Seattle Schools Community Forum

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...

Blanford - nay Carr - no Martin-Morris - no McLaren - aye Patu - aye Peters - absolutely Peaslee -aye Amendment Two passes.  The district will purchase Math in Focus for K-5 elementary curriculum. English says amendment was complete replacement for original BAR.  Chair should call question on motion AS amendment.  In favor is vote for sole adoption of Math in Focus. Vote goes the same. (There was great joy in Mudville.  I did get a card from the Math in Focus vendors so I will ask about costs which yes, are still negotiable.  I thought they were from enVision but was wrong but I have no idea of enVision vendors were in the room.) The room has cleared mostly.  I am pretty tired but I believe it was - to use a Board term - a "robust" discussion.  At some point, I will write my analysis of this discussion.  I will say that Director Blanford's performance was not good and he continues to be a very weak Board member.  No matter you...

Board has not taken a vote but I believe there are four votes for Math in Focus.

Peaslee is now speaking. Thank you to staff and apologize for any misunderstandings and were trying to connect dots and close gaps in knowledge. Appreciate Peters and McLaren's hard, hard work. Peaslee reveals vote.  She IS voting for Math in Focus. It appears - at this point - there are four votes for MIF. She believes it is worth more money to bridge achievement gap.  S

Carr - thanked Shauna Health and Michael Tolley and entire MAC. I am in agreement with McLaren on solidness of both curriculum.  Happy with either.  Means a lot to people and reasonable people will disagree.  Staff have followed "a legal and robust process."  MAC's rationale is good with CCSS.  Second what Martin-Morris about curriculum and quality of teaching. Worth noting that prior to debate, 11 schools picked enVision and 4 picked MIF.  (No one has asked those schools why they made the choices they did so I don't go for that argument.)  She did note that while Highline uses MIF, Shoreline uses enVision. Said that input wasn't high and needs context. Talked about a study referenced during testimony and listened to guy who did study and that standards are more important than textual materials.  (Tell that to parents.) (I think she seems to be negating public input.) Can't ignore costs as A&F chair.  MIF is nearly double enV...

Charles Wright continues with a long list of what they need for science, advanced learning, etc. that may be lost if Board chooses a more expensive math.  Medical fragile, archive support (everything and the kitchen sink, it would seem).  Data center is understaffed, can't do upgrades. Michael Tolley on waivers.  Board policy exists, etc.  Some schools have expired waivers and others seeking waivers.  Set June 10th date for making a decision so by June 11th to be ordered. (There's that "hurry up.") Waiver policy goes through Ex Directors (really? who knew?) .  Onto concerns about mobility - may not approve a waiver because of it.  How is that equitable or fair to schools? Comments by Board

Onto the next amendment to adopt Math in Focus.  McLaren read the amendment (which was quite lengthy.) Staff to talk about issues around costs for Math in Focus.  $5.6M versus some lower cost for enVision. Blanford - what does that money cover? Staff - includes 1-year costs, and range for 7 years. This completes the amendment issues (there was a blank place for the costs of Math in Focus).