Lengthy Presentation on Seattle Schools' Direction Provides

 I just slogged through nearly three hours of a presentation around the next goals for Seattle Schools. The meeting was held on October 23rd.  I am very interested in parents' feedback on some of what was said. Agenda here.

The featured speaker was the Executive Director of the Council of Great City Schools, Dr. Ray Hart. He and his staff went through very deep data on how different groups of students are doing in SPS. There were a couple of comparisons to other districts slides that included the entire state of Washington, Portland and San Francisco. While I kind of get why those were chosen, I would have liked to see a state that has great funding for K-12 and how they are doing vis a vis Seattle. 

Topline Takeaways

- I always feel that Superintendent Brent Jones truly cares about outcomes for all students. I also get that vibe from most of the senior staff. However, year after year, President Liza Rankin continues to want to drill down to support a certain group of students. I cannot tell you the last time that she had a honest statement of support for ALL SPS students.

She said "Which students are in need of our - the most attention and resources - to achieve our goals?

Of course I join SPS in their goal of uplifting the students who have the greatest challenges; that is the right thing to do. But the district exists for the public good and every student (and their grown-ups) should feel wanted and welcomed in SPS. I would add that to the list of reasons of why some parents are walking away from the district. Not only will there be fewer options and choices, you get the distinct feeling that some parents are considered a problem by members of the School Board. 

- I cannot tell you why but in Dr. Hart's presentation from the CGCS, three times it was stated that for school year 2023-2024 the enrollment was 54,000. That's not even CLOSE to what it was and we all know that. Not a single person said anything. When you see that kind of thing slide by, you lose faith in the people making decisions. 

- There are many slides in Hart's presentation that drill down on how groups of students are doing. One item of interest is how the percentage of Latino students has overtaken the number of Black students - 15.4% to 14.9%. 

One hugely important data point in Hart's slides, FRL Students by Race. There was a count of each minority and then the percent that represented in the district. BUT, the third column showed the percent from within each Race/Ethnic Group. For example, Asian FRL is 4.6% of SPS population but within their own group that's 37.5%. For Black students, it's 12.0% of the population but within their own group - 80.2%. A shocking stat to see. Only homeless students' stat was worse - 97.8%. 

- Hart also had a slide about preschoolers' vocabulary and that using larger words around them in a teaching manner will expand that vocabulary. 

- There was also an eye-opening slide, Absences by Grade Level, 2023-2024. As students get into the middle grades, you see a steady climb upward of absences and it grows even larger when they get into high school. The slide says by senior year, 43.9% of students have 20+ absences. 

- What was off-putting reading is how many times a double negative was used to express an idea in the Board guardrails. For example:

The superintendent will not allow 2nd graders to not be proficient in literacy and math. 

Not only confusing but that's just not a plausible way of thinking. Because if one 2nd grader isn't proficient, then the superintendent "allowed" it and therefore, should be held accountable?

So then here's the Superintendent's interpretation:

Superintendent’s Alternative: The superintendent will not allow elementary school teachers to not have access to training and support in delivering effective Tier 1 instruction, acceleration, and intervention in literacy and mathematics.

Clunky writing and it is repeated several times. I'll note that it is VERY much SOFG wording. 

- Director Michelle Sarju has this habit of wandering around during work sessions, sometimes adding something off mic. This, of course, is not really helpful to viewers but that's what she does. She also almost never has questions but makes pronouncements on the state of things. She said a lot and I'll try to put forth as much as possible.

She first said she didn't understand what Rankin was saying in Rankin's remarks right before hers. She said, "I'm not stupid but race and economics has always gone together and that's because that's how the system was designed." (This is in reference to Dr. Hart's messaging on students in poverty.) She said, "We can't solve poverty but we take kids and say we want to do right by them and we are not. Everything needs to be aligned with that, especially for Black boys."

She then said next year "when it's the first Tuesday in November and I hand the baton"to someone else. It appears that Director Sarju will not be running to keep her seat next November. 

She continued on saying that the district has enough data and "we need to get to work." She went on a bit of a rant about Seattle being "so academic and they love the degrees and the data and talking and pondering and discussing." She's not really wrong but how was this helpful, I have to wonder.

- Hart talked about SPS "pursuing strategies that change adult behavior" - this is a hallmark of the Student Focused Outcome Governance that CGCS is selling. Jones said that the district is trying to align staff with SFOG "to ensure our work fully aligns and cascades through the organization." 

Hart also said the Board should choose between 1-5 goals but no more than 5.

- Discussion occurred around what the Board gave to staff as the goals and then the "interpretation" by senior staff. 

One issue is whether to focus on second grade versus third grade.  Staff wants second grade as using the MAP assessment, they can get clear data on LA and math. Staff said that MAP is "strongly predictive" of how students do on the SBA the next year. 

However Rankin pushed back and said she felt strongly that knowing that kids are reading by the end of 2nd grade and that then in third grade, kids are reading to learn. Director Joe Mizrahi said he liked hearing this discussion but wasn't sure which would be better. 

- Another area was how the graduation and beyond requirement might evolve into something even bigger. 

Caleb Perkins, head of CTE, said that there were too many students graduating with waivers and/or needing remediation classes in college. Their idea is that seniors will be "life ready"with a "personalize path development." 

Board’s Draft Goal: “The percentage of graduates who have successfully created and implemented a personalized educational/career path that aligns with their interests/goals will increase from baseline in 2025 through 2030."

Superintendent’s Alternative: (Life Ready “Diploma Plus” Pathway Development)

An alternative Life Ready “Diploma “Plus” pathway development goal is offered which raises the bar for readiness by articulating personalized pathways with higher predictiveness of success after high school – whether students enroll in a 2-year or 4-year college, a vocational training or certification program, or pursue another opportunity consistent with their goals.

(Four Categories: Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM); Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences; Career & Technical Education, Dual Language)

I thought this was an interesting idea to help students focus on the future. However, Rankin thought it might seem like SPS was tracking students. Topp said she was a bit confused by the idea but she said it was more a "structural" issue. She said it was more that students need to leave SPS feeling ready for next steps (even if they didn't have a clear idea yet which is often true for 18-year olds). She also said that "education is access to opportunity." 

- Fun fact that I did not know - SPS tests PreK students in the spring. 

- Talking to other public education advocates, we feel it unlikely that Director Brandon Hersey will run either. By next November he will have served six year (2 appointed and 4 elected). Serving another 4 years would bring him to 10 years - a decade - on the Board. It's a long grind and I think he will not run. 

Next November could be quite interesting.