Seattle Schools Community Forum

I'm not sure this information will answer all questions, but I did put in a public disclosure request from SPS on the issue of what schools had been using enVision.  Here's the feedback I received on June 23rd.  (It is not complete as they are still trying to see if there were any MOU/agreements with the company.) Graham Hill – no records located. According to principal Laurie Morrison, Graham Hill did not pay any money for their materials or for professional development, although staff did attend two professional development trainings at South Shore for enVision. Hazelwood K-8 – no records located. According to principal Debbie Nelson, enVision was used only this last year. They received the materials free from an enVision representative and wanted to try it out, given that a new curriculum adoption was around the corner. They did not do any professional development. Queen Anne – no records located. According to principal David Elliott, enVision was implemented only for ...

The Times finally got around to writing an article on this issue.  I didn't really like their take on it but I'm not surprised that it is made to sound like the cost was the main issue.  The article said that MIF is "nearly twice as expensive" as enVision but forgot to say that was based on the staff's reading of it.  The article then waits until nearly the end to say "the exact cost won't be known until the district places the order."  Oh.  They also made it sound like the MAC recommendation was a done deal - when that was never the case - and it caught all these principals off-guard.  Well, whose fault is that?  Not the Board's. Got some interesting e-mails in my most recent public disclosure request from Seattle Schools.

Analysis I am going to believe the Superintendent as he tells principals that Math in Focus in the sole selection for K-5 math and will be used in the fall.  I am disappointed that he said in the letter, "I know many of us are frustrated about the process."  It's an odd statement given the district - not the Board - designed the process.  The actual vote on it was designed by the State Legislature (meaning the Board has the final, legal say on the curriculum). I am going to believe the Superintendent when he says that MIF will be funded to be "fully implemented" including professional development. Updates -  Clearly, someone from above was trying to maneuver the BLT process .  I say this because I heard from three different people at three different schools about a math adoption survey.  It was the same survey .  Now how could that have happened, I wonder. It was also a strange survey asking parents what is important to them in math curricu...

Quick Update :  At the C&I meeting, I had expected more of a kumbaya moment but clearly there are hard feelings and not all has been settled.  I did record that part of the meeting and will upload when I can.   Generally, there is some confusion over the waiver process, principals thought that the MAC rec was going to be upheld by the Board (despite not having any real good history of committee recs always being upheld by the Board) and Board members are still wary of what is happening.   There is a previously scheduled building leadership meeting tomorrow and the Superintendent said they will be discussing this.  I hope to be able to attend that portion of the meeting as it has no personnel issues to it so that I can report back on the concerns coming from principals on the math adoption. end of update  Also to update: The C&I Committee Chair and staff have agreed to move the math adoption update to first place on the agenda.   So that...

Here's the latest that I have gleaned from various sources: - Michael Tolley did indeed, in front of Director McLaren, say that "in effect there is a dual adoption."   This is stunning.  I believe now that if this push to have schools - in effect vote on which math curriculum they want - blows up in staff's collective faces, they will then say, "Oh, we interpreted the Board vote as dual because we have a math waivers policy."  That may have been why the Superintendent repeatedly told me yesterday that the math waivers policy was important in this discussion. I'm not sure that CYA will work but good luck.  At the worst, someone may be out of a job and at the least, a very bitter wind will continue to blow through this district.

Update 2: It now appears that staff - via the Executive Directors - have gone to the principals association to ask them to vote - en masse - for enVision.  Very troubling. I have NO idea when Ex Directors became empowered to speak on labor issues with groups that represent teachers, principals, etc.  I'll be interested to hear when that happened. One good thing - the principals association has also said they would like an extension of time to consider all this.  That's a smart move. End of update 2.  Update: Stevens - likely to be enVision Bryant - likely to be Math in Focus End of update  A reader suggested that we start a thread and try to keep track of what is happening at all the K-5/K-8s vis a vis the math adoption.  There are 59 elementary schools and 10 K-8s so I'm not going to try to list them all here. In the Comments Section, note your school, what you are hearing at your school via principal/PTA/schoolyard, and the input that y...

Update:  I am at the just-about-to-start Board retreat.  I had a conversation with the Superintendent on the math adoption.  He got quite heated about it. He says that they are fast-tracking waivers because they have to place the orders next week.  I pointed out that waivers certainly don't look to have been fast-tracked in the past. He said that if they don't grant the waivers, they violate their own policy.  Also not true.  The district has never been in a hurry before. He asked me why Seattle has such a conspiracy theory mentality. I said it didn't look like a theory if it's happening. He said they don't have the money for Math in Focus.  I said I believe it could be done.  He shrugged. So here's my take: The Superintendent and teaching and curriculum staff regrouped after the Board meeting.  (Maybe even before).  But now their plan is to encourage/arm-twist principals into hastily convening BLT meetings in order to have st...

There are two unfolding situations that could have real ramifications for many schools in the fall; one is about math waivers and the other (separate thread) about school funding (and "underenrollment"). Update: what I am hearing is that there is a thought to push a "districtwide" waver to use enVision over MIF.   I'm hoping that's not true.  It could possibly be the most unconstructive and most damaging thing that could be done. end of update. Update 2: From SPS: There is a short window of time because we have to order textbooks.  Instructional materials waivers are guided by School Board policy 2020. The Building Leadership Team is involved in the process based on the school’s decision-making matrix. Parents who have questions should contact their principals. end of update In Michael Tolley's presentation to the Board about math waivers here is what his slides said:

Good morning.   That was quite an evening (and I even got to leave as the Board continue to slog through the lengthy agenda).   I'll try to have another thread about other items I heard about at last night's meeting. As I go thru this thread, some of these thoughts will sound familiar as I quickly went thru the 11(?) threads I wrote for the comments.  Some of these thoughts are your thoughts and I thank you all for hanging in there and writing them down.   I note that, as of this hour, the Seattle Times has not one single thing to say on this story. Update: I did query the Board office about notification to Board members about changes to the agenda.  Here is the reply: It is the Board Office practice to send the Board an email the afternoon of the agenda posting (Friday), and additional emails on the afternoons of following days if there are additional revisions to the agenda, prior to the Board meeting.  Directors were sent an ema...

Reviewing the updated agenda for tomorrow night's Board meeting, it looks like staff have been burning the midnight oil. First, the speakers list is full with nine people on the waitlist.  The overwhelming number of comments are to be about the math adoption. Next, on the K-5 Math Instructional Materials Adoption , there are many new additions.  The BAR is now 23 pages long.  To note: In response to MAC members’ concerns around cost, staff provided cost information to the MAC and directed the MAC to take it into consideration it was reiterated prior to beginning deliberation that cost should not be considered as a primary criterion for ranking. Because committee member’s expertise was not primarily on cost or budget, Based on Assistant Superintendent for Teaching & Learning Michael Tolley ’s directive directed, MAC members to evaluate each were instructed to only evaluate each program only on merit, not overall cost. NOTE...

A reader who is deeply concerned about the math adoption conducted a public records request to SPS for e-mail about the math adoption.  She got about 237 pages of e-mails.  I have not yet read all of them but the ones I have read do concern me about both the process and the outcomes. We all realize that, in our jobs, when we are asked to help formulate decisions on what direction to go or products to use for a job, we need to do a couple of things.  One, making sure we cast the net far enough so that we are doing a thorough job, both for quality of product and cost of product.  Two, that there's a fair comparison - the "apples to apples" comparison - both to allow the end user/buyer to accurately compare items and to do due diligence for each product/company we are considering. (As we saw from the recent Board meeting with the Network Wireless upgrade, when the district changes the rules, repeatedly, during the RFP period (no matter the explanation), compani...

A letter from the Schmitz Park PTA was sent this week to the Board, the Superintendent and other district officials: Dear Seattle Public School Board Directors and District Staff, On behalf of the Schmitz Park PTA, we write this letter in opposition to the Math Adoption Committee’s recommendation to implement the enVision Math Program as the new math curriculum for all elementary schools in September 2014. Schmitz Park is in an advanced, and deliberate, position as one of six schools across the district currently using a Singapore Math-based curriculum to teach math and a transition to enVision will be a step backwards for our students. As part of our opposition to the recommendation, the Schmitz Park PTA states that:

Oddly, nothing from SPS.  But here's a post from committee member, Rick Burke.  Thanks, Rick The district has not yet announced the results from the K-5 Math Adoption Committee (MAC) meeting on last Friday, but it was a public meeting, so there is no reason I can't share the outcome of committee deliberations and some of my personal opinions about the process and final program selection. The MAC met on Friday April 25th for an all-day deliberation meeting to choose from one of the three finalist programs (enVision, Go Math, and Math in Focus) , plus the alternate recommendation of "no program".     Jumping straight to what folks really want to know, enVision will be the program recommendation put before the school board, and if approved, the new books should be in the schools this fall.  While this was not my ideal choice for a math program, the positives do outweigh the negatives in my opinion. A bit about the process - pros an...

From SPS: Elementary math instructional materials - We want your feedback! The elementary math adoption committee work has reached a critical stage. In looking to partner with parents and community to find the best possible math program for Seattle Public School students for the 2014-15 school year and beyond, the committee invites you to give us your thoughts and opinions. The committee is excited to have four possible math programs as viable candidates. The committee is excited to have four possible math programs as viable candidates: enVision Go Math! Math in Focus  My Math You can provide direct feedback at one of our display locations. There will be forms prepared for you to fill out at each site, as well as forms online. This is an opportunity to compare the programs and consider what type of program you think would be a good fit for your family and community, and most importantly, for your student. From April 1 through April 25 , please come to one of...

I am a bit late on this post but here is the latest. As noted by one reader (I believe Lynn), there is a hastily scheduled Board Work Session on Math Instructional Materials Adoption tomorrow, the 6th from 6-7 p.m.    The agenda has no presentation so I don't know what kind of update it will be. Meanwhile, the next meeting of the Math Adoption Committee is this Friday, the 7th, from 8:30 am to 3pm in the JSCEE Professional Library (I believe that is the second floor).  It is open to the public.  Sorry, no agenda available. I am hearing -more and more- that all has not run smoothly with this Committee.  For example, they had rejected some people at the beginning of the process and then hastily added four more people at the last minute. There were to be three math finalists but now there are four (due to a near-tie for two candidates).   It's interesting because there were three separate public inpubs - community on-line, community in person ...