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 ...

In contrast to what is happening for Graham Hill and South Shore , here's the principal process that Wedgwood had (as reported on their webpage): Wedgwood is getting a new Principal. This is a really exciting time for us. The goal is to hire a new Principal that best meets the unique needs of our kids and our school. The Wedgwood BLT (Building Leadership Team, comprised of five elected staff members representing all grade levels and the PTA President) met with Kim Whitworth, Executive Director of Schools for the Northeast region recently to discuss the hiring process. Wedgwood’s hiring committee, limited to 10 people, will consist of the BLT (6 people), three additional Wedgwood staff (for diversity of position) as well as our newly elected PTA VP Davina Inslee. The District is currently working to recruit a pool of principals for Wedgwood and other schools. These candidates will go through an initial vetting process, then Wedgwood will be given six potential principals to ...

It's the end of spring so, I'm spring cleaning.  That means going thru my vast SPS files and throwing out/reordering. Naturally, I found some interesting stuff (but threw out two bags of paper).  Among the things I found: - Did you know I was an education activist in high school?  Me, neither but apparently I wrote, for the school newspaper, an op-ed in support of a bond measure to building onto our school.  I mention that our high school was built for less than 1,000 students and we had over 1500.   We had 30-year old stadium lights that leaned like the tower in Pisa.  We needed science labs and a new auto shop. It was for $3M but I don't know if it passed.  - Did you know the Alliance for Education - at least in 2011 - actually included Spectrum in the feedback they received from folks attending their State of the District luncheon.  " Increase access to Spectrum and ensure consistency across the district."   - Did you k...

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...

I just checked in with the Board office on the order of items on what should be a very enlightening Curriculum and Instruction Committee meeting.  The math adoption was added late Saturday and, if you are following this blog, things are changing fast and furiously. Because this agenda had been made up for awhile and other staff have presentations that were on the agenda previously, in the name of fairness, the math adoption item will NOT be moved up the list. That means that the Committee will be addressing that item towards the end of the meeting.  Depending the discussions previous to math adoption (and there are a lot of them), I suspect the math adoption discussion will start somewhere between 5:45-6:00 pm.   The meeting is to end at 6:30 pm.

More documents at Scribed from Julian A.  They include info on 2015 Math in Focus and several school math waivers.  Scroll to the bottom to access other documents. 

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...

Monday, June 9th Curriculum and Instruction Policy Committee Meeting , 4:30-6:30 pm.  Agenda A large agenda for various policies and includes an update on Creative Approach schools, Advanced Learning update, the BARs for the Highly Capable Program Annual Plan and Seattle Teacher Residency.  At the end of the agenda, just added - Math Adoption Update. If you do one extra thing this week (besides writing to the Board/your principal about your thoughts on the math adoption), try to attend this meeting from about 5:45-6:30 pm .  If that small Board conference room was packed with parents/community, it would send a powerful message to all in the room.  Even if you had to stand in the hall and try to listen, it would be worth it. Wednesday, June 11th Executive Committee Meeting, 8:30-10:00 am.  Agenda Among the items is "public access to district records- policy 4040", review of annual required reports (which is a funny one considering how - according to Cha...

Deja vu all over again (with apologies to Yogi Berra).  It's sometimes good to have been tracking this district for a long time.  Basically, it's about institutional memory and its usefulness.  Sometimes, it is frustrating, exhausting and frightening.  All at once.  I am speaking of the Board retreat going on today in reference to institutional memory.   I could have sworn that if I shut my eyes, then quickly opened them, I would see the ghosts of staff past sitting around that table.  Maria Goodloe-Johnson (that ghost comment is not in reference to her passing), Susan Enfield, Carla Santorno, even Joe Olchefske.  Because those are the people I thought might have been channeling through staff today. I often wish there was a new person in the audience, a casual observer who I could question and ask, "What did that sound like to you?" 

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...

In case you didn't notice, the number of MAC members who filed their own opinions went up from 1 teacher to 3 more on the committee. I believe there may be three certain votes against the adoption of enVision.   I think there could be a fourth vote but again, hard to discern. My concern is not that some members of the Board will agree with the recommendation (or the process used to get to this point) but they will hear the eternal siren call of the staff "hurry up, gotta get it done, money will be lost."  It seems to work for some Board members every -single - time and I have to wonder why. My hope is that if the Board goes along with the staff rec, that at least some of the Board will state that they will no longer accept work that is not objective and complete from staff within a stated timeframe on any future votes. It appears that the principals group board (PASS) is supporting the recommendations of MAC. The SCPTA board is taking a more nuanced view...

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...

Wednesday, June 4nd School Board meeting , starting at 4:15 pm. Agenda . It is quite a long agenda with a longer-than-usual Consent agenda.  I was surprised to see a item like this not being discussed with Intro and then Action but they need to get work done on the North Queen Anne  Elementary School as soon as possible for the move in of the Cascade Parent Partnership Program.   I find this also disturbing in its rush as there is no contract attached to this Consent item (and may not be until Tuesday).  Not a lot of time for public review on spending over $400k in capital dollars.  The very odd notation for where the revenue is coming from is "capital funds."  BEX IV?  BTA III? CIP?  What?  I also raise the concern over BEX IV funds being used to replace the elevator at Jane Addams Middle School. This elevator has been problematic for several years and yet it was NOT on BEX IV.  The BEX IV funding for JAMS is very small at $7.3M...

Thought I would put this up in case readers attend Director Community meetings and would like to let us know what was said. Also, from SPS, how feedback from the Strategic Plan Town Halls is to be used (see link for details): 1. Additional translations of District communications. Many families said they want to receive more translated versions of our communications. 2. Improvements to the District website. Families said the District website can be difficult to navigate. 3. Ensuring robust Strategic Plan metrics and accountability. We heard from family and community members alike that we must be more proactive with respect to disaggregating our data and explicitly naming and addressing the opportunity and achievement gaps. 4. Closing the opportunity gap for our African-American students. Seattle Public Schools has an unacceptable achievement gap. We heard that from our families, who also asked what we are doing to close that gap. 5. More Superintendent communicat...

We are now at the nth hour for the Math Adoption.  I say that because by Monday, Tuesday - it will be too late.  This is the weekend that any waivering directors will make up their minds.  There are three Director Community meetings tomorrow morning.  Their e-mail is schoolboard@seattleschools.org - put "math adoption" in the subject line. The phone number to leave a message is 252-0040. By the end of today, the Board agenda will be up and we will see if any directors (so far) are offering amendments to the BAR. I'll let WSDWG say it: Everyone: Push for a dual-adoption! At least 3 board members are publicly in favor of it, and what's Ron English going to do? Sue the Board? Get an injunction? Right. E-mail your school board reps now. Do not wait or let this opportunity go by. Do it. We have a chance to make a historic and significant improvement in our schools and the daily lives of our kids. DO IT! E-mail board members NOW and let them know ...