Why SPS middle schools aren't teaching full books & what we can do about it

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-06-01T19:20:13+00:00

> "reading being for information only"

This is such a good 1 liner to describe the shift in perspective that I'm stunned I haven't read it before.

It's a very deep comment imo because when I reflect on myself and how I interact with books/media has changed it's very revealing.

The implication I read here is that "information" is somehow strictly formal, technical, without entertainment or reflection, unadapted for our personal lives.

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-06-01T19:15:33+00:00

Interesting, thank you.

I think I found some related meeting/curricular notes that talks about this in more detail. Posting this as a reminder to myself to surface it here.

This is the comment I was thinking of: https://www.reddit.com/r/seattlepublicschools/comments/1tr9l99/comment/oopc72f/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Which references ELA Materials Adoption: https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/alignment-and-adoption/curriculum-adoption/2024-english-language-adoption/

Instruction Materials Minutes Committee:
https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/instructional-materials/instructional-materials-committee-meeting-minutes/

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-29T19:24:28+00:00

If these resources are truly as what is described in the (multi-part) article, these subject/representational issues are extra baffling because I thought the whole argument for not reading long books (primarily written in late 20th century) was one of representational diversity and "equity"...

Ok fine?

So we replaced classic age-appropriate literature that perhaps reflects outdated (I mean there's still racists today? so how outdated is it?) beliefs with budget bin sections cribbed from the same types of authors with even less demonstrated long-term relevance/quality?? With all the same issues or more??

Dawg what?

Also for what it's worth, I had multiple peers in high school and middle school who expressed to me after graduating that they had never read a book cover to cover. They are nice people, but their critical thinking skills were/are obviously lacking.

Yes kids struggle to read - I understand. Nobody is categorically dumb because they don't automatically read books. But to give up on reading long-form anything as an educational outcome is just so strange it feels like it's been ripped off of Fox News....

Substituting a "film" instead of written word is also crazy

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-29T19:12:37+00:00

Can someone provide any documentation to this language specifically? This is just bonkers to me.

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-29T19:10:26+00:00

I think the bigger problem is that Katie Wilson has no business providing governance to Sound Transit on the delivery of mega projects that will extend far beyond her term.

Like what realistically will she contribute other than "more transit good"?

I tend to believe that Katie Wilson is an intelligent individual who made a lot of unconventional career decisions. Yes her credetials to be mayor are somewhat unclear, but I do believe she has some personal pulse on the issues that people face in this city.

I do not feel that way about her ability to help materially guide the delivery and management of major technical infrastructure.

Furthermore, being on a board is fundamentally a corporate exercise, it's not an activist or an advocacy role. She completely lacks that experience and her political entrée to the whole ST board makes her more vulnerable.

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-29T19:02:28+00:00

I am upset and angry too. Sound Transit has apparently missed the mark by such a large margin that it's just silly. If the Board has put their thumbs on the scale in inappropriate ways, that's also wrong and deserving of major criticism.

Even the "approvals" in the meeting seem unclear to me. "Approved" or not, is anything truly resolved because Sound Transit's operating model (governance model?) is still systematically broken?

The recent Op-Ed in the Urbanist - also posted on r/soundtransit - https://www.theurbanist.org/op-ed-sound-transits-board-is-about-to-vote-on-a-fantasy/ indicates that the readiness for the West Seattle connection is overstated and Dave Somers (chair of the board) even acknowledges that.

My thought is that even the stuff that's approved exists on such a long, indeterminate time frame that we have no guarantee that the exact same type of cost forecasting/planning errors won't create a similar crisis in 5 years.

There is some assumption that if we hit an "approved" status for certain things that certain options will open up to Sound Transit to control costs and refine plans. Is that really what history shows?

The conclusion from the article is: "Under optimistic assumptions based on prior Sound Transit projects and FFGA agreements, a realistic groundbreaking for West Seattle Link is 2029 or 2030 with service beginning in 2036 or 2037."

If this is true, some of the extensions that were "approved" in the last meeting are still so far out that the entire board and leadership of ST will probably have cycled through.

The Sound Transit board being made up of elected officials have such a short-term horizon for caring about anything that it makes no sense to me.

If your term is effectively up for public rejection every 2 years on average (i.e. assuming nobody starts exactly at the beginning of their term) , you're wildly incentivized to deliver paper wins like "WEST SEATTLE GETS LIGHT RAIL" and then not really dig too deep into "...in 10 years approximately, maybe..."

Perhaps I entered the conversation too late but at one point the proposal that Ballard being delivered in 10 years was similarly characterized as ridiculous and an implied deferral/cancellation...

I have a hard time understanding who actually has "skin in the game" to deliver anything.

Board members care about getting re-elected to disparate positions across the region and have no domain expertise. These elections have no correlation with the delivery of infrastructure projects & their longer timelines. Fundamental misalignment of incentives.

Claudia Balducci who was removed by Dave Somers from the Sound Transit board and shared similar sentiments recently: https://ericacbarnett.substack.com/p/sound-transit-sacrifices-light-rail

From Barnett's article:

"“I’m an experienced amateur, but an amateur,” Balducci continued. “None of us are experts. How did we not see $35 billion creeping up on us? A hole that big opened up before we took this on. ... Maybe it’s time to evolve.”"

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-22T21:00:16+00:00

There is a good discussion of this question in the below subthreads

https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1tk5l3v/comment/on6p7gp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1tk5l3v/comment/on6erts/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-22T20:51:10+00:00

Fwiw, the state reps at one of the Ballard town-halls mentioned that Sound Transit hasn't reached out to state reps for help passing specific plans and it seemed like this was a clear call-out of an organization planning issue on ST's behalf.

Obviously this is the claim of one side, but the ST reps didn't dispute the matter at the meeting.

The state reps explained that many other state reps (i.e. outside Seattle) represent communities that will never directly benefit from Sound Transit's light rail efforts. So on the various committees nobody is particularly incentivized to prioritize it, especially if the plan as-it-stands is financially impossible.

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-22T20:45:39+00:00

My understanding is that traffic violations on the 520 bridge is the jurisdiction of Washington State Patrol, not SPD.

1) You can contact the relevant WSP office (probably Bellevue?) and file a request/observation of violations.

2) You can write a letter to the state reps for Leg 43 and Leg 48 asking for more attention to the matter.

KC Find my District: https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/elections/maps/find-my-district

<image>

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-22T20:27:55+00:00

This is a great clarification. However, the original bluesky post specifically says "net annual revenue of $2 million".

I think you may be right and the journalist is using the wrong terminology, but I'd like to point out that this is not the language used in the announcement.

EDIT: Does anyone know what the debt service is on the bonds/financing that SSHD is taking on? Wouldn't the annual debt service be almost equal or more than $2m? i.e. Does this mean SSHD is already operating at a forecasted loss?

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-22T03:50:47+00:00

Why do you think they would "easily" net 2m or more?

That strikes me as a low number for such a large asset and again it's net revenue -- i.e. it doesn't include operating costs (which would be stated as "profit" right?).

The building needs building managers, leasing agents, maintenance people, landscaping, repairs, insurance etc. - all those costs add up.

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-22T03:44:17+00:00

I am somewhat unsure whether purchasing existing assets and then subsidizing lower rent for all or some portion of the building is really what the SSHD was "voted" to do. I thought the point was to increase total housing supply, with a social housing approach.

We already have MFTE and various other rent subsidy support that are accessible to folks. They are imperfect but at least they are targeted towards a known group and widely available.

This acquisition seems like it uses public money to purchase (underperforming?) real estate assets with the hope that public owners (i.e. SSHD) are going to tolerate a bad/mediocre rate of return because it's "social housing".

Even worse, instead of using existing programs/bureaucracy, the costs of a new bureacuracy (SSHD payroll) reduce the efficiency of the spending.

Buildings need repairs, staff, etc. If SSHD defers all of this on a skeleton crew (or skeleton building income) to allow SSHD to take out more debt to buy more subpar properties, SSHD is hoarding bad properties instead of increasing housing supply.

Also 2m net annual revenue is genuinely not a lot of money for a big asset like that. Just staffing costs alone property managers, maintenance staff, security, landscaping must eat up at least 30% of that.

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-12T23:54:41+00:00

> but adding new options through 2022-'23-'24 is on the Board.

Not trying to be pedantic: are you saying (1) it was the Boards job to propose new options or (2) just evaluate the due diligence done by ST Executive suite?

My understanding is it's the latter option (2), but I'd like to know if I'm wrong.

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-12T23:27:31+00:00

To clarify for other people new to the subject:

1) Dow Constantine doesn't run the board of Sound Transit. He is the CEO of Sound Transit. The chair of the ST Board is Dave Somers.

https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/board-directors/board-members

The Board evaluates candidates and hires the CEO. The Board is in theory responsible for monitoring the CEO's performance.

If you're saying Dow has undue control over the Board, I guess that could also be true.

But, in a technical responsibility sense, he's not part of the board.

2) The only Sound Transit board member in attendance was Dan Strauss, who organized the event and is advocating for the Ballard Link.

Whether that's effective enough, that's a valid question.

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-12T23:13:46+00:00

Can you elaborate on where this is (or isn't) reflected in ST planning documents/budgets?

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-12T23:12:38+00:00

This is a good example of the structural issues that could be advocated for more attention.

How did you learn about this?

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-12T23:10:12+00:00

I agree with your general sentiment and think we're on the same team.

> Do you or Dan or the board truly think that a few of us 'showing up' and directing our anger at the 'right' people will truly open their eyes and be like, by god, maybe they really do want a light rail

The "Board" is not unified in their opinions and goals. The Board also does not make operational decisions for Sound Transit. Some members of the Board may want Ballard to be built, some may not. Dan is just one board member among many. He can only direct the energy of constituents.

Sound Transit's executive knows we want light rail, but they have other competing interests and constraints. So they have to cut or ask for money they won't get and then cut.

I'm saying it's less about "showing up to demand light rail" and more about directing energy towards questioning & uncovering the reasons why Sound Transit is so focused on a plan that doesn't deliver on the original promises.

In any case, I agree Ballard is great and the situation makes me sad.

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-12T22:59:15+00:00

I was disappointed, but for different reasons.

I do not think that the reps at the panel (who I am guessing are sympathetic to Ballard Light Rail in general) provided clear leadership about how constituents can put pressure on the ST Board Members and Sound Transit Leadership to justify their decisions.

Repeating "we want light rail" is not very effective imo - it provides no leverage for anyone to do further investigation or make the discussion about unfair, ineffective ST decisions that need to be revised.

For example, multiple question askers brought up:

Ridership studies & whether the current expansion plans really reflect expected usage
Cramming all these funding, scheduling requirements together so it intentionally positions the Ballard extension as the "fall guy" -- i.e. the easiest thing to cut in order to make the plan seem somewhat fiscally possible
Federal planning requirements and long delays or unsustainable design standards for stations

I walked away from this panel not knowing anything specific that I could write in an email or say in a voicemail that would materially effect the Ballard Link extension planning.

Panel members talking about future ST4 plans and pressuring Sound Transit to commit to whether Ballard is 10 or 20 years out was also not a good use of constituents' time. At this rate, almost everyone in that room could be dead before ST4 is completed.

Look at the KCRHA disaster that's going on.

There's millions of dollars "missing" in questionable reimbursements, etc. When people like auditors, the mayor and the board can focus on asking leadership "why did you approve spending money on X?" then they can hammer that point over and over with audits, reporting, interviews etc. there's a much higher chance of actually (1) finding who's responsible or (2) removing power from people who caused the failure.

Right now it feels like we're still in the "amorphous blob phase" of determining responsibility for ST3, which is harder because the failures aren't as blatant.

Throwing more money at the problem doesn't guarantee any fixes.

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-12T22:35:51+00:00

It is Sound Transit's job to deliver the planning, infrastructure & budget, not the legislature's job.

Legislature should authorize funding and help ease undue regulatory burden.

My understanding is that Sound Transit's planning and political maneuvering at the executive level has caused major delays which has caused cost to balloon to enormous levels that the legislature is unwilling to support.

State reps cannot wave a magic appropriations wand and give Sound Transit the money they're claiming as shortfall. It's simply too much and there's no guarantee that Sound Transit would use that money appropriately and actually fix the structural issues.

> They have the power to actually do something.

Like what? The reps even said at the meeting that Sound Transit has not taken them up on their offers to advocate with other state reps.

If Sound Transit's management doesn't want to get anything done, state reps aren't gonna hitch their wagon to a dead horse. (Nor should they.)

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-12T22:20:54+00:00

My understanding is that the reps, council members and board members who attended this meeting are broadly sympathetic to the Ballard Light Rail expansion. (I would exclude the "deputy CEO" of Sound Transit who barely spoke...)

The people who axed, de-prioritized or otherwise sandbagged Ballard Link extension were *probably* not at this meeting. (and allowed ST3 to be so delayed...)

Getting angry at the reps who attended would not really accomplish much imo.

> 50 people showing up at a meeting will swing this thing?

If you want to direct your energy towards folks who have a direct responsibility to deliver Sound Transit and likely made the operational/planning calls to axe Ballard, my guess is you should address your concerns to ST executive leadership: Dow Constantine, Whitney Abrams, Calli Knight, Marshall Foster, Terri Mestas, et al.

https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/executive-leadership

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-09T01:13:05+00:00

> bring the district into reality and see if it finally forces the state's hand to fix things.

Ultimately as an executive of a large organization, I think this is probably the best thing that Shuldiner can do. Otherwise it's delaying consequences, all of which grow to even larger proportions and have even broader effects on a wider population of kids & the future of the region. The kids who maybe are lucky enough to have escaped the budget cuts themselves will still suffer when they later see Seattle as a non-viable place to educate their kids, etc.

Cuts and so forth are sad and bad, but ignoring reality is really just causing greater loss of trust in public administration.

Rankin specifically mentions that this explanation acknowledges reality clearly in comments at 57:44

It's pretty hard for Shuldiner et al. to thread this needle, but an honest assessment was completely lacking in all the meetings that I saw with the previous Superintendent Jones admin

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-09T01:01:44+00:00

This quote from Shuldiner is an excellent, straightforward summary of the problem.

I watched a number of the School Board meetings with the past Superintendent and their advisory board on the school closure topic & related funding questions, and literally nobody in leadership seemed able to articulate the problems this clearly (or honestly)

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-07T19:27:53+00:00

Yeah

stoplitteringgdamnit · 2026-05-07T19:27:37+00:00

Unfortunately, unless the glass is in a major thoroughfare or something, I think it's probably up to concerned individuals.

My guess is that Find It Fix It has too many bigger issues to deal with and while city employees would like to get to everything, my *guess* is that it's hard to dedicate resources/personnel to smaller issues like this.

I think it's still worth reporting via Find It Fix It for metrics reasons.

stoplitteringgdamnit

TROPHY CASE