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.
West Seattle Issues and Priorities
Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
Here's a brilliant story from the West Seattle Blog about Director McLaren's community meeting in West Seattle.
This line struck me though, that "the last round of school closures [are] widely acknowledged now as a massive mistake."
I actually haven't seen a lot of discussion, especially from those school board members who were around at the time, of the last round of school closures being a massive mistake. In particular, I haven't seen much public discussion of the Board's role in that decision and what specific changes have been made to keep it from happening again. Did I miss it?
The acknowledgement that the last round of school closures was a massive mistake has been made by everyone who did not have a direct hand in it.
Those who did have a role, most notably the board members who voted for it, have yet to acknowledge that it was a mistake. They contend that the closures were the right choice based on the information available at the time.
This is, of course, hooey. The information they got from the staff - or, to be more accurate, the misinformation they got from the staff - was countered by information from other sources. The Board chose to disregard all other data.
Also, to be fair to the Board, the closures were done primarily for political reasons. There were some members of the state legislature who wanted Seattle to close schools. They saw any excess school capacity as wasteful and were threatening to cut education funding. The District was responding to that threat more than any actual belief in excess capacity.
There were other reasons. Summit was closed to save the transportation cost. AAA was closed because the test results were so bad. Cooper was closed to provide a building for Pathfinder. Pathfinder needed a building because the District gave their capital budget to Southshore. Southshore got Pathfinder's place in line for a new building because the New School Foundation wanted it. Viewlands was closed to provide some cover from accusations of racism.
There was not a single school closed for actual enrollment reasons.
disgusted said…
Thanks for the link to WSB. That article sums up pretty much all of the problems with SPS: Lack of foresight, lack of engagement, lack of transparency, constant churn of schools (I'm sorry, "programs", a very important distinction to everybody but normal people just trying to send their kids to school), lack of accountability, lack of competence, did I miss anything? Oh yeah, constant weasel-word noncommittal responses.
I hate to say it, but by their behavior SPS is helping make the argument for charters, and for voting against the levy.
Mark Wainwright said…
Hello Charlie and others -
I live in Schmitz Park Elem area, have a student there, and am involved with the PTA. We received a letter from your group this weekend on our front porch.
I am confused at the overarching purpose of the letter. The Schmitz Park Community loves our school. The potential move to a new facility seems to be an excellent option for our growing school population. Many people, including our community, have been involved in many discussions about the various pros and cons for different scenarios.
Does your letter support the Feb 2013 levy? It's not clear, but it seems to raise enough questions about things that someone may interpret this as a reason not to vote for the levy. As a Seattle resident who sees the need across the city for this levy, can you please clarify your letter?
Eric B said…
I'll go one step further than Charlie. The demographic data provided by staff as background to the school closures clearly showed that the capacity at Viewlands would be needed again in roughly 2-3 years. It re-opened 3 years later. It was a straightforward case of the staff recommendation not matching their own data.
Mark W, that sounds like it could be the work of Chris Jackins. It's his MO and his committee to save schools has a similar name to this blog. But he does not participate in anything internet, so will not read your query/complaint.
The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested. It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio. (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
This may only be a partial list of reasons; please, add anything else in the comments. The deadline to file to run for the Board is May 19th. Entire Board Majority NOT vetting the Superintendent in any way, shape or form. Even the Seattle Times thought that was wrong. It was just absolute hubris and it was wrong. For the second time in just over a year , board members voted to negotiate a superintendent contract during a special meeting with no opportunity for public comment. This time, they showed an even deeper disregard for their responsibilities as public servants: Aborting a national search for a new superintendent and denying Interim Superintendent Brent Jones a chance to show students, parents and taxpayers that, indeed, he is the best person for the job. Government bodies can’t fast-forward through transparent processes just because they think they know the right answer. One other odd thing about the hiring of Brent Jones - most permanent SPS superintendent contracts ar
Update 5 It appears that there is another person running in Director Rankin's district, Michael Christophersen. He has run before. From past interactions when he was running before, he's not school board material in the least and he comes off as creepy. (The King County Elections listing is unclear; he's on there as both running and withdrawing.) If he stays in the race, it will mean a primary for that district. That could be interesting because then you would see if Rankin - after pretty much ignoring Ingraham High parents as well as Broadview-Thomson parents and their safety concerns - truly has support in her own district. As well, there is another contender in District 6 and she's Maryanne Wood. Ms Wood's LinkedIn page says she is a "shift lead" at Kinetic Builders but there are no dates for her employment. The company is a general contracting company. I can't find much more about her. end of update Update 4 - To make it clear: District 1 (Ranki
Comments
This line struck me though, that "the last round of school closures [are] widely acknowledged now as a massive mistake."
I actually haven't seen a lot of discussion, especially from those school board members who were around at the time, of the last round of school closures being a massive mistake. In particular, I haven't seen much public discussion of the Board's role in that decision and what specific changes have been made to keep it from happening again. Did I miss it?
Those who did have a role, most notably the board members who voted for it, have yet to acknowledge that it was a mistake. They contend that the closures were the right choice based on the information available at the time.
This is, of course, hooey. The information they got from the staff - or, to be more accurate, the misinformation they got from the staff - was countered by information from other sources. The Board chose to disregard all other data.
Also, to be fair to the Board, the closures were done primarily for political reasons. There were some members of the state legislature who wanted Seattle to close schools. They saw any excess school capacity as wasteful and were threatening to cut education funding. The District was responding to that threat more than any actual belief in excess capacity.
There were other reasons. Summit was closed to save the transportation cost. AAA was closed because the test results were so bad. Cooper was closed to provide a building for Pathfinder. Pathfinder needed a building because the District gave their capital budget to Southshore. Southshore got Pathfinder's place in line for a new building because the New School Foundation wanted it. Viewlands was closed to provide some cover from accusations of racism.
There was not a single school closed for actual enrollment reasons.
I hate to say it, but by their behavior SPS is helping make the argument for charters, and for voting against the levy.
I live in Schmitz Park Elem area, have a student there, and am involved with the PTA. We received a letter from your group this weekend on our front porch.
I am confused at the overarching purpose of the letter. The Schmitz Park Community loves our school. The potential move to a new facility seems to be an excellent option for our growing school population. Many people, including our community, have been involved in many discussions about the various pros and cons for different scenarios.
Does your letter support the Feb 2013 levy? It's not clear, but it seems to raise enough questions about things that someone may interpret this as a reason not to vote for the levy. As a Seattle resident who sees the need across the city for this levy, can you please clarify your letter?
What letter? I don't recall writing a letter.