Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Co-Location It Is for JA K-8

 So unless someone has a change of heart, it appears that Director Carr has decided her vote for next year's Interim Plan.  She has submitted an amendment (which yes, could get defeated but I doubt it) and it signals, rather clearly, her vote.  The only vote still up in the air is Director McLaren but she appears to be leaning that way as well. 

I move to amend the NEW STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN TRANSITION PLAN FOR 2013-
14, as submitted by staff on January 22, 2013, to (1) restore the language included at
Introduction on January 9, 2013, where the Jane Addams building will be designated to become
an attendance area middle school and the new attendance area middle school and the current Jane
Addams K-8 environmental science option school will be temporarily co-located in the Jane
Addams building; and (2) to direct the Superintendent to designate a Jane Addams Middle
School planning principal or provide for equivalent planning activities, effective April, 2013.



VI. STATEMENT OF ISSUE



1.      Both Hamilton and Eckstein are running at over capacity already

2.      Safety incidents at Eckstein have increased due to overcrowding

3.      Projected enrollment grows significantly, including special populations such as APP.

4.      Families have signaled a clear preference for comprehensive middle schools.

5.      The FACMAC has urged us to proceed with opening a new middle school as soon as possible, recommending even stronger action such as the immediate splitting Eckstein into North and South Annexes and the movement of Jane Addams K-8 to Marshall. Most recent communication was Monday, January 21, 2013, reinforcing this message.

School Board Briefing/Proposed Action Report6. Significant parent support demonstrated through email and community meetings is to

proceed with an early opening of JAMS.
6. Significant parent support demonstrated through email and community meetings is to
proceed with an early opening of JAMS.

7.   The district will incur an addition $250-400k in expenses from our general fund over two years if we proceed with the current proposal to use surge capacity.

8.   The proposed amendment would provide relief to both Eckstein and Hamilton, and would utilize excess capacity at the Jane Addams building.

9.   This change is an incremental step that aligns with our long term BEX plan.



It is important to acknowledge that this change has immediate and unexpected impacts on some of our families in Northeast Seattle. Our commitment is to work with them to ensure that a full and meaningful comprehensive middle school experience is provided to them starting in fall 2013 and that a JAMS planning principal is in place effective April, 2013.


If adopted, this amendment will have the effect that all short and interim term capacity management plans will align with the intended use of the Jane Addams building as a comprehensive middle school.
Okay, BUT:

- This is NOT going to significantly alleviate the crowding at Hamilton or Eckstein.
- It goes AGAINST what staff told the far NE families at John Rogers, Sacajawea and Olympic Hills.
- It really does nothing to solve the issue of APP growth.
- I will quibble over the "significant parent support" - based on the survey and the running comments here, I strongly suspect it is neck and neck which thing parents want to see.
- She makes the claim that there is "excess capacity" at JA K-8 and I hope there is not an unpleasant surprise or shifting of programs because of this decision.
- Interesting that FACMAC had an emergency meeting to make the decision to tell the Board/Director Carr their feelings.  Or did they poll FACMAC members or just who told Director Carr this?

Also, Director Carr said, at the Work Session, "I could go either way"; she did not say "I don't know" or "I still need to consider it."  A little confusing there because it sounded like she actually thought it was six of one and half a dozen of another. 

JA K-8 folks, you're going to have neighbors.

To the new student body of Jane Addams Middle School (and parents), hold to them every single promise they make but do remember, they did say they wouldn't make this change for next year at several community meetings so honestly, hard to know what promises they will or will not keep.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

Opening JAMS this fall might be what the weight of opinion is that she's hearing from her south end constituents, but it is NOT what her Sacajawea families want, or what John Rogers or Olympic Hills families want. They have been asking to wait until 2014, but to assign a planning principal this spring.

NNEr

Anonymous said...

John Rogers, Sac & Olympic Hills have no representation on FACMAC. Looks like the fix is in...
-Surprise me.

Reconciled said...

Good for Sherry.

Anonymous said...

Well duh. Just let Debbie Nelson do it. You don't think she could handle a bunch of 6th graders coming in? Of course she could. What's the big deal? Let's not waste money on another couple 6 figure principals. New families. You will love JAK-8.

-parent

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
assignments web said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Parents and heck realtors in the Whitestein...Eric I mean Eckstein area will breathe easier now since the "diverse" kids will be shipped off

------PissedOff

Anonymous said...

Regarding Melissa's comment that it really does not solve the issue of APP growth, I agree it doesn't solve the issue, but it will prevent several families who have been scrambling to get their 5th grader APP qualified to avoid Eckstein crowding from going the APP route, so even though the amount of capacity relief to Eckstein and Hamilton may be seen as insignificant, perception will provide additional APP relief (IMO).

Just an observation

Mike said...

Is this a done deal?

Eric B said...

There was not a formal FACMAC meeting recently, although FACMAC did recommend that the new middle school open as soon as possible. The reason is the same one I've said before--at some point you have to move toward the long term plan. Making choices that take us off of the long term plan path don't help in the long run. That's been the recommendation since our last meeting about a month ago.

That said, FACMAC has also been talking for months about the need for planning the new middle schools early, getting the staff up and running, and starting early on all of the other work that's needed to open up a school.

Anonymous said...

I am guessing Sherry's recommendation was influenced by the additional cost of using surge capacity this year. In one of the public meetings, she mentioned that the money spent under the co-location approach would have to be spent, either this year or next, but the cost of the "do nothing" would be additional. When they are looking at budget deficits that probably carries some weight, particularly when this option does align with the long-term growth plan.

Concern about increased (and currently unpredicted) enrollment probably played a part as well. If the District's enrollment projections are low and more students show up in the fall, a vote to do nothing now means there will be a mad scramble in June to accommodate everyone. And the District's projections have been wrong - and low - for the past several years. (Phil Brockman has said that last year 400 more kindergarten students than projected showed up). At least now planning for next year can start in February and not over the summer. Voting to do nothing now and having to face the music in June would be worse.

Don't get me wrong - I think there should be more time for planning. I am so mad that the District has put parents in this position once again, lurching from crisis to crisis.

Frustrated and Weary

mirmac1 said...

If K-5@Boren and new sped programs spread willy-nilly are any indication, the new MS will start off with no desks, no chairs, and no books...

Melissa Westbrook said...

Mike, it will be a done deal by tonight.

I repeat what I said before; even if they open the new middle school, the district will likely STILL be paying mitigation costs to Eckstein and Hamilton. I'll let you know.

Anonymous said...

Interesting article......

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/why-gloomy-pundits-and-politicians-are-wrong-about-americas-education-system/267278/

A friend

Anonymous said...

So the white affluent Bryant and APP clans of PTA and FACMAC will get their way and the communities of color and poverty get promises broken. What a surprise.

North of 85th

big talker said...

As a 7th grade JAk8 parent, I highly recommend you all opt in to the K8 program instead of the JAMS program, if the co housing will occur- the JAk8 middle school curriculum is above and beyond Ecksteins middle school curriculum from what I have seen. Whatever you are thinking "comprehensive" means, it simply means more kids= more options for more electives. A smaller school, including JAMS next year will not provide the same programs as Eckstein. JAk8 already has a highly functioning 6th grade that I guarantee will provide a better year for your kids if they slam this JAMS thing together for this coming fall. Come to the JAk8 tours and try to separate your fear of middle school in general from the actuality of this issue. You want a peaceful, healthy, safe, challenging curriculum with options for extracurricular activities, JAk8 has all of this with little or no interaction with the elem school portion. Lower income families does not equal bad school, come on people. you live in working class neighborhood from wedgwood and above. You ARE the lower income families-if your elemen school is great now ( sac, rogers etc) the middle school will be great eventually too.
it's like university village is at war with northgate mall.

Concerned said...

Melissa,

What is your proposal? Please include APP option.

Patrick said...

Well duh. Just let Debbie Nelson do it. You don't think she could handle a bunch of 6th graders coming in? Of course she could

I'm sure Debbie Nelson could handle it, but when JAK8 moves the JAMS principal will have to be in charge. It'll be a lot easier if that principal has a year or two to decide what staff to hire and what they want in their school. And to learn from the best.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that a thrown together "6th grade academy" is just swell for people who wouldn't have to send their kids there. It would have no more planning time than this middle school option they are now talking about.

People are going to fight for what is best for their kids. The JA families are fighting hard to make this "6th grade academy" for other people's children and those affected parents are fighting against it.

It's too bad that ALL the parents north didn't get together and try to force the district to make a long-term, comprehensive plan for the north right now. We are wasting copious amounts of money and time while pitting parents against each other. The north needs a plan, and the district is, yet again, not coming up with one.

I do wish that people would quit complaining about other people fighting for their kids when they are doing the exact same thing.

-north parent

Anonymous said...

Litigation Worked For Me Says:

Anybody thinking lawsuit here? Are there any non-Asian children of color at Hamilton or Eckstein, who would be the benficiaries of Carr's amendment? Any non-Asian community leaders of color advocating for Carr's amendment?

Carr's amendment will clearly put communities of color at a disproportionate disadvantage with a slapped together middle school program in a slapped together space. Looks like solid ground for heading to court, if the amendment passes.

The only person of color in this mess seems to be board member Harium Martin-Morris and he does the bidding of the ultra white Ravenna and Bryant and Hawthorne Hills, Laurelhurst, View Ridge neighborhoods.

Anonymous said...

Melissa,

I have been trying to keep up with the various data and recommendations and have been under the impression that supporting the FACMAC suggestions would be the most prudent in alleviating the capacity issues (and it would have the added bonus of being the most cost-effective for the district). Your statement above says that this will not help with overcrowding at Eckstein or Hamilton. Can you elaborate on why that is and what you see as the best course of action here? I'm not criticizing your viewpoint -- just want to get the wider perspective.

Thanks!
North End Mom

Mike said...

Thank you Melissa for covering this, btw how does this impact feeder patterns for Roosevelt? Since Wedgwood would be the only the ES feeding in Eckstein that would NOT continue onto RHS but rather to Hale. Or am I wrong on this.

Patrick said...

The JA families are fighting hard to make this "6th grade academy" for other people's children and those affected parents are fighting against it.

North Parent, actually the JA BEX committee has been pushing for the "no change to assignment boundaries" for 2013-14 option.

oh come on said...

Litigation Worked for Me, what's the difference between Asians and other people of color? Are all Asians excluded from your people of color club or just East Asians. Do people from such countries as Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Lebanon count? Hispanics can be of any race, so I'm not sure if they count by your standard or not.

But to answer your question, yes, there are "non-Asian children of color" at Hamilton and Eckstein who would benefit. Hamilton is 4.5 percent black and 10.2 percent Hispanic. Eckstein is 8.2 percent black and 9.8 percent Hispanic. Jane Addams K-8 is 15.4 percent black and 13.9 percent Hispanic -- slightly less white but not exactly a bastion of diversity.

Anonymous said...

I posted this at the end of the previous thread on northeast capacity but it was lost there, so I am posting again because of this new amendment. One respondent in the previous thread called me out, saying I must have a personal dislike for someone in PTA. That is not so. And I have volunteered there. But when I realized the degree of my-child-first among even parents who I admire, well, I headed elsewhere. I wish the PTA lived up to its name. But there are no teachers. There is no attempt to hear from families who cannot be as hyper involved as the top one or two families. There is no Association.

I hate the crowding at Eckstein, but if my family can live with it for a year on behalf of all the families who will be worse off if we slam some neighbors into a weak program into Jane Adams which cannot handle them well, I will live with crowding for one more year. You can too. I hope the board does not pass Carr's amendment. Anyhow, here is my last post.


Call me---I Opted Out And You Can Too.

PTA is more of a problem than a solution. I have written directly to board members and I urge all to do the same. I have told them that the self absorption of the Bryant PTA which is also where the APP PTA head and apparently the Seattle council PTA head came from does not speak for all of us. I don't like the overcrowding at Eckstein and Hamilton and the district and board members screwed up monumentally in their nonplanning.

But our family and others will deal with it. Why? Because some of our neighbors will get the shaft if a ill-planned scramble to locate in JA takes place. Not to mention the JA families who will also get the shaft.

I am embarrassed that our community is acting in exactly the way the stereotypes describe us. I am embarrassed that PTAs care more about moms precious darlings than the good of a larger community. Believe me, you will do more good forming your own opinions and helping out in class than spending afternoons at girls cliques, demanding that you get yours while the rest of the district suffers.

My student is going to learn a valuable lesson that an uncrowded Hamilton and Eckstein next year would never teach him.

Maureen said...

Mike, kids don't feed to High School by which elementary school they went to. High School boundaries are not a combination of K-5 boundaries, they are different (and by the time a current K-5 student gets to HS, they will have changed anyway.)

Anonymous said...

@ Oh Come On

Please tell us how many of those families of color in Eckstein and Hamilton will be redrawn to the Jane Addams middle school under this hasty amendment and subclass program offering.

How many John Rogers, Olympic Hills and Sac 5th grader community of color children will be affected.

How many Eckstein or Hamilton families unaffected give a damn about the issue?

That's the point. And that is why...
"Litigation Worked for Me"

When SPS can't put civil rights first, lawyers are a big help.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused about neighbors complaining the new neighborhood school would be filled with their neighbors.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Concerned, my proposal is to wait. I have now said this several times.

APP, well, now that is a whole other issue. I can write a separate thread on that. But again, this is at the district's feet and they should have thought about it before they put APP at Hamilton.

North End Mom, my reading of the data is that the numbers of 6th graders from Sacajawea, John Rogers, and Olympic Hills (plus any new 7th/8th graders) doesn't pull that many 6th graders out of Eckstein. (I don't have it front of me but I will recheck.) And, the same is true of pulling the Laurelhurst kids from Hamilton.

I'm not saying it will not have some effect but I think it will be smaller and not as apparent as parents believe it will be.

Mike, as I have also said, the next dogfight is high school. Technically there is no feeder pattern from middle to high school but you are assigned a high school for your region. Who will go where and what happens when Lincoln opens? Anyone's guess. (Again, keep in mind that Roosevelt will be seeing increasing density around it and that will skew those numbers.)

Anonymous said...

"Parents and heck realtors in the Whitestein...Eric I mean Eckstein area will breathe easier now since the "diverse" kids will be shipped off."

Really? That is absurd, uncalled for, and inaccurate.

What's racist is people who buy homes in Lake City being angry they have to send their kids to school with other families who have bought homes in Lake City but who don't look like them.

Get over it. They're your neighbors. There's no reason a school filled with your neighbors will be lesser, unless your hatred makes it so. There's no reason a new school can't be the best school in the city.

-Stop Whining

oh come on said...

Anonymous @ 10:57 AM wrote:

"Please tell us how many of those families of color in Eckstein and Hamilton will be redrawn to the Jane Addams middle school under this hasty amendment and subclass program offering."

I can't speak to Eckstein, but as I understand it the only people of color who will be moved from Hamilton to the new school are those who live in Laurelhurst. My guess is most of the people of color who go to Hamilton live elsewhere.

Reconciled said...

Litigation Worked For Me - It's clear you're upset, but I'm confused. What's your preferred solution?

Are you suggesting it's better NOT to open JAMS because you think Hamilton and Eckstein can handle the growing numbers of students for years to come?

Or do you think waiting a year to open JAMS will somehow cause a remixture of ethnicities in northend neighborhoods?

-Parent north of 85th, with mixed race children, who sees that constructive and proactive solutions are needed.

Anonymous said...

RE: demographics in the NNE -

Actually, the free and reduced lunch rate is far more meaningful data to use rather than ethnicity when looking at family resources and the effects of transitions on children (although FRL rates often do track somewhat closely with ethnicity.)

There are people out there who are saying that even though the % of FRL students in the proposed JAMS feeder area is higher than the proposed Eckstein area, the pure number of students in this category is less in the JAMS feeder area just because Eckstein has more overall students.

I looked at the 2011 enrollment data for the schools feeding into each of these MS areas and found the following:

Eckstein:
3310 total students /14%FRL means there are 406 individual students meeting FRL criteria

JAMS without 6-8th students in the K-8’s:
1198 total students/46% FRL means there are 574 individual students meeting FRL

This means that the JAMS area, with slightly more than 1/3 the number of total students in their feeder area have 125% of the FRL students of the Eckstein feeder area.

This is not about being upset about going to school with these students (in fact, having APP as an option for my child, I intentionally chose a more diverse ethnic and socioeconomic school on purpose) but rather an acknowledgment that these families are unlikely to have as many resources with which to assist in planning a new school and are more challenged by challenging work schedules, language issues, transportation issues, etc.

Hopefully the above data will counteract at least this one piece of misinformation some individuals are spreading in the district.

To answer the question from “Parent north of 85th”, waiting a year to open JAMS will allow the boundaries to be redrawn and will, without doubt, bring in more families from Wedgwood and other neighboring areas which would likely provide a more balanced group of families to start a program – and would allow you, as someone who will likely find out in 9 months that you will be assigned to JAMS, would be able to participate in designing the start-up of JAMS. It would also provide a bigger group to start (which would increase funding for electives and other things that parents who want a comprehensive middle school are looking for.)

~ Tired of the misrepresentation and lies

Peanut said...

Anonymous above who is confused "about neighbors complaining the new neighborhood school would be filled with their neighbors."

Some neighborhoods win, some lose in any decision. The problem is that the usual pattern everywhere is that the winners are the wealthy white neighborhoods.

The neighborhoods around Eckstein & Hamilton are majority wealthy and white. So, the lower income and minority students in the NE who do not live in those neighborhoods will be redirected to JAMS, which is completely unknown now. Who are the teachers? What resources and opportunities will it have? How will they compare to those of Eckstein & Hamilton?

In other words, do you care about providing an opportunity for all students in the district? Or, are you protecting your neighborhood school and the already better off? Do you care that your neighborhood school becomes less diverse?

Anonymous said...

I am reading these minority back and forth postings and feel like I should translate because the school district sure doesn't.

Yes, more families of color and less economic means live north of 85th. I don't think the people protesting the co-location next year don't want to go to school with their neighbors. I'm guessing they don't want a thrown together program this next year. That's why the elementary PTAs and Jane Addams parents are asking for a planning year. This does not seem an unreasonable ask.

There is no hiding the fact that the population that looks like it will end up at the new JA middle school will be poorer and more diverse than that at Hamilton and Eckstein, if the current proposed feeder school patterns remain.

So the bigger question is whether the district will make it its business to draw new boundaries to keep schools economically and racially mixed, when many of the neighborhoods that feed into schools are not.

This could be done throughout the north end, including at Eckstein and Hamilton, but it would require a big change of feeder patterns with the next boundary change. I'm betting the district won't want to go there, but I could be wrong.

Lost in this discussion of the amendment is that boundary changes will still be slated for next year. That means some families will inevitably move between Hamilton, Eckstein and JA this year, then be redrawn next year. This will create another round of outrage.

All things considered, I've come down on waiting a year as the best option. Because no matter which option we think is best, I think we can all agree that the district does not have its s**t together on planning at the moment. That is not a good way to move forward with new building plans nor with new programs.

EdVoter

Anonymous said...

Here is a link to the attachment to director Carr's amendment. It outlines some cost comparisons between the options over multiple years. Some of it is a bit murky, but the bottom line is that it appears that waiting a year is also the least costly option in the long run.

http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/school%20board/12-13%20agendas/012313agenda/20130123_TransitionPlan_FiscalImpact.pdf

-Let's be practical

Anonymous said...

Of course Carr is putting out an amendment. The people in her district are demanding she do so. The fact that the pain is taken by the parents in Sharon Peaslee's district makes it all the easier. Politics as usual.

DistrictWatcher

Anonymous said...

I keep hearing that if JAMS doesn't open in 2013 that there will be a rush of kids who will go to Hamilton for APP because of overcrowding at Eckstein (including that EVERY 5th grader at View Ridge is testing for APP), and that will over-run HIMS, thus evicting APP in June (again). I get that this community is very wary about this kind of thing - really I do. But - if EVERY 5th grader at View Ridge (87 kids) can get themselves into APP, then perhaps the APP advocates should be spending their time pushing the district for more appropriate entrance criteria.

Also - what about the potential crush of kids from the NNE enrolling in APP when those middle schoolers don't have access to Eckstein, and when those elementary schoolers don't have access to the district's only NE Spectrum program accessible to families who live north of Wedgwood. Contrary to popular belief, APP kids live in the NNE too.

-tired

Anonymous said...

Back to the beginning of this thread. Is it true that John Rogers, Sacajawea and Olympic Hills had no representation on FACMAC? Or is this a last minute urban myth?

If it is not true, then shame on Surprise Me for spreading a falsity. If it is true, then shame on Carr and anyone who votes for an amendment backed by FACMAC, which would then be pushing the pain onto groups without representation in their committee.

Following with Interest



Anonymous said...

Here is a link to a list of FACMAC reps - it's all I could find (which is striking in itself):

http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/facilities/FACMACminutes04242012.pdf

We tried to determine affiliations and can't find that any of these individuals are attached to JR, Sac, OlyHills or JA - don't know about OlyView or Northgate or Pinehurst, but none we could recognize. Jane Addams asked to add a rep in September and were refused.

~searching for the truth

Anonymous said...

"if EVERY 5th grader at View Ridge (87 kids) can get themselves into APP, then perhaps the APP advocates should be spending their time pushing the district for more appropriate entrance criteria."

APP provides a nice segregated educational experience away from the rabble. What's not to love?

If you can't move to Wallingford for the two, heck maybe three (if some parents get their way) language immersion schools, just test or pay for a private screening... and off you go.

After all every single kid is there because they are just that smart, right?

--APP4Lyfe



Anonymous said...

The financials have been posted. Looks like wait until 2013 is the most fiscally conservative option.

http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/school%20board/12-13%20agendas/012313agenda/20130123_TransitionPlan_FiscalImpact.pdf

-tired

Anonymous said...

sorry - meant to say wait until 2014
- (clearly too) tired

Anonymous said...

No way. No civil rights issues here.

About FACMAC We tried to determine affiliations and can't find that any of these individuals are attached to JR, Sac, OlyHills or JA - don't know about OlyView or Northgate or Pinehurst, but none we could recognize. Jane Addams asked to add a rep in September and were refused.

What a farce.

Litigation Worked for Me

non-affluent app parent said...

APP4Lyfe, I don't want to turn this into a debate about APP, but I can't let your comment go unaddressed.

Imagine spending all school day, every day in a classroom where the teacher teaches stuff you knew two years ago. APP isn't about getting "away from the rabble." It's about serving the needs of students.

Do some parents get private screeners to allow in children who really don't belong? Maybe. It seems to me this is more something that people believe than something that's been studied. Even if it's the case, that doesn't change the fact that this is a program that is needed to serve kids who really do qualify.

I'd love for there to be more diversity in the APP population, and I hope the district continues to work toward getting more kids from all backgrounds into the program.

suep. said...

Don't take the bait from "APP4Lyfe."

Anonymous said...

It is not true that every View Ridge 5th grader has tested for APP. I think this conversation will be more productive if we focus on deliberating how to create the very best schools we can, rather than throwing erroneous matches into the fire.

---parent

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
suep. said...

(Reposting for Pinehurst Here, so it doesn't get deleted.)

Anonymous said...

Pinehurst here. If they take apart our school which I fully expect and then fill up Jane Adams next year with middle schoolers where the heck do our K5 kids go? Ain't seein' it. Doubt we will fit in the elementary schools near us. Which we did not want to attend in the first place.

Can we not have next year for planning an unbad solution for our kids? We are clearly not part of the in crowd for lobbying. Tapping on mic: Hello? Anyone other than Sharon Peaslee? Anyone?

1/23/13, 1:41 PM

Anonymous said...

The board notes for tonight's meeting as well as Carr's amendment refer repeatedly to FACMAC representing all areas of the city as justification for implementing the assignment transition plan. I went and read these documents for myself just now. Here is one documentsaying explicitly that FACMAC represented all areas of the city.

Either the district is wrong or parents claiming no participation are wrong. This is very curious to me. If JA-area parents are wrong, and the board members decide they heard their arguments but are going forward with a middle school at JA next year anyhow, then that is their choice.

But, if the district is wrong and these parents really were not represented on a committee that is recommending the heaviest impact of capacity fixes fall on the JA community----that seems like a showstopper that the board should understand before tonight's vote.

Either way, the decision-making process does not seem to have been run particularly well. Just one opinion.

Watching with Interest

Anonymous said...

The above post was by me, same person as Following with Interest above. I am trying to sort out what I think about this mess.

I keep returning to whether there is good faith on the part of the district and whether there is good faith on the part of community volunteers to come to a reasonable solution.

I can't say that I am convinced of either party's largess at the moment. I wish I felt otherwise.

Following with Interest/Watching with Interest.

Josh Hayes said...

I can confirm there's no Pinehurst rep on FACMAC, but that's no surprise, I hope.

kellie said...

Officially, FACMAC has TWO representatives from each of the School Board districts as well as two representatives from sped, alt schools, pta, etc. So officially there is city wide representation.

Anonymous said...

Kellie-
So who are the reps from Sharon's district and where exactly do they live? I am guessing that if there are any they are from the NW part of her district, not NE. Would appreciate clarification.
-curious

Anonymous said...

Also, I count 26 on FACMAC. Is that correct? So, 14, supposedly 2 from each district, and then an additional 12 at large? Where are the 12 from?
-Curious

Ann said...

I've had kids in this district for 15 years, and I have yet to see them do right by our families. And the board seems to provide nothing in the way of real leadership (I was told by one director that they are only there for the "big picture", but I would say that they fail even at this). It's quite depressing.

Anonymous said...

Kellie, you say "officially". This reads like you don't really believe all areas of the city had equal representation. Or am I misreading? You were yourself on FACMAC? In your opinion of one did all areas of the city have representation? Did all groups? Is there even a current list of members? I see Eric B on this blog often, but that's about all I know.

Again, the district does itself no favors because there is scant information online about the group, past or present. Just a bunch of mentions in the board documents. IMHO it invalidates decisions attributed to FACMAC input when the district refers to a group that in practice may not have had the full interests of Seattle within its makeup

Following with Interest