tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post6033065381200648828..comments2024-03-29T02:41:52.718-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: The Good and the Bad of Education ReformMelissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-48840442216492111932010-04-18T07:29:38.836-07:002010-04-18T07:29:38.836-07:00The Seattle Times, at least the online version, ha...<b>The Seattle Times, at least the online version, has an interesting review of the new Diane Ravitch book, <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/books/2011607597_br18ravitch.html?syndication=rss" rel="nofollow">The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education</a>. Here's an interesting quote:</b><br /><br /><i>NCLB's damage has been compounded, Ravitch argues, by the well-meaning but ultimately misguided efforts of a new group of powerful private foundations, including the Seattle-based Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This "Billionaire Boys Club," she writes, has overstepped traditional foundation boundaries.<br /><br />"... Never in the history of the United States was there a foundation as rich and powerful as the Gates Foundation. Never was there one that sought to steer state and national policy in education. And never before was there a foundation that gave grants to almost every major think tank and advocacy group in the field of education, leaving almost no one willing to criticize its vast power and unchecked influence."<br /><br />The author believes that though the Gates Foundation's intentions have been good, its size, resources and influence have dampened robust debate on education changes.<br /><br />To its credit, the Gates Foundation recognized that its $2 billion foray into restructuring high schools, including the breakup and reconstitution of Mountlake Terrace High School, was largely unsuccessful, and recently changed course.<br /><br />But Ravitch finds the new direction — "the proliferation of charter schools" and "the issue of teacher effectiveness" measured by student test performance — equally worrisome. Also alarming to her is that the Obama administration's new "Race to the Top" seems to advocate that same risky course.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/books/2011607597_br18ravitch.html?syndication=rss" rel="nofollow"> Book Review</a>andrewrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804062087742405743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-60493852416056370412010-04-16T12:37:07.688-07:002010-04-16T12:37:07.688-07:00The good and bad of the proposed revisions to ESEA...The good and bad of the proposed revisions to ESEA (a.k.a. NCLB):<br /><br />http://www.epi.org/publications/<br />entry/<br />a_blueprint_that_needs_more_work/<br /><br />This March 27 2010 report is a critique of Obama's proposed revisions to ESEA, which is due to re=enactment this year.<br /><br />Some issues addressed in this brief report:<br />-narrowing of curriculum<br />-high stakes testing<br />-need for social services, etc.<br />-contradiction of calling for highly qualified teachers and for teach-for-america teachers in high poverty schools<br />-inherent unfairness of various provisions<br />-unrealistic objectives<br /><br />Here is a sample quote, and which speaks to the point I have been harping on - which is that low income and minority students are most harmed by education reform:<br /><br /><br />"The result of all this is that schools serving a large proportion of minority students will behave under the Blueprint very similarly to how they behaved under NCLB. If the Administration succeeds in raising the proficiency cut points (now called “college and career ready” standards), even more students will be ignored because they are too far below the passing point to matter.<br /><br />"Schools with largely middle class populations will effectively be exempt. ... only poor and minority communities will suffer the punitive hammer of federal policy."Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-63623629197958630162010-04-16T12:06:15.452-07:002010-04-16T12:06:15.452-07:00Some informative links for Title 1:
1. http://www...Some informative links for Title 1:<br /><br />1. http://www.seattleschools.org/<br />area/budget/goldbook/10/sec2.pdf. <br /><br />This SPS document has a full accounting of how the Title-1 funds can and cannot be used: see pages 11 and following.<br /><br />2. http://www.k12.wa.us/<br />TitleI/SchoolwideModel/<br />ComparisonViewSchlwideTargtdAsstModels.pdf<br /><br />3.http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/<br />pubdocs/WhatisAYP.doc<br /><br />a) explains which schools are subject to the restructuring provisions (only Title 1 schools)<br /><br />b) describes the five steps of school improvement, and the sanctions that must be applied to schools at each step.<br /><br />c) explains what restructuring is, and when districts must restructure.<br /><br />Where to get information or assistance regarding Seattle’s Title I funds <br /><br />School Improvement (SI) Department <br /><br />Scott Whitbeck, Director <br /><br />sdwhitbeck@seattleschools.org <br /><br />206-252-0105 <br /><br />Sara Liberty-Laylin, Manager <br /><br />sliberty@seattleschools.org <br /><br />206-252-0192 <br /><br />Title I/LAP Budget Analyst <br /><br />Sim Henderson <br /><br />shenderson@seattleschools.org <br /><br />206-252-0223Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-44754617212055344532010-04-16T11:42:43.104-07:002010-04-16T11:42:43.104-07:00SPS mom, you wrote - "Joan NE - It's my u...SPS mom, you wrote - "Joan NE - It's my understanding that <br />[1] only schools accepting Title I money are subject to the sanctions of not achieving AYP. <br />[2] Schools at 75% FRL have to accept Title I funds, but those below that threshold accept it at the discretion of the District."<br /><br />If [1] is true, then this exacerbates the disparate harm of Title-1, doesn't it? By disparate harm I mean that the Title 1 restructuring requirements, if they in fact, statistically speaking, do more harm than good to the children affected by the restructuring, cause disproporionate harm to minority and low income students.<br /><br />To the best of my knowledge, niether of your statements are exactly correct. <br /><br />To the best of my knowledge,the law says that, if the District CHOOSES to give funds to a school with >=75% FR, the funds MUST be used for a school wide program. <br /><br />As best I can tell, however, the law does NOT REQUIRE the District to give Title-1 money to every with >=75% FR: <br /><br />SPS has some high schools and middle schools that meet this threshold. Nevertheless, SPS has decided that only a subset of Title-1 qualified elementary schools will receive Title-1 monies.<br /><br />As to whether a school can decide to forgo the Title-1 monies that the District may offer it, I do not know. I will write to the School Improvement officer at SPS to get an experts opinion on these questions.<br /><br />For Schools with FRL% betwen 40% and 75%, and to which the District has decided to give Title-1 monies, the District can decide whether the school has a "blended program" or uses the funds only for Targetted Assistance. In a blended program, the school uses part of the funds for Targetted Assistance, and part of the funds for a school-wide program.<br /><br />I will write to an expert to get clarity on the points of uncertainty.<br /><br />If you are right that under NCLB the restructuring sanctions apply only to schools (i.e, a school that receives Title-1 funds), well, thanks to the New Performance Mgt policy, passed March 17 6-1 by the Board, the Superintendent now has the right to choose to "restructure" any school for failing to make AYP for THREE years, and this is regardless of Title-1 status.<br /><br />NCLB gives 5 years, but the PERF. MGT POLICY gives 3 years.<br /><br />The perf. mgt. policy was not passed until one month ago, but already AS#1 and Pathfinder are in year TWO of "performance management." <br /><br />These two historically alternative schools will eligible, at the Superintendent's discretion, for restructuring in Fall 2011, unless <br /><br />A) these schools make AYP this year and next year, <br /><br />OR<br /><br />B) the schools mount a successful protest against having been sugjected to new perf. mgt. policy almost TWO YEARS before the policy was adopted! If the protest is successful, then AS#1 and Pathfinder will be saved for at least two more years from restructuring. <br /><br />It seems to me that these two schools could also protest the application of the new perf. mgt. policy to their schools on the grounds that Policy C54 protects them from being subjected to the new perf. management policy.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-31849812683735947892010-04-16T10:26:33.805-07:002010-04-16T10:26:33.805-07:00More about directory information: The form at thi...More about directory information: The form at this web site: http://www.seattleschools.org/area/main/forms/ferpahs.pdf says the District can release parent's directory information to anyone, unless the parent has actively requested that information NOT be released.<br /><br />Our PTSA didn't know that. it would have saved them a lot of trouble making a directory to have the information straight from the district in computer-readable form.<br /><br />I still think it's poor judgment to release that information to political groups.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16260807460417787614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-90715831809087879962010-04-16T10:02:53.381-07:002010-04-16T10:02:53.381-07:00Apologies for the multiple posting:
I got a notic...Apologies for the multiple posting:<br /><br />I got a notice in my email from C.E.A.S.E. about this meeting below: Has anyone else heard about it?<br /><br />The Seattle Education Association (the local teacher’s union) presents:<br />Education Reform:<br />Knowledge is Power!<br />A Forum<br />Saturday, April 24th @ 1:30 p.m.<br />St. Marks Cathedral<br />1245 10th Ave E.<br />Seattle, Wa 98102 <br /><br />Almost everyone agrees that our schools must be reformed. The question is who we should be listening to as the experts: the corporations and foundations or the educators, parents, and students? <br /><br />Come hear about these critical issues impacting public education and be part of the dialogue around real reform that works for students and staff alike.<br /><br />Speakers and Topics<br />Mary Lindquist, President WEA- SB 6696<br />Olga Addae, President SEA- SIG Schools, RTTT, Performance Management<br />Juanita Doyon, Mother’s Against the WASL- High stakes testing <br />Jessie Hagopian, RIF’d Seattle Teacher- Seniority and Merit PaySolvayGirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12709893209963350066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-55977628281728218152010-04-16T09:32:52.018-07:002010-04-16T09:32:52.018-07:00Yes, but I don't necessarily believe everythin...Yes, but I don't necessarily believe everything the so-called coalition web site says. Trying to be charitable to the school district, maybe some parents did sign some waiver and only those names and numbers were given out. It would give a skewed sample, but skewed sample results don't seem like they'd be a big problem for the Our Schools Coalition. Or maybe they lied, as a private group there's no law against them lying.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16260807460417787614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-4041613603146100972010-04-16T06:44:52.933-07:002010-04-16T06:44:52.933-07:00Patrick, it wasn't the PTSA that gave it to th...Patrick, it wasn't the PTSA that gave it to them. It says right on Our Schools Coalition website that Seattle Public Schools provided them with the names and numbers of teachers and parents.<br /><br />Go to their website<br />http://www.ourschoolscoalition.org/index.html<br />Laugh atthe lameness of it. Then click on "materials"<br />then click on "poll summary"<br />http://www.ourschoolscoalition.org/<br />documents/Our_Schools_polling_summary.pdf<br /><br />and it says it right there. <br /><br />The only names of actual people one finds on the website is when you clicj on "contact" and get the name and email of the employee of the polling firm that conducted the poll.<br /><br />There's no one there: it's a ghost coalitionseattle citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16724175257161649500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-61739931682888201782010-04-15T22:32:13.310-07:002010-04-15T22:32:13.310-07:00I didn't sign any release to give my informati...I didn't sign any release to give my information out either, and I would be greatly offended if they did. Is there someplace else they could have gotten it? PTAs?<br /><br />I didn't get called for the survey. Someone who did get called should ask.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16260807460417787614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-9310548241420473612010-04-15T19:56:50.853-07:002010-04-15T19:56:50.853-07:00I sure as hell didnt sign over any permission to u...I sure as hell didnt sign over any permission to use my phone number etc (and despite not being in an SP School, the District still has all our information - they found us no trouble at all in their computer system when I was down there last month)...AND I HAVE A PROTECTION ORDER IN PLACE - I CARE A GREAT DEAL ABOUT WHO GETS MY PERSONAL INFORMATION - I'D BE COMPLETELY ANTSY ABOUT THIS HAPPENING TO ME...<br /><br />this ought to be grounds for a class action....<br /><br />Gee whiz - cant this District get even the most basic things right?Sahilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11610179287237833742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-82223992958927751302010-04-15T18:22:08.014-07:002010-04-15T18:22:08.014-07:00So I'm sure the union is aware that the teache...So I'm sure the union is aware that the teachers' personal information was given out by the district, and is acting on that....<br /><br />I wonder if others agree with Dora and believe that THEIR personal information should not have been given out? Will everyone get a lawyer?<br /><br />I wonder who authorized that?<br /><br />I wonder how this new "Our Schools Coalition" can claim to be a neutral third party representing parents and students when it is working with the District admin to put together a poll, which, not incidentally, "supports" the things the Supt went to that dinner the other night to help get support for politically, whilst also starting negotiations with the union? Gee ya think the Our Schools Coalition is in the pokect of the superintendent during negotiations? hmmmm....nah....seattle citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16724175257161649500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-16140748500727086482010-04-15T17:25:26.992-07:002010-04-15T17:25:26.992-07:00There is absolutely no reason, unless I give autho...There is absolutely no reason, unless I give authorization for it, for SPS to provide ANY outside organization with my phone number. That is beyond the pale. When I provide it to our school, it is with the understanding that I approve that information being published in a school directory. I think that most of us would assume that the district would handle personal information the same way.<br /><br />This was the wrong thing to do. I won't even begin to question the motives that anyone would have for turning over private information to an outside entity.<br /><br />This needs follow-up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-75167715967703174252010-04-15T15:18:41.919-07:002010-04-15T15:18:41.919-07:00Wow. I agree. That's a misuse of private infor...Wow. I agree. That's a misuse of private information. Since when is the district legally allowed to hand over our kids' and our private phone numbers to market research companies (Strategies 360 or whoever conducted the "poll")?<br /><br />Is there a lawsuit in this?<br /><br />And is this a habit of the District's?<br /><br />For example, is it true that in Dec. 2008 the School Board voted on a grant in exchange for which the District would hand over our children's data to outside sources for 18 years?<br /><br />Is that what all the data is about that SPS is obsessed with -- selling our kids' info to others?<br /><br />Here is Chris Jackins' testimony about this from Dec. 3, 2008 (no one probably noticed this because it was in the middle of the school closures drama):<br /><br /><i>On the Business Parnership for Early Learning (BPEL) Grant Agreement:<br /><br />1. <b>This project would provide public school student data to private parties over an 18 year period.</b> The District needs to have a much more thorough public discussion of this project, and who these private parties are, namely The Seattle Foundation (TSP) and the Business Partnership for Early Learning (BPEL).<br /><br />2. The District would receive administrative costs of 2% a year, which would amount to less than $700 per year (2% of $600,000 over each of 18 years). This seems too low an amount: this year's payment would probably not even cover the attorney costs of drawing up the agreement.<br /><br />3. <b>The agreement will allow a private party to, "utilize confidential student data", to conduct a study. Information to be provided includes ethnicity, gender, special education, attendance and disciplinary data.</b><br /> <br />4. It seems possible that trends discerned by using the data could be applied to marketing purposes, whether for toothpast, candy, or private educational services. <br /><br />5. Recent newspaper reports have noted the accidental release of personal information on District staff. Accidents do happen.<br /><br />6. The agreement specifically exempts The Seattle Foundation from any liability, "including without limitation any acts or omissions in connection with use of confidential student data", and requires that the District indemnify the Seattle Foundation against such acts or omission. This seems like a lot of potential liability to take on for $700 a year. <br /><br />I ask the board to vote "No" on this action.</i>gavrochehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11336376340965305696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-60126184214821976352010-04-15T14:33:51.082-07:002010-04-15T14:33:51.082-07:00oh, and they have a whopping 43 signatures on thei...oh, and they have a whopping 43 signatures on their petition, a week after the biased Times opinion. 43 out of half a million ain't bad!seattle citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16724175257161649500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-10977839824312168112010-04-15T14:32:10.657-07:002010-04-15T14:32:10.657-07:00Another tab on the Our schools coalition wesbite s...Another tab on the Our schools coalition wesbite says "research." You click on it, expecting to see, oh, maybe some research that backs their proposals....but no, it's just ANOTHER link to their survey's summary (a link to the summary is also found on the "materials" tab.<br /><br />I doubt they have any research. Why should they? They've got a biased push poll to manipulate the Seattle Times and its readers with.seattle citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16724175257161649500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-73279859678694648072010-04-15T14:23:13.195-07:002010-04-15T14:23:13.195-07:00So who okayed giving Seattle teachers and parents&...So who okayed giving Seattle teachers and parents' names and phone numbers to the "Our Schools Coalition" for the "survey"?<br /><br />I was looking at the "materials" section of their wesbite and found this:<br />The<br />methodology for this survey is<br />based on three segments of Seattle<br />populations within Seattle Public<br />Schools: • Segment One-‐ Seattle<br />Public School Teachers<br />• Segment Two -‐ Seattle Public<br />School Parents<br />• Segment Three -‐ Randomly selected voters within the Seattle Public School District who do not<br />have children attending Seattle<br />Public Schools.<br />Respondents from Segments One and<br />Two were randomly selected from<br />lists for each segment provided by<br />Seattle Public Schools. The list<br />of SPS teachers consisted of<br />approximately 1,400 names and phone<br />numbers, from which 200 questionnaires were to be completed.<br /><br />Is this legal? Can the District give out staff and parent home phone numbers?seattle citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16724175257161649500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-23529710870745312752010-04-15T13:48:01.965-07:002010-04-15T13:48:01.965-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.SPS momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07868844486562389924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-11425048948601823472010-04-15T12:24:57.197-07:002010-04-15T12:24:57.197-07:00Joan NE,
It is my belief that good TEACHING can be...Joan NE,<br />It is my belief that good TEACHING can be observed and evaluated: Someone could come into a classroom and SEE good lesson plans, SEE effective response to on-the-fly changes or situations, SEE assessments and work (portfolio, formative, summative...whatever is the "product" students are asked to generate)<br />To me, teaching can be evaluated much more easily than learning. ALL assessment of learning is necessarily deficient - even if a student got 100% on some test, the student might have learned more than the test, might have learned less but guessed right...And we are all familiar with some of the pitfalls of using student assessment to "rate" teachers or schools: Teaching to the test, vagaries in student effort, inability to attribute learning to causation (student might have learned to read more from her history teacher or her mom; that learning shows up on a reading test; do we attribute increase to LA teacher?) <br /><br />Additionally, by evaluating teacher based on student learning, we are expecting a very narrow definition of it - tests are narrow, compared to all the glorious activity that goes on in a good classroom. Much of the learning is not tested. By evaluating teaching based on student learning we are ignoring many important facets of education. We are compartmentalizing this big, intricate, complicated thing into the little boxes I quoted earlier.<br /><br />By evaluating the education process based simply on standardized tests of student learning, we are diminishing the grand, unpredictable profession of teaching. Learning is not always predictable, and to try to imagine it is might force out some of the important aspects of teaching.<br /><br />But as has been pointed out here, people seem to know good teachers when they see them. Now, a parent or a student or a prinipal's vision of "good teaching" might be subject to bias, but couldn't we design metrics that a neutral observer could apply?<br /><br />That was, education would remain rich: broad and deep. It wouldn't be narrowed into little boxes. But educators (including principals, Directors, Supts etc) would be evaluated to see if they are doing the right things.seattle citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16724175257161649500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-50542471504347346762010-04-15T11:59:23.860-07:002010-04-15T11:59:23.860-07:00SEattle Citize, you wrote
"TEACHING is what...SEattle Citize, you wrote <br /><br />"TEACHING is what has to be held accountable, not results, since the outomes are unknowable."<br /><br />This seems like quite an important point, but I don't fully understand what is behing this.<br /><br />Would you explain how "teaching" is held accountable? This explantion may help me to get the understanding I desire.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-47346405730291213142010-04-15T11:42:25.695-07:002010-04-15T11:42:25.695-07:00I opined that minority and low-income children are...I opined that minority and low-income children are the public school children that are most harmed by corporatist education reform.<br /><br />I am referring mainly to the subset of those children that attend Title 1 and Title-1 qualified schools. (A title-1 qualified school is eligible for, but does not receive, Title 1 monies for use in a school wide program.)<br /><br />Due to SPS' elimination of open enrollment, the families residing in Seattle neighborhoods served by low-quality schools no longer have access to the better schools in the city.<br /><br />The District response to this is to say they will make every school a quality school, but what is the District's definition of a quality school? <br /><br />The district defines a "Quality Qchool", effectively, as "a school that is successful at raising test scores." <br /><br />We know empirically that building-scale and district-scale increases of test scores on high stakes tests are produced through narrowing-of-curriculum and teaching-to-the-test. <br /><br />[Curriculum alignment makes it easier for the District to coerce teachers to teach-to-the-test. The main purpose of "Instructional Leadership" programming, and placement of instructional coaches is to monitor and enforce fidelity to district pacing guides for the aligned curriculum, and to coerce teachers to narrow instruction.] <br /><br />It is well-documented that a building's increase in aggregate student scores on high stakes assessments often do not correlate with any increase on independent non-high-stakes audit tests, such as the NAEP.<br /><br />I for one will not be interested to send my kids to a school that meets the district's definition of Quality School. And I don't wish such schools on low income and minority kids, either. <br /><br />Unfortunately, Federal Title 1 dollars require that "Title 1" schools use these dollars for a school reform program. Title 1 monies CANNOT be used to reduce class size, nor can they be used to pay for health and psychosocial services. Federal Title 1 effectively says that schools that use Title 1 monies for "school wide programs" (rather than for Targetted Assistance) must use the money to pay for teach-to-the-test, data-driven reforms. <br /><br />The Title 1 law is part of the ESEA [Elementary and Secondary Education Act], also known since 2000 as NCLB [No Child Left Behind]. The ESEA is up for re-enactment this year. Without profound revisions to Title 1 of ESEA, Title-1 schools are doomed to the teach-to-the-test regime, <br /><br />Perversely, it appears that the acceptance of Title 1 funds for school-wide programming increases the chance of "school failure," (as defined by NCLB) and thus increases the chance that a school will be targetted for restructuring. <br /><br />If so, then the next question to ask is whether restructuring is beneficial to the affected children.<br /><br />There is much evidence that the Federal models of school restructuring (and especially firing staff, closing buildings, and conversion to charter school) does more harm than good to the affected students. There is little evidence that these models of restructuring are constructive.<br /><br />After studying this issue, I conclude that Title-1 eligible schools might be better off to use Title 1 money ONLY for Targetted Assistance, and NONE for school-wide programs. They might actually have a better chance of making AYP and getting of the school degradation ladder (NCLB calls it the school-improvement ladder) and thereby avoiding becoming a target for NCLB-modes of restructuring.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-84444145902288015022010-04-15T11:38:45.072-07:002010-04-15T11:38:45.072-07:00What disturbs me most about education reform is ho...What disturbs me most about education reform is how children enrolled in Title 1 schools (i.e, low-income and minority children) are the most harmed. <br /><br />Among all the children enrolled in schools of a reformed district, the least harmed are those whose parents can <br /><br />a)afford and succeed in getting their children enrolled in private school;<br /><br />b) get their kids into a low poverty public school, and supplement their child's education with tutoring and enrichment activities;<br /><br />c) get their kids into a magnet school (whether charter or not), or<br /><br />d) get their kids into a school that has high parent involvement and/or ample supplementary discretionary funding (e.g. through PTA fundraising)<br /><br />Some public school children are protected from the harms of education reform, due to their parents being able to afford to live in a well-funded district that has excellent schools.<br /><br />Such districts are not targetted by education reform. You won't find teach-to-the-test test-prep factories staffed with Teach-for-America union-busters in these districts! You won't see these districts making important decisions about students, teachers, and schools on the basis of scores on high stakes tests, nor will you hear much attention being paid to state standards, since these district's schools are teaching to a much higher standard.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-77896764295576475052010-04-15T10:31:33.881-07:002010-04-15T10:31:33.881-07:00Dorothy, thanks for the description. Sounds like ...Dorothy, thanks for the description. Sounds like a great event, honestly. Just surprised me that there would be even a whisper of a thought of charging families for family engagement.h2o girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12512408535354009657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-18134524189712502752010-04-15T10:20:23.806-07:002010-04-15T10:20:23.806-07:00To be fair. I attended last year's Family Enga...To be fair. I attended last year's Family Engagement symposium and I can see why they would reinforce the Free-ness to the intended audience. There was a very good talk in the morning inspiring parents to take action and that principals and teachers should expect parents engaged and need to break down the barriers to parent communication. Then there were lots of sessions specifically designed to help parents learn about homework, math, other curricular things... And great child-care and a full catered lunch that was pretty good. All free. The lunch was paid for by the Alliance. I don't know who paid for the staffing and childcare. <br /><br />Information tables on nutrition programs, health care, summer programs... <br /><br />And it did seem well attended by a very diverse mix of parents. School buses brought groups of families, probably picked up from their local schools. All in all, something worthwhile and I am glad to see them continuing.Dorothy Nevillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17108759281089768738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-51715417106727311462010-04-15T10:08:14.527-07:002010-04-15T10:08:14.527-07:00Have to share my favorite part of the Superintende...Have to share my favorite part of the Superintendent's E-News.<br /><br />"Please join us on Saturday, April 24 for the second annual Family Engagement Symposium. The symposium is FREE for families and will be held at Aki Kurose Middle School." <br /><br />Well, there's an incentive - it's Free! We don't have to shell out cash for family engagement! Good heavens, who comes up with this stuff?h2o girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12512408535354009657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-53037668027711673622010-04-15T07:49:38.380-07:002010-04-15T07:49:38.380-07:00"fudging the numbers was just a strategy to f..."fudging the numbers was just a strategy to fire teachers"<br /><br />No, never!<br /><br />Particularly as they attempt to change the status of displaced teachers: I've seen proposed contract language that says that when a teacher is displaced, they are on their own: If they happen to find a job in district, good for them. If they can't within one year, they are out, gone, kaput.<br /><br />So....in that scenario, if you want to ensure a flow of "fresh young shiny Teach for America" staff, you merely cut the budget severly each year, displacing teachers, then restaff with the newbies (at 1/2 the price)<br /><br />I mean, everybody knows the union is the problem with teaching in America!<br /><br />(seattle citizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16724175257161649500noreply@blogger.com