Seattle Schools Community Forum

 Update: where's this story at Crosscut?  My link still works but somehow - after just one day - the story has disappeared from Crosscut's main page.  There are many older stories still there.  Hmmm. End of update. Over at Crosscut, the director of the (mostly)charter think tank that is the Center on Reinventing Public Education, Robin Lake, weighs in on customer service at SPS. She doesn't directly reference the program she is writing about (why, I don't know) but she's talking about Advanced Learning.  Her funniest line? These are minor inconveniences, though, compared to the flippant way the system responds — or doesn’t — to students’ special needs. No matter how evident it is that your child’s situation merits individual consideration, your inquiries are met by maddening emails that repeat the policy and assert that there are no exceptions. "Your child's situation merits individual consideration.."   My answer to that was: "Y...

An absolutely brilliant story appears on Crosscut,  Business support for education: Just big talk? by Dick Nelson. This story shines a bright light on the hypocrisy of Washington State business groups who decry the state of public education in Washington State - preK to college - but also adamantly refuse to pay any of the cost of improving it. It reveals them for the whiny babies they are. A few business organizations in particular are taken to task. The whole story is written with a flat, Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am" sort of tone. It's calm, rational, and devastating. I highly recommend it. I can't wait to see if there is any reaction.

Crosscut is running two articles on I-1240, one in favor and one opposed . They are worth reading if only because the article in favor demonstrates the naive and thoughtless acceptance of every myth and marketing line offered by the proponents of charters. The person writing in favor of the initiative is a voucher advocate living in a rural area. He doesn't know what he talking about and he obviously hasn't given any of it much thought. It's sad, really.

Liv Finne has written a blog piece about the WSPTA's vote in opposition to I-1240. The article appears on the W ashington Policy Center blog and also on Crosscut . Her premise is that the PTA Legislative Assembly voted to support charter schools, but the WSPTA Board, in a fit of anti-democratic elitism, negated that vote by deciding to voice opposition to I-1240, thereby going against the will of their constituents. It's an effective bit of rhetoric that will be convincing - for folks who don't know anything about the issue other than what Ms Finne has told them. It is also, of course, completely false.

Today in Crosscut we find an article about the Downtown elementary school that actually includes some data  - census numbers - that could be used to make a case for the school. It actually makes a stronger case for a downtown high school than a downtown elementary school, but there's no mention of that. I have a number of questions that I would like to see answered. Where are these kids going to school now? Do we only need an elementary school downtown - not a middle school and a high school? Why don't we need a middle school or a high school? If these kids are in the census data, why didn't they appear in the District's enrollment projections? It's nice to finally see some numbers associated with this school idea, which has seemed like a pet project by downtown elites until this.

I read an article in Crosscut this morning that was one of the more thought-provoking pieces I've seen about the state of Education Reform in Washington State. " Washington's new education initiative is no A+ " by Alison Krupnick explored the wading pool depth of A+ Washington , the Education Reform initiative from Excellent Schools Now . I find myself in a place very much like Ms Krupnick. I feel a great disconnect. In fact, I feel at least three great disconnects.

 I've been pondering what it means to try to bring forth information and encourage debate. In terms of doing that in our country, it doesn't take long to look around and realize how polarized discussion and debate have become.  It gets personal, it gets snarky and it becomes more of a "so top that" situation than how are we working towards solutions.  I readily will admit to some of this myself (except the personal which I try to stay away from). A number of articles have popped up along the way and I see a theme.  But first, a story about journalism and truth and shaping a story. Do you know who Mike Daisey is?  He's a performer who does monologues and is most famous for his work, The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs .  Part of that show talks about the harsh working conditions in China where most of Apple products are made.  Mr. Daisey had gone to China and based this show on that trip.   He took part of the show, shortened it and went...

It isn't that hard to create the illusion of consensus where none exists. All you have to do it use multiple voices. The Gates Foundation has essentially pulled the same trick. Rather than speaking with a single voice, the voice of the Gates Foundation, it speaks as a chorus. Their message is carried by their proxies: the League of Education Voters, the Alliance for Education, the Our Schools Coalition, Stand for Children, Democrats for Education Reform, Washington STEM, A+ Washington, Excellent Schools Now, Partnership for Learning, Teachers United, Crosscut, the Washington State PTA, and more. They are all mouthpieces for the Gates Foundation, yet when they each speak it creates the illusion of a broad consensus, but it actually just one voice, multiplied. There are many finger puppets, but only one hand. So even if all of them speak it still counts as only one person, only one vote.

First we have the story in Crosscut about the survey results that not only mis-reported the results (seriously, how do you get the numbers wrong in a story about the numbers?), but also grossly mis-interpreted them. The numbers in the story have been corrected but the editorial content remains mis-directed. The Crosscut story suggests that Dr. Enfield's 37% favorable rating in the survey suggests that the City loves her but that the Board's 33% favorable rating suggests that the City thinks they stink. Let's remember that the survey has a margin of error of five percentage points so these two results are, statistically, the same. Let's also note that Dr. Enfield got a 56% neutral rating. So way more people responded "Susan Who?" than proclaimed their love. And if a 37% favorable rating means love, then what does the teachers' 81% favorable rating suggest? Adoration, I suppose. Dr. Enfield, despite the focus of the story, actually finished a distant fifth ...

In a Crosscut article published yesterday,  Two big shockers for Seattle schools and cops , Da vid Brewster,  Editor-in-Chief at Crosscut and chair of the board of Crosscut Public Media, revealed his true anti-democratic sentiments. He claimed - in the absence of eviden ce and, in fact, contrary to Dr. Enfield's specific statements - that Dr. Enfield's decision to withdraw herself from consideration as the long-term superintendent for Seattle Public Schools " almost certainly stemmed from the surprising fall election ". He referred to the two new Board members as "insurgents". He suggested that the new board, which he characterized as having a 4-3 anti-reform majority, m ight mean " a descent into bickering, micromanaging by the board " in the absence of any evidence or rationale. Why, exactly, would this Board cross the line into micro-management? What suggests this? He wrote that the take-away lesson from the recent school board races is ...

Ted Van Dyk, writing about the upcoming election on Crosscut , has this to say about the school board races: The Seattle School Board:   I am voting for the incumbents on the ballot — Peter Maier, Sherry Carr,  Harium Martin-Morris, and Steve Sundquist — with the hope that they will run a tighter ship in their upcoming terms.  All are honest people dedicated to public education.  But the financial scandals unearthed by the state Auditor, the expensive closure and reopening of schools, the acceptance of a goofy math curriculum, and sometimes slack oversight of administrators cannot be repeated. I have heard others take the same view as Mr. Van Dyk. I have heard others say that they believe that the board members are sincerely contrite and will do better after the Pottergate scandal. I'm not sure what improvement Mr. Van Dyk and the others are hoping to see, but it has been seven months since the board members all promised to start doing their jobs and we haven...

A story in Crosscut ("The Parents Union: A new force for education reform?") describes an effort by Scott Oki ("self-described 'serial entrepreneur' and community activist") to form a "parent's union" to counter the strength of the teachers' union and promote public school reform in Washington State. What an idiot. Mr. Oki has no idea what he's doing or what he's talking about. The article makes that pretty clear. * He says that the teachers' union blocks reform, but all of the other folks in the article acknowledge that the WEA is supportive of reform. * He says that the problem is bloated central bureaucracies, but the teachers' union didn't create and doesn't maintain those. * He says that parents should be able to send their child to the school of their choice - as if we have never tried that - but he has no solution for when 5,000 families choose Garfield. * He says that school families have no voic...

Remember back in June when David Brewster of Crosscut wrote this article, An election likely to ratify strong councils ? He wrote: " Lots of fireworks, but I suspect the current board will survive, sustaining the momentum it has created. " He has now been proven wrong in the primary election in which three of the four incumbents for the school board failed to win a majority of the votes in their primary. The fourth won only a slim majority in his district, his strongest base of support, and now has to run city-wide where the sentiment appears to be anti-incumbent. I sure would like Mr. Brewster to follow up his prediction with another article in which he checks his accuracy and analyzes any bad guesses.

The dean of the College of Education at the University of Washington, Tom Stritikus, writes about the University's role in support of Teach for America in Crosscut . First, Mr. Stritikus blames the legislature. Last year, the Legislature required all public colleges and universities that prepare teachers in the state to begin providing alternative programs that take less time while keeping high standards for teacher candidates. But he remains un-apologetic about UW's role. He tries to shift the focus to an abstract question about teacher effectiveness. In short, he wants to teach the controversy. A couple points. 1) Mr. Stritikus fails to disclose his affiliation with Teach for America. He is a former corps member. This failure to disclose stinks and the stink clings to Crosscut. 2) The law may require colleges of education to develop alternative certification paths, but none of the other ones locally felt driven to partner with Teach for America. He attempt to shift bl...

Dick Lilly lays out a pretty hilarious idea in Crosscut about the Gates taking over some empty SPS buildings and creating their vision of a good school.  I thought he was kidding at first but no, he's serious.  I don't have time to fully flesh this out but here's what I wrote at the Comments section. No and hell no. There is so much wrong with this idea I almost don't know where to start. First and foremost, our schools are not for sale or lease. Want charters? Pass the legislation. Second, The Bill and Melinda Gates Free Private School District? Okay, I'll bite. What have they done educationally to deserve this kind of latitude? Breaking up high schools into smaller schools (their first big effort)? It fell flat on it's face and that was after schools and districts had put in tremendous amounts of time "transforming." Third, the in-fighting for what the Gates's schools would have over the regular schools would be HUGE. Mr. Lil...

There were a couple of new op-eds in Crosscut this week.

Crosscut publishes a lot of thoughtful pieces on Seattle Public Schools, mostly by Dick Lilly. They recently published one by Melissa Westbrook .

This isn't really what Dick Lilly over at Crosscut said but it's what went thru my mind reading his recent article .  Here's his premise about "closing the achievement gap": Among the results of this frustratingly persistent problem is a vast, energetic industry of school reform, headlined in recent years by the involvement of powerful private foundations and the policy directives of the federal government: “No Child Left Behind” in the “Race to the Top.” Over the years, a variety of structural changes have been proposed and, to one degree or another, tried: small schools, mayoral governance, charter schools, (more) intensive professional development for teachers, (more) leadership training for principals. Testing and more testing, along with the loss of federal funds and wholesale staff changes when schools have failed to improve scores (many states dumbed down their tests to avoid the consequences). And lately, paying teachers based on student test r...

A good article at Crosscut by Anthony B. Robinson about the role poverty plays in education and is it being considered by ed reformers. To whit: Schools do a very good job with many kids who come prepared to learn. Does the big money behind education reform focus on schools' problems to the point of ignoring the societal issues of poverty that lie behind many of the challenges for schools? He references an article that many of you have recommended and I add my voice to that chorus because it clearly lays out the issues around philanthropy and its power to sway the course public education takes. It is from the on-line magazine, Dissent, by Joanne Barkin called, " Got Dough? How Billionaires Rule our Schools. " It should be required reading for every elected official who cares and/or has a role in public education. From the Crosscut article: One thing a good education teaches is to be skeptical of simple answers. Laying all blame for student failure (or credit f...

Interesting piece from Crosscut about what they would tell the Board. David Brewster has a 6-point plan. Some of it is fine, one point is a "no and hell no" and the last one just made me smile. Here would be my suggestions for a deeper surgery: 1. Continue Susan Enfield in her role as chief academic officer. She is doing a good job and is not implicated in the scandals, but she does not have the financial experience to be full superintendent, at least for now. Me: I'm not sure I agree in total but maybe it would have been better to get an outside person. If Dr. Enfield stays on permanently, she might not be as tough as an outsider interim. 2. Name as interim superintendent a highly respected figure in town, with strong management experience, to spend a year or so in rooting out incompetence, creating robust accountability and reporting structures, and finally getting to the root of all the financial flubs. This should be someone along the lines of Jim Sine...