I'm thinking about electability .... What's on your minds?
13 comments:
Number Looker
said...
On page 26 of this file https://www.scribd.com/document/408588498/Seattle-Public-School-Board-C-I-Policy-Committee-Meeting-Packet-April-2019
the district gives its estimate of the number of HCC students served by grade level: K 100 (how the heck did these 100 get identified???!!!) 1 126 2 250 3 321 4 421 5 464 6 528 7 510 8 546 9 528 10 457 11 354 12 332 Total = 4,937
Did they just make these numbers up, or did they get them from somewhere? Because on page 4 of the same file, it says, "Director Mack asked when the report with the numbers of students are being served in Highly Capable and Advanced Learning will be available. Mr. Jessee replied that he currently does not have a formalized report."
So, did they just make up the 4,937 number or did these numbers actually come from some kind of report? Wonder what kind of formalizing Mr. Jessee intends to add?
I heard (second-hand) that there is no SPS district middle school science fair this year. The explanation I got was that the district was likely not to have one in the future because it is "an equity issue" (only the kids that have the resources and support to do a project can participate). Does anyone have any information about this?
From district website. Interesting that they say waning participation was a factor. Anyone ever attend and can post feedback?
"2019 Middle School Science Fair update
The districtwide middle school science fair will not be held this year. With limited staff and resources at the district level to support this event, and waning participation in previous years, the department is focusing its priorities on the best ways to serve all our 12,000 middle school students in SPS. Although the district is unable to offer a district-level event, middle schools can continue to offer a building-level event and encourage student participation.
The SPS Science Department is currently working to adopt new instructional materials for all students at grades 6-8 for future years. Once SPS has adopted and aligned to a new standards-aligned core science curriculum, the Science Department hopes to collaborate with science teachers and possibly community STEM organizations to develop and offer a standards-aligned, engineering-focused event in the future that is accessible to all students."
That's disappointing news from SPS. My child didn't participate in the school science fair, but we did attend it. We could see how hard the kids worked to get their posters ready and present their research. It was also wonderful to see other kids, parents, the principal, the amazing science teachers and other hard working teachers come back to school in the evening to support the kids.
The "standards-aligned..." future event makes me cringe a little.
Number Looker, that may be an informal assessment of kindergartners that have been reported. I volunteer in a kindergarten class where one student goes to 3rd grade math (and thank goodness that's allowed so that student gets what he/she needs).
As for the district science fair, it has been a thing but I think MMW who heads Science in the district doesn't like it. I'm sure participation does wane when the district puts no effort behind it.
As for the equity issue, I think there's a two-fold issue. One, schools that don't have PTAs or staff able to mount a fair. Two, at schools where there are fairs, some parents help their child too much and it becomes more of a competition among parents. My own perspective is that school fairs should only be for kids who want to participate (and those who don't want to don't have to) and that the district should provide a fund so that kids who need resources can access them in order to participate.
But the lengthy explanation of "after we get thru the Science adoption and after we get some STEM people in the community on-board, THEN we'll have a district one" is shameful. The biggest district in the state doesn't even have a district science fair? They would never cancel football or basketball.
On the subject of the Science adoption, I did want to alert parents here that HCC students/parents seem to be one of the sources of pushback on the adoption at least according to staff (who said it in an answer to Director Rick Burke's questions about the adoption). Director Jill Geary said in an email to me that HCC kids have better teachers and more resourced schools and that Amplify would even the playing field.
MMW, head of Science, claimed that "a small but very influential faction of parents and teachers that are maintaining the status-quo in science at their schools" and that the Board had received "anonymous emails" and that "the students represented by this faction are overwhelmingly white and middle or upper middle class, so the adoption committee felt it was imperative to remind the board that their decision-making has the potential to have a profound effect on students that don't have threat same agency and influence."
Naturally, if the emails were anonymous, how can they be so sure of the writers' race or socio-economic background?
I actually do agree that the experts on the Adoption Committee should be given high regard with their recommendations. It is troubling, though, that for K-5, they said Amplify came in first when it only came in first on two measures while HMH came in first on two measures.
But the Board's job isn't curriculum; it's making sure the Adoption Committee was created with experts on-board AND making sure board policies were followed (they weren't) AND they have a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers. With Amplify the district would be renting a curriculum (which is online) and, at the end of it will own some used workbooks. That's how the contract reads - it's a licensing agreement.
I am co-chair of ITAC (Information Technology Advisory Committee) and we have talked about 1-1 computers for high school. If Amplify passes, that would have to be middle school as the district cannot possibly afford to do both. Personally, I'd rather see all high school students get laptops to provide access to a wide variety of uses, rather than middle school for one subject.
I urge you all to write to the Board and express your any concern you have about the Science adoption. It's: spsdirectors@seattleschools.org.
One last thing - the issue of the overcrowding at RESMS and the friction with the Licton Springs K-8 community is getting louder. The district has offered several suggestions, none of them great but I believe something will change in the next couple of years. The ideas:
- move LS to Webster (currently being renovated). That might be okay except for 1) it's way out in Ballard and has no historic significance to that group and its Native-focus as opposed to its current location and 2) no science labs for 6-8.
- Move some of Cascadia to Webster. The split would be HCC 1-3 stays in the Cascadia building and co-share with LS K-8 while HCC grades 4-5 go to Webster. Bit of crazy town thinking on this one.
- Move HCC kids to Whitman thus freeing up space at RESMS (but they note, it will not solve LS K-8's space issues at RESMS).
So, Olympic View and Cascadia both disperse to multiple middle schools. Olympic View goes to RESMS and JAMS. Cascadia goes to RESMS, Hamilton and JAMS. Why not also split Greenwood or Northgate and send some students to Whitman and some to RESMS until you get the right number of students at RESMS?
They chose an unqualified SPS internal person to lead the special ed dept and replace the current head who holds a doctorate and has specialized training in gifted education.
They chose an unqualified SPS internal person to lead the advanced learning dept and replace the current head who holds a doctorate and has specialized training in gifted education.
An SPS employee promoted internally with zero background or training or doctorate in gifted education as compared to previous Dr Steven Martin. Ms. Claudine Deenie Berry. She is chief of supports for MTSS. She meets the qualifications they are seeking "at this time". See announcement letter from Kari Hanson and Wyeth Jesse
As our state this year moved toward legislation that actually requires more professional development and training in gifted education of principals and staff, our district moves backward. Awhile ago Sue Peters posted Dr Steven Martin's vita on this blog in comparison. The contrast is quite stark.
13 comments:
On page 26 of this file
https://www.scribd.com/document/408588498/Seattle-Public-School-Board-C-I-Policy-Committee-Meeting-Packet-April-2019
the district gives its estimate of the number of HCC students served by grade level:
K 100 (how the heck did these 100 get identified???!!!)
1 126
2 250
3 321
4 421
5 464
6 528
7 510
8 546
9 528
10 457
11 354
12 332
Total = 4,937
Did they just make these numbers up, or did they get them from somewhere? Because on page 4 of the same file, it says, "Director Mack asked when the report with the numbers of students are being served in Highly Capable and Advanced Learning will be available. Mr. Jessee replied that he currently does not have a formalized report."
So, did they just make up the 4,937 number or did these numbers actually come from some kind of report? Wonder what kind of formalizing Mr. Jessee intends to add?
I heard (second-hand) that there is no SPS district middle school science fair this year. The explanation I got was that the district was likely not to have one in the future because it is "an equity issue" (only the kids that have the resources and support to do a project can participate). Does anyone have any information about this?
Was there ever a district middle school science fair? I've only ever heard of schools doing their own.
From district website. Interesting that they say waning participation was a factor. Anyone ever attend and can post feedback?
"2019 Middle School Science Fair update
The districtwide middle school science fair will not be held this year. With limited staff and resources at the district level to support this event, and waning participation in previous years, the department is focusing its priorities on the best ways to serve all our 12,000 middle school students in SPS. Although the district is unable to offer a district-level event, middle schools can continue to offer a building-level event and encourage student participation.
The SPS Science Department is currently working to adopt new instructional materials for all students at grades 6-8 for future years. Once SPS has adopted and aligned to a new standards-aligned core science curriculum, the Science Department hopes to collaborate with science teachers and possibly community STEM organizations to develop and offer a standards-aligned, engineering-focused event in the future that is accessible to all students."
https://www.seattleschools.org/academics/curriculum/science
SF
That's disappointing news from SPS. My child didn't participate in the school science fair, but we did attend it. We could see how hard the kids worked to get their posters ready and present their research. It was also wonderful to see other kids, parents, the principal, the amazing science teachers and other hard working teachers come back to school in the evening to support the kids.
The "standards-aligned..." future event makes me cringe a little.
-nh
My kid hasn't had science all year at WMS or a world language.
Just sayin
Number Looker, that may be an informal assessment of kindergartners that have been reported. I volunteer in a kindergarten class where one student goes to 3rd grade math (and thank goodness that's allowed so that student gets what he/she needs).
As for the district science fair, it has been a thing but I think MMW who heads Science in the district doesn't like it. I'm sure participation does wane when the district puts no effort behind it.
As for the equity issue, I think there's a two-fold issue. One, schools that don't have PTAs or staff able to mount a fair. Two, at schools where there are fairs, some parents help their child too much and it becomes more of a competition among parents. My own perspective is that school fairs should only be for kids who want to participate (and those who don't want to don't have to) and that the district should provide a fund so that kids who need resources can access them in order to participate.
But the lengthy explanation of "after we get thru the Science adoption and after we get some STEM people in the community on-board, THEN we'll have a district one" is shameful. The biggest district in the state doesn't even have a district science fair? They would never cancel football or basketball.
On the subject of the Science adoption, I did want to alert parents here that HCC students/parents seem to be one of the sources of pushback on the adoption at least according to staff (who said it in an answer to Director Rick Burke's questions about the adoption). Director Jill Geary said in an email to me that HCC kids have better teachers and more resourced schools and that Amplify would even the playing field.
MMW, head of Science, claimed that "a small but very influential faction of parents and teachers that are maintaining the status-quo in science at their schools" and that the Board had received "anonymous emails" and that "the students represented by this faction are overwhelmingly white and middle or upper middle class, so the adoption committee felt it was imperative to remind the board that their decision-making has the potential to have a profound effect on students that don't have threat same agency and influence."
Naturally, if the emails were anonymous, how can they be so sure of the writers' race or socio-economic background?
I actually do agree that the experts on the Adoption Committee should be given high regard with their recommendations. It is troubling, though, that for K-5, they said Amplify came in first when it only came in first on two measures while HMH came in first on two measures.
But the Board's job isn't curriculum; it's making sure the Adoption Committee was created with experts on-board AND making sure board policies were followed (they weren't) AND they have a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers. With Amplify the district would be renting a curriculum (which is online) and, at the end of it will own some used workbooks. That's how the contract reads - it's a licensing agreement.
I am co-chair of ITAC (Information Technology Advisory Committee) and we have talked about 1-1 computers for high school. If Amplify passes, that would have to be middle school as the district cannot possibly afford to do both. Personally, I'd rather see all high school students get laptops to provide access to a wide variety of uses, rather than middle school for one subject.
I urge you all to write to the Board and express your any concern you have about the Science adoption. It's: spsdirectors@seattleschools.org.
One last thing - the issue of the overcrowding at RESMS and the friction with the Licton Springs K-8 community is getting louder. The district has offered several suggestions, none of them great but I believe something will change in the next couple of years. The ideas:
- move LS to Webster (currently being renovated). That might be okay except for 1) it's way out in Ballard and has no historic significance to that group and its Native-focus as opposed to its current location and 2) no science labs for 6-8.
- Move some of Cascadia to Webster. The split would be HCC 1-3 stays in the Cascadia building and co-share with LS K-8 while HCC grades 4-5 go to Webster. Bit of crazy town thinking on this one.
- Move HCC kids to Whitman thus freeing up space at RESMS (but they note, it will not solve LS K-8's space issues at RESMS).
FYI.
So, Olympic View and Cascadia both disperse to multiple middle schools. Olympic View goes to RESMS and JAMS. Cascadia goes to RESMS, Hamilton and JAMS. Why not also split Greenwood or Northgate and send some students to Whitman and some to RESMS until you get the right number of students at RESMS?
They chose an unqualified SPS internal person to lead the special ed dept and replace the current head who holds a doctorate and has specialized training in gifted education.
They chose an unqualified SPS internal person to lead the advanced learning dept and replace the current head who holds a doctorate and has specialized training in gifted education.
Who/?
An SPS employee promoted internally with zero background or training or doctorate in gifted education as compared to previous Dr Steven Martin. Ms. Claudine Deenie Berry. She is chief of supports for MTSS. She meets the qualifications they are seeking "at this time". See announcement letter from Kari Hanson and Wyeth Jesse
https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/advanced_learning/department_information/news/introducing_new_supervisor
As our state this year moved toward legislation that actually requires more professional development and training in gifted education of principals and staff, our district moves backward. Awhile ago Sue Peters posted Dr Steven Martin's vita on this blog in comparison. The contrast is quite stark.
Post a Comment