Thursday, December 01, 2011

Other Program Placement and Capacity Management Issues to


Other Issues:


Overcrowding at JSIS
High School overcrowding
Low enrollment at specific schools
Your suggestions for other issues to be addressed

54 comments:

Eric B said...

At some point, we're going to have to address the Ballard-Garfield-Roosevelt triangle. Roosevelt isn't quite as bad as the other two, but when the current crop of elementary students makes it to high school, the boundaries are going to have to be within a few blocks of Garfield and Ballard (unless something else changes).

In my magical world, where unicorns drop high school buildings from the sky, we'd place a new school in Interbay. In an even more ideal world, the Feds would give us part of the National Guard Armory land right behind the Whole Foods, and we'd have lots of free space to use. Much of this land is a parking lot right now.

If everything aligned just right, we'd pull down a homeland Security grant for the building costs with some mumbo-jumbo about improving national security by having the school next to the National Guard installation, so it's a less tempting terrorist target.

SeattleSped said...

Sufficient and appropriate special education programs and services in a student's MS attendance area.

Quit bussing our kids across town dammit.

Charlie Mas said...

The high school capacity issue is real. Although the District staff didn't want to address it, I think the FACMAC is going to demand to deal with it.

I love Eric's idea of a high school at Interbay. The District does own some land there, a soccer stadium between the interbay golf course and Dravus Street, but it isn't nearly big enough. Perhaps they could swap this property for a larger property that isn't right on 15th.

I love Eric's suggestion of the paved railyard. Honestly, the District could build a complete high school with everything on just the northern thumb of this property without disturbing anything but some parking.

Kelly said...

I hope the FACMAC demands to deal with the high school situation. I mean if the middle school need is "urgent" then a few years later so is the high school need.

I think the district needs to play some sort of musical chairs with the current schools in the QA/Mag area, and re-open the Magnolia elementary building. Remodel McClure and make it a small high school. Or Blaine could be a high school fairly easily. Eric is correct, something needs to be done about the Ballard/Roosevelt/Garfield conundrum that it is now.

wv: palin. No comment!

Anonymous said...

If general ed children are guaranteed a seat at their neighborhood school & children with disabilities are told there is no room in their neighborhood school, isn't that discrimination?

I attended a high school meeting where the principal agreed that the number of autistic students at the school was probably low compared to the population of the neighborhood. If they have more than a certain number, even though the school has a 'program' for them, they have to attend another school anyway.

It sounded like these kids are given fewer seats because of their disability. I don't know why that isn't discrimination.

Can someone explain that to me?

-Rose M

SolvayGirl said...

Solving the RBHS under-enrollment issue could help some as I know there are still a number of area families at all of the crowded schools. Remember there are over 1,200 HS students in the RBHS area. Some are at private school (as is my daughter), but certainly not 800. Many are at Garfield, some are at STEM, a number at Franklin. The rest are sprinkled around at Center, Hale, Ballard, Roosevelt, Sealth, Ingram and NOVA.

Filling RBHS can't help but make some difference in overall capacity at other schools.

Anonymous said...

Center was the previous solution the QA/Magnolia high school problem.

I like the idea of making McClure a high-school.

In budget cutting times, I don't think building a new one at Interbay is realistic even if it's a great idea.

-JC.

SeattleSped said...

I love to, Rose M.

It is because that program may be "full" and rather than expand the program and teach that child at the school they would attend but for their disability as IDEA requires, SPS admin just ships them off for the sake of expediency. It is a) discriminatory because this child ("a general education student first!", as the sloganeering goes) is treated differently than other general education students; b) against federal disability law; and c) just WRONG. Admin's concerns are first, and the child's are last. Period.

Anonymous said...

Amazing how many of our current problems can be traced back to the disastrous decision to sell Queen Anne High School...

Old grizzlies never die

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that it is illegal for schools to discriminate against someone based on their disability. Just like it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their skin color.

What if a school said, 'Yes, there are more African Americans within the assignment boundaries, but we limit the number at this school & send the rest to another school.'

Is this different somehow? I was shocked to hear it said, but no one else seemed to be. And it was said quite openly, like it was alright.

I felt like I must be misunderstanding something.

-Rose M

SeattleSped said...

Rose,

Your analogy is, partly, correct. A principal could hardly say "Oh, african-americans need additional services we do not have etc.", but principals ALWAYS say "Oh, we don't have (or don't have enough of )the services for your child here. There's extra capacity across town, just an hour bus ride away. Sorry"

SPS and SEA must be willing to (and the CBA allows this) adjust staffing ratios and provide sufficient support within a child's school. It's the law and it is the RIGHT thing to do. That's were the program placement and student assignment changes step in.

Eric B said...

FACMAC will deal with middle and high schools in the not-too-distant future. This was in the work plan without us having to demand it. We just haven't had time because we were focused on the near-term crisis at the elementary level.

I don't want to pave the railyard (I like trains!), just use the parking lot next door.

Back in the dark ages at the start of the NSAP process, I ran some general numbers for high schools assuming students went to their assignment area schools. The figures were pretty clear--RBHS and Franklin can fill themselves just fine with students from their neighborhoods. You can move boundaries around between the five large high schools Garfield and northwards, but there's pretty close to enough students to completely fill them as well.

PS to Rose M: The Americans with Disabilities Act is civil rights legislation. That makes it just as unconscionable to tell a person in a wheelchair that they can't come into your restaurant as posting a "Whites Only" sign. I don't think students fall under ADA precisely (except for physical access), but the education laws for those with other disabilities are likely similar.

PPS I don't want to pave the railyard, lest that rumor get out. I just want the National Guard parking lot for my imaginary high school.

Anonymous said...

Seattle Sped, you don't really have this issue down correctly.

The district is not obligated to provide every special education service at every site. And that has been litigated repeatedly. The findings are always the same - NO, the district doesn't have to provide students with seats at their home school, or provide everything to absolutely everyone. The policy of moving students around is legal, if somewhat unpaletable.

It is true, that as a matter of equity, a district can't just ship ALL the special ed kids off. Regions like Garfield's do exactly that. But, it can make capacity decisions - like - "there are more autistic kids for our autism program than this school has room for, those students will need seats at another school."

Additionally, the district serves students with severe needs in programs. Those programs tend to get filled up with students from other regions, according to needs. Parents often WANT their kids to be transported to a school that can serve them, rather than stay at a local school that can't. If EVERY school had to serve everyone, and if EVERY program had to balance itself every year... then students would have to move OUT of the non-local schools they were placed in to make room for residents. Constantly shuffling students around isn't really a great option either. You really can't have it both ways.

-parent

SeattleSped said...

Parent,

I don't argue with your take on things. yes, the issue is, is it "palatable". My argument is, it is unconscionable and irresponsible to bus children with disabilities ten miles across town for expediencies' sake.

As for "the district serves students with severe needs in programs", it was the district's decision to exchange efficacy with slogans like "Special Education is a service, not a place", or "Every student a general education student first!" etc. If they want to exhaust the good will of society by sloganeering, then they had better beware when SpEd families call them on it.

My point is: This is a critical element of the next Transitional Plan.

Anonymous said...

The school I was visiting, has a special ed program for autism. But they said they limit the number of kids even if they have more autistic students in the assignment area. They would not be adding a new program to accept these kids. Just expanding it. Just like they did when more neighborhood students showed up for general ed.

If you are going to expand the neighborhood school enrollment for general ed students, why not for kids with disabilities?

This seems to be something to consider in the capacity plan.

-Rose M

Jan said...

parent -- I wonder how far the District can (or should) take your point that not every school can serve every SPED kid. Austistic spectrum disorders are the best example, because there are so many of those kids. If the "attendance area" for a school suggests that there should be 40 kids with those needs in the area -- and you set up a program that serves only 8 -- how can that be reasonable. I can see maybe saying you top out at 35 -- but if it gets small enough (and the SPed is "generic" enough -- like autism) I think there is a good case for saying that it is discriminatory, and potentially illegal, to deny those kids a shot at an appropriate education at their local school. To simply "size" the rest of the population so there is no room for them -- and then say, -- sorry, you have to go somewhere else -- well, that is slimy charter school tactics, and shouldn't be allowed in any school funded with public money.
If the child is one of 9 in the District with a rare chromosome disease that causes multiple learning issues, AND requires a nurse trained to work with that disorder, on-site oxygen and other medical equipment, and highly specialized physical therapy -- then I would expect those 5 kids to be together, regardless of distance.

I suspect this District does way too much of the "crowd 'em out because "more worthy" kids want those spots at that school -- and then wring hands and say sorry, no room -- with kids who could be reasonable accommodated on site, if people just had the integrity to demand it.

Jan said...

By "people" -- I do not mean the parents -- who "demand" away all day to closed ears. I mean the Board, the Superintendent, District staff, and the school principals.

Floor Pie said...

Yes, the district really needs to step up and figure out how to serve the growing number of autistic students. We need quality special ed teachers in every building, better access to speech and OT services, good IA support, access to Spectrum and APP classes for 2E kids, effective training and support for classroom teachers, counselors to help neurotypical students understand their autistic peers, a new pony....a girl can dream.

Seriously, though, autism isn’t going away anytime soon, and under-serving these kids hurts everyone -- their teachers, their classmates, their parents, the students themselves. But when they do have the support they need…it works! It truly does.

Incidentally, did everyone see this article in Scientific American? The Hidden Potential of Autistic Kids Good stuff.

Anonymous said...

so with all the attention (FINALLY) today capacity, is anyone looking at birth rates TODAY (which i'm guessing are greatly diminished over 4-8 years ago) and the corresponding school closure/consolidation plan which will likely be needed in 5 years or so? enrollment is a system that will forever expand and contract and i don't think anyone has ever created the big-picture plan to deal with this cycle.

-Diane

Syd said...

Graham Hill Elementary has been told capacity issues will be affecting the school next year.
Three possible solutions:
Close the Montessori preschool. This effectively removes the big incentive for middle class families to attend the school. We are in the traditional program, and by the third grade we have seen many middle class families transfer out to private.
Bring portables.
Reopen VanAsselt.

Anonymous said...

Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln.

The need for another conventional high school outweighs the need to keep Lincoln as temporary quarters for every other schools remodels.

Sorry, but the time has come. Keeping badly needed schools in critical areas occupied by temporary tenants is no longer a sensible idea.

APP, or anyone, can just use Lincoln, while the district figures out plan B later on? What a policy! Really inspires good planning, doesn't it? This has gone on for a decade or more, and its ridiculous. The community needs that school. Now. WSDWG

Jan said...

WSDWG: "The community needs that school." I am confused -- in what way are the APP kids who were pushed out of Lowell last year NOT "the community." Where else would they go?

Meg said...

Syd - I don't think Van Asselt should be re-opened, at least not for 2012-13 or 2013-14.

The K-5 capacity in Aki and Mercer service areas is adequate. I think it will be for a couple of years, based on historical enrollment, birth rates, and a pretty high (and steady) birth to K ratio.

The problem in K-5 in the Mercer and Aki service areas is not sheer numbers, as it is in West Seattle and much of the north end. The problem appears to be more of academics - people migrating to schools perceived as academically acceptable (this is a guess on my part). It's a real and serious problem, and it needs to be addressed. But it's still not a capacity problem.

I don't think SPS should take on the general fund expense of operating additional schools where the capacity isn't actually needed, and in the case of Van Asselt, it's not.

That's my opinion, though.

ArchStanton said...

@Jan: They could stay at Lincoln if it was brought online as a real school. Or, they could go to whichever school had more capacity as a result of Lincoln being put back in service. I read WSDWG's post as a call for the district to quit using Lincoln as a crutch. It's just like a big portable that they can use to prop up bad capacity management. I'm inclined to agree.

SeattleSped said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I'm confused by the "Turn McClure or Blaine into a High School" comments. Where would those middle school students go instead?

Yes - QA/Magnolia Middle School service area is not as crowded as other areas of the city but when the bubble that is in elementary school now hits in a couple of years, we are going to need every seat at McClure.

signed - QAE Parent

Kelly said...

QAE parent - I meant that it seems to me either Blaine or McClure could be remodeled into a small-ish high school, and the old Magnolia elementary building could also be re-opened, to be used for whatever is needed --middle school, K-8, (or elementary, if another QA/Mag bldg would be a better middle school or K-8.) That's the musical chairs aspect - not sure what buildings would be the best suited for these. But it would be adding capacity for QA & Magnolia, not taking away.

anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Jane Addams does not have an active link on the SPS website. Is there a PTA sponsored site?

parent

Patrick said...

Jane Addams PTSA site:

janeaddamsptsa.org

Jan said...

Arch: I think that the "temporary" use of Lincoln for McDonald and QAE might have been avoided had the District started earlier on the reopening of those schools -- but they were both part of the Big Year o'Upheaval under MGJ -- so maybe I am forgetting something critical to the argument.

But for the schools that had been in there earlier (Garfield, Roosevelt, and whoever was in there before), I think I disagree. I think the District has enough old buildings that we will always need a large site that can be used as an "interim space" while schools undergo major remodels. When Eckstein finally needs a full overhaul -- where will Eckstein kids go? Or the kids now at Meany?

I know some schools have been remodeled with kids "in place" -- but I don't know what the cost ramifications (if any) have been, or how happy people have been with those remodels, or whether they are practical for all schools. But running at 110% of capacity -- so you have NO extra space will be costly and will lead to decisionmaking that is less than optimal (in terms of capital decisions). I don't care if it is Lincoln or another site -- but I think we need "planned" excess capacity for school remodels, emergencies (fires that burn schools down, hazardous waste incidents, etc.)

WV says mebill -- but I think it meant to say -- bill me -- for all these extra schools!

Anonymous said...

Jan, it is a fair thing to wonder about special education and student assignment. But, let's not overstate the autism thing. True it's growing - but, it's still a relatively small number total. Eg. Less than 500 total, for ages birth to 21. And there are several types of programs that students with autism list on their IEPs.

There aren't 40 students lined up at 1 school for 1 type of program. Should the principal remove students from out-of-area to serve students in-area? All schools with autism programs have lots of students from out-of-area in their special education programs. The fact is, in those high school programs, they aren't really shipping students off en-mass. Those programs function as all-city draws, and students from out of area - can and do get assigned to those seats.

The fact that they have programs for certain disabilities, sprinkled across the district, and that students are assigned to programs based on both needs and available seats isn't illegal. It is similar to every type of all-city draw. You don't always get a seat. And, it isn't really even unfair so long as the district doesn't purposefully restrict access to certain types of schools, grossly cluster students, etc. I would agree that "crowding out" students with disabilities could be contrued as unfair, and possibly even illegal. The case of Garfield is indeed discriminatory since it has been allowed to ship off (or crowd out) nearly all the region's students with disabilities... in favor of APP students. There might be a few other cases of discriminatory sped assignment, "crowding out", but it isn't really widespread or blatant.

Seattle-Sped, "Special Education is a service not a place" isn't some sort of sloganeering. It's the law. If you really want "special education as a service an NOT a place"... then you'll love ICS. In that case, it's neither a service NOR a place! I'd sure rather be in a program... even if it is not at my local school, than in ICS.

-parent

Anonymous said...

Rose M.,
It gets worse. Several years ago, a Level 4 BD program that was slated for Ballard HS was moved to Ingraham because Ballard " Didn't have room". The district then increased Ballard's enrollment for regular ed students. Ballard BD students are now shipped to other schools. Ballard is the only HS without a BD program. Ingraham now has two.

SpEd parent

anonymous said...

Parent, isn't APP legally considered sped? If so then Garfield is serving the sped community and not doing anything illegal.

myop

Anonymous said...

No. APP is not Sped. The definition of Sped is covered under IDEA and ONLY applies to students with qualifying disabilities. It is true that some APP students may also have disabilities and get some sped service. There is no requirement that the district provide APP. There is a federal mandate that the district provide services for students with disabilities according to their IEPs under IDEA. And that is special education. It is also a requirement that the district provide those special education services in the least restrictive environment. Shipping students out of the Garfield services area, and failing to provide them services locally - is a failure of LRE. The district doesn't have any requirement to do anything special for students qualifying for APP. It can decide to if it wants, as it has.

-parent

Anonymous said...

@parent: APP kids are special needs kids under state law, and gifted ed is now part of basic education as defined under state law. True, it hasn't reached the federal level yet, but it will eventually.

But that's beside the point. The REAL problem is the lack of capacity for High School Students in the entire district, which is why I'm saying bring Lincoln online ASAP. That would allow people who now attend Garfield, including some APP kids to hop the ship canal and go to Lincoln, relieving the pressure that is causing the crowding out and rivalry between special needs groups and non-special needs groups alike.

Let's focus on the key issues and not get into a "preferential treatment" blame game. Space! We need more space to remove the "we don't have room" statement from the district lexicon! WSDWG

Anonymous said...

@Jan: Arch is right, and that's my main point. At this point, with APP growing like mad, it's going to split again before long, I'm afraid, and Ingraham APP/IB will fill up shortly too. So what then, when both Garfield and Ingraham have run out of space for APP high schoolers (many more than the numbers we have now)?

Wouldn't Lincoln be a nice location for a 3rd High School APP program, along with a conventional high school cohort?

It's APP I'm thinking about, first and foremost, and if we don't find more high school space PRONTO(!) guess who's going to get screwed?

Yes, we need temporary, auxiliary space for remodels, no doubt. But look at the map and look where Lincoln sits. It is the answer to so many current capacity problems, that we are foolish not to bring it online.

And yes, we need to solve the APP elementary location crisis, too. But an elementary program of any size and type cannot be the tail that wags the dog by "occupying" a badly needed high school building that can relieve severe overcrowding at at least three surrounding high schools.

It is not that APP elementary doesn't need and deserve it's own proper building and location. But Lincoln is not the answer. WSDWG

hschinske said...

Gifted education falls under special education in some states, but not in Washington that I have ever heard.

Helen Schinske

Anonymous said...

Special education is a term used in IDEA - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The rights and responsibilities are federally mandated. Those rights include - IEPs (individualized plans), LRE (least restrictive environment) - eg. right to a seat at Garfield, FAPE (free and appropriate education), SDI (specially designed instruction), transition services, 0 - 21 service, ESY (extended school year), door-to-door transportation services, etc. These are not services that are mandated for other students - even if they are also somehow "special". Even some students with disabilities are not "special education" students, if they fall under ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) instead of IDEA. The stuff described above is special education. Special Education is the SDI (specially designed instruction) provided as part of an IEP(individualized education plan).

Simply put, it is illegal to force out a protected class (the disabled) out of an entire high school region - Garfield's. No other group of students has been crowded out of their home region. WSEDAWG, that is a REAL problem and it is above and beyond simple capacity. Can you imagine if a minority group was pushed out of Garfield? It is indeed a preferential treatment issue... pretty hard to ignore.

-parent

kellie said...

Something that is often missed, is that if special ed had ever been properly addressed, there never would have been any closure rounds.

Anonymous said...

I thought at the HS level, there isn't a special APP program like MS and ES. HS kids can take AP or more advanced courses (or IB) and they can be APP or not as long as they are qualified to do the work (pre-requisites) Has that changed? Can someone clarify?

clearly confused.

Anonymous said...

APP students get a seat at Garfield to maintain their cohort if they want it. Yes, there are AP and/or IB offerings at all schools. They are also offered seats at their home school, and now at Ingraham.

-To Clarify

Syd said...

Meg - can you give more detail? I don't understand. Graham Hill need only accept those children in the attendance area, correct? SPS could change the attendance area, to push some of the kids to other locations if those locations were under-enrolled. I guess I was assuming the only reason that would not be the choice is that there is not the capacity through out the service area.

Or, not that I want this, they could move the Montessori program to an under-enrolled school. it is a program, right? They don't have

SeattleSped said...

Parent, we don't disagree. I merely wish to, once again, register my disgust with the district's use of slogans in place of true vision and considered leadership.

Anonymous said...

Parent: I'm not taking issue with your complaint. But read Kellie's comment and digest it. That's what I'm talking about. Groups all over the district are getting screwed by poor capacity management. Garfield's PTSA voted to LIMIT APP at Garfield and the district supported it. That's why APP, acting responsibly and sensitively so as NOT to unfairly displace other students, endeavored on its own to create the IB program at Ingraham - to reduce its numbers at Garfield in the coming years and to prevent, again, displacement of other needy and deserving kids.

And given time and the popularity of APP/IB, it will probably fill up Ingraham too. So, what then? Blow it up? What's your solution? And how is APP the bad guy in all of this?

The issue IS poor capacity management, and it's not like any families or groups are untouched by it. It may be severe for displaced Special Ed kids at Garfield, but I've seen the same thing happen at other schools with no APP kids at all.

It wasn't "preferential treatment" to have APP at Garfield until it became overcrowded and people who wanted in couldn't get in. Reason number one was because of ridiculously large boundaries around Garfield, which have been adjusted and shrunk. Reason number 2 is the simple fact that we don't have enough High Schools to hold all our kids, of every need and stripe, in the district, and that problem will create the cascading effect that leads to the very problem you are complaining about.

The district loves, and finds it convenient, for groups to pair off against one another and throw each other under the bus. This allows them to push and pull groups around without doing the actual hard work that needs to be done to erase these problems, which is to increase capacity and leave ample extra space in each building (which they hate).

I cannot understand how you can say this is primarily a discrimination problem or preferential treatment problem when "no room" is cited in an OVERCROWDED building.

NO! It's not right at all. I totally agree with you. But as Kellie aptly states, it's because of how they manage their capacity (or don't) that we wind up with fewer seats than butts in school after school, that lead to turf wars and tug-of-wars over whose kids are most deserving of this or that.

If inadequate space is alleged to cover actual discrimination, and it allows SPS to get away with it, don't you want to see that excuse blown up instead of discriminating against one group for the purported benefit of another? I sure do.

WSDWG

Anonymous said...

@parent: One last point: During the APP elementary split, the compelling reason why parents went along with it, was because of the claim that APP kids were not appropriate grade-level peers for the Special Ed kids at Lowell. I thought, and still do think, that argument was specious. But if one special ed kid was being deprived by not having Gen Ed peers in the school, APP was willing to do right by those kids, accept the split and leave Lowell. The district never proved its case, and there were actually no kids at Lowell at that time that qualified, but the potential to improve the lives of other kids in the building by leaving was the one good thing APP could salvage in the midst of a very hard and unhappy move away from a school it loved. APP has worked hard to avoid inconveniencing and displacing other groups, and it faces the issue over and over again, as its presence draws both APP and non-APP families to whatever school its in.

With proper planning on the district side, it would never be in a position to dominate or push out other groups. WSDWG

Syd said...

"Garfield's PTSA voted to limit APP" at Garfield? I am sorry - you must be going to different Garfield PTSA meetings than I am. (1) the PTSA does not have that power, and (2) in the meetings I went to most parents advocated strongly for keeping the program at Garfield.

Anonymous said...

@Syd: We were indeed at different meetings then. Yes, they did vote in favor of limiting APP last year, prior to the first community meeting held at Garfield, very early on, October or so, as an advisory/positional vote. Of course they don't determine program placement or limits, but yes, they did cast such a vote to take a position of "yes, we want an APP cohort at Garfield" and also "Yes, we are willing to accept a limit on APP, while looking for and participating in developing a solution to the problem over overcrowding," which they did.

This was after total enrollment was counted, the school was in crisis mode, and the PTSA was paying attention to the coming APP classes currently at Washington and Hamilton.

This vote, and subsequent parent meetings, including APP-AC meetings led ultimately to the creation of IB/APP at Ingraham, and a re-drawing of the boundaries around Garfield in a more rational fashion. I attended nearly every meeting, especially those at Lincoln and Ingraham, where the Ingraham option was discussed and developed.

What would be the point of making such a thing up, btw? WSDWG

Maureen said...

WSDWG, can you link to the Garfield PTSA and or APPAC minutes where Yes, we are willing to accept a limit on APP is explicitly stated? As an observer, I have only seen a willingness to allow an additional placement for APP students at Ingraham, not "a limit on APP" at Garfield or indeed any limit to APP at all (except, as always, the restriction to students identified before they are 13). As far as I can see, no numerical limit on APP placement at GHS is in effect or was ever supported by the APPAC or GHS PTSA.

Anonymous said...

It was stated by a PTSA member at the first meeting re: managing the overcrowding at Garfield. I wasn't at the PTSA meeting preceding the district led meeting, with Tracy Libros and the other district folks in attendance. I believe the PTSA had supported a cap at 25% of capacity set aside for APP, but I'm not positive, as it was a year or more ago.

The point was/is, that the PTSA agreed that they wanted APP to remain at Garfield, but supported capping APP enrollment to prevent the crowding out. The APP community thus had a target to work with & toward, for future years, and worked diligently to create the option of APP-IB at Ingraham.

People were extremely worried at first, but meeting the Ingraham staff and Martin Floe did a lot to generate interest and support for APP-IB at Ingraham, which cooled the jets of Board members at the time who were ready to vote for another split of APP at the HS level.

I'm going entirely on memory at this point, but I'm certain about the PTSA's position because a PTSA member said so at the meeting in the Garfield cafeteria attended by 100 to 150 people.

It was a goal, and a position, and a rational one at that, because, the next year's (this year's) incoming class and the 2012 incoming classes were anticipated to be the largest APP cohorts ever.

I do not know if it was a formally recorded vote in the minutes, or a straw vote of the 4 board members present at the larger meeting, but it was stated to be the PTSA's position at the time.

Fortunately, the Ingraham idea took off and the huge increases in enrollment of APP at Garfield are being mitigated without a split, thus far anyways. I didn't say Bob Vaughan or the APP-AC supported an enrollment cap, and I'm sure the Ingraham option was designed to avoid just such things. It was the PTSA and the PTSA only, and I cannot say whether it was an officially recorded vote, or not. I can only state what I, and others, were told that the PTSA supported, and as I say, I believe it was to cap/target the APP number at 25%. WSDWG

Anonymous said...

@Maureen: If you remember, the overcrowding issue last year caught a lot of people by surprise and caused a lot of panic. APP did it's part to contribute to solutions with the new pathway at Ingraham. The Board redrew the map, and the work is still ongoing.

The point is, APP took steps on its own to reduce its impact on the overcrowding at Garfield in the coming years, and will continue to work on solutions to the problem. But another High School is the only answer to the overcrowding, given the growing numbers in the attendance area, aside from APP.

We closed schools at a time when the district was growing and we should've been opening them. And now, we are living with the consequences.

What else needs to be said? WSDWG

also_anon said...

All right Northenders, how about this?

1. Marshall becomes a K-8 option language immersion program – JSIS and McDonald become true neighborhood schools. More capacity at JSIS, McDonald, and Hamilton.
2. Wilson Pacific becomes a smallish middle school AND smallish high school with a STEM program at each. New construction could make the campuses somewhat separate but could also provide flexing ability if there is a particularly large class one year in either HS or MS.
3. Broadview Thompson becomes a K-5 (since there will be additional MS capacity at WP and Marshall). APP 1-5 co houses with gen ed at Broadview Thompson (not super convenient for NE, but it is a pretty straight shot either up Aurora or across 130th). APP MS stays at Hamilton since language immersion is at Marshall.
4. Lincoln (after housing everyone and their brother) becomes a high school that serves Wallingford, Fremont and Queen Anne. Magnolia can stay at Ballard.

Also_anon

Anonymous said...

No WSDAWG. It is a LOT different. Students in special education have NO seat. APP students simply have a crowded seat, guaranteed them, which they can CHOOSE to sit in, or not. APP students simply have a preference seat Garfield - even though there are advanced classes everywhere. It is their CHOICE to participate in APP, and they can choose the crowding - or not. Having NO seat, being forced out because you are disabled, is a lot different than being crowded because you happen to like your cohort (doesn't everyone?). There is no federal mandate for an APP program at Garfield or anywhere else for that matter. There is no history of protected class discrimination. There is no LRE issues for APP. Sure, it's nice that APP is provided. But that is a CHOICE the district makes at the expense of REQUIREMENT needed by other students who actually don't have 10 different high schools they could attend. (Special ed students don't even get to "opt in", so they are truly forced to move by these types of decisions.)

Furthermore, the Lowell spit was never EVER about special ed families getting access to "peer" models. APP students would work fine as peer models and did for a long time. IDEA simply requires that those peers be "non-disabled"... not that they aren't somehow also special or advanced. APP students meet that requirement - they are non-disabled (mostly). So the whole "special ed kids get an LRE" was a big red-herring case for the split. It was never the reason. In point of fact, those Lowell students have no more access to non-disabled peers than they ever did before.

-parent