Loading...

Curriculum and Instruction Committee Meeting - Hallo friend SMART KIDS, In the article you read this time with the title Curriculum and Instruction Committee Meeting, we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article baby, Article care, Article education, Article recipes, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : Curriculum and Instruction Committee Meeting
link : Curriculum and Instruction Committee Meeting

Curriculum and Instruction Committee Meeting

The Curriculum and Instruction meeting is tomorrow from 4:30-6:30 pm in the Board conference room.  Agenda here.

First up on the agenda after the basics is the approval the grant from the League of Education Voters to South Shore Pre-K-8 for two years at $1M per year.  Oddly, it's for intro and action at the next Board meeting and yet this is no emergency.  The Board continues to allow this to happen for almost BAR; and so it goes.

As I have said in the past, I think this is all fine except for a couple of things.

I have never seen a report about the outcomes for this investment which has been going on at about the same rate since 2003. (It started at TT Minor Elementary in 1998 but then the philanthropist who started it realized he just wanted to fund for a whole new school.  A couple of years after that change, TT Minor was closed.)

Here's how the district explains this:

This partnership between the School District and The New School Foundation (merged with LEV in 2011) was formed in 2003. It began with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that evolved into a Partnership Agreement in 2006. The school’s first year, 2002-2003, began with PreK and K. In each subsequent year, the school grew by one grade until it reached its current size, a PreK-8. The funding source of the grant was a private individual who chose to be anonymous.

Well, the original donor was Stuart Sloan who used to run QFC  but I don't know if the funding still comes from him.   As for the date for partnership starting in 2003, I'm unclear.  The program at TT Minor started in 1998.  Here's an excellent overview from Forbes:

Sloan’s extra money paid for a 12-month school year and a school day that runs from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. It provided three meals to students each day, put teacher’s aides in classrooms and paid for psychological counseling for students. And that first million was only for the 80 kids in kindergarten and nursery school. Sloan says he is prepared to spend millions more to roll his ideas through the fifth grade

This is not what the money pays for today, at least not according to the BAR. 

Initially, the grant was governed by a Partnership Agreement that provided for an annual grant renewal subject to review of the program success and an integrated budget. The funding made up a significant portion of the school’s budget (86% in 2002-2003). Funding peaked in 2006 at $1,556,000 (40% of the school’s budget). Over time as the school has grown and other funding sources have been secured, LEV funding has decreased to an annual pledge of $1,000,000, which is about 20% of the school’s budget, excluding Special Education programs which were added in 2010. 

South Shore Program Priorities

• Maintain the original goals of LEV funding which include lowered class size and academic supports to Pre K-2 classrooms. This will ensure adequate academic growth and maintain social emotional regulation.
  - Continued improvement in academic outcomes, as evidenced by standardized tests
  - PreK-3rd literacy program alignment
  - Hands-on learning, such as garden, music, environment, arts
  - Support for school newcomers, especially students in the 4th and 6th grades and new
  teachers
  - Continued improvement of the Wellness Program through program review, the RULER
  framework, and integration of physical health resources
  - Support for families through before/after school programs
  
• Add to the Multi-tiered System of Support in tiers two and three for social emotional learning to optimize the learning environment for all. South Shore will take an “early adopter” role in implementing trauma informed practices to ensure that South Shore remains a safe, kind, respectful learning environment that prepares students for high school and post-secondary education.
  
• South Shore will proactively develop alternatives for students of color that negate the early onset of special education services, particularly the overrepresentation of African American males that are served in programs that label students as Emotionally and Behaviorally.
  
• Continue to use funds generated for South Shore in ways to push the work forward to a great degree in SE and Central Seattle so that other students in need may also benefit from what we are learning.
  

 I'd have to go ask if I missed something but I have never seen a report from the district about outcomes, especially for a partnership that has lasted this long. 

 

 I've never heard the district say that, based on outcomes from South Shore piloting new initiatives, that the district was trying them elsewhere.  

 

It all seems a bit mysterious and you'd think, after more than a decade, there might be some real news to report.

 

I'll also note that South Shore is the only school in the district where an outside entity get to interview principal candidates and do it alone.  The Superintendent does make the final decision but I highly doubt that he/she would ever go against what LEV recommends.  Have to wonder if schools that raised more than $1M a year, between PTA and booster groups, could ask if they might have the same ability to choose a principal.

 

Other agenda items:

 

- High school - 24 Credits, see page 22.  

- Cascade Parent Partnership Program, see page 23, about Running Start students in the program

- update on Middle School textbook for Math adoption, see page 26

- Assessment updates, starting on page 30.  Page 31 starts the assessment calendar.

This year’s calendar will include Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessments. The Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment was selected for its wide use across schools in our district as well as its ability to complement the new K-5 ELA adoption, which lack a robust assessment to carry out the goals of Multi Tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS). Additionally, these assessments will support elementary and K-8 schools in using assessments and data to drive instructional decision-making and monitor the progress of students in English Language Arts (ELA).

- Advanced Learning update.  Key findings from "Phase 1 Report: Descriptive Analysis" that was delivered this past June.  (I still need to write a thread on this report.)

0. Enrollment
   
   • There has been an increase in the districtwide percentage of students eligible for Advanced Learning over a three-year period, from 9.4% in 2015-16 to a projected 11.3% for 2017-18.
     
   • White students remain significantly overrepresented and historically underserved students of color remain significantly underrepresented. Disproportionality has not significantly decreased in the last 3 years
     
   • The Northwest region currently has the highest concentration of the district’s Advanced Learning/Highly Capable students (30%), while the Southeast region has the lowest concentration (6%).
     
   • There has been a steady decline in the percentage of AL eligible students enrolled in Spectrum Program, driven mainly by declining number of students attending Spectrum designated schools. The decline is most noticeable among elementary grades, where the proportion of students enrolled in Spectrum Program dropped from 40% in 2014 to 28% in 2016.
     

That last bullet?  I call BS on the reasoning.  Of course, Spectrum enrolled has dropped; they've allowed the program to twist in the wind/be at the mercy of individual principals.  Why would students/parents transfer to a new school for a weakened/watered down program?

Only 4% of principals said the District should continue designating certain schools as “Spectrum schools.” Over two-thirds of respondents believes the District (68%, 46 principals in total) should discontinue this practice. The rest (28%) were “unsure”.

 In open-ended responses, these principals cited two main concerns:

o Maintaining a Spectrum designation perpetuates inequities in the district, benefiting families privileged in terms of both race and socioeconomic status.

o All schools should be able to accommodate Advanced Learners as part of the district’s Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS).

So you throw out a part of a program - that the district itself designed and maintained - because of racial inequities instead of correcting that issue?  Sounds a lot like a good reason to get rid of a program you don't really want at your school.

As well, sure, you go! MTSS.  But please allow that parents might not believe in this ability to support all learners when there is no proof that MTSS will work either.

The end of the agenda is the work place for this committee for the coming school year.

thus Article Curriculum and Instruction Committee Meeting

that is all articles Curriculum and Instruction Committee Meeting This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article Curriculum and Instruction Committee Meeting with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2017/08/curriculum-and-instruction-committee.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: