All of our kids, ready for life
Rise Up for Students is a blog advocating for racial equity and radical empathy in our schools, in Seattle and beyond
I didn’t post anything yesterday for a reason...
I was not trying to dampen anyone’s celebration of the 4th or offend anyone on a day that has become set aside as “holy” by some in this nation. However, that being said, independence is not something I celebrate on the 4th.
Read MoreFrom a press release written by Katie Gustainis, Marketing and Communications Director with Stand for Children Washington:
Washington State is now the first state in the country to adopt an automatic enrollment policy for advanced math, English, and science classes in all high schools. The policy, also known as Academic Acceleration, is designed to reduce historic barriers to dual credit and advanced class enrollment, especially for underrepresented students. In addition to reducing enrollment disparities in advanced courses, the attainment of college-level credit in high school also reduces financial barriers for post-secondary opportunities.
“Stand for Children and our tireless advocates will continue to strengthen programs that work to lift more kids toward bright, successful futures,” said Libuse Binder, Executive Director at Stand for Children Washington, a longtime champion of the policy and legislation. “If students are qualified for advanced coursework, we expect to see them challenged and ultimately surpassing every indicator of student success.”
The policy was included as part of HB 1599 (section 502, page 49) in an amendment introduced by Senator Mark Mullet, passed by the state legislature on April 22 and was signed by Gov. Jay Inslee on May 7, 2019. School districts have until the 2021-22 school year to implement the policy, and the law also allows families to opt their student out of the advanced classes if desired.
The 2019-2021 biennium budget passed by the Washington State Legislature includes funding to provide for dual credit programs including subsidized Advanced Placement exam fees and International Baccalaureate class fees and exam fees for low-income students.
Stand for Children Washington, a bipartisan education advocacy organization, championed the legislation as partners in the High School Success Coalition along with Black Education Strategy Roundtable, College Success Foundation, Graduate Tacoma, Treehouse, and Washington Roundtable.
What is Academic Acceleration?
Academic Acceleration is a process where students who meet standard on state-level exams are automatically placed into the next most rigorous course in the matching content area(s). As of 2018, at least 50 school districts in Washington have already implemented the policy and a majority have improved the equity of advanced classes by enrolling more historically underserved students (Stand for Children analysis of OSPI data, 2018). The program seeks to rectify historic bias that has limited access for students of color and other underserved groups to advanced education options.
Research on Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and dual enrollment programs (partnerships between high schools and colleges) show that advanced, college-credit earning programs increase students’ likelihood to graduate from high school, enroll in college, and to perform better in college. There is also evidence that these effects are particularly profound for low-income students and students of color (see references).
Policy has Roots in Federal Way and Tacoma School Districts, 2013 Legislation
The commitment to ensuring equitable opportunities in advanced coursework in Washington was pioneered by Federal Way Public Schools - the state’s 9th largest district - when its school board implemented an Academic Acceleration policy in 2010-11. The district saw a dramatic rise in enrollment of advanced classes with a notable increase for students of color. According to 2019 data, passing rates for advanced classes at Federal Way are at 92% and all racial subgroups are passing at rates of 87% or higher.
"I saw the dramatic benefits of academic acceleration firsthand when the policy was instituted while serving on the Federal Way School Board in 2011, and those benefits, particularly for scholars of color, have continued,” said Sen. Claire Wilson of the 30th legislative district, vice-chair of the Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee. “It surpasses my greatest hopes for my first year as a lawmaker that this opportunity-gap-closing strategy will be available to all students in school districts across our state. Equitable access to academic acceleration is a fundamental, essential investment that enables more scholars, particularly those from communities of color, to fulfill their potential and thrive in the diverse communities to whom we look for new generations of scholars and leaders.”
Sen. Wilson was also the co-sponsor of the Academic Acceleration policy’s original legislative vehicle, SB 5343.
Inspired by the success in Federal Way, in 2013 the Washington State Legislature passed HB 1642, championed by Stand for Children - Washington, which established the Academic Acceleration Incentive Program to encourage adoption of the policy with grants for school districts. As recently as 2016-17, school districts who received the grant and implemented the policy saw significant gains in enrollment by students of historically underrepresented populations (OSPI, 2018).
"Every kid deserves to know they are capable of tackling any challenge and that they are worthy of the opportunity to try,” said Rep. Eric Pettigrew of the 37th district in South Seattle, the prime sponsor of the 2013 bill. “After six years of pursuing this policy, I’m so proud of this outcome and everyone that helped us get there.”
Tacoma Public Schools — the state’s fourth largest district — followed Federal Way’s lead in 2014-15 and has similarly seen dramatic increases in enrollment across all student groups. Enrollment in advanced classes has doubled from 27.5% to 71.1% for all students since 2013 and tripled for historically underserved students of color from 19.5% to 60% (Tacoma Public Schools, 2019).
“We’ve seen huge results in Tacoma with more kids taking these classes and these exams. And that corresponds with more kids graduating. And as those numbers go up, we have to remember that each one of those numbers is a kid,” said Josh Garcia, Deputy Superintendent of Tacoma Public Schools and one of the original architects of the policy in Federal Way.
References: Advanced classes improve graduation rates and post-secondary enrollment
Linda Hargrove, Donn Godin, and Barbara Dodd, College Outcomes Comparisons by AP and Non-AP High School Experiences (New York: The College Board, 2008).
Chrys Dougherty, Lynn Mellor, and Shuling Jian, The Relationship Between Advanced Placement and College Graduation (Austin, Texas: National Center for Educational Accountability, 2006).
A. Berger et al., Early College, Early Success: Early College High School Initiative Impact Study (Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, 2014);
Anna Rosefsky Saavedra, "The Academic Impact of Enrollment in International Baccalaureate Diploma Programs: A Case Study of Chicago Public Schools," Teachers College Record 116, no. 4 (2014);
Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics, Longitudinal Impact of the AP Experience Among Advance Kentucky Students (Frankfort, KY: Author, 2013);
What Works Clearinghouse, WWC Intervention Report: Dual Enrollment Programs (Washington, DC: US Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, 2017).
Relevant Press on Academic Acceleration and Dual-Credit Programs
Closing the Achievement Gap, One School at a Time, The Atlantic, January 2015
Proposed Law Would Require Washington Schools to Enroll Students in AP Classes, KUOW, February 2013
Stand for Children - Washington
Stand for Children - Washington is a non-profit education advocacy organization focused on ensuring all students receive a high quality, relevant education, especially those whose boundless potential is overlooked and under‑tapped because of their skin color, zip code, first language, or disability. To fulfill our mission, we organize parents and community members to speak up and demand excellent schools for their children. We work closely with state legislators to shape education policy and with school districts to implement programming that will benefit every kid. We ensure that the policies we fight for reach classrooms and directly support students by supporting school districts with guidance and tools to implement successful strategies.
In a recent article, J. Martin Rochester, a professor of political science at the University of St. Louis-Missouri, raised concerns about teaching social justice in schools. Rochester’s problem with teaching social justice in schools is focused on two simultaneous axes. One, he thinks that social justice exists outside the jurisdiction of school curricula, and second that those who would teach social justice approach it only from a liberal perspective.
As an educator who includes social justice as a necessary part of my classroom practice, I think Rochester got some some things right but a lot of things wrong.
Rochester’s first insinuation is that schools ought to focus on the traditional curricula of reading, writing, mathematics, sciences, etc. Schools ought not to, in Rochester’s words, “aspire to be churches or social work agencies.”
What this overlooks, however, is that education has always been political. When a nation has within its DNA laws regulating who can learn, with whom one can learn, and where one can learn, then the idea that a school ought not engage in the political realm reeks of forced naïveté.
As long as our school systems are funded within halls of state legislatures that maintain 21st-century houses of education for zip codes of wealth, and crumbling school houses for zip codes of poverty, then it is disingenuous at best to assert that schools exists outside the realm of political discourse.
Sacred Stone Community School in Cannonball, ND, November 2016. Photo by Matt Halvorson.
Furthermore, schools have always been community centers akin to congregations. Schools are where communities come together to vote, engage in town halls and hear from their elected representatives. They are the places where evening athletic leagues flourish, where families gather for tax filing support and where communities gather to enjoy the arts.
To assert that schools should exist solely as collections of classrooms is to not only deny the reality of schools across the country, but also to waste the potential of using these community centers to promote social justice as defined by that particular school community.
Rochester paints with an absurdly large brush when he argues that, “Educators for social justice are disingenuous in posing as facilitators of student-centered learning when as teachers they have largely foreclosed the discussion or at least steered it toward a preferred outcome.”
To label all educators as disingenuous is lazy and calls into doubt one’s arguments as purely didactical, more concerned with an agenda than honesty. However, if we assume the best, and discuss the argument underlying the insult, there may be some merit.
It is true that our job as educators is to educate, not indoctrinate. It is our job to help students develop the critical skills to be able to think for themselves, not simply to regurgitate the values forced onto them by a chosen curricula. This truth, however, does not call for the elimination of the social justice curriculum, but rather its expansion.
In my classroom, I choose to teach Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow.” I teach it as a means for building critical reading skills that allow students to identify an author’s central point, analyze the methodology of that argument and to critique the merit of that argument. According to Rochester, since Alexander’s work is decidedly left of center, it has no place in my classroom. What Rochester does not know, however, is that to supplement Alexander’s work, I purposefully choose secondary source materials that run counter to Alexander’s narrative. I ask students to not only analyze the merits of Alexander’s arguments, but their shortcomings as well. In fact, after reading Rochester’s article, I will take his suggestion of including Heather McDonald’s “The War on Cops.”
More and more, our political reality resembles the kindergarten sandbox wherein we yell over each other rather than engage with each other. The point is that we should not shut down the conversation simply because we think the other side’s view might be expressed. That’s not how we get a conversation on social justice to flourish.
Lastly, Rochester argues that social justice curricula imply a stagnant set of value systems. He argues that social justice itself is open to interpretation, for exactly what is justice? Fair enough.
But while we may disagree on what justice is, we can likely agree on what justice is not. It is not justice when schools in affluent zip codes have laptops for all students, while those in zip codes of poverty cannot provide every student a book. It is not justice when, according to the Brookings Institute, suspension rates for Black students was 17.8 percent while those for Whites was 4.4 percent.
We will disagree on causes and remedies. We should. That discourse, as Rochester himself argues, is precisely how we can arrive at best solutions. What we cannot do is bury our heads in the sand and abstain from engaging in these discussion for fear of offending one another. And, most importantly, we cannot block our students from having these conversations in school, not when we must soon look to them to solve the ills of their predecessors.
By Beth Hawkins
Look at this photo of Edie Windsor. When was she ever photographed looking anything other than confident and jubilant, arms extended and something bright, some swath of super-saturated color breaking up her otherwise conservative attire?
To me, photos of her are invariably mesmerizing. What does it feel like to be so free? So utterly at home in your skin and alive in your world?
For a moment when I saw a photo of her standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court flash by this afternoon I was elated and then confused. And then of course it was clear, without so much as a headline, why: Windsor died today at 88.
I have of course read tens of thousands of words about Windsor, whose effort to recover the estate taxes she was forced to pay following the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer, turned into United States v. Windsor, the 2013 case in which the high court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act.
But tonight reading the New York Times obituary made me sad on a new level. Windsor’s life story is so remarkable, her willingness in an era when it was very unsafe to be true to who she knew she was, to be out—truly dramatically out—and to occupy roles women did not play.
An even more compelling read: In an example of profile-writing at its best, in the wake of DOMA’s demise The New Yorker profiled Windsor and her lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, describing Windsor’s days as an LGBT activist and chronicling her relationship with her attorney.
It’s a wonderful piece, colorful and unabashedly gay. Sample: “Provided that Kaplan kept her client muzzled on the topic, Americans could imagine that Edie Windsor had aged out of carnality.”
I am sad because I know that it will likely be a long time before Windsor’s story is presented as part of the canon of American history. Because I know how many young people—girls especially—would be more likely to embrace their sexual orientation or gender identity after learning about Windsor’s fierce and colorful life.
A little of this sadness is for me—what would life have been like if my classes had been filled with tales of heroes I could identify with? But mostly I am sad that we told our children that all families are equal and it’s love that makes a home, but we can’t get LGBT stories into schools.
There are lots of curricular resources and classroom guides out there for teachers who want to teach gay history or create LGBT inclusive lessons. I had to hunt a little to find it, but there’s even a resource (outdated, but hey) for teaching about the DOMA decision and about Windsor.
Yet we also know that teachers in the main don’t touch LGBT topics. Many worry they will face student or parent pushback, or do not believe their administrators will back them if they do. Many feel unsure about everything from proper terminology to fear of the imagined sex part of sexual orientation.
There are eight states where it is illegal for educators to talk to students about LGBT topics–to mention that Oscar Wilde was gay or Freida Kahlo bisexual. Illegal. So why should it surprise us that in most school’s there’s silence?
Whatever the next chapter of the LGBT fight for equality and inclusion, I have a feeling we’re nowhere near helping the adults in our schools feel safe enough to offer a safe space for the kids. Mostly I just pray we’re watching the dinosaur’s death rattle, you know?
In my fantasy version of reality, where marriage equality was followed by affirming classrooms, tomorrow Windsor’s bold and joyful photos will grace whiteboards throughout the country for one more reason: Because she was living proof that it’s possible, simply by refusing to shirk your truth, to shape history.
Windsor waited 40 years to marry her love. And she insisted on pressing her estate tax case at a moment in history when lots of LGBT rights organizations demurred on such challenges, wanting plaintiffs who presented as pure and perfect political timing.
And she won. Near the end of her life, she was present as the Supreme Court agreed with her argument in the case bearing her name that discrimination can’t be enshrined in U.S. law. She got to hear that news, field a phone call from Barack Obama, and—the only dry-eyed person in the room–to ask to celebrate in front of the nation’s first LGBT national monument.
I leave you with her beautiful photo, and with a particularly lovely passage from Ariel Levy’s New Yorker story, “The Perfect Wife”:
Finally, Windsor was taken where she really wanted to go: Stonewall. When she got out of the car, at Christopher Street, there were hundreds of people chanting her name. Windsor got up on the podium, in her shiny purple shirt, with the pin on her lapel, and, as she looked at the crowd, she said, “Now’s the part when I try not to cry.”
An original version of this post first appeared on Beth Hawkins' blog.
"I was a racist teacher and I didn’t recognize it.
At the time that I taught, I would have argued that I was the opposite. I was a progressive, a Democrat. I campaigned in my progressive town in Western North Carolina for the first Black man to run for the U.S. Senate against a notorious racist from our state, Jesse Helms. I voted for Obama, even volunteered in his office during the 2008 campaign."
Read MoreOur children deserve us to fight to the bitter end for their best interests."
Read MoreI've been writing a lot about ESSA and the need for active vigilance as our states attempt to write their own school accountability standards and procedures.
Here in Washington, state education leaders have developed a first draft of the statewide education plan due to the U.S. Education Department by Sept. 18, 2017.
A major chunk of the plan is dedicated to school accountability: knowing how well schools are meeting the academic needs of students, showing that information to parents and communities, and helping schools that are struggling the most. Of everything that happens during the transition from No Child Left Behind, this part of the process will have the most impact on educational equity, which means it will have the most impact on our traditionally oppressed students and communities. Which means nothing else in this plan matters if we let our education leaders get this part wrong.
So, let's stay vigilant together. Here are some highlights and potential concerns from the first draft of Washington's consolidated ESSA plan:
Where data is available, Washington wants 100 percent of elementary and middle school students testing on grade level (or on track to being there) by 2037. At the 10-year midpoint, they hope to have each subgroup of students (including different racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, low-income students, etc.) cut the learning gap in half.
So, if 40 percent of black students are testing at grade level in 2017, for example, the state would like to see 70 percent of them at grade level by 2027 (the gap to get to 100 percent was 60, so half of that means an increase of 30).
In 10 years, at least 90 percent of students from each subgroup should be testing on grade level in high school and graduating from high school.
English language proficiency goals are still to be determined.
States also have to measure how schools are doing in other areas. Washington has chosen to look at graduation rates, whether students are meeting a minimum bar for grade-level work, how much students are growing academically, progress for non-native English speakers, and “School Quality or Student Success” (things like chronic absenteeism, dual-credit participation and the percent of 9th graders who don’t fail a course).
They’ll use all of these indicators to give schools an overall score or rating.
The state hasn’t completely figured out its rating system yet. Everything related to academics (such as student performance on tests, graduation rates, etc.) will count for more than the school-quality factors just mentioned, but exactly how the state plans to calculate a score remains vague.
In the plan, students’ academic growth is considered to be of “high” importance, performing at grade level is “medium,” and school-quality factors are “low.” This seems like generally the right way to think about it — academic factors should be a priority and count for more in a school’s overall score — but “precise numerical weightings have not been assigned,” according to the draft plan.
When they do figure out how to calculate scores, Washington will give schools an overall rating on a 1-10 scale. They’ll also give schools a color label tied to that ranking.
These scores will be based on a three-year average. Unfortunately, Washington will only ask schools to report every three years. In other words, in some years, parents would be looking at a scores that use information that’s nearly six years old. Taking a three-year average makes sense — it can be misleading to judge the hard work of teaching kids by such a small sample size as a single year. But not recalibrating that three-year average every year is a disservice to parents and others seeking to have timely information about what’s happening in Washington schools.
Federal law says states have to track specific groups of students — the kind of kids who usually get the short end of the stick in education. Not only do states have to track them, but they must have a plan in place if those subgroups of students — again, students of color, students with disabilities, low-income students, etc. — are not getting the education they deserve.
In the section of the plan where states are supposed to identify each “major” and “racial ethnic” group, Washington seems to ignores the “major” part — students with disabilities, low-income students, and English learners — and only addresses the racial ethnic groups.
In another section, Washington says it plans to create two sets of subgroups to help them identify schools that need “targeted support” (see more on this in the next section). The first set would group racial and ethnic minorities together — nearly any non-white student, it would seem. The second, called the “program” group, would include English learners, students with disabilities, and low-income students.
It’s unclear if Washington will report on low-income students or students with disabilities if they aren’t identified for this level of support. The only mention of this second set is when the plan talks about providing support to struggling subgroups needing “targeted support.” If the state doesn’t report on them, it will create a serious issue of state transparency with parents, and it could also put the state in violation of federal law.
Once Washington figures out how to give every school a score, education officials will identify the bottom five percent of schools to receive the highest level of support: "comprehensive support." Schools with a four-year graduation rate below 67 percent will also be marked for comprehensive support.
The state will give these schools 90 days to figure out what they need to improve and come up with a plan. The Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction’s office (OSPI) will review those plans and get them back to the schools within 30 days.
Schools that aren’t in the bottom five percent but have struggling subgroups of students will be identified as schools needing "targeted support.” The intervention is basically the same: Give them time to make a plan to turn things around. The major difference is funding. OSPI has no way of knowing for sure how much money will be available from the federal government, so comprehensive-support schools will be first priority when funding these plans. Whatever’s left will go to the targeted-support schools.
To identify targeted-support schools, the state will look at those two sets of subgroups (the racial/ethnic minorities set, and the “program” set with non-native English speakers, students with disabilities, and low-income students). Within each set, they’ll see which schools are struggling the most and select them for targeted support.
We need to monitor the state's school rating system, which is currently in development by the Achievement and Accountability workgroup.
We also need to look into the rationale behind only checking school accountability measures every three years. This sets the stage for some very outdated information.
And we need to know if low-income students and students with disabilities will be reported on even if they don’t fall into the comprehensive or targeted support categories. This isn’t clear in the plan. We know they’ll be tracked for long-term goals, but outside of the targeted support details, they aren’t mentioned in the plan’s accountability section.
An Open Letter From Erin Jones:
Yesterday I was left saddened and in disbelief after reading the Stranger’s portrayal of my positions on the changing landscape of LGBTQ youth education and attempt to undermine 25 years of hands-on commitment to fighting for openness, acceptance and success for EVERY child. I have been a longstanding, strong supporter of LGBTQ children and adults and their rights to be treated equally, respectfully and lovingly in their schools and communities.
My track record is something my opponent—or writers at the Stranger, who did not bother to interview any of the many LGBTQ leaders or former students I have worked with— cannot take away. Ultimately voters will make the call on whether a career educator, who has worked with some of Washington’s most vulnerable populations, should be rejected for what amounts to language that does not reflect my values or lifestyle.
I want to be clear that I recognize and regret using overly equivocal wording on issues related to the LGBTQ community. I recognize that I have let friends and supporters down in my word choice. I know that in issues of race and sexual orientation, words do matter. I used words that I have employed to persuade individuals who do not share our progressive values, but they were wrong in this context. I assure you that my values have never wavered in my support of the LGBTQ community.
As an educator, I believe one never stops being a student. In the months since friends and supporters first raised the issue of my perspective on trans education in elementary schools, I have spent hours on the phone talking with friends who are members of the LGBTQ community, allies, experts on sexual health, parents of LGBTQ youth and LGBTQ youth themselves. I have intentionally sat in spaces to learn and gain better understandings that will help me best serve our students and our communities.
Over the course of the campaign I have been asked if I think being LGBTQ is a choice or a sin. I do NOT believe being LGBTQ is a choice, nor do I believe that being LGBTQ is a sin! However, my job as the state education leaders is not to take a stand on my religious beliefs but to ensure schools are prepared to be absolutely inclusive and embrace each and every young person and their families. To that end, I fully support a comprehensive sexual education curriculum that includes issues of gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. Even our youngest of children are experiencing bullying for gender expression that does not match their gender identity, from boys being bullied for having long hair to girls being harassed for not wanting to play with dolls or participate in tea parties. However, I do believe that our teachers must be effectively trained on how to teach the material to students at all levels. Our students deserve to receive the most accurate, compassionate and open-hearted curriculum. I believe this office has a responsibility to work with teachers and advocates to provide the resources and training necessary to support students across Washington.
My personal and professional life experiences and actions with the LGBTQ community are a mirror into who I am, and have always been. As a teacher, I worked to ensure that all my students felt safe and knew they were accepted and loved for who they were, regardless of their socioeconomic status, religious beliefs, gender identity, expression or sexual orientation. One example of my advocacy was my willingness to take on an additional course on diversity as an instructional coach at the high school. The school needed someone to step in when a teacher had to take a leave of absence, and I had the gift of participating in learning alongside my students. A significant portion of this course addressed developing inclusive practices for the LGBTQ community. In fact, we also created the first Mix-it-Up Day with the express purpose of helping students embrace the ethnic, linguistic and sexual diversity around them. As a mother, I have two biological children, an adopted daughter who is biologically my niece, and two socially-adopted children who were ostracized by their families after “coming out.” These young people are not biologically mine, yet I have embraced them and they adopted me as their surrogate mother, because I accept and love them for who they are. The thought of rejecting a child for being his/her/their authentic self makes my heart sick.
As a Black Woman, who holds the honor of being first to run for statewide office in Washington, I know too well what it means to be systematically and socially marginalized. My experience of being both Black and Woman is the foundation of my passion for equality and equity of all people and at every level of society. To suggest otherwise is a clear misrepresentation of my character, the history of my actions in my personal and professional lives, and is shortsighted and hurtful in nature.
I am running for OSPI precisely because of my combined personal and professional experiences. These experiences have led me to serve for over 20 years in K-12 environments with some of the highest need, highest poverty, and most ethnically, culturally, and sexually diverse communities in our state. I am proud of my work and support for the rights of all people—and all children—regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender identity or economic status. I have been a champion for children and will bring to the table a comprehensive plan to address our need for full funding, our need to address standardized testing, our need to eliminate opportunity gaps, our need to improve teacher retention, and our need to ensure that our schools are safe spaces for every child and their families. For over twenty years I have worked to make sure each and every child is valued, that every school environment is inclusive, and that every student is supported to be able to become his/her/their best selves.
Superintendent of Public Instruction is not simply another political office to occupy. It is the office that has the responsibility to invest in our children and empower them to be the next leaders of our world. I am the champion for our state's students and will work to ensure that each child gets a quality education regardless of age, race, zip code, orientation, expression, or identity.
Sincerely,
Erin Jones
Candidate Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
The IRS allows teachers to declare some relatively small amount of money on classroom supplies every year — $250, I think. But every teacher, I’m told, spends more than that.
Kenneth Maldonado, for example, is a great friend and a great teacher entering his sixth year in education in Seattle. His math classroom has one chalkboard, and he’s asking for help to buy a few whiteboards.
Click here to find another classroom to support through Donors Choose.
Help as you’re able, and if you post similar requests to Mr. Maldonado’s in the comments, I’ll do my best to repost them and spread the word.
The Seattle City Council is trying to squeeze through a sneaky little vote to build America's most expensive police precinct in north Seattle.
City Council members -- including Tim Burgess, it seems -- have maneuvered to schedule a vote for Monday, when Councilmember Kshama Sawant, a hero for marginalized communities who opposes the proposition, will be away. The vote -- set for two days (!) from now, on Aug. 15 -- would approve a $149 million budget to build a bomb- and ballistics-proof bunker, diverting scarce public dollars to support the further militarization of police even as we fight nationwide for demilitarization and humanization of law enforcement.
The north precinct is in need of renovation, but this is an ill-advised project to begin with. As with all police measures, and especially those with militaristic aspects, this will disproportionately impact kids and families of color. They need your voice. Here's how to do your part:
If it feels like Groundhog Day in Seattle that's because it pretty much is for anyone following education news. Another anti-kid, anti-learning, anti-charter lawsuit has been filed in an effort to kill the charter school sector in Seattle.
Read More“Awake youth of the land and accept this noble challenge of salvaging the strong ship of civilization by the anchors of right, justice and love…” — Ella Baker
Dear Gov. Inslee,
As you may know on September 4th 2015 the Washington State Supreme Court issued a ruling that rendered charter schools “unconstitutional”. While for some it was a day for celebration and jubilee, for many such as myself it was a day of sadness and surprise. Sadness about how a system setup to protect the rights of the people could fail them us so badly.
For a majority of the last 9 years I have attended St.Therese Catholic Academy. While I was there I encountered countless teachers that helped me to become the man I currently am. Whenever I would encounter an obstacle -- for example not using pencils because I have sensitive ears -- they gave me an unofficial “IEP” and allowed me to put on headphones during tests to block out the noise so I could do my best. However due to some personal issues I had, I left and transitioned to my neighborhood public school.
I like to use the term "you don't really know what you have until you lose it" with the school I ended up moving to, Orca. Orca is a K-8 alternative public school located in Columbia City near Seward Park. As the weeks progressed after I was enrolled I became less and less excited about going to school. I would sometimes stare aimlessly at the clock waiting for the moment when I could leave. I felt as though I had given up on life and didn't really know who to turn to. I was just another number in the educational system.
As the months went on we realized that Orca was not prepared nor willing to help with any assistance or IEP’s either verbal or formal. From the time that we submitted the IEP form in September until the time that I left in March we received no inkling that we had anyone on our side. And that is unacceptable.
This leads me to Summit Sierra, a charter high school located in the International District. I am going to be honest: when I started thinking about going to high school I dreaded the thought of being lost again. When we first met Ms. Burns I realized things were going to be different. She took the time to individually meet with each of the one hundred and twenty or so students who applied for the school, talk about their concerns and their questions and help them through them. She took the time to memorize our names, hobbies and family members.
I chose Summit Sierra for a myriad of reasons, including their track record in their California schools and their commitment to diversity. In a recent 2013 - 2014 Seattle Public School district study, African Americans make up only 17.9% of the population yet they account for almost half of all disciplinary action taken against students. Correct me if I am wrong but no parent wants to see their child disciplined unfairly because of their race.
I respectfully ask that you sign the bill to overturn the State Supreme Court ruling and realize the damage that they have done. In a time and era in which students are required by law to attend school, shouldn't they have a choice? I understand that you are asked of things every day. However, when the education of our youth is at stake, is it not worth our time?
Sincerely,
Jalen Johnson
Freshman, Summit Sierra High School
Hello,
I am Tatiana Villegas, a student and future graduate at Summit Sierra.
As we have all heard, there was a ruling that charter schools like mine were “unconstitutional.” Not only me, but thousands of students will be forced to leave the school of their choice.
Finding out about this school was an amazing day for me, since I was supposed to go to a huge public school that I knew I would have struggled in. Knowing that the school was small and was productive, I knew I could succeed in this school.
Once I heard out about the ruling, I was in shock -- I didn't believe it. I found out from a friend who attends Summit, and now he is one of my best friends. After the news I was sad. I had made so many new friends from all over Seattle, and some not even in Seattle. I would probably lose connection with most of the people just from distance.
Going to school after the news broke out, no one could believe it. We had a meeting, and as I was sitting with my peers we were not prepared to split up. It’s now been a couple of months after the ruling, and we have all gotten even closer. When I walk into the school in the morning, I don’t just see my classmates, I see my family. If one person is feeling sad, so many people will be there to comfort them, no matter what, because we are a family and we can’t leave one another behind.
It’s kind of funny. Going into this school I knew I was going to have a bright future academically, but I never thought I would socially. This school has helped me open up so much. It was so hard for me just to speak up in class when there was a question, or if I needed help; the people at this school have made me feel more comfortable so that I can speak up for myself. I've had a great experience so far in my first year of high school, and I would love to graduate from high school at Summit Sierra with the rest of my fellow Spartans. The judges, senators, legislators, and many other people are the key to solving this problem, so please don't lock me out of a school where I'm achieving social and academic success, and one based on a 100% graduation rate.
Dear Rep. Santos,
My name is Olivia Zilavy, I'm a ninth grader at Summit Sierra Public Charter School in the ID, I am one of your constituents, and I am angry.
I’m angry at the situation that the Supreme Court has put me and my family in. I am angry that we have to fight for our right to receive a good education. I am angry that a public school with an amazing track record is being questioned. I am angry that my representative isn’t supportive of something that my family and I believe in so strongly.
I understand that I am only one of the many students that you represent, but let’s just say I’m liking Rep. Pettigrew a whole lot more that I’m liking you right now. I understand that you are adamantly against charter schools, and have been since 2012. I am writing to try and sway your stance on this issue.
Your website talks about how much you care about quality public education, and how much you care about closing the achievement gap. I’m sitting here wondering, if you really care about these issues, why don’t you care about my school?
Despite the fact that nearly half of the freshman class started the school year an average of 3.5 years below grade level in both reading and math, my school, Summit Sierra, outperformed the national average in reading by 40 percent, and more than doubled the national average in math. Washington State has never closed down a low-performing public school, so why are you trying to shut down a school that has made such amazing progress toward closing the achievement gap?
Your website says, and I quote, that, “Washington state must strive for providing education excellence and opportunities for all students to learn.”
My school does that.
If traditional schools aren’t working for students, why shouldn’t they be allowed an excellent, free alternative? When a school has a 96 percent acceptance rate into four-year colleges, in comparison to the statewide high school graduation rate of 77.2 percent, why should it be called into question at all?
My school is effective in teaching its students, has high-performing test scores, and is successful in graduating 100 percent of its students. So why are you trying to take away such an amazing institution, opportunity, and community?
My school offers “level playing fields that allow those who work hard to succeed” (another quote from your website), and provides support for those that need it. If you truly care about the aspects of education that you claim you do, then I’m struggling to understand why you refuse to support a public school that succeeds in addressing all of your concerns about K-12 education in Washington.
I hope this gave you something to think about.
Sincerely,
Olivia Zilavy,
Founding class of Summit Sierra Public Charter School
The Southeast Seattle Education Coalition (SESEC) is hosting two important events for Seattle's education community.
The first is a listening session with Pegi McAvoy, assistant superintendent for Seattle Public Schools, on Thursday, Feb. 25 from noon to 2 p.m. at Rainier Avenue Church (5900 Rainier Ave S, Seattle, WA 98118).
Scheduled topics of conversation include community engagement and bell time changes. SESEC has said they "will do [their] best to allow for dialogue and listening." RSVP to erin@allfivesinfive.org.
SESEC will also host a summit to share the results of its survey of more than 580 caregivers from 9 am to noon on Saturday, Feb. 27, again at Rainier Avenue Church. Childcare, interpreters and transit passes are all available on request.
More than 500 students, parents, educators and advocates representing Washington’s public charter schools will convene in Olympia at noon tomorrow to urge legislators to support Senate Bill 6194.
A Sept. 4 ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court invalidated Washington’s voter-approved public charter school law based on a funding glitch. As a result more than 1,100 students’ futures remain in limbo with just 15 days remaining in the 2016 Washington state legislative session.
SB 6194 mirrors the original law, but includes a fix to the funding issue identified in part by the Washington Education Association and addressed last fall by the court. The bill passed out of the Senate chamber on Jan. 20 with bipartisan support.
The Act Now for Washington Students coalition (@ActNowForWA) and the Washington State Charter Schools Association (@WA_Charters) will be live-tweeting from the rally. Speakers, including students, legislators, and public education advocates, will begin speaking on the steps of the Washington State Capitol at 12 p.m.
If passed, SB 6194 will:
The rally is part of a broader campaign to save Washington’s public charter schools that also saw two new television ads launched this week, information mailed to more than 15 districts, and a robust digital campaign and social presence that has gathered more than 18,000 new supporters online.
In addition, parent volunteers and community activists have made more than 6,000 calls to legislators, and have been actively meeting with legislators and testifying before key committees.
“The voters didn’t ask for shortcuts or temporary patches or closed doors," said Tom Franta, CEO of WA Charters. "They asked for access to innovative schools for every community. The future of our 1,100 students and countless more families around the state rests in legislators’ hands.”
In the first ad, high school freshman Chaka urges legislators to “keep our public charter schools open, strong, and available to all.” His classmate Jadynn adds, “This is the education we need so we can change the world.”
Meet Chaka, Jadynn and Skyler: “Dear Legislators”
The second ad features three students from Summit Olympus High School in Tacoma. Says ninth grader Katie, “I have the right to a good education; no one should take that away.”
“Our state legislators have two options: close charter schools, or do the right thing, and keep them open. Are you with us?”
Meet Katie, Tatiana C. and Tatiana V.: “Fundamental Rights"
Of course, lost in all this is the amount of time, energy and money that has been poured into this legislative battle -- a battle initiated by the WEA even as our state and our districts face well-documented budget shortfalls.
More than 75 public charter school parents, students, community leaders and advocates traveled from across the state to Olympia today to support Senate Bill 6194, a bipartisan bill that would save public charter schools in Washington State and reflect the will of the voters. The House Education Committee heard the proposed legislation, which the Senate chamber approved with bipartisan support two weeks ago.
The House Education Committee, chaired by Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos (D – Seattle), heard testimony Friday from public charter school parents, community leaders and students, whose accounts illustrated how Washington’s nonprofit-run public charter schools are meeting the needs of historically underserved students and showcased the great demand for high-quality public charter school options for their communities, particularly communities of color impacted by poverty in Washington.
Sixth grade student Heskiyas Wondaferew urged legislators to keep schools open for him, for his fellow classmates and for students younger than him: “I am standing here in front of you asking humbly to not take such a great education away. Our future lies in your hands. This education promises me and the rest of charter school students an excellent future full of success. I know by the time I graduate from Excel, I will become a solid young man…so please, why take this away from us? Shouldn’t that be unconstitutional?”
Wondaferew attends Excel Middle School at Excel Public Charter School in Kent, where sixth-graders entered, on average, two grade levels behind in reading, while seventh-graders entered, on average, three grade levels behind in reading. Interim assessment data shows that Excel students are now on track to make one and a half years of growth in reading in a single school year, while simultaneously learning to code and playing an instrument in the school’s orchestra.
In addition to current parents and students from public charter schools, the House Committee on Education heard testimony from advocates and parents from communities yet to open a public charter school under the voter approved law, who testified about the importance of reinstating the charter law to reflect the what the voters wanted: access to innovative schools for every community.
“The Yakima valley, the Tri-Cities area, and other regions of our state voted in favor of public charter schools in 2012 because our kids need additional public school options,” said Ed Pacheco, father of a seven-year-old girl and Yakima, WA, resident. Latino voters – along with people of color – voted for the public charter initiative in high numbers because we also want access to high quality schools.”
The bill is now in the hands of the members of the House Education Committee, which will decide whether to move the bill forward. The final day of the short legislative session is March 11, leaving members just 19 days to pass this critical legislation to keep local, nonprofit-run public school doors open and many of Washington’s historically underserved students on a path to success.
By Matt Halvorson
The Seattle Times published an in-depth article this week that digs into the current affairs of the charter school movement in Washington. The article is most noteworthy for the misinformation presented by Bill Keim, executive director of the Washington Association of School Administrators, and Rich Wood, spokesman for the Washington Education Association, which the article fails to refute.
This, for example:
The future of Washington’s charters is far from certain, with strong opposition from many Democrats in the House, and groups including the state administrators association and the state teachers union.
Opponents say lawmakers should focus first on fully funding regular public schools, and the executive director of the Washington Association of School Administrators has questioned the motives of those pumping money into the save-charters campaign.
“Even if these huge donations are purely motivated by a desire to better serve our students, is it OK for a few wealthy individuals to effectively buy democracy in our state to promote their ideas?” Bill Keim wrote.
The answer: yes, sadly. It happens constantly. And it's terrible. But Bill Keim's indignation is reserved for the rare instance when that money doesn't specifically work in his favor. "Wealthy individuals" typically purchases democracy at the expense of people of color, at the expense of low- and moderate-income families, at the expense of kids with special needs. And if Keim believes these donations are "purely motivated by a desire to better serve our students," then why not engage charter school supporters and their donors as opposed to fighting them tooth and nail?
This isn't so much a factual discrepancy as a display of white privilege. But then there's this, which gets much stranger and more patently false:
Opponents, however, continue to urge lawmakers to oppose legislation that would keep charters alive.
“Diverting scarce funding to unaccountable, privately-run charter schools isn’t a solution,” state teachers union spokesman Rich Wood said.
And Keim, of the school-administrators association, asked whether the decision to open charters this fall, despite the pending court challenge, was a calculated move “to make sure there were student faces at the center of this debate” — an argument supporters dismiss.
Mr. Wood, I agree that "diverting funding" (not an accurate way to describe what's happening) to "unaccountable, privately-run" schools (completely false, in that Fox News kind of way where nobody is fact-checking you and you get to say whatever you want -- charter schools in Washington State are by definition public schools, and the original charter school legislation established clear accountability) is no solution.
But continuing to fund a district that is statistically proven to be failing large swaths of student populations is not the answer either. The public education provided to students of color in the state of Washington is utterly unacceptable, and the data bears that out. One might suggest, Mr. Wood, that the WEA weed its own garden before commenting on the neighbor's.
And Mr. Keim, supporters dismiss your idea because that claim is literally the opposite of the truth. The WEA, operating in some real cloak-and-dagger, smoke-filled-room kind of fashion, spent time and "scarce funding" trying to carry out this unconstitutionality gambit just days before the start of the school year (look into it further, please; the WEA initiated this process of attempting to oust the voter-approved charter school system. Seriously. Our state's teacher's union is so threatened by the idea of giving students otherwise bound to traditional public schools -- those for whom private school tuition is not an option, for example, or whose special needs exclude them -- an alternative that they attempted to erase charters from existence). But they missed the mark, because charter schools had already started their school year just days before the court challenge was pending.
In a sense, Mr. Keim, you could say that it was the WEA's calculated move that accidentally made "sure there were student faces at the center of this debate.”
