This and That, June 26, 2024

We won't get the preliminary list for school closures but there will be a presentation on criteria. That would be helpful for everyone in order to understand why any particular school might be on the list. I hope they explain if there is any weighting to specific issues like how bad is bad for a school building, will the schools with the most students furthest from educational justice get more of a pass, will the district document, say, 5-7 years of lower enrollment? 

I'm not sure how long the presentation will be - there is no attachment to the agenda - but it comes right before public testimony which could make things interesting. 

Currently there are 20 scheduled speakers with a waitlist of 9 people. The student speaker leading the testimony will be from Ballard High School; I suspect high school safety might be mentioned. Most of the topics for speakers seem to be around funding and school closures. 

The Board got busy and there are many "board time-use evaluations" on the agenda, dating back to January 2023. 

The single Board Director Question and Staff Answer is basically SOFG edu-speak. 

One item on the agenda that I have previously mentioned is the Board's move from two to just one Board meeting a month. The Seattle Times Editorial Board had something to say about that with their editorial, Seattle School Board: Listen to your community, it has lots to say. (Bold mine)

All well and good — except that this calendar represents a 50% cut in official opportunities for people to air their concerns about school business, since there are traditionally two regular meetings per month. And it happens to be coming just as the state’s biggest school district is proposing to shutter 20 elementary schools.

After years of feeling ignored by Seattle Public Schools’ governing body, many see this move as a cynical effort to narrow the primary channel for public response at a crucial moment of community concern.

School Board President Liza Rankin offers a different view. Standing up at a meeting and yelling at the board is not engagement, she says, it’s performance. Instead, the board intends to hold a second meeting each month at yet-to-be-determined locations that will rotate. These “special meetings” will be looser, with more room for “authentic dialogue” between the board and community, Rankin said.

But since there is no legal requirement that special meetings allow public comment, and since none have actually been scheduled, some skepticism is warranted — especially when 27% of Seattle’s elementary schools are facing possible closure.

So prove the skeptics wrong, Seattle School Board. Explicitly articulate the plan for special meetings with language that guarantees a real conversation.

Good - the Times

Bad - President Rankin - public testimony is all "performance." It occasionally is but most is honest language over real concerns. I'm not getting Rankin's seeming to want to antagonize the public but she seems to be doing just that. 

As well, the BAR for this item on the agenda says NOTHING about "special meetings." Will there be public comment? Will those meetings be recorded or at least have minutes?  

Did you hear? The Oklahoma Supreme Court said no to opening a religious charter school.  That's good news except for two issues.

One, the proponents of this kind of nonsense will go to SCOTUS and, as we have all seen, it's very hard to know how this will go once it gets there. It's using public dollars for religious education which would seem to fly in the face of separation of church and state.

Two, I'm in Arizona where we have the only fully enacted voucher plan in the nation. That means, EVERY family is eligible for voucher dollars, not just low-income families. It is wrecking the budget, 75% of those who signed up were already in private schools and yes, the money can be used to enroll in a religious private school. 

I can see SCOTUS saying, well, if voucher law allows that use of public dollars, why can't charter law? 

Indeed, this from the NY Times:

In previous cases in 2020 and 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that Montana and Maine could not exclude religious schools from state programs that allowed parents to use government-financed scholarship or tuition programs to send their children to private schools. In both cases, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the rulings did not require states to support religious education, but that if a state were to choose to subsidize any private schools, it could not discriminate against religious ones.

The case comes down to “two competing constitutional claims,” said Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School: “Nondiscrimination against religion, on the one hand, and the nonestablishment of religion on the other.”

But the crux of this because of how charter schools in many states have chosen to operate is this:

The answer may lie in a more philosophical question: What, exactly, is a charter school? “Is a charter school a public school?” Mr. Driver said. “Or is a charter school, in effect, a quasi private entity?”

As the majority of the justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court said, "it would create a slippery slope." 

Of course, I'm just waiting for a Satanic church or a madrassa to open in Arizona to see how well that goes. 

Does anyone get the Washington Post? They have a story on police officers/SROs in schools. From The 74:

Police officers are employed to keep their communities safe. Since the 1960s, “Officer Friendly” has assured children that the police are there to help. 

But a damning new investigation in The Washington Post reveals how cops routinely subject children to sexual abuse, with little accountability. Between 2005 and 2022, reporters identified 1,800 officers across the country who were charged with child sexual abuse.

The officers routinely spent months grooming kids, documents revealed, and many used the threat of arrest to force compliance.

Among perpetrators were school resource officers, who “have unparalleled access to children, often with very little supervision.

 I'd like to read it but I hit a paywall; just wondering if anyone could gift the article. 

 

As you may recall, the Legislature passed a "Parents Bill of Rights" measure that seemed to be putting several laws all under one umbrella. Meaning some of these "rights" already existed in other laws. 

From the AP:

King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott on Friday paused portions of the law while a lawsuit brought by civil liberties groups and others is pending, The Seattle Times reported.

The ACLU of Washington and other groups challenging the measure say it violates the state Constitution, which requires that new laws not revise or revoke old laws without explicitly saying so.

For example, state law ensures the privacy of medical records for young people authorized to receive care, including abortions, without parental consent. The new law would give parents the right to be notified before their child receives care and the ability to review school medical records, the lawsuit plaintiffs said, but it does not specifically say it amends the existing privacy law.

No, the real reason for the measure was to not allow schools to hide information about their student's mental/physical choices. In essence, to out kids who do not want to be outed to their parents. 

The law, known as Initiative 2081, went into effect on June 6. A provision of the law outlining how and when schools must respond to records requests from parents was placed on hold Friday, as well as a provision permitting a parent to access their student’s medical and mental health records.

Other provisions of the law will remain in effect for now, including a section giving parents the ability to opt their children out of assignments and other “student engagements” that include questions about topics such as morality, religion, sexuality and politics.

 That last paragraph could prove interesting given most teachers are not sending home a weekly - "what we are learning" - sheet.