Submitted by John Arbeeny.
If you’re old enough you might remember the Wendy’s hamburger ad (1984) which asked “Where’s the beef?” Well the same question could be asked with respect to the recently passed CPSD annual School Improvement Plans (SIP’s). “Where’s the data?” Simply put “It’s missing! All bun and no beef!”
The latest 2022/2023 SIP’s were passed by the CPSD School Board at its regular meeting on 14 November 2022 by a vote of 3 for (Pearson, Jacobs, Veliz) to 2 against (Anderson, Wagemann). Yet these SIP’s have little substance because they lack academic data to define where the schools have been, where they are now and where they plan to be in the next year. The SIP’s are perhaps the most important documents the CPSD School Board reviews and approves because SIP’s represent where schools individually and the District collectively expect to be in the following year academically.
CPSD Policy 2005 and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 180-16-220 state “…at a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a school improvement plan that is data driven…”. Additionally the WAC states “…at a minimum the annual approval shall require each school to have a school improvement plan that shall include active participation and input by building staff, students, families, parents, and other community members.” Further that “The school improvement plan shall address parent, family, and community involvement as these factors relate to having a positive impact on student learning.”Those are the “minimums” that “shall” be based upon “data”.
So “Where’s the beef?”
The 2018/2019 SIPs comprised a total of 760 pages for 24 schools. Compare that with the 2022/2023 SIPs which comprised only 265 pages! What caused this 65% drop in content? Lakes High School’s SIP’s between 2018 and 2022 (122 pages) are used as a representative sample to address changes in the SIP format and content. Analysis of over 2875 pages for all school SIP’s since 2018 would have been a monumental task and unnecessary to address SIP trends.
Since 2018 Lakes SIP’s have systematically deemphasized and removed academic data based projections in favor of what amounts to a short narrative of ideologically based intentions. For example the Lakes 2018-2019 SIP’s contained 28 pages with 5 pages dedicated solely to specific academic performance data by subject, race/ethnicity, grade and proficiency. That data was the basis for the next 16 pages which laid out a plan, by “District improvement goal”, date, measures of success and responsible party.
Compare this to the Lakes 2022/2023 SIP which was reduced to 7 pages, virtually devoid of any academic performance data. Within those 7 pages only 3 are dedicated to “District improvement goals” as opposed to 16 in the 2018/2019 SIP. The 2022/2023 SIP format itself takes up approximately 50% of the line space. Thus the school’s input is barely 50% of the SIP. Without sufficient hard objective data it is impossible to measure performance or access accountability.
So “Where’s the beef?”
Few of the other 23 schools’ 2022/2023 SIP’s provided any financial data in the block of “Funding: List and describe funding amounts and sources associated with the activities described above”. Such information is critical to developing a District budget. Yet he District’s budget approval precedes SIP approval by several months. How can you possibly prioritize a District budget in the near absence of any school financial input in their SIPs? How can you plan a District budget that is passed months before the SIP’s are approved? How can the District’s 5 year academic improvement plan have any real meaning with such a paucity of data in annual SIP’s?
It can’t. So “Where’s the beef?”
As if to underscore the School Board’s indifference with SIP’s, consider that the School Board did not receive the 2022/2023 SIP’s until 2 November 2022 despite requests for earlier release by Directors Anderson and Wagemann. The School Board voted to approve these SIP’s, all 265 pages, on 14 November 2022 without any opportunity to discuss the SIP’s in an intervening workshop. Furthermore Superintendent Banner and Board President Pearson placed the SIP’s in the consent agenda (used for routine administrative matters) which would have ensured no discussion. However, Director Wagemann removed the SIP’s approval from the consent agenda which prompted its inclusion in the Board agenda for 14 November as an individual action item, which opened the opportunity for discussion.
And discussion it got. Directors Anderson and Wagemann essentially asked “Where’s the beef?”
Directors Anderson and Wagemann made the case that these SIP’s fell far short of the policy and regulatory minimums and that the emphasis had to be placed upon academic data based projections if they were to have any value. Despite Directors Anderson’s and Wagemann’s fact based arguments, School Board members Pearson, Jacobs and Veliz voted to approve the SIP’s. One has to wonder whether they bothered to read them or any of the SIP’s back to 2018. All were available if they cared enough to review them. Board minutes back to 2018 show SIP approval was at best a School Board “rubber stamp” right up to 14 November 2022. “That’s the way we’ve always done it” is no excuse for continuing to do so in the future.
You can’t help but wonder why since 2016 CPSD has fallen from a 43.6% to a 27.9% ranking academically among all Washington school districts despite Board approval of SIPs. Obviously the SIPs aren’t working as intended. When you aim for the minimums that’s what you’ll achieve. As a concession it appears that the matter of SIP’s format and sequencing with regard to the District’s “Academic Improvement Committee” 5 year academic improvement plan and budget process will be addressed at the Board’s January 2023 retreat.
Let’s hope they can find the “beef”!
I observe the Clover Park School District School Board meetings, including this one on November 14. Directors Anderson’s and Wagemann’s thorough, conscientious efforts to fulfill the responsibilities of their positions was evident again. In the past accusations have been made that the two are conspiring to “take over” the Board in order to control it with their own ideological agenda. On the contrary, I have observed that their efforts consistently demonstrate their goal of improving the performance of Board oversight through research, adherance to Board policies and Washington State law, and constructive debate. It is difficult to understand why the other three Board members also had not observed that the School Improvement Plans did not follow their own Board policy and State law, or why when so informed by Anderson and Wagemann during Board discussion, that the the three voted to approve the School Improvement Plans anyway! If the District is to improve its low academic standing (in the bottom one-third of Washington State Schools), the District needs the full efforts of every Board Director to perform their due diligence as part of a team effort.
Sounds like Arbeeny, Anderson, Wagemann and the rest of LakewoodCares still believe citizens are gullible enough to trust anything they claim. They ruined their reputation and burned bridges long ago. They have been caught presenting incorrect data at board meetings trying to hoodwink the public. Our schools in the hands of these political hacks would be a complete disaster. I hear they have intentions of going after our City Council AND the school board. No thanks!
So you’ve read the SIPs from 2018 to present and looked at the Board minutes during that time frame? I didn’t think so. If not you speak from ignorance.
“Our schools in the hands of these political hacks would be a complete disaster.” I hate to break it to you but the schools in the hands of this Superintendent and Board majority have resulted in a “complete disaster” where the District is ranked near the very bottom quarter (27.9%) academically of all Districts statewide. I appears to me that only Directors Anderson and Wagemann are determined to stop that trend. Are you happy with 27.9%?
So since you’re obviously not gullible, please refute the facts laid out in this article…..if you can. I didn’t think so.