Today on Twitter
Don't ask me to call it "X."
Here's what I tweeted:
Without notice nor explanation, Seattle Schools has banned international school-based travel for students. That means the 20+ year Hands for a Bridge program that includes travel to South Africa and Northern Ireland at Roosevelt High is school-bound.
It means the 49-year Nathan Hale High’s sister school in Japan exchange is gone. I know both programs raised money so that ANY student could make their trip. Programs like these are how you create world citizens and teach world history.
A newly-passed school board “fiscal policy” appears to want to dismantle PTA giving to schools on the basis of equity issues. (But PTAs fund about 23 FTE in schools so I think SPS DOES like getting those dollars). But to do this without public notice is shameful.
And I tweeted to the Times, The Stranger, and KUOW as well as Director Song who is the only director that I know of with a Twitter account.
One comment I receive at Twitter said this:
Our kids were looking forward to their Japanese trip. I only learned it was not going to happen next year from reading your blog Melissa, and confirmed with our teacher.
Made my blood boil.
The Board may be backing away from oversight but they should DEMAND that the district be transparent and clear and EARLY with any decisions that directly affect students.
One other comment was this:
Even domestic travel has become almost impossible, just too many rules and district requirements and year-ahead deadlines. Generally the field trip problem now is not money but arduous and ridiculous districts rules. This is just an extension of that.
Concie Pedroza started all this, basically did not like field trips of any kind because they are “too dangerous,” and I’m disappointed that her leaving has not changed district direction on this at all. These are life changing opportunities we are denying kids, for no reason.
And I had one guy say that parents should just organize on their own and why is the district paying for this? That's a laugh. The district pays near zero for any of this. It's parents/boosters/fundraising and, if it were not "a school trip," then you'd see fewer kids be able to afford to go.
Comments
Then, your put on the enviousness of Seattle progressives. How dare a kid get something another kid doesn't get?
Then, there's the issue of sleeping arrangements in the new gender and sexuality culture.
Plus, they have to let kids with violence and insubordination problems go.
This is a problem with the culture of our city. The district's policy is the symptom.
SP
1) In our litigious society, the district will face a seven-figure lawsuit whenever anything goes wrong, and public opinion always flows against the district. They probably figure it's just too expensive -- whatever benefits students may get from such trips does not justify the cost to the district.
2) SPS administrators get reamed out in the press whenever something goes wrong. There's an old saying: those who can, do. Those who can't get jobs at KUOW and pile on those trying to do the job whenever they screw up. SPS administrators can't totally be blamed for refusing the risk they would face of salted earth reputational damage from allowing field trips.
3) (compounding the above by an order of magnitude) The most effective, common sense way to reduce liability and reputational risk would be to exclude students from field trips who are high-risk based on behavioral history or known mental health conditions. In ancient times, that would have been automatic. But now in our more enlightened times, that's not allowed. Trips are required to include students who are not suitable for trips, resulting in huge extra expense and long lead times to work out all the required management strategies, procedures, and personnel.
In math, you can't divide by zero, but in SPS, the lowest common denominator tends to be zero. Nothing for anyone is equity. Don't get your hopes up for any change.
-Hope
Can you please articulate the harm that an international program has, one that is inclusive and funds kids that would not otherwise travel? Can we please get a little more nuanced about our program choices beyond “they’re not the same” or “it isn’t universal.” The whole point of public schools is that they’re used and enjoyed by a vast range of students and families. Part of the upward mobility picture is that those with less have a view to those with more and those with more have a larger world view than the privileged. Students learn from each other, and we model integration.
That’s nice your kids have travel opportunities. Nobody is happy with an education devoid of novelty - art, music, cultures.
Think Bigger
Maybe stop requiring a foreign language if there’s not a chance a student will ever use it. That’s a big disconnect.
Bonjour
I would bet that international travel was among the things that got axed to get coverage from a new provider.
- Light Bulb
The district will most probably have to hire an individual (or two) to oversee PTA dollars which means more dollars out of the classroom.
And, as another person pointed out, attendance is way down, but, sure, focus on PTA dollars.
This makes me curious about how SPS' policies interact with its liability insurance around student safety and progressive hiring policies. Those can result in costly suits.
Please tell us more.
SP
"We have lost sight of the primary purpose of public schools- to be a great equalizer and leveler of society."
Is it? I have asked the question, "what is basic education?" and in today's US world, I'm not sure your statement would resonate with many people. But the challenge is figuring out what will create good citizens and good workers. Your statement might play into that education.
I do agree with others that, for better or worse, parents want things that other countries don't accommodate (like sports). I'm not sure how arts is not given the highest priority given dear many parents hold it.
I see the points about insurance for international trips and would guess that is the biggest issue.
But I did not write this post to be pro or con on international travel; I wrote it because this district is not being clear and transparent with parents and that is terribly worrying.
More on this please. Much more.
I have more mixed feelings about PTAs funding salaries. On the one hand, the staff funded by my kid's school hardly seem like extravagances. Things like a librarian in the school more than twice a week, recess supervisors so the teachers can actually take their contractually guaranteed breaks, an instrumental music program...every school should have these! The fact that our tax money is insufficient to pay for these is a problem. PTA funding is a band-aid over that problem, but only for the schools in richer neighborhoods. Maybe phasing that out would cause enough pain at the richer schools to put pressure on our legislature to fund our schools properly so parents don't have to do so directly, but intentionally reducing services at schools in the short run in an attempt to increase them in the long run doesn't sit great with me. Would that push a bunch of families who can afford private school out and exacerbate SPS's funding problems? Quite possibly!
- Eric
I'm okay with PTAs funding counseling positions because kids need help, and there is zero chance, IMO, of the district actually not going bankrupt.
Snake-alicious
Lincoln parent