Debate the issues facing Seattle Public Schools, share your opinions, read the latest news. Organize and work for high quality public schools that educate all students to become passionate, lifelong learners.
The district promised a traditional K-8 in the Jane Adamms building. It is what the families of the NE cluster want. Now they are moving Thornton Creek, another alternative school into that space and growing them to a K-8.First of all, the Thornton Creek community has repeatedly said they do not want to grow into a k-8. Second of all, repurposing the Decatur building to a new k-5 will help the elementary overcrowding in the NE, but it will not help with the middle school (Eckstein) overcrowding that will be a train wreck in about 4 years. The families that choose Eckstein will not choose Thronton Creek. Thornton Creek is an alternative school. Eckstein, as stated in the enrollment guide is a pre-collecge prep traditional school and Spectrum school. They will not be in competition with one another. They are vastly different programs.In fact Thornton Creek and Eckstein are such incompatible programs, that when Thornton Creek students move on to middle school, instead of going to Eckstein (the neighborhood middle school located a half mile away from Thornton Creek) they get assignment preference and bus service to Salmon Bay, an all city draw school, way out in the NW cluster. I can't see how the 6-8 portion of Thornton Creek will relieve any pressure on Eckstein.It may take some of the kids that live north of 110th that do not get into Eckstein and are assigned to Hamilton, but I don't see it relieving Eckstein, which is where the over crowding is.
I think making a new k-8 Spectrum and APP school in the Jane Adamms building might have worked. Wedgewood, View Ridge and Eckstein all have large Spectrum programs. If the new school at Adamms took all of the spectrum students and also housed a north end k-8 APP program, it would relieve pressure on elementary and middle school in the NE cluster. Once Spectrum students were assigned to Adams, View Ridge and Wedgewood would have open seats. The district could redraw the boundaries and accomodate the over crowding in the south part of the cluster. Once Spectrum students were assigned to Eckstein, there would be much more space to accomodate neighborhood students.There is currently a wait list for spectrum seats at all three schools. Some kids remain on the the Eckstein WL for three years, and never get in.This would alleviate that problem.It would also alleviate north end APP students riding a bus to Lowell (or now Thurgood Marshall) everyday. I personally know two families that are APP qualified but didn't want to send their kids to a far away school, even for a great program like APP. They would be thrilled to know they could be served in a nearby school. The APP program would certainly grow.
Seattlegal, I've heard differently from Thornton Creek parents about becoming a K-8. Maybe a Thornton Creek parent might weigh in?Also, they said the preference to Salmon Bay would end in 2009-2010 so Thornton Creek 5th graders could stay there or try for Eckstein.
I don't take issue with growing Thornton Creek to a k-8, in fact, if it is what their community wants, I think there are many positives to this proposal! Namely, it will strengthen and grow a successful alternative program, and it will eliminate Thornton Creek students going to another cluster (with bus service) for access to a compatible middle school program. I don't, however, think it will address the overcrowding at Eckstein at all. Eckstein is already over crowded with many many portables. It is already bursting at the seems, and demographics show that the over crowding will get exponentially worse in a few years. What then?????
I'm wondering if we need a different thread on Thornton Creek in the Jane Addams building -- seems to me like kind of a separate (also important) issue from the stated topic, and if people have a lot to say about it, some of the discussion that properly belongs on this thread could inadvertently get choked out.Or maybe I'm just being officious and the thread will sort itself out just fine ;-)Helen Schinske
I have spoken to some parents who have enrolled their high school students @ Summit to get them AWAY from gangs.By moving Summit to RB- which I think everyone would unfortunately agree is CLOSER, to gang influence- will force these families to leave the system/the school.It seems like such a bad idea- ( how much will they save busing 70% of the Summit students to the opposite end of town?), that it boggles the mind.
The Seattle School district proposes closing schools. That’s the topic today on The Conversation on KUOW (NPR) Seattle. Is your school on the chopping block? Why shouldn’t it be closed? Call The Conversation feedback line right now at 206 221 3663 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.orgOr you can listen and call in during the show at 1 pm. http://www.kuow.org/program.php?current=TC
Just an observation:On opening this blog, I noted that there are about seven new threads, one for each school/program closure/movement. I then noted that a couple schools has one or two comments, a couple had three or four, one had seven...and APP had 23.a) dividing these threads up is, well, divisive. Can't we all comment generally? Is this "divide and conquer"?b) I hope that the APP stakeholders can continue to contribute to the other threads;c) I hope that stakeholders in the other schools can step up their commentaryd) I hope that everyone is advocating for everyone (a repeat of "a", but necessary!)Carry on.
Michael Rice - I am very curious to hear your opinion about Summit being co-located at RBHS. What do you think about it all? What have you heard from other teachers and students?
I just heard about the proposed new location for Summit, and I am outraged. There is no way in hell I would allow my son to enter into the cess pool that is RBHS, even if it weren't in the opposite end of town. The school board has made their intention to destroy the Summit community clear. It is time for Summit parents to plan a direct action protest with the intention of being arrested at the next meeting.
Hi,I am with the Arbor Heights School and I was looking for a contact with the Summit Parents group that was involved with trying to stop the "re purposing" of their building. I wanted to see if we could work together towards finding a permanent home for Summit in the near future will interest them. E-mail wababooze@yah**.c*mThe usual, just replace the *'s with o's.
If the Summit community doesn't follow the program to Rainier Beach, what would happen?First, the students would have to go somewhere. Would they enroll at Thornton Creek at Jane Addams? Could they get in - or would it be too full of Thornton Creek and AS#1 students? There isn't room for all of them, so the rest would try to enroll in their neighborhood schools, which, for most of them, would be the already overcrowded schools in the Northeast. What a traffic jam!Second, without Summit taking up nearly 600 seats in the Rainier Beach building, the District really should look at closing Rainier Beach.So, by setting up Summit to fail, the District has also set up Rainier Beach to fail, and they have set up their efforts to reduce overcrowding in the northeast to fail. It's going to failure all over the place.Let's consider another scenario:Summit at Lincoln co-housed with a new 1,000 seat comprehensive high school which is the new home of high school APP. Lincoln is a better location for Summit, an all-city draw, so it won't dump hundreds of Summit students into overcrowded schools. Also, it provides needed high school capacity for students living in Magnolia, Queen Anne, and on the Montlake Cut. By taking the APP students out of Garfield, it opens up new high school seats in the south-end, mitigating the loss of seats there.This wouldn't count as opening a closed building because Lincoln isn't closed. It would just swap status between Lincoln and Rainier Beach by making Lincoln an open school and Rainier Beach an interim site.The District staff say that they looked for another site for Summit, but couldn't find one. They must not have looked very hard because in addition to Lincoln, John Marshall would be a better choice than Rainier Beach.
eric, the decision to repurpose Jane Addams was already made (at a board meeting a month ago), so I really doubt that Summit fighting the re-purposing of their building is going to be an effective strategy. Probably the best they can hope for is something like Charlie's proposal to move into Lincoln or John Marshall.The "move Summit to RBHS" is obviously a poison pill, and SPS staff clearly wants to close Summit. From what I am hearing secondhand, the Superintendent said so in as many words, but looked at options for keeping Summit only because of expressed interest by Board Members.
What exactly will be moved to Rainier Beach? Presumably not the Summit administrators, that wouldn't save money. Probably fewer than half of the students, since many from the north end would try to get into more local schools. Does district staff think that moving the Summit teachers would attract more of the neighborhood kids in Rainier Beach? What do they base that on? Is this some kind of trade off with the board. We'll keep Summit on the books, but you have to let us keep Rainier Beach.
I'm certainly not in favor of sending 5 year old kindergarten Summit students to school with RBHS high school students. But.......Summit is a k-12 school. They have chosen to house their kindergarten students with high school students under one roof. I think the many posters above are correct, in that the north end Summit families will not send their kids across town to RBHS. Summmit will loose a lot of their families, maybe more than 50%.Now let's think of this from a south end perspective. The middle and HS choices are abysmal in SE Seattle. Summit may not only be a welcomed program in the south end, it may be embraced, become popular and grow. It is a fair option in a geographic area with very few fair options. If I lived north with many high performing schools around me I would be much less likely to choose summit, much commute my kid to another neighborhood. But if I lived in the south end and Summit was in my neighborhood, and shined in comparison to my other choices, I would be much more compelled to try it.
In other words I'm saying that Summit may shine in the south end. There will probably be a shift in population. Many north end families will leave the program, but many south end families will join the program.There was one parent on this blog who was hoping Summit would move south. She WANTED Summit in her neighborhood and thought it would be a viable choice for her child. RBHS does have the new performance space, and Summit will most certainly utilize it, along with their wetlands at Pritchard beach, and many other resources.It could be a popular choice in SE SEattle!
Now let's think of this from a south end perspective. The middle and HS choices are abysmal in SE Seattle. Summit may not only be a welcomed program in the south end, it may be embraced, become popular and grow. It is a fair option in a geographic area with very few fair options. The southeast initiative will put $7 million into three schools, including ClevelandNow, the first thing visitors will notice at the newly expanded and remodeled Cleveland is the abundance of natural light. Huge floor-to-ceiling windows flank the shiny new science classrooms, light streams through old-fashioned windows into a high-ceilinged gymnasium-turned-band-room. Skylights give a sitting area outside the new third-floor library an airy feeling.From the outside the new campus is more hospitable, with courtyards facing its current neighborhood on the southwest slope of Beacon Hill, and common areas spread throughout.The project, part of a capital levy Seattle voters approved in 2001, cost $68 million.Rainier Beach flatly rejected the proposal to place the Technology Access Foundation, which has a mission to teach minority students-& while Summit enrolls both a higher % of African American students than the district as well as enrolling 47% students who qualify for FRL, they will need additional supports, such as funding for arts programs & a playground for the elementary school.The parents who raised $$$ for those programs and structures @ the Jane Addams building, are essentially long gone- is money from the SouthEast initiative going to be used to support Summits relocation?I also would like to hear justification for spending money we don't have to transport Summit students 18 miles south. 70% of the students live in the neighborhood- and while I acknowledge this is a thinly disguised way to take away reasonable options for those students- if we expected them to actually stay with the school and move to Rainier Beach- has SPS acknowledged what costs in traffic, in harm to the environment, in fuel, in time and exposure to emissions is worth?
Class of 75, the district figures show that 55% (not 70%) of Summit students live in the north end. I highly doubt that many, if any, of those 55% families living close to Summit in the north end are going to have their children commute to the south end/RBHS. Especially if Summit and AS1 students get assignment preference to the new k-8 TC at Adams.Rather, I think the families who will remain at Summit will be the 45% that live in the south end, Central Seattle, and/or West Seattle. Next year and in the coming years Summit will attract and enroll many students in their immediate neighborhood. The population will shift from majority north end students, to almost all south end students.Summit, didn't look very attractive to families in the north end where many of the highest performing schools in the entire district reside, but it will be a knight in shining armor in the south end, where there are very few schools that perform well. I think it may be wildly popular in it's new location.In addition, I think the district will grandfather in students from the north end until they graduate out of the program, but I think with the new assignment plan we will see Summit become a regional draw school (SE, Central and maybe West Seattle). I would almost guarantee that Summit will not be an all city draw school with the new assignment plan. So, no need to worry about transportation costs from the north end. The north end will have TC and Salmon Bay to accomodate them.
Class of 75, the district figures show that 55% (not 70%) of Summit students live in the north end.I was using figures from the school.My concern is RB is a PITA to get to from many parts of the city- an integral part of the Summit program are field experiences- from Lake City, it wasn't easy- and being somewhat familiar with Rainier Beach, as my daughter's school, used the field for practice & track meets until it was deemed to be unsafe, I know what a PITA it is to access that part of town from west or north.Summit uses city buses for field trips- I know RB has a bus stop nearby- but how long does it take to get to the Seattle Center or the U W?I also don't understand- if Pinehurst build is closed & AS#1 & Summit students stay in that neighborhood , TC @ Addams- it seems like we would still need more classroom space.I am also wondering what alternative high school options will be available for students who live north of Cherry.Not everyone can learn at a school approaching 2000 students.Summit will be gone- The Center school isn't alternative, I know that in the past Nova students were able to access classes at Garfield and vice versa, this will now be much more difficult- although I kept hearing reference to using the community college instead for both Nova and the SBOC.While it was much more difficult for Nova students to access Garfield classes and sports teams while Garfield was relocated for the past two years in Wallingford, I expected the prior relationship to continue with the reopening of the Garfield building.Running start classes are available to area high school students- I do not feel they should be used as a substitute for classes taken with their age peers, taught by a SPS teacher. I don't feel that is the best use of my tax dollar.
Rather, I think the families who will remain at Summit will be the 45% that live in the south end, Central Seattle, and/or West Seattle76 students are from Central Seattle 32 students are from South Seattle20 students from Southeast Seattle18 students from West Seattleso moving the school to enroll 146 students?My records from district says that Summit K-12 enrolled 562 students last year- so it must be the new-new math that identifies 146 as 45% of 562.
Hale is somewhat alternative, and small.Center is also somewhat alternative and small.For those that need a true, democratic, alternative school, NOVA will remain an option and will be centrally located just south of the Montlake cut, at Meany.There are options.And yes, class of 75 you bring up a very valid point. The lack of middle school capacity in the NE has not been addressed. TC will fill with their current families and the north end AS1 and Summit families, as well as a large spec ed population. The new k-5 at decatur will address the capacity issues for elementary in the NE, but this still leaves a very over crowded Eckstein, and the forecast for much more middle school over crowding in a few years down the road. I don't think TC will alleviate or even help with that.
Just for curiosity, how many kids were enrolled in the HS portion of Summit? I heard the HS was VERY small, but I don't know the numbers and can't find them on any district site.
Moving Summit without its administration will do little to attract the families living in the Southend who are looking for a quality education for their children. And no one seems to be considering the serious problems that RBHS has concerning some student behavior. I think many of the southend parents who have looked/are looking elsewhere for high school would like to see a new administration take charge of RBHS. And I think it would be folly to expect an admin that has been focused on at-risk high school students—though quite effectively—to be effective with alternative elementary and middle-schoolers.I would very much like to hear Michael Rice's comments on all this. Can he see any real benefits for either population?
the easiest way to find the maps is to go to the front page of district website and type in data in the search engine.That brings up reference maps of where students live and where they go to school.For the high school- it says 208 students were enrolled-While @ Summit middle school students can take electives made available for the high school, that isn't always an advantage for a high school student.I wish Summit & As#1 had combined a few years ago, when co-locating was suggested. It would have helped to strengthen Summit's high school, IMO & would have enabled each program to better support after school needs of parents.But neither one went for it.There isn't a lot of satisfaction in saying I told you so.
The figures that I am familiar with state that 70% of Summit students live north of the ship canal, the number to which classof75 is referring.As for the whole south end draw comment, all of the board members who want Summit to continue have repeatedly stated that it needs to remain an all city draw and it needs to be centrally located. This proposal completely ignores that.I feel like this is the aforementioned poison pill and when/if Summit fails, as it is likely to do, it would pull RBHS down with it.On top of everything else, the culture of Summit isn't compatible with RBHS and, due to reputations, many parents, even in the neighborhood, will be hesitant to send their young children to co-house with RBHS.Oddly enough, my son is protected. He is in the special education program that is proposed to move to Nova, which is probably the next best thing for him. However, all of us are attached to Summit and its culture, which has helped my son move from mostly non-functional in a school setting to reaching out to people again. Even if the Internalizing Disorders Program doesn't stay at Summit, I want to help Summit remain a viable program.
Alt Dad, it seems completely unreasonable to think that SE parents will want to send their elementary and/or middle school students to RBHS, or rather, Summit@RBHS. Parents I know, don't even like the idea of sending their kids to the wonderful New School... because of its proximity to RBHS. They have rejected New School as an option because of it. As much progress as RBHS may have made, it's all kinda sullied when you get reports of rapes at the school. Who wants to send their kindergartners to school with that going on? In fact, who'd want to send any of their kids to a school where that is happening? I know people keep saying that "oh... that stuff happens everywhere." I don't buy that.
I realize that RB has had changing principals- sat least one that the district had to pay lots of $$$ to buy out their contract.Summit, has had the same ongoing problem as well, while the current principal has been affiliated with the school for decades- to keep a community going that doesn't easily fit into a category throughout changes in the city and the district, is a job description that needs support & a certain kind of personality.To have strong leadership of the issues that face students and families in elementary school, middle school and high school, takes someone with experience and vision.It is difficult enough to be an urban principal- as we can see from the newspaper.I would also agree, that not just the fact of the sexual assault at RB, because that might happen at any school, but the way it was handled by the administration- indicate that ( lack of) common sense and willingness to follow federal and state laws put students and staff at risk.A few teachers may have be showing academic successes in their classrooms- but safety should be paramount.
To SE MomSpeaking only for myself, I think what the district did was to take a roundabout way to eliminate the Summit program. The Summit commuinty is losing its building, so they say, "We want a building". The district gives them one that is as far away as possible for most of the memebers of the community, but can say "We gave you a building". I guess this makes Summit more accessable to South End families, but since I know nothing about Summit or what it does, I have no idea of knowing if Summit would be attractive to South End families. My other thought (and this may be way off base) is about Nathan Hale. I have either heard or read that Hale caps its enrollment at a certain number that is under the capacity of the building. If this is true, could the closing of Summit be the districts way of putting pressure on Hale to fill the building? Like I said, I don't know any of the specifics of this, just what I have heard second hand. If this is nonsense, please let me know.Now on to more important matters. Samdinista wrote: There is no way in hell I would allow my son to enter into the cess pool that is RBHS, even if it weren't in the opposite end of town. I wonder what RBHS this person is talking about? The RBHS where I teach is a school on the rise, with an increasing enrollment, that is not on the Federal needs improvement list (joined only by Nathan Hale and Roosevelt), with reading and writing WASL scores above the district average, with a broad range of AP classes, a great performing arts center, a partnership with Broadway Bound to put on a couple of musicals every year, a new music program, and a top notch athletics program. I have to assume this person is talking about another RBHS in a different universe. However, if this person is talking about the RBHS that I teach at, I invite them to come visit. I'm in room 268, I have planning period from 8:00 till 8:50, so if you come after that, you can see what really happens. I would be honored to have you in my classroom and my studetns would love to meet you.
It would be more honest of the district staff if they would stick to their guns and actually recommend closure of schools they think should be closed, rather than go the poison pill route. Two years ago they tried the poison pill on AS#1 and it failed; now, they are at least being honest about what they are doing, and just recommending that it be closed.More generally, I have gotten to be very skeptical of the notion of co-location as a solution to much of anything. The ones that have actually been tried in SPS were dismal failures (APP at Madrona and AS#1 at Bailey Gatzert) and most of the proposed co-locations seem to be ill-advised, at best, and certainly have not been adequately thought through.The one place that I know of that has successfully accomplished co-location is New York City. What is notable is that they do not do co-location to save money (in their experience, it doesn't really save much, if anything). The reason they do it is that they have some absolutely gigantic old buildings that they needed to find creative ways to reuse. Based on what I have read about their successes and failures, and what I know of SPS's history, the notion of a co-location in a small to medium sized building is just silly.If SPS wants to close a program, they really should be able to show enough leadership to just say so. Don't jerk us around with co-location proposals to "save programs" that are questionable right from the start.
I am just remembering that Orca has not really been mentioned in this discussion about Summit moving to RBHS.Orca started adding their middle school last year and would have added 7th grade this year. I haveheard that they're doing fine with the process, are still growing and not up to full student capacity.So with Summit at RBHS, the district would have two alternative schools with smaller middle school numbers fairly close to each other.
re: Summit HS enrollment, from the 2007 Demographic Report:Grade 9 11.8% 70Grade 10 12.0% 71Grade 11 6.1% 36Grade 12 6.3% 37Total = 214Percent is percent of total, so seniors made of 6.3% of the school in 2007
Why is the Summit enrollment for 11 and 12th grade 50% less than it is for 9th and 10th grade? Do they have a 50% drop out rate?Could the high school merge with Center who also only have 50 or 60 kids in 11th and 12th grade?
Momfirst:I like your idea of merging Summit HS into the Center school, but see my post on the "Rushing to make a decision..." thread to see why it's logistically difficult under the present circumstance.This is all just too complex and cannot be easily dealt with. I am also curious as to how the New Student Assignment Plan will impact all of these decisions. Cart before the horse anyone?
I think that Summit HS students should be given the opportunity to enroll in either Center, NOVA or Hale. There is an issue with 11th/12th graders coming into Center simply due to the way the cirriculum is set up. But given the circumstances, I think the school could work with this population. I do not know anything about how NOVA is set up.However,there is not enough space to enroll all the Summit students at Center, but if they were given the choice of the three schools listed above, I think they could all be absorbed into these schools. I guess also to be fair, these student should also be given priority into Roosevelt and Ballard, if the school ceases to exist. (and it does sound like the move to RBHS probably won't be a viable option, it just seems so far to travel.)Have no clue how to deal with the K-8 grades. Could they stay and become part of the school moving into the Jane Adamms building?And...is anybody keeping track of all these suggestions? Many are really good and should be condsidered. I really think we need to think out of the box and that is something that was not done by the district...that is for sure!
Hale has space for all Seattle students that apply, they even have room for about 40 out of district kids.Nova, though full, generally doesn't get a WL, neither does Center.I think Summit HS students would have an above average chance at getting into any of these three schools.
Funny thing. Summit would fit nicely at Lowell, but that wasn't even considered. For a district that doesn't seem to be able to find centrally located buildings for all-city draw programs like Summit and APP, we sure will have a lot of empty buildings in the middle of the city, such as Lincoln, John Marshall, McDonald, Sand Point, and now Horace Mann, Lowell, and T T Minor, too. Are we to understand that none of these buildings is a better match for Summit than co-location at Rainier Beach?
Also, the facilities staff sure seems to play with the numbers. It is simply not possible that 100% of Summits population will choose to move anywhere, let alone Rainer Beach. They dismissed several options, only because it would not fit 550 students. They did that even though their proposals had the autism program remaining in the Jane Adams building and the internal disorders program moving to Nova. They didn't even have the courtesy to reduce the enrollment number by just the programs that are removed. And what about Madronna K8? Where are they in step 4 or step 5. Madronna is not a neighborhood school and would be seriously changed in the next assignment plan anyway.
Calling RBHS a 'cesspool' was vitriolic, and I apologize. Still, RBHS has the worst reputation of any Seattle high school, and from what I can see, it is well deserved. Reading the most recent student surveys, students at RBHS reported feeling less safe at school, in the class room and in the surrounding neighborhood than respondents from other Seattle High schools. The rate of disciplinary actions is approx. twice the district average. Incidents of bullying were significantly higher at RBHS. RBHS is less diverse than other high schools. A program with barely 400 students should have a thriving feeling of community - it is obvious that RBHS has nothing going for it - which explains its falling enrollment and poor reputation.The point of Summit is to be an all city school. Its current location is also a poor match for that mission. Relocating Summit to Meany, TT Minor, or another facility south of the ship canal and north of McClellan would be welcomed by the Summit community. RBHS is not acceptable and non-negotiable. There is no benefit at all - only negatives.
I decided to look up data on the district website for several high schools - I looked up test scores, school assessments and student surveys.I think the underlying important idea is to look for trends. RBHS is definately making positive gains. Are the test scores and student survey scores the same as at Roosevelt? No they are not. But they're improving.I do have trouble reconciling the Rainier Beach neighborhood issues which I think are not great with the gains made inside the building. But, I believe what Michael is relating and the data proves him correct.We are considering Sealth for our kid because of the IB program. The drop out rates for last year were higher at Sealth than they were for RBHS. There are also issues in the neighborhood around Sealth.Will this keep us from enrolling at Sealth? I don't know. But I'm willing to give the school a good look and a fair shake and not dismiss it out of hand just because of prior history there.I really hope that the SE Initiative and teachers like Michael keep Rainier Beach on the upswing.
Director Martin-Morris has just posted on his blog that the board is looking for a more central building to move summit too. He acknowledged that RBHS is the wrong location for Summit. Contact Director Martin-Morris and let your voice be known.
It's interesting that there is no place here to post on the AAA/Van Asselt move. From what I hear Van Asselt is a successful program and 'deserves' a new building but it seems strange that (1)a K-5 is being placed into a building designed for a K-8 (when K-8s are supposedly so popular and require science labs, etc), (2) Van Asselt will be moved to within four blocks or so of Wing Luke K-5 and (3)the New School is building a new K-8 so close by.
Good catch, Maureen. I'm sure Melissa just missed them when she was creating the threads last Wednesday, so I've created one now.I'm really interested to hear what Van Asselt and AAA parents/community think of the proposal.
"If its not broken don't fix it."Instead of killing a great program in the North because you want to have such a great program in the South... and busing Northern kindergarden children to Rainier Beach was a bad idea.... so now just kill Summit and start a new and similar program in the South...?New Idea EQUITY?have great programs in the North and the South?Start gifted and APP programs in the South and push kids into them even when they they fall under the cutoff... place them with extenuating factors into great pullout programs... And while we're at it lets get some great pull out Sped classes for reading in the South so that kids can read by 4th grade? Also while were at it how about increasing gifted education across the board?Oh I'm sorry I forgot the general Seattle philosophy is put everyone in the same pot and stir until you have lower skills overall? Summit should not be the only point of enrichment. Is it being killed because of a dysfunction or its wealth?
I just want to respond to Samdinista by suggesting that they do their research a little more thoroughly. While they claim that RBHS has nothing going for it and that explains their falling enrollment. Um... what falling enrollment? In 2007-2008 RBHS had 361 students. In 2008-2009 it has 457. How is an increase of over 25% falling enrollment? I would also suggest that Samdinista compare RBHS's WASL scores to those of other schools in the district, including Summit. It might be hard to compare with Summit, however, since Summit can only report scores for two different ethnic groups (real diverse). I will say that the school's scores are particularly impressive for students who are African American or low-income--students who are so frequently overlooked at North end schools.I am not trying to say Summit is a bad school. I have heard great things. I just think that too many people hold uninformed negative opinions about RBHS.
Post a Comment