is that the right question? Because what if schools already DON'T have the services and resources needed; you can't make something stronger that does not already exist.

The themes that facilitators said for this topic were: "serving both ends of the bell curve, mental health supports (including parent ed on student mental health), mental health specialists and nurses, streamlined access to services/resources, more information on accessing services/resources, good food for healthy minds and food insecurity. "

The last topic was academics and extra curricular programs and the question was framed as, "What kinds of programs do you value the most and why?" And I know I sound cranky but again, programs currently at schools or programs you wish were at schools?

The themes that facilitators said for this topic were: equal services in all locations, SEL, transportation for after-school activities, mutual aid for families, programs during school day not just after school and options for different learners.

Analysis

Good

- Looked like spirited and engaged conversations at the tables and attentive listening. 

- The format seemed to work well: 5 minutes for participants to think about the question and write down thoughts, then 15 minutes of discussion with facilitators later putting themes up on the whiteboards.  

Bad

- I don't really like that it took so long to get started or that they started late. 

- As previously stated, I think the framing questions could be better/stronger.

- It wasn't stated if all the post-it notes would be recorded and put into a document for all to see. 

- During the 15 minutes of discussion, they played music over the camerawork of people talking. They also had the cameras (I believe there might have been two cameras) pan the white boards. The cameras could have zoomed onto those white boards so viewers could see what participants said. I found it odd that no one thought of this (or maybe they did but didn't want to make the white board materials viewable).

Ugly

I also didn't see every director walking around listening to table discussions but rather, chatting up staff. Why come if that's what you are going to do?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Rankin and Hersey were no show? May be they had better things to do. And they are not hiding that this meeting contains no meat. As Rankin would call it, "a nothing burger"!

As for the rest of the board who attended, what did they accomplish?

Melissa says: "I also didn't see every director walking around listening to table discussions but rather, chatting up staff."

If there is no consequential argument for/against certain actions are to be facilitated, what will the recording of the room offer? I'd rather view documentations, and nothing but the relevant material/data/discussion documentations for what the district is trying to do.

Documents Over Disco



Anonymous said…

Do they have a laminated list of schools to be closed? no. Have they taken a bunch of actions that look and feel like a plan. Absolutely.

It is impossible to close schools for the 23-24 schools year. School opens in a few short weeks. Can they close schools for 24-25, absolutely.

- tell me lies
Same Old said…
I am really tired of the superintendent's insistence that SPS is a paragon of excellence and that any narrative that contradicts this belief is due to poor marketing (by the district, I guess) or the fact that we lowly parents just aren't able to grasp what a fantastic education our kids are getting. This quote is absolutely galling "He said "to accept the fact that across the nation compared to other school districts, Seattle is a great school district to be in." Yes, yes, we all just need to "accept the fact" that the constant disfunction, including confusing (or purposely obtuse, I often suspect) communication, chaos in the classrooms, falling test scores, lack of meaningful support for SPED students AND advanced learners, abject fiscal irresponsibility by the board and superintendent, school safety issues (this includes not just violence, but rampant use of racial slurs and bullying, as well as vaping and drugs), and ridiculous mission creep, is simply greatness by another name. I would have fainted in shock if you'd have told me 8 years ago that I'd be figuring out how to finance a private education for my children. Now I'm simply regretful and embarrassed that I let my belief in the power public education get in the way of procuring a positive school experience for my kids, who only get one shot at their primary education. We'll survive the next five years, private school or not, but it is nothing more than survival at SPS. A handful of good teachers can't make up for the dismal failure of SPS and no amount of slick messaging/programs filled with trendy phrases that are nearly impossible to universally define (or track or measure, a useful trick for never having to take responsibility for terrible outcomes) is going to hide that fact. I'd be more hopeful if the conversation were an honest one. "Look, we failed at mission 'x', here are the concrete lessons we learned and how we're changing the status quo..." Also, I don't care about other school districts being worse (or better, really, unless we're learning lessons from their successes). I live in Seattle. SPS needs to be great in its own right, not just less of a failure than some unnamed other districts somewhere in the whole of the U.S.
Anonymous said…

These are in person meetings so makes sense the YouTube broadcast is more record keeping than engagement.
Are you going to go to one of the in person meetings?


NW Mom
Anonymous said…
@NW Mom,

Do you remember that this district used to have a pretty thorough transcripts that are posted on its website, as recently as 5-7 years ago? That has been replaced by YouTubing. Then, that video recording has been failing sporadically at transmitting some acutely crucial documents and voices. The sound problems seem to be especially prone to occurring when Director Harris is talking.

And if I cannot go to every table simultaneously during the in-person meeting, do have no right to know what were discussed, then?

DO Disco
Anonymous said…
I was at the meeting and was overall impressed. I saw all board members there except Brandon Hersey. I think they could have started maybe a few minutes earlier, but people were still filtering in at the start. The discussion at my table was respectful and lively and I enjoyed hearing from parents with older kids (I have elementary school children) and parents from other neighborhoods. I think it would have been nice if folks could have introduced themselves so people would have known who was in the room. They had all the board members stand, but not senior staff. I was also curious about the participants. My table was all parents and our staff facilitator (one of the high school principals). But I know one other table was mostly community partners because a friend of mine was at that table. I was able to talk to several folks at the end of the meeting - two associate or assistant superintendents. Thompson, Rivera-Smith, and Song-Martiz all listened in at our table at different times. I thought people were relaxed and ready to listen. You can find fault with anything, but I enjoyed my time and felt heard. I think if your schedule allows, I would encourage everyone to attend.
Julie, SE parent said…
I was at the meeting at Garfield. Overall, it was a very positive experience. I have not felt a great deal of goodwill toward the district, but I left the meeting feeling more hopeful than before it - an unexpected surprise.

To respond to a few of the comments:
-Late start - people were trickling in and the parking lot was full so some folks had to park farther than they likely anticipated and walk. It gave time to sit and get to know the people at your table. In person, this did not feel like a burden.
-Board members present - all except Brandon Hersey. I saw Liza Rankin. Hampson and Song-Maritz both listened at my table at different times.
-I got the sense the post-it notes were going to be recorded in some way and shared out, but the process was not clear.

As a participant, the strangest thing was the lack of introductions. I think it would have been nice to have all the parents/caregivers present stand, students stand (I only saw one kid but may have missed teenagers), teachers/staff stand, community partners stand, etc - this would have given a sense of who was present in the room. It would have also been nice to have each senior district leader introduced so people who aren't super familiar could have known who was there.

My table was facilitated by a high school principal and the rest of us were there as parents (one person was also a teacher in the district). I enjoyed hearing comments from other parents and learning about their schools. I felt heard.

What made me feel hopeful is that even if this ends with the inevitable closure of some schools (the prototypical model is based on an elementary school of 400 - operating below that puts a lot of financial pressure on the district), I got the sense that they are really trying to define what the future looks like. Maybe it is naive but I have a kindergartener and 3rd grader so I am invested for the foreseeable future and need to have some hope.
Anonymous said…
DO Disco

No you do not have a “right” to each table of discussion by community members if you did not attend in person. You have the right to request and receive documents produced/maintained as the result of most district activities, you have aright to open public meetings between officials (which includes recordings) but your comment really comes off as a bit entitled: let me stay home and criticize the work of people that planned an event and drove across town to participate in person. There will be an online forum later in the series of meetings and I expect that to be much better set up to include virtual community participation.

Here’s the thing: it’s much easier to hate on any institution or individual behind the screen. I am always impressed and satisfied with the connections I make at every in-person school activity I attend (back to school night, teacher conferences etc) in spite of my default feeling about the district, which is disappointment and paranoia. The district is low and money and this all super sucks. I’m happy to see so many people attend because it’s an indication that people do care.

Be Kind
Do Disco and Be Kind, my point was that the camera repeatedly scanned the post-its on the white boards. It wouldn't have been hard just to zoom in on a couple to get a flavor of the discussion which would have included the audience more. What's the point of televising it if you don't want viewers to feel included?
Anonymous said…
@Be Kind,

I am sorry to come across as being "entitled" and therefore not being "kind" to you. But I feel that we are entitled to the facts about where the decision making factors come from.

The district is not doing this as a favor but as a duty to explain what the board & Jones are thinking and doing.

Each board member should offer a comment at the end of each session.

Again, I can't emphasize enough that We do have the right to know the district's financial situation and what the board & Jones are going to do about it. We shouldn't just be "entitled" but be angry for the mismanagement and lack of transparency.

Be as fair as possible.

DO Disco
Anonymous said…
DO Disco

These are public engagement sessions with private individuals. Panning around and filming notes and conversations families and community members are having isnt how I’d want to be treated as a participant. You can do the work and go to the meeting. It’s also true that this is one venue for receiving information, and honestly, won’t likely change the outcome of what school gets closed. I think it’s a lot to expect summary speeches to those watching from home, and would question the substance of those anyway. Please, go to a community meeting in a building to gather the info you seek.

Be Kind
Anonymous said…
Melissa, are you attending one of the in person meetings?
Are you a local (to Seattle area) blogger?

NW mom
Anonymous said…
We need to provide adequate funding at a state level to our public schools for them to be successful. Until then, SPS will only continue to fail over and over again.
Anonymous said…
@Be Kind,

Who said this was a venue for the community to receive information, instead of a so-called community engagement? And why is it too much to let the people’s inputs and discussions viewed and heard outside one table or another when folks have the time?

After all this time, it still manages to stun me that this “won’t likely change the outcome of what school gets closed.” So, is this venue a charade? So, is it ok for the district to be recording just the bodies in the room?

The board members have used their power for … accessing the district money for their trips, etc., but can suddenly become warm but unable bodies for summary speeches with any substance? That may be fine with you who is “kind” about the mismanagement with egregious ineptitude.

“You can do the work and go to the meeting. …
Please, go to a community meeting in a building to gather the info you seek.”

Please tell that to the Board President who did not attend.

Kindly, test the leadership if you want a good one.

Thank you.
DO Disco
Be Kind, is that moniker a joke? Let's examine what you said:
"These are public engagement sessions with private individuals. Panning around and filming notes and conversations families and community members are having isnt how I’d want to be treated as a participant. "

Except that is EXACTLY what happened. The camera panned all around the room; that is how I was able to see who was there and observe what was going on. The participants all knew it was being filmed. You certainly can take that up with staff if you don't like it but that's what happened.

"You can do the work and go to the meeting."

Know who would take exception to this statement? Every single person on the Board. Really, go tell them this is what you think of anyone who has an opinion on "well-resourced schools" - that if they don't show up, they aren't doing the work. Ouch.

"It’s also true that this is one venue for receiving information, and honestly, won’t likely change the outcome of what school gets closed."

Given that the meetings are NOT about closing schools and it was made pretty clear that that topic was not going to be discussed, you are right.

"I think it’s a lot to expect summary speeches to those watching from home, and would question the substance of those anyway."

Not sure what you mean here but every table did gather and put forth "themes" from their table.

"Please, go to a community meeting in a building to gather the info you seek."

You are assuming a privilege that many parents don't have. Many don't have the time or the wherewithall and you cannot fault them for that. As you said (and as was stated at the meeting), there will be other ways to give input.

I would never call out people who could not attend a meeting for not caring.

NW Mom. you don't know who I am? Let me ask you a question first. Are you new to the blog?
Anonymous said…
No I’m not new. I’m a single mom with two kids in Seattle Public Schools. I’ve been in the system for about 10 years.

I’m curious what skin you have in the game. What do you gain from criticizing and “grading” the efforts of a Washington state bureaucratic administration from another state?


Do you have a salient reason to publish and promote your opinion pieces?

NW Mom
What "skin" do I have in the game? Not sure what you mean. Am I still an SPS parent? Nope.

But neither are the Seattle residents who HAD kids in SPS nor the Seattle residents who have no children at all. Thank God they don't concern themselves over whether they have "skin in the game" because those folks - that get Seattle in second place for large US cities with the least number of kids - still vote yes for SPS levies.

What do I gain? Personally, very little. But I have worked very hard for 25+ years as a public education advocate and 11+ years writing this blog in order to bring sunlight into SPS. What I would like to gain for it right now is to see the majority of the Board to change. If my work gets voters thinking, then I'm doing well.

I make no secret that I now live in Tucson. I did shut down the blog when I moved but COVID changed that. I had the singular ability (and time) to continue to virtually attend most SPS meetings and report that out to folks. Personally, I think it was a public service.

And my important reason to be a citizen reporter is a yearning for the betterment of public education in Seattle. Most of my work IS reporting and if that were not true, I doubt very much that I would get the readership numbers that I do. (And I know it is certainly not all people who agree with me.)

I "promote" my work because I know I fill an information vacuum in Seattle. It's what bloggers do. I don't get paid (never have) and it is a ton of work.

But it's my little area of the world I'm trying to make better.
Anonymous said…
Thank god there was someone who spent 11+ years writing this blog to bring sunlight into SPS.
SPS has seen its superintendent indicted about 10 years ago. If Melissa wanted to protect the people from harm by SPS, we should gladly take it. This is such a noble public service.
If the policies that affect the SPS families really were required to be only by Seattle brains and skin, SPS should not have been listening to a consultant in Texas (AJ Crabill).
Honestly, if Malissa or someone can fill the knowledge gap between the families and the leadership on why things are the way they are, that’s a luck on our side.

Too Legit
Anonymous said…
Oh my goodness the point of the conversations is to hear from constituents about what THEY think a well resourced school is. So pipe up! The focus on camera angles or speeches from Board members is misguided. Email, call, join the online session or join a presentation IRL. There are many ways to participate.

Community
OSPIretiredprofessional said…
"The definition of a “well-resourced school” hasn’t been finalized because [SPS] officials have said they want community input during the process. But the idea is to have fully staffed schools with more resources, programs and services."

It's been expressed that maybe SPS should focus, instead of “well resourced” schools, on “well run" schools. That makes one wonder what makes a "well run" school? Well, successful schools create a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility among staff and students and with families and communities. These schools are safe, welcoming, and respectful to all. They establish teaching and learning as core values.

And what are resources in teaching and learning? Well a teaching resource can take many different forms and will mean slightly different things to every teacher, parent, and child. But the basic definition is simple: A teaching resource is a material designed to help facilitate learning and knowledge acquisition. Learning resources are those resources that the teachers use to help learners to meet the expectations for learning which are defined by the curriculum. They can also be defined as materials used by a teacher to add value to the instructions given by the teacher and to stimulate the interest of the learners present.

But why do some schools have more resources than others? The answer is simple. Because the funding provided comes from income and property taxes, the wealthier districts are able to collect more for funding. This often results in low-income families with the highest needs receiving the least resources available, the least-qualified teachers, and substandard learning facilities.

So then what should a "well resourced" school have? Actually, a lack of resources is not always the issue holding schools back; in many cases, it is the absence of leadership, expertise and the will to use resources effectively. In pushing more decision-making to the school level, SPS must align the expertise and assignments of its district staff with the needs of its schools and hold its district staff accountable for enabling schools to develop and successfully implement plans for improving student learning.

What makes a school good (and perhaps perfect) is that it uses every resource, advantage, gift, and opportunity it has to grow students and tends to see more resources, advantages, gifts, and opportunities than lower-performing schools. A good school has students who get along with and support one another towards a common goal–and they know what that goal is.
@Be Kind said…
Public meetings are just that- public. Public meetings should be transparent and I personally want to know what was discussed- at each table.

In the past, the district held work sessions and the public was invited to move freely from table to table.

Thanks for your efforts to bring transparency to an increasingly non-transparent district.
OSPIretiredprofessional said…
Districts nationwide are facing school consolidation and closure decisions due to budget cuts and enrollment declines — a trend long time coming but was temporarily staved off in some places thanks to federal pandemic aid.

Since the Covid-19 pandemic began in 2020, the state has seen enrollment decline sharply then steadily, and because state funding for schools is based on enrollment, this will bring challenges once extra Covid-19 funding dries up. At first, this will mean layoffs and cutting programs. If declining enrollment persists, communities are faced with the prospect of school closures.

For families, students, and staff, losing a beloved neighborhood school can upend livelihoods, and cause educational disruption and emotional distress. Students may have difficulty transitioning to a new school community, have to travel farther distances, or experience an increase in transit costs and time, exacerbating barriers to an equal education. These impacts are serious and can cause educational harm to students and their families.

Washington State law explicitly states that, ”Before any school closure, a school district board of directors shall adopt a policy regarding school closures which provides for citizen involvement before the school district board of directors considers the closure of any school for instructional purposes.”

Deep community engagement is the best practice for all districts, as it pays dividends beyond school closures. Increased parent and student engagement lead to better academic achievement and attendance, which in Washington State leads to more funding for schools and the decreased likelihood of future school closures.

Districts should also conduct an equity impact assessment before implementing school closures to protect Washington’s students and communities from inequality and injustice, and provide the public with the set of metrics or criteria proposed for closure decisions so that the public can provide input.

One of the biggest decisions districts will face is which schools to close. And while some of that may be geographic and predetermined by where enrollment is dropping, it‘s possible to also consider school performance and student achievement. One thing that districts do and struggle with is how much they factor in how effective the school is. Districts are going to take students and reassign them to a new school. Hopefully the effects are positive that the students are assigned to a better-performing school than the one they went to. If they do it well, districts can make sure kids are not harmed in the process.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

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

Upcoming Seattle School Board Candidate Forum