Message Submitted to RHS email Newsletter, and sent to Harrium Martin-Morris

[RHS Parent Royce]

It took me forever to get this done, but I've sent it to Susan
Petersen for submission to the RHS parent email newsletter, and to
Harrium Martin-Morris. Just to let you know of a concerned parent
stance.

Fellow RHS Parents:

I am the father of a RHS sophomore. I am disturbed about some
curriculum changes being proposed by SPS administrators that would
negatively impact the RHS Language Arts program. I feel that RHS
parents should be aware of them. Central administrators for SPS are in
the process of standardizing the LA curriculum across all high schools
in Seattle Public Schools, and the efforts to standardize will be to
the detriment of proven programs and classes that have been offered
for years at RHS. The proposal is to replace the courses above LA 10A,
and 10B with standardized courses titled LA 11A/B, and 12A/B. In
addition to the grade-level mandates, the texts used in each course
would come from a list of required texts, and a list of approved texts
for additional reading. For example, at the LA 11A level, there would
be one novel required for all schools, then another novel to be chosen
from a group of pre-approved options. A third, optional novel, could
also be chosen, again from a group of pre-approved options.

First off, the notion that a committee could effectively vet what they
feel should be used in the class room raises suspicion on my part. The
mere presence of a committee to approve reading selections increases
the likelihood that a novel could be either selected or rejected for
reasons of political correctness, to avoid controversy, or in an
attempt to kowtow to pressure from special interests. Not withstanding
the "good intentions" of a group to choose "what is best," the
negative possibilities make me shudder. Controversy is at the very
heart of the dissent we hold dear in our culture. It is one of the
primary vehicles by which we teach students to reason intelligently
and with passion. The idea of a central-literature-approval-committee
smells of censorship, or at the very best is patronizing and opens the
door to censorship.

The argument could be made that a committee could re-form annually to
select and approve new readings; however, unless the district is
prepared to pay for new, mandatory literature on a regular basis, a
new committee is likely to only add to the list of options. The one
mandatory reading selection will easily become stale without regular
new additions, and the cost for district wide new additions makes
change unlikely. Additionally, the lumbering nature of committees
makes getting anything new into the literary offerings a slow,
plodding process at best. Literature is far too dynamic an art to
entrust to a committee removed from a school. As a parent, I am
opposed to a standardized reading requirement for any high school in
SPS, and I urge like-minded RHS parents, as well as parents from other
schools to oppose it as well.

Not only is the standardization of reading offerings unacceptable for
high schools in SPS, there are specific programs that we offer now
such as Hands For a Bridge, and sophomore humanities which could be
lost simply because they are not or cannot be offered by all schools.
Courses like Shakespeare, Science Fiction, Expository Writing,
American Literature are at risk of disappearing in the name of
standardization. Standardization can too easily lead to a mediocre
norm of course offerings, and the unique nature of L.A. course offered
at RHS would be sacrificed for administrative convenience. I am
frankly unconcerned with the difficulties that school district
officials face in coordinating the variety of high schools in SPS. If
central administration's only remedy is to reorganize all high schools
into a homogeneous group that is easier for them to manage, then they
are the ones not serving the students. If one school loses one
successful L.A. course offering for administrative convenience then
ultimately all students in all schools stand to lose much more.

Schools that are most successful are those that take risks to
innovate. Roosevelt High School has gotten where it is by taking risks
and trying new programs. The programs developed over the last ten
years have been implemented with little or no support from central
administration, so the true concern for student learning has come from
the Roosevelt high school community, from where it should continue to
come, not a central authority. Standardization could very well mean
the end of innovation at all schools.

My own philosophy of education is that the most important abilities
with which a student should leave school are, in this precise order of
importance: the ability to read critically, to write persuasively, and
to solve problems analytically. The foundation of civilization is
written language and literature, every thing else we know derives from
it, so the order is the correct way to develop strong, independent
students. Some may find it odd that I as a math teacher would have
this priority of disciplines, but as far as I am concerned there is
nothing more important than a vibrant and dynamic Language Arts
program because it is the foundation of all other disciplines. SPS
central administrators should encourage diversity among schools
regardless of the difficulties they encounter coordinating them, and
if the difficulties are too daunting, they should find more easily
overcome obstacles, or less arduous districts in which to work.


Royce Christensen
RHS Parent (Class of 2011)

[GlennH]

Another vital angle! - I'm constantly struck by the lucid arguments
made against the Alignment plan, and can only hope that other folks
are also writing, but just not posting - far from preaching to the
choir, posting demonstrates the breadth of insights and issues, and
the deep concern we all feel.

While Mr. Martin-Morris is our best advocate, he's only one seat on
the board of seven - I encourage you to cc: the others as well. I
don't know what hope there is of turning the Super, though - she seems
to be controlling the Earned Autonomy issue, and she told Ms Vasquez
that Earned Autonomy does not include core, core having been extended
to all four years of LA, not just 2 or 2½, thanks to this accelerated
scheme that Ms V is driving. I don't know if the Super absorbs
letters' content or floats above the storm.

We can only hope, and make our feelings known --

- Glenn Horton
also a sophomore's dad

[Peter Phalen]

Ehh may as well post what I wrote I suppose:

First email:

To Ms. Vasquez and Mr. Tolley,
I'm a student at Reed College, majoring in Philosophy. David Grosskopf's
course on "Philosophy and Literature" at Roosevelt High School was
extremely influential in getting me onto that route. Even at a college
level I am guided by what I learned in that class. I am thankful that I
was able to select a course that interested me on a personal level, as
general literature courses only served to bore and/or alienate me from
the subject. Please consider the continuation of elective-based curricula.
Thank you,
Peter

And the second, in answer to the canned response we all received:

Thanks for the response. I hope the Summit's proposal isn't mandatory!

I understand the appeal of standardization. There's definitely something
to be said for required vocab/reading lists or whatever. But although
these do get all of us to a certain level by the end of the school year,
they don't ensure that any of us will continue our educations outside of
the classroom. These English courses last fifty minutes a day, and for
only four years, so of course we learn more from the books we read and
the articles we write on our own time. I developed my passion for
English through Mr. Grosskopf's Philosophy and Literature course.
Generic classes never did it for me. A standardized curriculum is going
to create a lot of minimally competent and bored kids who won't care
enough about literature to get beyond their twelfth grade reading level.

I wish you luck on this whole thing. I imagine it must be a headache.
Again, thank you for the detailed response, and for taking our concerns
seriously.
-Peter

p.s. As you've probably noticed, the articles and research reviewed (all
those you mentioned) were carried out by the companies behind the ACT
and the SAT. These groups obviously have a vested interest in the
adoption of standardization policies. I hope other sources were appealed
to.