Seattle Schools Community Forum

On November 30 the Seattle Times will host a panel discussion about K-12 Education called: K-12 visions and outcomes: Solving the education problems money can’t fix Here's the stated premise: Washington’s K-12 public education system is broken. Only 77% of our students graduate. Only 39% of graduates are ready for college or a career. The state fully funding basic education is just the beginning. We need to fix the outcomes for all students, preparing them for graduation, college and the workforce. What are acceptable outcomes for Washington’s children? What steps must be taken to build a successful K-12 system where every child receives an equitable, quality basic education? Join The Seattle Times LiveWire for a timely forum with education experts, advocates and policy makers, facilitated by Seattle Times Editorial Page Editor Kate Riley and former Executive Editor Michael Fancher. The members of the panel are:

The Seattle Times is the major newspaper of record in our city and it really does fall to them to give the fullest picture in their reporting and then, if they must, lead their readers to a conclusion about that story (or write an editorial.) The Times did both things recently.

Section by section, little corners of hell are freezing over as I find myself agreeing with the Times on issues of public education.  (Although, sometimes it's like following a bouncing ball - I never know how I think they will come out on various education issues.) Case in point - their Sunday editorial , Election time, so get serious on education funding.  Candidates filed to run for the jobs of lawmaker and governor last week. When they show up on your doorstep in coming months, be ready to grill them about the state’s failure on its most important issue: What are you going to do to fully fund education?

We previously published opinions from several editorial boards from around the state, all chiding the legislature for their lack of progress on fulfilling McCleary to fully funding public education in Washington state. The Seattle Times has finally weighed and they agree.  Choice quotes: Team Olympia can't even punt without squabbling over details. That's a sad, sad commentary that work is of such weak quality and yet it still gets argued over.

Doesn't the Seattle Times tout the passage of school levies as evidence of the efficacy of the superintendent? What does this failure mean about Dr. Enfield's effectiveness as the superintendent in Highline? Or could it be that the passage of levies reflects more on the board than the superintendent? In that case, what does the routine passage of levies in Seattle mean?

In public education editorializing, the Times mantra seems to be, "keeping saying the same thing over and over and it'll work."  Well, it does sometimes but not always.  (You have to wonder about this tactic given their dropping subscription rates - people like to read about NEW things.) Here's their latest and it's fairly boring reading because it's the same old wording.  "Dysfunctional", they get the number of students in SPS wrong ("nearly 50k" - geez, aren't they journalists?), "melodrama" and, of course, should we have a conversation about governance? Here's my comments to them:

In an editorial published on Friday, " Starting with Beacon Hill, school officials must stop cheating before it spreads ", the Seattle Times editorial board demands that district officials aggressively investigate and crack down hard on whoever altered test booklets at Beacon Hill International Elementary School. Funny how the Seattle Times wants district officials to come down hard on anyone found to have cheated on the MSP but they aren't concerned about all of the other rule-breaking in Seattle Public Schools. They aren't concerned about violations of IDEA. They aren't concerned about how the District can't comply with the federal laws regarding Native American education. They aren't concerned about violations of the chaperone rules. They aren't concerned about violations of the field trip rules. They aren't concerned about violations of Title IX. They aren't concerned about violations of the sexual harassment policy or procedures. They aren...

The Seattle Times has run another editorial in opposition to the class size initiative , I-1351. This one is disguised as a news article about the initiative's commanding lead in the polls, but all of the content is an argument in favor of a "no" vote. This isn't even clever. It belongs on the editorial page.

Well, I just finished listening to the Mayor's press conference for the announcement of the new Education and Early Learning department. Is Murray "thinking" about a governance takeover OR has he "considered" it in an abstract way? The press conference video indicates he is aware of what other cities do (he compared the East Coast to the West Coast ) and said that " power is diffused in the West." I believe the Times - in their never-ending vendetta against the Seattle School Board (no matter who sits on it) - took the Mayor's statement about it might be easier to get things done if the City ran public education out of context. It was not any signal but an acknowledgement of how it could be different, but not necessarily better. The Board was NEVER mentioned.   By anyone.

 The Times is reporting that five more Seattle area schools will have speed cameras at key intersections.  They name Roxhill (with private school, Holy Family nearby), Dearborn Park, Eckstein, and Bailey Gatzert.  The city made over $7M last year from four other schools with cameras and they say they will be using that revenue for more traffic safety (including crosswalks and sidewalks.) From the Answer Sheet ,  a report that Durham, North Carolina has dropped Teach for America.   The Herald Sun reported that several board members said they did not want to continue a relationship with the organization because TFA corps members are highly inexperienced.  There were also concerns expressed that corps members are required only to promise to stay for two years and though some stay longer, some leave before the two years are up, causing a great deal of turnover in many schools with at-risk students who greatly need stability.   School b...

 In the "grrrr" edition of Open Thread: In Jurupa Valley (a small city near Irvine, California), s chool officials apologized to parents of high school Sped students because, as part of a "functional skills program," the schools had them dig through trash for items that could be recycled for money.  The Superintendent carefully phrased his apology: “I personally apologize to any students who may have been humiliated,” but also said: Duchon said Tuesday that “this is standard curriculum” for the program’s students, who routinely collected recyclables such as cans and bottles. “Up to last week, there has not been one complaint,” he said. Gee, I wonder why students didn't feel they could stand up to their teachers over this nonsense. (It was discovered after complaints appeared on Facebook.) Their Sped ex director said it was a common project to teach life skills. Next, remember that HUGE planned iPad buy for Los Angeles Unified School District...

The Seattle Times likes to peddle this story about how a fractious and meddling Board is the driving reason for the turnover of senior staff, including the superintendent, at Seattle Public Schools. It's a good yarn, but it doesn't actually fit the facts. It doesn't fit the facts because The Board isn't all that fractious. Most votes are unanimous or nearly so. And no matter how fractious the Board may be, they all accept the votes and support the majority decision. I will say that Director Blanford violated the Code of Conduct when he called out his colleagues, and that was inappropriate, but he's new and clearly doesn't know what he's doing. The Board doesn't meddle. Seriously. When was the last time you heard tell of a Board Director stepping over the governance/management line? I don't think it has happened for well over a year.The last one to do it was Michael DeBell when he usurped the superintendent's authority to determine program pl...

Update: And now the Times editorial board weighs in.  Yawn.  Same old, same old (you'd think they would try a new tack but no.)  The Times absolutely refuses to acknowledge the reasons for the turnover in Seattle superintendents.  What is the Board to do in the fact of not one but two financial scandals?  Keep those superintendents?  C'mon.  Then they speak of "a curiosity for a change in governance."   I hate to break it to them but that "curiosity" is only Tim Burgess, LEV and the Seattle Times.  Not in progressive Seattle. And they speak of respect "for staff" as they incessantly berate the Board.  Oh kettle, it's the pot calling. End of update. Of all the issues for the Times to cover about Seattle Public Schools, they pick the issue of superintendents working with school boards. This is an old, tired issue that the Times has covered...repeatedly.  In fact, it seems their go-to, defacto answer to ANY issue in Seattle...

Once again the Seattle Times is whipping up anti-School Board animus. This is an old and discredited lie. And the "news" story is full of misrepresentations and omissions. I'll amend this post when I have time to list them all.

Sorry to pick on the Times but their publisher (and fearless leader), Frank Blethen, put up a speech that he gave recently to a Rotary Club.  He makes a lot of claims without backing up his stats or explaining his thinking. To whit,  

I must be blind because I can't see what the Seattle Times editorial board sees when they look at the legislature's response to the McCleary decision.

An article in the Seattle Times today troubled me deeply. Tough Talk (from the left) on race and Seattle Schools  described a recent meeting in Columbia City called “Race, Class and Education”. The meeting acknowledged the wide difference in academic performance between affluent White and Asian students and minority students from low-income homes. That fact is troubling in itself. The school district's refusal to address the gap is also troubling, but most troubling were the number of people who think the solution is to discontinue honors classes. You're going to have to read this thing for yourself, but I would like everyone to keep in mind, what Wayne Au apparently has forgotten: that equity and equality are not the same thing. Ending service for students working beyond grade level will not help students working below grade level.

The Seattle Times wrote an editorial to discourage people from signing petitions to put Initiative 1351, Class Size Reduction, on the ballot. The editorial was, of course, full of lies, misrepresentations, and unprincipled statements. I don't know where other people stand on initiatives. Lots of states don't have an initiative process. They are certainly open to abuse. We have seen Costco use the initiative process to buy themselves the law that allows them to sell liquor. We have seen a dozen millionaires and billionaires use the initiative process to buy a charter school law. Tim Eyman writes frivilous initiatives to provide himself an income as the manager of the campaign. There was a time when Tim Eyman was the de facto political leader of this state - it was a time when there was no leadership coming from Olympia. A number of Mr. Eyman's initiatives, though successful at the ballot box, were reversed by the Court because they failed to meet constitutional requirem...

Read this guest column by Colin Pierce, IB Coordinator at Rainier Beach High School, that appeared in the Seattle Times Education Lab. You can comment there on the Seattle Times site.

It will soon be the start of a new legislative session in Olympia, which, of course, means that the Legislature will take another run at doing the absolute minimum they can do and still claim to be making progress towards their obligation under the McCleary decision. It also means that there will be a bunch of people - all of the usual suspects - claiming that the McCleary decision isn't just about money. Let's stop that nonsense right now. The McCleary decision was about money, not reform. Anyone who tells you different is lying. They will claim that McCleary is as much about reform as it is about money. That's simply not true. McCleary is about reform like Moby Dick is about the second mate, Stubb. Yes, he's in there, but he's not central to the narrative. The book would be the same without him. Don't let anyone deceive you: McCleary is about money, not reform. Yes, there was some mention of reform in the decision, but it wasn't central to the decisio...