Friday, September 11, 2009

Listen Up Because This Is Big (And That's Not Just Me Saying It)

As I mentioned in a previous thread, I attended the Board Work Session on BTA III on September 2nd. All seven Board members were present as was the Superintendent and numerous staff. Today I attended the BEX Oversight Committee meeting. The Committee is a group of volunteer facilities professionals from various organizations who sit down once a month and go over BEX projects and planning with staff. (I can go into a lot more detail later for people who want it about both meetings.) But for now, here's what is coming together.
  • As I mentioned before at the Work Session it was announced that boundary maps would be produced for the next Board Work Session on the SAP on Tuesday, October 6th from 4-8 p.m. However, Kathy Johnson of Facilities said at the meeting today they would be out on October 5th. I will get clarification on this date on Monday.
  • There were 4 different amounts given that might be asked of voters for BTA III; $210M, $240M, $270M and $300M. (BTA I was $150M approved in 1998 and BTA II was $178M approved in 2004. Please note those dates and those sums - it will be key later on.)
  • At the Work Session, there were several NE moms who I know to be active on the issue of capacity in the NE. They were quite interested in looking at the draft of the Summary of Projects handed out at the Work Session.
We all noted that under "Academics" in the $210M range that there was a listing:

"Capacity Planning and Management - Reopen Closed Buildings." Under "Site" it says "4-6 Schools as needed". Under Schools it says "TBD" and under cost it says "$34,600,000M".


No Board member , according to my notes, really said anything about this. There was a slight discussion over fixing up reopened buildings with FFE. Peter Maier asked what that was and Kathy said it stands for "Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment". She then said, "We will do what needs to be required to open buildings." but then also noted that work may be needed down the road and did not reference the $34.6M in the chart.

Then, at today's BEX meeting Kathy said that for the first time in 40 years, the district was really changed our SAP and it was going to change the landscape of capacity management.

She that this BTA will be reopening previously closed schools. She called the figure needed to fix them up at $40M and said that many of these buildings have been on deferred maintenance and so are in poor condition. She said one is from 1989 (and I think it's either Webster or Sand Point). She said, "We have never reopened a closed building before."


I think I have previously mentioned that the State Auditor had been slowed down on the BEX audit because they ran out of consultant money and had to continue in-house. I was disappointed because I thought it would be one way to get some real accountability from the district before going into the levy in February.

Well, who needs the audit when the district is going to spend millions reopening closed buildings? I mean, how will they explain:
  • missing the demographics that necessitate reopening 4-6 buildings?
  • not keeping up with basic maintenance that now puts them way behind in buildings currently occupied and yet they will have to spend a lot of money on reopening closed buildings that haven't seen maintenance (except maybe roofs) in years?
  • they have four figures they are considering for the levy: $210M, $240M, $270M and $300M. Under the $210M, they will not even be able to reverse the trend of backlogged maintenance but merely limit its growth (this was said at the Work Session).
  • the original BTA 1 was $150M in 1998 and $178M in 2004. They have said the backlog occurred because of levy losses in the '80s and '90s (although I still can't get David Tucker, the district spokesperson, to give me the dates and amounts). Why, then, didn't they ask for more in 1998 or 2004 if the backlog had already begun growing?
  • Why didn't the district increase, rather than decrease, the percentage of the General Fund going towards basic maintenance if this backlog was growing?
  • Most of all, where is the accountability? How can they call themselves good stewards of these facilities?
And, I haven't even gone into detail about other things said at the Work Session or the BEX Oversight Committee meeting. I feel like we are drowning under the weight of many bad decisions and yet, somehow, we are all supposed to line up and keep voting this money in.

As the Italians say, Basta! Enough. I see no good way to spin their way out of this.

And look, I'm sure many people (including some here) will say - at least on the subject of the underspending on basic maintanance, "Well, what's done is done. We have to get the money to fix these buildings." I get that but I maintain voters need to lobby the Mayor, the City Council, candidates for those posts and say, "You must help us extract some accountability and promises from the district." Meaning, they have to spend more - now - on basic maintenance or we will never get out from under this backlog.

I will not vote for the BTA III levy (and kids, I do believe they put money in there for the Roosevelt cameras that I want for that building) if there are not promises made with real accountability and outcomes to staff if promises are not kept.

37 comments:

just-a-mom said...

Melissa - I'm glad that you're calling for accountability, but are you really willing to go YEARS with no maintenance money for the entire district? Didn't it take years and years to recover from a failed BTA levy?

I'm not willing to take that risk. I'm not willing to have our children go to schools that are crumbling down around them.

Yes, the District needs accountability, but I am NOT willing to have our children suffer in order to teach District staff and board a lesson.

Danny K said...

What do they need those reopened schools for? My first thought was charters, but they're not legal in Washington state. It's weird that they're talking about so much new money when they just switched large numbers of schools around in order to free up some transportation dollars.

adhoc said...

The NE needs those schools reopened. The population has grown tremendously over the past 5 years and is predicted to continue to grow. There is not enough capacity to accommodate all of the children. There is only 1 comprehensive middle school in the NE cluster, Eckstein, and though it is the largest middle school in the state of Washington it is full with a 165 kid waitlist. It can not accommodate all of the middle school children in the NE cluster - so many neighborhood kids get bused to schools outside of their neighborhood, or are forced into non traditional programs (alt schools, k-8s). As for elementary, every school in the NE cluster has a waitlist. Some waitlists are as high as 90 students. The district has been forced to do mandatory assignments to JA K-8. In fact 60% of the students assigned to JA did not choose it as their first, second or 3rd choice. 20% did not choose it at all. It is essentially an over flow school for k-8 students. The district is also using Olympic Hills in the N cluster for over flow, and has been using John Rogers for years. And their is only only HS in the NE cluster too, Hale, and it has a waitlist too. Roosevelt our closest neighbor high school (in the N cluster) has a 250 kid 9th grade waitlist. Since assignemt is based on distance, our NE cluster child (Meadowbrook/Lake City) didn't have a chance at getting in.

There is no wiggle room. No space anywhere. In fact there is not one comprehensive middle school anywhere north of the ship canal that has any space at all. If you move into the NE cluster and enroll now, after open assignment, you are being assigned to AKI in S Seattle or McClure in QA, without transportation!

We need schools reopened. We need them reopened desperately. We needed them reopened years ago, but with the choice program the district was able to ignore the problem for years, and just keep doing mandatory assignments and shuffling kids all around and out of their neighborhood. Well they can't do it any more with the new SAP. They have guaranteed everyone a spot in their neighborhood school and now they have to fact the reality that there is not enough capacity to do that in the NE.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Just-a-Mom, first, they can have another election very quickly. Getting their attention might not be a bad idea.

Second, I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for the BTA; I'm saying the district would have to promise, with strings attached, to do better. The Board owes that both to parents AND to the taxpayers of Seattle.

You do know that after San Francisco, Seattle has the smallest kid population for a major city in the U.S.? We are dependent upon our neighbors and other citizens who don't have children to keep our levies going. What would you tell them in a bad economy with many people suffering and with such obvious mismanagement of money? What promise would you make to them or would you just say, "It's for the kids?"

"Didn't it take years and years to recover?" Did you not read what I wrote? They had failed levies (and actually the one in the '90s was done 3 times, it wasn't a different one each time AND I still can't find the one referenced in the '80s). And yet, they STILL did not close the worst buildings and LOWER the amount being used for basic maintenance. We have never "recovered", that's the point.

Is this how professionals work? Are we going to let the SAME people who made these mistakes keep making them? And, would you like to be the one to explain to the families that lost their schools this fall how new schools will be opening and we'll be paying a huge amount to do it and NOT taking care of maintenance in other buildings?

If the Board does not hold someone's feet to the fire, then again, I will not vote for this levy. They can redo it a couple of months later but this one, no.

Melissa Westbrook said...

My error: I meant to say "they lowered the amount spent on basic maintenance".

Renee said...

Let me tell you they also are mismanaged in their new projects. Who approves of the specs? For example, the fume hoods they put in at Garfield are all top research quality and VERY EXPENSIVE (but also expensive to even attempt to repair - if something breaks, we're in trouble). There are companies that make them for much less. . . same thing with some of the lights they are using - all special order - not normal lightbulbs - that will be very very very expensive to replace? There is SO MUCH WASTE it is unbelieveable. And I have even more stories but don't want to put it in public on a blog. Maybe we need a levy to fail - we need some way to get some accountability - you don't continue to give an alcoholic small bits of alcohol to help him/her recover...

Stu said...

Maybe it's time for a pre-demonstration of sorts. What if a petition is circulated at various schools and school functions telling the district that, should they put forth a levy that doesn't have SPECIFIC maps of how they plan to use the money to catch up on repairs and doesn't have SPECIFIC penalties for non-compliance with maintenance standards and doesn't have the SPECIFIC names or positions of those accountable, we will use all our resources to vote it down.

Although I agree with "just-a-mom" that I don't want our son going to crumbling facilities, I don't see how or why the district would do anything differently if we keep handing them money.

I do not agree with the direction the district is going; I do not agree with the shoot-first-aim-later mentality they used to close schools and disrupt lives; I do not believe in their ability to gather accurate information and they've shown no evidence that they will follow any of the expert advice for which we've all paid.

I will not vote for a levy that doesn't have accountability and/or penalties. I'm tired of funding their reckless disregard for the students and families they're supposed to be serving.

stu

Sahila said...

What is left of the $34M - or is that $50M over five years? - in savings supposedly achieved in the current round of closures, if we now have to spend $34M - or is that $40M - in re-opening schools only closed two years ago?????

Madness, Alice-in-Wonderland madness...

Sahila said...

I dont know if any of you have any experience in house building, but I have...

I was the owner/builder of a house in New Zealand...

Had a piece of land

Had a budget

Had a mortgage to enable the building of said house

What did I know about building houses? Nothing much, except what I had learned in buying,
renovating and selling houses...

What did I do?

Got the designs drawn up...

I hired a former construction project manager to act as my clerk of works, to oversee the construction..

I hired the contractors - put the job out to bid, spoke to their former clients to get some sense of their capabilities etc

We created a contract re the work to be done, the standard to be achieved, the payment schedule, what ought to happen if unusual circumstances arose that would need more work and would generate more costs...

That extra work would not be done without investigating all options, and a solid cost had been agreed to...

Then the work commenced... with the clerk of works (along with the normal city council new building inspections) inspecting and OKing each phase and each area of work - foundations, drainage and plumbing, electrical, framing, roofing, windows, bricklaying, internal work....

No-one got paid unless and until the work was completed to standard...

The job was done, on time and on budget....

On another project, in completely renovating an old house (basically kept the facade but turned a one level home into three levels), I hired an architect to do the design and quality control, and then hired the subcontractors... again, all went well EXCEPT the discovery of an artesian spring bubbling up under the foundations of the house, which required two sump pumps and $15K to deal with...

My point?

I dont understand how the District can stuff up maintenance and renovation/rebuild/new construction so badly, and at such huge cost over-runs....

Commercial building companies would have gone bust if they operated how the District operates...

This again is not rocket science... why is there no accountability happening, and why are personnel and systems not being overhauled to fix this ridiculous level of mismanagement?

This is public money being wasted with apparently scant regard, and our kids are suffering the upheaval that comes with poor quality maintenance and projects running way beyond their timetables...

And if, as Melissa pointed out on several occasions, a new public school (supported by a foundation) could be built in record time to an acceptable standard, then why cant other public schools have the same happen?

mom2two said...

Are the buildings to be reopened all in the NE ? (Sorry if it's in th post and I missed it.) I wonder if some of the building slated for reopening are to alleviate capacity issues in other N clusters (fx, Queen Anne/Magnolia) The SBOC program was relocated this year, leaving it's QA building vacant and the possible plan was to reopen that building in a year to help w/ Elementary capacity problems in the Mag/ QA.

And dare we dream that Lincoln will become a N High School?

gavroche said...

adhoc said...There is no wiggle room. No space anywhere. In fact there is not one comprehensive middle school anywhere north of the ship canal that has any space at all.

I agree that the NE and N in general is overcrowded. And the District knew this a while ago, but according to Director DeBell, the District felt it would have been "politically difficult to open schools in the North while the District was closing them in the South." (All about politics, not about the kids.)

Some random thoughts: Starting in Sept. 2010 the renovated Hamilton M.S. is scheduled to be back online, leaving Lincoln, the currently temporary location for Hamilton, empty. Seems obvious that the District should keep Lincoln open and make it into a middle or high school that the North end (and QA/Magnolia) need. So there may be some wiggle room there.

(I'm also wondering if there will be a large, Garfield-esque price tag attached to the Hamilton mega-remodel.)

Also, the new SAP will theoretically force families who live south of the ship canal who currently send their kids to north-end schools, to go to their local southend schools. Won't this free up some space in the north?

Lastly, I'm with Stu on this sentiment:

Stu said...
Maybe it's time for a pre-demonstration of sorts. What if a petition is circulated at various schools and school functions telling the district that, should they put forth a levy that doesn't have SPECIFIC maps of how they plan to use the money to catch up on repairs and doesn't have SPECIFIC penalties for non-compliance with maintenance standards and doesn't have the SPECIFIC names or positions of those accountable, we will use all our resources to vote it down.

gavroche said...

Although on second thought, can we trust the District to keep its promises on anything?

The multiple broken promises to Secondary Bilingual Orientation Center come to mind. As does the Superintendent and Board's violation of the policy that stated that in the event of an elementary APP split, the District would create a North and a South (of the ship canal) location.

SBOC has been promised money and a new building of its own for years. Instead it was housed in Old John Hay Elementary which needs work, and has now been moved to Meany Middle School in a seismically unsound building to cohouse with Nova. The money allocated to SBOC has been rerouted to the money pit known as Garfield. Shameful.

Meanwhile the Supt and Board split Elementary APP in two and located BOTH pieces south of the ship canal in the central/south end of town. Not very fair "access" or "equity" to north-end families with APP qualifying kids.

In order to pass her "Capacity Management Plan" this past January which violated the policies concerning SBOC and APP, the Superintendent asked the Board to simply rescind the policies.(http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/08-09agendas/010709agenda/finalrecommendation2.pdf)

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move that the School Board approve the following motion, the specifics of which can be found in the Superintendent’s Final Recommendations:
• Rescind the portion of School Board Policy D 12.00 that restricts the number of self-contained highly capable programs to the extent it is incompatible with the Superintendent’s Final Recommendation on capacity management;
• Direct staff to review Policy D 12.00 in light of the adoption of Policy C 56.00 and the recommendations from the recent Accelerated Progress Program audit;
• Rescind the items in the May 2006 Board Action Report regarding the Secondary Bilingual Orientation Center (SBOC) that are incompatible with the Board’s action on the Superintendent’s Final Recommendation on capacity management; and
• Lift the portion of the current Student Assignment Plan that grants transportation only within cluster to allow for current Cooper Elementary School students to receive transportation to their newly assigned school, even if it is out of cluster.1


And the Board did (all but Mary and Harium that is).

Voila. Problem solved. (But SPS' credibility went even further down the toilet.)

So on second thought, maybe we should demand some IMMEDIATE actions from the Board and Superintendent with regard to building maintenance in the District, BEFORE the levy even comes up for a vote, so the District can prove to us that it will comply with its duties and the will of the parents and voters and, most importantly, do right by the SPS kids.

What's on everyone's wish list?

Meany needs a lot of work, some science labs, I believe and seismic upgrading. Lowell may still need a new heater. What else?

Melissa Westbrook said...

I can go into depth on what is likely happening at Meany; there is money in the BTA III for Meany. (Of course the funny thing is that the list says how many schools each pot of money is for and then you count the schools and in two places the numbers are wrong.)

Meany is getting money from the water line replacement pot (this is $4M over 13 schools), roof replacement and seismic diaphragm as needed (this is $17M over 17 schools - it says 12 schools but I count 17 in the list), water sprinkler systems ($12M over 11 schools), school upgrades (solely for Meany at $10.8M; however, it says it is for seismic and roof repairs so it is unclear to me why this repair is referenced in two difference places) and a general share of overall technology money allotted across the district.

Now, SBOC, under BEX II, had $14 for their modest school (which was going to be called something like World School). They built a new building for South Lake High School for a modest $12M so it can be done. I know this money went to Garfield (yet another thread) but I'm not sure I see it reflected in this list for Meany.

I believe that the reopening will be for elementaries in the NW/NE/N. My guess is either Webster or Sand Point will be reopened for sure. I don't think there are that many elementary kids who come north so I don't think you'll see the new SAP take much pressure off there. It certainly will be seen at Hamilton in terms of who is there but they are moving in half APP so there goes any room that would have been created by the movement of south end kids.

Hamilton appears to be on-time and on-budget at about $73.5M. Again, another thread is needed about these costs (I heard some interesting discussion at the Oversight committee meeting which we might all want to ponder.)


Ah, Lincoln. The district LOVES its interims and is loathe to use them for anything else. They will say Lincoln CAN'T be a high school (although it did function as one for years) because it has no field. Michael DeBell has said various things at various times; I'd like to see him step up to the plate and make Lincoln a QA/Magnolia/Wallingford/Fremont high school. Take the pressure off Ballard and Roosevelt and give the QA/Magnolia a high school to call their own.

Jessica said...

Can they have Lincoln as a high school? There are no ball fields or track near by the school.

Jessica said...

I guess I didn't read Melissa's comment right before mine. I really disagree that Lincoln should be used as a high school without the sports fields. We live in the Wallingford neighborhood (close to gas works) and would love to have a nearby high school, but not one without sports fields. And suggesting the greenlake track is close enough doesn't fly for me.

Josh Hayes said...

Call me crazy, but aren't the ball fields, tennis courts, and running track at Woodland Park about 500 meters from Lincoln? I'm sure a deal could be struck to allow Lincoln High School preferred access to those facilities at particular times of day.

And of course the district owns the lovely field at Wilson-Pacific, just off Wallingford Ave at N 90th St. Other schools bus to this location to use the field.

emeraldkity said...

My dad graduated from Lincoln ( and my mother from Queen Anne after moving from Garfield)


My daughter ran track at Garfield for two years- when they didn't have a track to speak of,( they ran down the sidewalk to Husky Stadium & she ran track for two years when Garfield was at Lincoln. ( they had to go to Rainier Beach)

We are in the city- you want a high school that has its own football stadium and track and possibly even a pool, you either send your kids to Ingraham or Hale or move to the burbs.

Urban environments can be flexible.

My oldest went to a middle/high school that didn't even have a gym let alone a track or a soccer field- and we paid pretty for the privilege besides
( they do now have a quite an activity center- but they didn't when she attended)

Stu said...

I tend to agree about the distance thing. The fields at Lower Woodland are in the process of being completely renovated with artificial turf. They've got full baseball and soccer facilities, a track, and I believe the soccer field can be set up for football. This is less than .3 miles from the school and, as Josh wrote, the city and the school can work out a reserved-field policy for the school. (Lot's of schools use the tennis courts there for practices; cross-country teams run the course at lower Woodland Park as well.)

However, there IS Wilson-Pacific. How 'bout renovating that building for a full comprehensive North-End High School? It's big, easily accessible, has all the fields . . . or maybe it would be better as a real North End middle school?

stu

Jessica said...

The track at Lower Woodland is closer to 3/4 of a mile from Lincoln. Depending on how lucky you are with the lights at Stone and 50th, this walk could take 15 minutes. Not something I assume could be managed during a gym period. Or maybe kids don't go outside for gym anymore? I attended Franklin (grew up on QA) and the fields were definitely used during gym classes. The baseball fields at Lower Woodland are closer, but I still have a hard time imagining a gym teacher leading a class down there.

Would Lincoln be the only in high school (outside of the two alternative schools) in the city to not have its own athletic fields adjacent to the school? I am not expecting a Seattle high school to provide a football staduim, pool and a track, but perhaps one of the three would be nice.

Sahila said...

Jessica - it would be easy enough to rejig the school timetable to give PE a longer class time to allow for the walk... much cheaper, easier, better use of already existing resources than having to create them somewhere, with the advantage that I assume the city would be responsible for maintenance...

And for people who then protest that it would throw off the entire school schedule, where is it written in stone that the current format is the only one that is acceptable/works... we need some out-of-the-box thinking in this District....

hschinske said...

I don't think rejigging the schedule would be easy at all. The whole way schedules are set up relies on class times being interchangeable.

Helen Schinske

Sahila said...

would be easier than finding/building a new school that has a track....or a pool... or a stadium... or a field/tennis courts whatever...

I think SPS, especially the inner city schools, ought to be using community facilities wherever possible, especially in this age of global warming and where that journey is taking us...

there are many kids in many schools who miss out on outdoor activities (apart from field trips, and only a few schools offer enough of those to be of any real value in terms of getting kids, especially non-white, non-middle class kids, out into the real world), and schools ought to be using communities facilities more....

Change the scheduling, get kids out of the classrooms more; learning can happen anywhere and is arguably more impactful in real life than in the isolated 'laboratory' environment of a classroom....

Melissa Westbrook said...

A pool? We wish. I think only Ingraham and Hale have access to pool facilities close enough by to use. Maybe RBHS? I think only RBHS, Ingraham and Hale have "stadiums"; other schools have field/track but cannot play their games there because of lack of lights and seating. That's why our ownership of Memorial Stadium is crucial; it serves as the "home" field for several high schools for football and soccer (as well as being used for graduations).

We own 9 acres of Seattle Center property (and owned it long before it was Seattle Center). Mayor Nickels, several months back when there was talk of renovating Seattle Center, spoke of Memorial Stadium as if it wasn't being used and that it should be revamped for more public use (mostly in the summer). This can't happen and not because SPS should be selfish with the land. But we simply have no place else to play. We could sell Memorial Stadium to the City (it's worth a lot - the district makes at least $600,000 a year on the parking lot alone) and try to find other space and build a stadium but I don't know that's feasible. One thing is, we can't let the City tell us what to do with the property owned and used by the district. The new mayor and City Council members should understand that.

It's all part of the big facilities picture that is this district.

h2o girl said...

Well, of course Ballard's pool is right next to the high school, and I loved all the super high school kids that gave my kid swimming lessons there. I agree that we need to keep Memorial Stadium in the district, it's in such a great central location for all the schools that play there, and where would be build another stadium?

owlhouse said...

Garfield HS is adjacent to the Garfield community center and pool.

owlhouse said...

And- holding on to Memorial Stadium should be a nobrainer. There will NOT be an opportunity for the district to purchase and develop any property of similar size in the center of the city. There may be options to allow for additional public use of the stadium, but SPS needs to maintain ownership of the property.

adhoc said...

In addition to Ingraham and Hale, Garfield, Ballard, Sealth, and RBHS all have public pools within two blocks of their buildings.

Rainier Beach has a stadium, and Sealth uses the SW Athletic Center which is 7 or 8 blocks from their school.

Patrick said...

Anyone remember what Lincoln HS did for athletic fields when it was open?

seattle citizen said...

Hmm, Melissa, rather than just TWO HS/pool combos, Looks like MANY of the high schools have pools!

Except Cleveland, which has the Duwamish; West Seattle, which swims off Alki; and Roosevelt, which sadly suffers the Green Lake Itch.

Nova students don't swim: They imagine swimming, then create the metaphysical duality of it, relying on symbolic deconstruction and interdisciplinary conjecture to effectively reimagine swimming in a post-colonial, neo-Neo refraction of expeditionary reactitude.

Save Memorial Stadium!

Charlie Mas said...

The lack of a field at Lincoln is an obstacle that can be overcome. Hamilton, Garfield, and Roosevelt have all been there without a field and without much trouble. Accomodations were made and can be made.

Wilson-Pacific, though a good thought, just isn't in the right location. We need more high school capacity closer to the Ship Canal for students living in Magnolia, Queen Anne and Montlake.

h2o girl said...

John Marshall is closer to the Green Lake fields, and the district could then keep Lincoln as an interim site. I'm sure they'd never go for this, though - doesn't Marshall need lots of $$ in upgrades? But the location is perfect.

I'm confused about the Webster bldg - I thought the Nordic Heritage Museum was there for three more years or so.

Josh Hayes said...

Yeah, Marshall is a terrific location, but I understand the building is nearly unusable in its current condition -- I had floated the idea to some board members of moving Summit into Marshall, and I was told it was infeasible to put ANYTHING there.

I also live only a couple of blocks from Wilson-Pacific, and that place is a dump -- aside from the fields, which are lovely. Hard to imagine what'd have to be done to it to make it into a workable school (and besides, there are a lot of small offices there now; where would they go?).

h2o girl said...

I used to live a couple blocks from Wilson-Pacific, and it surprised me that they actually had functioning programs there - you're right Josh, the building is a complete dump.

It's ironic that Marshall is now completely unusable when they had the safety-net school there, what, two years ago?

Melissa Westbrook said...

Honestly, if you walk through Marshall, it doesn't seem bad. I'm thinking the guts of the building are the issue but also probably seismic.

Wilson-Pacific is just not worth using (and my apologies to anyone using it).

adhoc said...

Wilson Pacific would be an easy commute for QA families. Even though it's further North than Lincoln it's A straight shot down Aurora. Great bus service too. I've only been in the enrollment center wing, but that seemed fine to me. Looked like any other old school building and classrooms were very large. But it is in a very transient area. Not sure it would be suitable environment for school age children.

Josh Hayes said...

I have to agree on the questionable neighborhood aspects for Wilson Pacific. When I go to shoot baskets there I regularly find used condoms lying around; I've twice found syringes. There'd need to be serious commitments to security at the school, and I just don't see SPS having any interest in that kind of expenditure.

seattle citizen said...

John Marshall - Meng report:

www.seattleschools.org/
area/facilities/BTAIII/
20062009_bldg_condition_score.pdf

Building Facility Rating 2009
(on link, note huge decrease in condition of buildings from 2006-2009)
(1-5, 1 best)
Marshall 3.53

Compare to:
Meany 3.53
McClure 3.49
Aki 3.42

"Educational Adequacy Score 2006" (? Melissa?)
Marhall 2.8
McClure 2.6
Washington 2.9

Next:
from
www.seattleschools.org%2Farea%2Ffacilities%2FBTAIII%2FBTA_survey_results.pdf

"2011...John Marshall building is an asset that should be used toease existing anf future overcapacity in the Northeastand North Central Cluster of the District. Repairs andupgrades should begin immediately in order to prepare itfor immediate occupancy"

Next:
from
www.seattleschools.org/area/spsplan/schools/JMarshall.pdf
(I believe this is CACIEE)

"John Marshall was evaluated by Meng Analysis for the and was rated as poor or unsatisfactory in the following areas – foundation and structure, roof and exterior walls, exterior windows/doors and trim, floors and fixed equipment, and fire control capability...Most recent capital work: The school received seismic improvement in 1993;however, it is still below the current seismic code . In 2003, a new GRADS child care center was added. In 2004, John Marshall got a partial new roof, seismic upgrade, fire alarm system upgrade, arts/science facility improvement, and hazardous materials abatement...John Marshall is scheduled for $1.9 million of improvements under the current BTA II levy plan for work in 2005 through 2007. Planned improvements include partial roof replacement, some exterior renovation, mechanical
systems, science lab, and technology updates...This building is at the end of its design lifespan. The Seattle Public
Schools design lifespan is 50 years. John Marshall is 78 years old. If John Marshall School remains an operating school, it should be considered for replacement in the next major capital levy, BEX III, scheduled to go to the voters in February of 2007. Based on historical average costs for middle school construction, replacing the facility would cost an estimated $37 to $40 million (in 2005 dollars).