Seattle Schools Community Forum

Things are getting tense and it appears that we need to come to some sort of consensus about the diversity of voices and perspectives on this blog. There is little doubt that the blog is dominated by voices that speak in opposition to District practices. People who are happy with the way things are going rarely feel a need to speak up and say so. Those who have concerns or complaints, however, are strongly motivated to give voice to them. Hence, our discussions are dominated by the angry, frustrated, outraged, disappointed, and discouraged. It's just the way that people work. It's human nature. The blog is definitely here for those people to find fellowship, to get information, and to strategize together. But it should also be a source of information for all interested parties - regardless of their perspective on district actions. The District's inability (or unwillingness) to share information and the local media's inability (or unwillingness) to report on local educat...

When the Superintendent received her merit pay we were told that she was serving as a model for the sort of merit pay that the District wanted to offer teachers. Here's how her merit pay was structured: She was eligible for a maximum of 10% of her salary in merit pay. There were 12 statistical measures, which, if reached, would each entitle her to a bonus of .5% of her pay. There were an additional four elements which were double-weighted and would fetch her 1% of her pay if achieved. Four of the statistical measures were achieved (none of them a double-weighted one), earning her a bonus of 2%. Her base salary is $264,000, so her bonus was $5,280. That is not, however, how the proposed merit pay or bonus pay for teachers is structured. Not at all. So how in the world is the Superintendent's incentive pay in any way a model for teachers' incentive pay? It's not. Those claims were false. Read what Director DeBell said about the Superintendent's bonus pay being a model...

From today's Seattle Times: Atlanta schools latest in string of cheating on standardized tests

From Seattle Parent: Michael Tolley - SE Philip Brockman - NE Aurora Lora - West Seattle Bree Dusseault - NW Nancy Coogan - Central

This was reportedly distributed to principals for their reference when discussing teacher contract negotiations. TALKING POINTS FOR SPS LEADERS ON LABOR NEGOTIATIONS OVERVIEW COMMENTS • The vision for Seattle Public Schools is clear: We want every school to be an excellent school where every student receives excellent instruction. • Nothing matters more to student achievement than good teachers. • Our teachers deserve a system that recognizes their excellence and supports their growth as professionals. • That is why we are proposing a new system to support all teachers at all levels of proficiency. • We are building on our efforts in recent years to improve instruction through high quality aligned materials at all schools, professional development, and real time assessments of student learning. NEW SYSTEM OF TEACHER SUPPORT NEEDED • The next critical piece for improving instruction is clear. The District must hold itself accountable for results in student learning. W...

The Board of Directors of Seattle Public Schools has four primary functions... and they fail to fulfill each of them. The Board, first and foremost, are the elected representatives of the public, but this Board doesn't represent the public at all. This Board doesn't raise the public's concerns, doesn't relay the public's wishes, and doesn't voice the public perspective. I almost never hear the Board members talk about the public or their constituents saying "People are concerned about.." or "People want..." or "People see it this way...". The Board doesn't voice the public perspective and certainly doesn't advocate for it. Worse, the Board doesn't advocate for the public to have a voice for themselves. The Board is no champion of community engagement. The Board regularly approves motions with inadequate community engagement and regularly approves motions with NO community engagement. The Board hasn't demanded improve...

This story appeared in this morning's PI. The Oak Harbor School Board has rewritten their policy on cell phones to include allowing administrators to search the phones in order to protect the district against possible criminal charges around sexting. It's interesting because there are no real laws against sexting per se but there are laws around sending, receiving or storing photos of minors in a state of nudity on a cell phone (it's a felony). From the article: The first reading of the new policy, which was unanimously approved at Monday’s board meeting, states, “By bringing a cell phone and other electronic devices to school or school sponsored events, the student and parents consent to the search of the device when school officials have a reasonable suspicion that such a search will reveal a violation of school rules.” Assistant Superintendent Lance Gibbon presented the policy to the board. He pointed out that school officials already have the right to search...