Two Seattle Schools Items of Note
The first item is that Rainier View Elementary's beleagued principal, Anitra Jones, was transferred out of the school to JSCEE. The district says it's a "temporary assignment." Just to note, she deserves to give her story about events at the school. However, given the volume and groups complaining about her, it might seem plausible that she was a less-than-effective principal.
From the Seattle Times: (bold mine)
“I’m a little relieved, and I am a little surprised,” said Hala Mana’o, the school’s PTSA president, who said the group was still hearing “heartbreaking” experiences from families connected to the school. “But I am hoping that it’s a step toward a place where we all want to go. Let’s move forward …. Let’s be curious about investigating the experiences of people.”
“I hope that at the center of all of these things is the voices and
experiences of our families and our teachers, as well as the actions of
this administrator,” he said. “That’s at the core of this … The district
has to work on the engagement with the community.”
The district announced Jones’ new assignment in an email to parents on Monday, days after it said it planned to hire an independent “reviewer” to look into the school’s practices. Some parents said the earlier announcement did not address their concerns and they questioned why Jones was still in charge while a review was underway.
“We termed it a review of the practices of the school, not necessarily an investigation,” Redmond said. “My reason for doing that is really wanting to make sure we have something, that if we needed to open an investigation it would be as a result of a review.”
In response to criticism, the district also added a new hourlong evening session on Tuesday for families to meet with district officials, including Superintendent Brent Jones, about their experiences. The new session will run from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. The two earlier sessions are scheduled from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Families will get an update on the scope of the review at the meetings.
Imagine that - the district thought two daytime meetings for parents would work for input. I guess they figured out that most parents who work, work in daytime hours. And Redmond's word salad on a review versus an investigation.
The other item is about the dismantling of the HCC program. While the Seattle Times had a responsibility to present differing views, Jason Rantz over at conservative 770 KTTTH talk radio does not.
My take? He nails it.
The following was written in a paragraph but I want to tease it out, sentence by sentence.
Outraged more by the success of white and Asian students than by the untapped potential of Black and Hispanic pupils, progressives would rather drag achievers down than elevate everyone.
These self-proclaimed saviors boast on social media about tackling inequities, oblivious to the harm they inflict.
Indeed, the program to replace the HCC, and be implemented in every classroom, ensures that gifted students will be unchallenged, struggling students will escape the attention they deserve and teachers will be overwhelmed. In other words, everyone will be equitably harmed.
The first sentence is true. The district could have done more to balance out the diversity of the program. My belief - based on decades of listening to parents - is that for highly capable programs, there are some educators/administrators/parents who absolutely hate pulling different students out of classrooms for any reason.
They don't even like Walk to Math.
Rantz continues:
Critics argue that because the HCC didn’t match the district’s diversity, the program was irredeemably racist and needed to be dismantled.
But parents, including those who are Black, Asian and Hispanic, argued against closing them down. They argued that SPS should work harder to identify minority students who are eligible for HCC, rather then kill the program entirely.
Again, good point - should every program reflect the makeup of the district? If that were true, athletic teams might look very different.
And let's recall what one former board director said about parents of color in the program:
Then-director Chandra Hampson accused Black parents supporting the HCC as being “tokenized” by white Seattle parents.
And this,
They complain that systemic racism
is failing “students of color” by giving them substandard education as
compared to white students (they never want to mention that Asians
routinely outperform whites because it doesn’t adhere to their
ideological dogma).
It has been the oddest thing to listen to, year after year, the district routinely saying the program is white and ignoring the number of Asian students in the program. Almost as if they are not children of color.
Parents with financial means will rightly pull their kids from SPS and enroll them in private education so they’ll get the academic challenges to meet their needs. It will be an environment where their gifted child isn’t purposefully held back.
Comments
-Wondering
Children are not cogs, they deserve individualized education, not the recipient of (ever declining) class average learning services. And the decision makers (and even the media) fail to grasp the intersection of SpEd and HCC, and the impact that failing to meet these kids needs will have in the gen ed classroom. As families leave, expect the students who are the most expensive to provide services to, to remain in the system.
Backfired
I believe all elementary schools should provide meaningful breakout groups with a dedicated teacher and dedicated curriculum.
I think all middle schools should provide opt-in honors classes for kids looking for additional challenges.
Based on personal experience, honors for all classes in high school or differentiating in a mixed classroom at high school is very hard to do in a meaningful fashion. These classes should be reviewed.
I say this as a parent of an hcc kid who stayed in their neighborhood school and is currently taking harder classes and getting better grades than many of their peers who opted into the HCC schools. I know it can be done well.
-Middle ground
Middle Ground, I think you are right
Both the district and the Board are now NOT interested in input per the Student Outcomes Focused Governance. SOFG not only gives the Board less oversight but also allows less public input. The idea is you elected the Board so you must like all that they do (ridiculous of course).
So when this crashes and burns - as it will - your main input job is to vote. Rankin is one of the problem directors but she's in now for another four years. But Hersey and Sarju are coming up in a November 2025 so I hope people from those districts run to challenge this nonsense.
Middle Ground, I would agree with you except for:
1) larger class sizes are going to make differentiation difficult for teachers. Add in more Special Education students and HCC students and it is even more of a challenge.
2) There are people who don't even like Walk to Math. Breakout groups would be a problem for those people.
3) We were promised a review of high school Honors for All classes and did that happen? Maybe internally but certainly not publicly.
4) Lastly, the district is publicly saying there will be no extra staffing or resources for this plan. That should tell you all you need to know about the outcome. PD is not enough.
CHG
NESea mom
-aged out