Monday, October 14, 2013

Intermediate Capacity Plan

Here's the link.  Have not read through thoroughly but seems quite complicated.  I am not sure of all the implications.

I wrote to the Board that this was not up in a timely fashion per their own policy (which states agenda items will be available three working days before the meeting).  That is not the case here.

Update:

I don't know about you but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the new growth boundaries (and now the Intermediate Transition Plan).   My suggestion is to work regionally on issues of concern and, if you can find someone who knows how to do, create a schematic that shows the hot spots.

Again, you cannot give public testimony or comment at the Work Session on Thursday but you could try to get some of your top questions to your region's director and see if he/she asks this at the Work Session.  You could also urge them to ask staff to make the presentation as BRIEF as possible so that directors have plenty of time for Q&A. 

Detailed concern from a parent about Maple Elementary boundaries sent to Bernardo Ruiz, Director of School Family Partnerships/Equity and Race Relations.   This is the kind of thing that gets the Board's attention.


188 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm not familiar with how they write these things--so this may be perfectly fine--but something caught my eye.

They cited the Bagley move as the example of additional transportation costs, when the BAR covers 2014-15 through 2016-17 and the Bagley move doesn't happen until the second half of 2018-19. Then they call it a one-time expenditure--but I assume they'll have to come back and ask again when Bagley actually moves, no?

HIMSmom

Anonymous said...

Looks like the plan is as originally described, and it's almost all about the north end. Looks like the following will be at John Marshall:
2014-15: Jane Addams K-8
2015-16: Jane Addams K-8
2016-17: Wilson-Pacific MS & Whitman APP (6th grade only)
2017-18: Olympic Hills
2018-19: Olympic Hills / Bagley
2019-20: Bagley

The 2015-16 Wilson-Pacific MS & Whitman APP kids are getting a raw deal. (Current 3rd graders.) This is going to be a relatively small group of kids. Surely the district can do something better than have these kids forgo the middle school experience.

Looks like SW and SE STEM students in 2015-16 may be in the same situation.

-uncertain

Anonymous said...

oops, I meant 2016-18 WP (GenEd and APP) and Whitman APP are getting a raw deal. (Current 3rd graders.)

-uncertain

Anonymous said...

Looks like JAMS and WP at John Marshall turn out to be a similar boat of around 250 students when they each start. I doubt they'll have a lot of takers for the 7th and 8th grades at JAMS, but if they do that will be an advantage of JAMS in the beginning over WP at John Marshall (as having 7th and 8th graders would help make it a little more of comprehensive middle school and means the district would have to commit more resources).

I'd guess that a smaller # of APP kids will be in the WP at John Marshall group when it starts than APP kids in the JAMS group (but does anyone know?).

I'd say that both of the northern of the north end are getting a raw middle school deal compared to the rest of the north. And that's a lower income group with fewer parent volunteers. Adding APP to both JAMS and WP changes that.

(apologies in advance to the south end – it looks like there are many raw deals there, too, but I find it harder to track since I don’t know the schools. it’s all too hard to track, really. ugh.)

Analyzing

Anonymous said...

Did I miss it, or am I correc that this plan does not have a single reference to special education? I want to know about more sped kids getting more options closer to home. This information is too sparse to tell.

reader

Anonymous said...

So, essentially I'm seeing a 6th grade academy for JAMS and JAMS APP next year and another 6th grade academy for WP and WP APP in 3 years. And very little capacity relief for Hamilton.

Wouldn't it be better to do the JAMS/WP APP groups TOGETHER in John Marshall (or a Hamilton annex, but I don't think there's room for that), then in a couple of years, an assessment can be made whether to just move them all to WP or split WP and JAMS? This would increase the probability of a 2-way rather than 3-way split. Heck, you could even keep lobbying for a one site MS APP at WP.

Let JAMS start their rollup with JA K-8 (they do have a substantial # of middle schoolers now, about 150 current 6th graders, if I remember correctly). Together they'd have enough students to get a lot closer to a comprehensive middle school experience. Leave WP gen ed kids in their current schools until WP opens.

~full circle?

Anonymous said...

I thought JAMS was opening with a full class. Plan says "Open JAMS with grades 6/7/8 in 2014-15. Assign JAMS GenEd 6th and JAMS and Eckstein APP 6th to JAMS 2014-15." But I see now that they get a raw deal too.

So slimy. The areas getting this terrible set-up are in poorer areas of the north end and these communities are not likely to have the same number of parent volunteers to make the best of things. On top of it, they are likely have the highest need for after school activities.

The solution of moving 7th & 8th graders to the new school is equally unappealing.

Why is it that at McDonald the district went to pains to make the school attractive? No such incentives here.

Are there any good solutions?

These kids are going to pay for the districts inability to plan.

-uncertain

Susan said...

Fuu circle, I agree. I like the idea of keeping JAMS/ WP APP cohort together, maybe room at JAMS ? Helps Hamilton's overcrowding.

Anonymous said...

How about making Wilson Pacific the north end APP middle school? Fill it with another option program - language! Then the JSIS and McDonald families could send their kids to WPMS. It would take pressure off of Hamilton, and it would allow the district to eventually move the McDonald program to another part of the north end - maybe even the north north end, returning McDonald to a neighborhood school. Could this MS also more effectively serve a SpEd population? It's a new building, so it could be built to be accessible. Also, since APP & SpEd would be co-housed with an option program, there would not be the same competition for spots.

In the interim, house all APP together at Lincoln allowing access & connection to HMIS, but enough separation to be its own school. Is there enough room? All other north end MS kids could go to their currently assigned middle schools.

There are big problems with south APP. If someone would speak about problems/solutions in south Seattle, that would help with problem solving.

-uncertain

Confused said...

So how many students will be in the Jane Addams building next year under this plan? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it doesn't look like it would be anywhere close to capacity.

Melissa Westbrook said...

I would say that this is going to be some interesting contract negotiations. Which Whitman teachers would go to J. Marshall when their APP students go? And how fun will that be for the Whitman APP students to have 6th grade with students they don't know and are unlikely to see again AND come into a school where they don't know the teachers? If I were an APP parent with a 5th grader going to Whitman, I'd leave him/her at Whitman for the year.

Yes, it is all very confusing. And, because it is, I think some parents might make choices that might throw this "plan" out of whack.

Lynn said...

Confused - just 270 at JAMS next year, 550 the next year and 850 the third year.

uncertain - The district is projecting that APP would fill WPMS by itself by the end of this BEX cycle.
What do you think are the problems with south end APP? I don't think the addition of option pathways will make much difference to TM and Washington. I haven't heard anyone saying they wanted new sites in the southeast and I think families who choose the southwest site will be those who would not made the trek to the Central District anyway.

ben said...

If you were rationally planning to keep transportation costs down and to maximize the use of buildings, you'd rollup JAMS at the John Marshall building initially because its enrollment is so much lower.

However, I'm sensitive to the fact that setting up a new Middle School is hard and having it far in the edge of the quadrant, in a building with less facilities adds an extra set of hurdles to the process.

I suppose this is more palatable than the portable farm but still far from ideal.

Ben

Lynn said...

I can't find anything about who will be assigned to Fairmount Park next year - kindergarten only? Also, no information on when SE and SW APP will start up and when Dearborn Park will become an option school and add language immersion.

Has anyone seen this information?

Anonymous said...

Why not put Pinehurst at Jane Addams MS? I know they can not fit there forever, but it could give them a couple years. Maybe have a permanent solution by then.

With JAK8 getting kicked out, why have a half empty building?

-dude

Anonymous said...

I think if the District implements their proposal to split north APP across 3 middle schools and to also stick 6th grade Whitman & Wilson-Pacific APP/Gen Ed on their own at John Marshall in 2016, Wilson Pacific will be greatly under-enrolled. There will only be 50 APP kids at John Marshall in 2016 plus some number of Wilson-Pacific Gen Ed kids. It’s going to be such a small number, that I don’t see how the District can provide music or afterschool sports and other programs.

We live in what is now the Wilson-Pacific area and I'm having a hard time picturing telling my son - sorry, when you start middle school, you won’t have the chance to participate in band or play on a sports team the way your sister did. We will do our best to find some other alternative to W-P whether that’s trying to get in at another middle school or going to Shoreline or who knows what. I can’t imagine we’ll be the only family looking for an alternative to a 6th grade only roll-up at John Marshall.

Jane

Lynn said...

I looked at the Beacon Hill info - Julie van Arcken is kind of awesome!

Unknown said...

We've run the data model which projects existing enrollment into their respective MS in the north end, and indeed there are still some flaws in this plan. But is is better than before (from a capacity stand point), I have to say!

I'm happy to share the details with anyone, but here are the finer points:

The APP MS projections in the North appear to be overstated. APP will grow, but not that much. We need to have the district provide the methodology and justification behind this projection because it doesn't mesh with our analysis, and it is this projection which promotes a 3 way split of APP.

HIMS and Eckstein are overcrowded and there needs to be relief. JAMS can be that relief if utilized properly, The promotion of the school being top notch off the bat might help folks "option" in as well. Or simply also send Sacagawea and/or Wedgwood kids there too instead of continuing to feed more of that population into Eckstein.

APP North MS could likely be housed in two sites with large enough cohorts. However, giving the feeder pattern in this plan, WP is FILLED with AA kids as soon as it opens in 2017 and there isn't any room for APP.

The logical choice given the current plan might be to split APP MS between HIMS and JAMS starting in 2014. The dividing line between JAMS and HIMS APP kids might be more reasonably drawn (both geographically and related to the # of kids in those areas) like this:
• HIMS: Magnolia, Queen Anne, Wallingford and Southern Ballard (i.e. Whittier and Adams)
• JAMS: ALL NE and Northern Ballard/Greenwood/North Northwest Seattle

I'm waiting on some data from the district and/or others to help confirm that this solution works.

If it does, it would mean that:

--APP MS can stay at HIMS in both the short and long term,
--JAMS can start off as a full MS next year (to the degree that they can also entice in 7th and 8th graders)
--APP at JAMS maintains a sufficient cohort, as does HIMS
--There is no need to split off the WP APP MS cohort in 2016 in a temporary location with only 70 kids (per our current projection)

thoughts?
Eden

Anonymous said...

Jane, I agree, we are in the same boat. dude, that seems like a good solution to give JAMS a nice start. Eden, thanks for running the numbers, which bolster the point that the numbers are just too small for the 6th grade WP roll-up. Eden, are you going to present info at public testimony or direct contact with board members? It would be very useful.

-uncertain

Unknown said...

Thanks, uncertain.

I can't be there in person tomorrow, but will be sharing with all, and happy to provide a sentence or two about our analysis to anyone that is providing testimony.

My first thought is to provide the detail to FACMAC (who meets today, I hear) and let them chew on it a bit, since they've likely got the deepest understanding and they are theoretically supposed to be the committee of experts that advises the Superintendent.

Eden

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

I think you have to assume the number if 7th and 8th graders, especially APP ones, is 0. This is a 6th grade academy. So far as I can see the only improvement here is most of the SNW doesn't ever have to endure a 6th grade academy or start a new school. It's a solid win for them- less crowded middle school, already established program, sounds perfect. But the NE and the NNW are extra screwed to make that happen.

I don't think app, with its smaller numbers and need for older grade classes, is as good a candidate for rolling up along side with gen ed (I don't love gen ed middle school roll ups either, but at least you could say roll up w-p and JAMS gen ed at the same time and place and get a decent slate of classes and activities that everybody could use equally. And I can't decide between middle school roll ups and pulling kids out of schools- hard, really hard choices. I'd rather the new school is so enticing that people WANT to send their 6th graders there to start it, but....not seeing that in any of these choices.)

I am still extremely concerned about the two populations placed in JAMS, specifically the feeder schools. Especially at first, when there will be little mixing because of the size of the cohorts and kinds of classes the two populations will need, it will be rich school/poor school, in the same building, and now I am back to worrying that having app there will mask legitimate title 1 funding needs. Mix it up a little more- add in Wedgwood or View Ridge or SOMETHING. And add in APP once the middle school is full, so they can get mixed in with other kids more fully. I actually don't want my app kid cloistered off from other kids during middle school, but they need appropriate academic offerings, which is not possible under this scenario (or the one currently proposed by the district).

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

Jane Adams is across the street from Nathan Hale. Jane Adams K-8 middle schoolers are already walking over to Nathan Hale for Math Classes. I know a 7th grader taking Algebra at Nathan Hale who is part of group from JAK-8. Why can't APP do the same at JAMS? Why can't Nathan Hale help make JAMS a comprehensive middle school before all the kids are rolled up? Why not use this synergy of location that JAK-8 is already using?

HP

Anonymous said...

Can they with just 6th graders, though? I think that could work if app is put in after the gen ed roll up, and if the split goes through I hope they do!

I think it would be too cruel to pull current Hamilton app kids out next year to start this, but is have no problem telling a kid going to 6th grade there next year that in 8th, grade, say, he will be attending school in the JAMS building, with a cohort defined he and his family can understand and build on for a couple years.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

How can one person say that there will not be enough W-P 6th graders at John Marshall in 2016 and then W-P will be full with attendance area kids the next year? In a roll-up, this does not make sense. Also, I find it hard to believe that W-P could be full without APP kids there.

That said, I think APP at JAMS and HIMS makes sense, then add W-P in the future if APP growth really happens.

I propose that we divorce this Wilson-Pacific name. How about Wilson Elementary and Pacific Middle School?

-dude

Anonymous said...

@Eden,

So, instead of about half of north middle school APP going to JAMS, you are recommending that even more APP kids go to JAMS?

Did you ever think it might be nice to run that by folks in the (currently tiny, but existent) JAMS feeder pattern before taking it to the District or FACMAC?

We do exist.

- North-end Mom

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

North end Mom--

"So, instead of about half of north middle school APP going to JAMS, you are recommending that even more APP kids go to JAMS?

Did you ever think it might be nice to run that by folks in the (currently tiny, but existent) JAMS feeder pattern before taking it to the District or FACMAC"

Woah! I am running it by you. I'm posting it here and asking for thoughts. Thanks for providing some input. and asking a great question.

The data I'm trying to actually wrangle out of the district is what the numbers really are for where APP eligible kids live and at which schools they might be at before they go to MS. I'm not sure if the division I've proposed distributes the APP MS population appropriately or not. No, I'm not advocating for overloading JAMS at all. I'm suggesting that we actually use the data to determine were the line should be drawn. Looking at the heat maps, and the fact that I-5 divides the NE from Wallingford, and the round numbers that they've published, I'm making an educated guess that in order to divide the APP population relatively in 1/2, it makes sense to divide it as I described. But please not that I say "Could" and I'm not saying this is the only answer.

(Why are folks so quick to assume the worst this blog?

Thanks,
Eden

Anonymous said...

Does it make sense to consider other geographic splits of APP - not necessary along the middle school areas laid out by the district? That way not overloading JAMS.

-uncertain

Anonymous said...

@Eden
With all due respect, the current plan already has a high proportion of APP at JAMS. Please do not suggest adding more.

The numbers they are giving for the JAMS attendance area are most-likely resident numbers, and I think they over-estimate the number of kids who will feed into JAMS from neighborhood schools.

For instance, a portion of these kids attend the JA K-8, which has its own middle school pathway. Also, the current 4th and 5th graders entered SPS during the era of choice, and JAMS AA residents are scattered throughout NE schools. If there is room at Eckstein for kids to enter with a feeder pattern tiebreaker, these kids will never show up at JAMS.

If you look at the actual number of kids who are currently enrolled as 5th graders in John Rogers and Olympic Hills, you will find that there are approximately 80 potential 6th graders from JAMS feeder schools in 2014-15, not the stated 183 (and if I'm reading this correctly, the 183 also includes JAMS AA APP kids).

In comparison, there are 87 APP kids from the Eckstein AA who will be routed to JAMS in 2014-15 under the current proposal.

So yes, the prospect of potentially having more APP than neighborhood kids at JAMS is not a very attractive prospect for this gen ed mom. I would much prefer a middle school that focuses on the needs of our local kids.

- North-end Mom

Anonymous said...

I think that is a good example of why app even at middle school does not co-house especially well, particularly in the roll up phase. App and gen ed kids at the same grade do not need the same academic offerings (though across grades there can be some mixing). But the app kids do have to go somewhere, and if they all just went back to Eckstein it would explode, and some of them are JAMS neighborhood kids, too.

Do you think any of the future JAMS middle school parents would be amenable to helping app advocate for a standalone middle school? I share your exact concerns about your kid about mine- need a big enough cohort, need a school which can focus on their needs- so I'm very sympathetic and think we can find some common ground. I think JAMS would be a lot better with more elementaries feeding in, and some more affluent ones, and not geographically dispersed and different class needing app.

The district seems to really, really, really want to cohouse, though, and seems completely convinced that it is only app parents who don't like the idea, and for pernicious reasons, and that neighborhood schools are just desperate for the program. I would like cohousing if it could meet everybody's needs(including not getting app kicked out of buildings every other year!), but it can't, at least not in these scenarios.

-sleeper

Ps- they are just as wrong about app numbers as they are resident/gen ed numbers. It won't be that many kids.

Anonymous said...

I keep thinking it would make more sense to put all of middle school APP at Wilson-Pacific. This then frees up capacity at JAMS, Hamilton and Whitman. And we could finally get out of the situation of co-locating APP and an attendance area school and then having the combined APP and atttendance area kids outgrow the school. I don't understand why the District keeps replicating this practice when it keeps not working.

Jane

Melissa Westbrook said...

So Jane are you saying the elementary and the middle school at Wilson-Pacific should just be all APP?

For me - now on the outside of the district but with long institutional knowledge - I'd say yes to this.

Look at this bickering over who goes where. We're okay with APP here but only a certain amount. Not room over here. It's crazy.
And Jane's last remark:

"I don't understand why the District keeps replicating this practice when it keeps not working."

From your lips to Banda's ears.

LN said...

Eden,

We assume the worst from you since you posted that Wilson Pacific is too far from your home in Magnolia and therefore unacceptable for your child. When Melissa gave you some institutional knowledge about folks in Queen Anne and Magnolia being faced with Meany as their APP middle school, you said that was too far and therefore unacceptable for your child.

However, now, in a really overbearing way, you suggest my kid in the very NW part of town should go to JAMS while your precious cargo gets to stay at Hamilton. I call BS on everything you post because of this hypocrisy. It wreaks of ulterior motives.

I really am sorry to be rude, but I wish you would take a chill and stop telling all of us who've been in SPS and APP for years about all the research you and your husband have done. You have nothing new. What you do have is an agenda to keep your kid in Hamilton while suggesting VERY LOUDLY that you have all the answers and the rest of our kids should be bused across town.

You have no respect for what we've endured or fought for over the years.

Louise said...

Jane, AMEN. If APP keeps growing as much as it has been (or even if it keeps growing at all, which I assume it will) it will always be problematic when co-housed with another program. Just give APP its own middle school and be done with it already.

LN said...

By the way, Eden, welcome to the community - this blog, SPS and APP. Please be a part of it instead of trying to run it. I'm sure you're a great person, but your ad nauseam posts come across in a very condescending way. Even when you apologize for that, it's followed by: But, my husband and I have done the research.

Anonymous said...

Melissa - yes, I would advocate for north-end elementary and middle school APP to be at Wilson Pacific. I'm not saying that these new schools should only be for APP. We could co-house them with either option schools or special populations (like the medically fragile population that's at Lincoln now) or the home-school resource center, that would be great. But putting attendance area schools and APP doesn't work because then you have two schools/programs that both guarantee seats that are destined to outgrow the building.

I am also concerned continually splitting up APP into smaller and smaller fragments – particularly because the Advanced Learning Office provides no curriculum or instruction support to the schools – so each school appears to be going on its own merry way. We need to figure out how to strengthen the relationship between North and South APP – but that’s going to be even more difficult to do if there are 3 north APP middle schools.

Jane

Anonymous said...

I agree that WP as both ES and MS APP only programs, co-housed with another option, possibly co-housed with SpEd (hark back to Lowell) would be a great solution as it could relieve overcrowding at many north-end schools. I would like to hear from those who see problems.

I also want to thank Eden for supplying numbers. We do all have an agenda. I've tried to be clear about mine by stating the fate of my own kids. It's good to come clean when you have a horse in the race. It is important state your potential conflict of interest. I understand LN's frustration.

-uncertain

LN said...

Thank you, uncertain. I really do apologize for my rudeness.

I love all your suggestions for other groups with all APP at WP. Medically fragile, special ed...What about ELL? Couldn't APP kids learn from ELL kids? How cool!

Couldn't you then also have homeschool resource, maybe the Native American program, etc. etc.? I can see so many cross-learning opportunities!

Anonymous said...

@LN

ELL kids aren't in a stand-alone program. They are typically in the regular classrooms, and pulled out from time to time in small groups. If Wilson-Pacific was a stand-alone APP school, and there were enough APP-qualified ELL kids to support an ELL IA or teacher, then you could have ELL at Wilson-Pacific.

-North-end Mom

LN said...

Thanks, North-end Mom. I thought ELL was placed at schools in a middle school reference area. I didn't know it was at all schools.

I was just brainstorming, remove ELL, then. However, the possibilities are still endless for co-habitation and cross-learning between APP and some other populations that aren't neighborhood attendance area schools.

Anonymous said...

I am also concerned continually splitting up APP into smaller and smaller fragments – particularly because the Advanced Learning Office provides no curriculum or instruction support to the schools – so each school appears to be going on its own merry way.

This makes more splits so concerning. Lest people think it's all roses at Hamilton, the curriculum issue is preventing the purchase of appropriate materials for APP classes (either that or the principal, it's not really clear). There has been a greater effort for teachers within a grade to coordinate on content, but wow, the differences between classes can be significant and APP at Hamilton is different from APP at Washington. With each split and new principal, you are going to get a different version of APP...kind of the way Spectrum has been. I suppose ignorance is bliss.

wary

Anonymous said...

In defense of Eden and if I recall correctly, it's not WP that was not convenient...it was the suggestion that Magnolia could be part of South APP. She's trying to help and you all jump on her. Agree to disagree or you don't have to like what she says but gee whiz...please be civil!

Kp

Anonymous said...

@LN

ELL programs are not at all schools. I didn't mean to imply that. It is an inclusion-based program, with teachers and IAs. And a set staffing ratio.

Maybe Language Immersion would be a possibility at Wilson-Pacific, but that opens a whole other can of worms!

-North-end Mom

Unknown said...

The very real challenge that the district is facing with WPMS being the stand alone APP MS site is what to do with the APP MS population in the meantime. HIMS is already packed to the gills. It can not continue to add in all of the kids currently assigned to HIMS. It can not take all of the kids that are assigned to it next year. there is not enough space.

The debate IS between who goes where. And the district has decided that JSIS and MCDondald in their entirety go to HIMS. Plus Green Lake, BF Day and West woodland. and, realistically, there isn't space to send more to Whitman or Eckstein either.

APP is 549 (50%!) of HIMS this year. Something has got to give, some where. Someone is going to get split off, and it won't be the international option schools or the neighborhood schools. Which leaves either reducing the APP population at HIMS, or adding capacity (which the only option is Lincoln annex and they aren't going for that).

Don't forget that JAMS can add 20 portables, apparently, to add capacity if needed.

the current plan leaves enough space at HIMS to continue the program there. There is continuity for those APP kids. and theoretically resources and collaboration opportunities with setting up another MS APP site.

And starting up a school at JAMS with APP included is not sending kids to educational Siberia for a couple of years to only move them again. It is starting up a new Middle school with APP in the mix. In a location that is closer to many of those kids.

While the district has perhaps not done the greatest job of supporting good implementation in the past, this plan is coming out in OCTOBER the year before the program school is mean to start up. There is much more time to work to get all the right things in place than there was when Lowell got split and moved in the summer.

It would ideal to have ALL of APP MS be together at one school. But there isn't currently one MS available, unless folks want to consider JAMS as the only APP site. If that came to pass, it would pretty much dictate that it will become a portable field pretty quickly.

As I think through this and look at the numbers, I'm starting to land on the idea that splitting APP MS between HIMS and JAMS makes the most sense and creates the least amount of disruption to the most kids.

Yes, the start up of JAMS will be a challenge. And kids that have friends that are split between the two schools will be impacted.

But the NE APP kids will be going together, into a permanent middle school, not a temporary roll up site.

We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. When perfect isn't possible, can we settle for good instead of trying to force impossible perfection and ending up with terrible?

Eden



Anonymous said...

Offering language immersion - or advanced languages - at WP as an option school is a way of making it an attractive program that parents will choose for their kids. native speakers and kids from language immersions schools could be given preference.

Now how about JAMS?

In case it was missed, thank you again Eden. would love to hear more about how you run these models.

-uncertain

Unknown said...

Wow, LN--

Wow. Peace be with you. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Eden

Anonymous said...

Eden - are you saying that in an all APP Wilson Pacific Middle School scenario, the problem in finding a place for this program until the school is built? Is there not enough room at Lincoln to co-house? Maybe with portables?

-uncertain

Anonymous said...

There are legal issues involved in co-housing APP and SpEd as the only two programs in a building, because it limits the access of the special ed kids to non-disabled peers. That was an issue when it was just APP and special ed at Lowell.

Are any of the schools getting additions being put in interim sites? I notice our QAE is not on this plan, so, does that mean our kids stay in the building during construction?

QAE Parent

Anonymous said...

@Eden

Thanks for this nugget of wisdom, as well:
"Don't forget that JAMS can add 20 portables, apparently, to add capacity if needed."

With all due respect, again, Eden...NNE Seattle schools are growing! John Rogers, alone, has grown by about 80 kids in just two-years time. Please stop trying to figure out how to cram more APP, a program with a guaranteed assignment, into an assignment middle school in an area with kids AND growth. OK? Please focus your considerable energy elsewhere.

@uncertain
I caught an error in one of your early posts on this thread. It is Loyal Heights, not Olympic Hills, that is slated for 2017-18 and 2018-19 at John Marshall. Cedar Park is to serve as the interim site for Olympic Hills, in 2015-16 and 2016-17.

- North-end Mom

NW mom said...

APP continues to grow every year. It would be problematic to co-house it with an option program, as there will be less and less non-APP seats every year, limiting opportunities for non-APP kids to choose the option program. Families seem to be clamoring for things like STEM and language immersion, so to co-house those w/APP is not fair. It needs its own school and then we can stop tearing our hair out about it.

LN said...

KP - Eden DID say Wilson Pacific was not good for her coming from Magnolia. She also said Meany would be unacceptable. I will dig up both of her comments for you tonight.

I admit, civility would be nice. I've studied the numbers, as well. So have many other folks.

There are options other than what Eden insists are the only options. However, those options may put APP all at Wilson Pacific, or at Wilson Pacific and JAMS, or any combination of two locations that doesn't include HIMS. I am suggesting Eden's extensive research may be biased.

WP is no further from Magnolia than JAMS is from my house. How do you expect me to be civil when she posts incessantly that her research is the ONLY possibility? And, conveniently, it leaves her kid where she wants her kid.

KP, I will try harder, I promise.

Unknown said...

All--

I'm sitting here actually shaking from LN's scathing statements, and simultaneously heartened by others speaking up in support of civility. Good times.

I just posted a long thing, during which apparently I missed a whole bunch of back and forth.

I'm sorry if you (LN) find my writing style tone condescending. I'm introducing facts not conjecture. And laying out reasoned arguments that are based on facts, not emotion. and I regularly reassess to see if the goals are matching the outcomes.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine.

But, do you really need to be so abusive?

Yes, does it make more sense for HIMS to be one of the APP MS for our family? Yes. However, my kid will not see middle school until 2018, at which point it is possible as you all have pointed out that APP will be kicked out again. Or we will move out of the country, or who know what will happen.

I know that I've poured countless hours and expertise into this issue to support a more desirable outcome for the entire north end community AND APP. I've have done the research and analysis with a holistic perspective of how to create the least disruption for the most kids and programs in the North End.

You can question my integrity, of course. But, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the reality.

Thanks to all who've been kind enough to step up and be admirable instead of abusive.

Mellissa, I would really like to believe that this blog site is actually meant to support open and dialog on SPS issues. But if you continue to allow these abusive posts, there is no way that can happen. Please, respectfully I ask that you take some meaningful action.

Eden

Unknown said...

@ Uncertain

Yes, the problem with trying to put APP at WPMS in 2017 is where to put APP in the meantime. There is no place for portables (at least that they would consider) near HIMS. And while many folks have floated the idea of Annexing Lincoln, they did not select that option. I don't know why they didn't really vet the Annex option, but I would suspect that it has to do with the challenges around the distance between the buildings, getting that space fixed up fast enough and so on. Annexing Lincoln would mean that schedules would get goofy and kids would be late and crossing streets to get to and from class. It was the option that I personally suggested in my letter to them. But I think they decided that it was better to split APP than try to manage at HIMS in the meantime.

None of the options are great.

which gets me to my point for NE MOM: ALL of the north end I growing. 2007 was the highest birth record year, which is this years first grade. All of the schools are over capacity. The NNE is not alone in this. There is a very real capacity problem.

We can't rob Peter to pay Paul. Or I suppose we could, but that gets us now where. We need to look at it holistically.

Lastly, our analysis isn't biased. It simply models the data. I can run the scenario any number of ways, and all the model does is show us what happens when.

The model shows whether or not the enrollment is distributed evenly across the capacity, or if some schools are overloaded and some empty. With this current proposal the model it simply shows that Eckstein will still be overcrowded and JAMS is not fully utilized.

I'm happy to show you and talk with you and explain how it works, but the model is ANYTHING but biased.

It just is a picture of the scenario being described.

Peace to all. (I'm only 3 weeks into this and I hope that I can continue on without becoming bitter and angry too. I do feel for all of you that have been in the trenches with all of this for so long.)

Anonymous said...

@Eden
I'm sorry, I have a bit of a sarcastic streak, and I'm afraid your posts bring it out in me.

Here is a little background for you, so that you can gain more north-end perspective.

My kid's current middle school assignment is to Eckstein. It is over-crowded, but still one of the highest-performing middle schools in the state.

For the past couple of years, kids up here in the NNE have had the option to attend the Jane Addams K-8 program, in fact, this year they took in a ton of middle school kids, so to help relieve capacity pressures at Eckstein.

Beginning next fall, we will lose our assignment to Eckstein, and access to the Jane Addams K-8 program will be essentially be cut off, because this year's middle school expansion at the K-8 was a one-time deal.

JAMS is our only real middle school "option," besides applying for an inter-district transfer and heading to 6th grade at a Shoreline elementary school, followed by 7th and 8th grade at a Shoreline middle school.

We own a home in Seattle, pay taxes, and volunteer heavily in our kid's elementary school...I'd kind of like to have his needs met at a Seattle public school, instead of a Shoreline school. I am hoping that JAMS will be that school.

I know that over-crowding is the norm now, but do you have any idea how insulting it is for you to post that we could add 20 portables if need be at JAMS in order to cram in a bunch of APP kids who mostly live outside of the JAMS attendance area?

Do you understand that Eckstein has something like 14 or 15 portables, and that is why our kids up here are being kicked out of Eckstein? You are proposing that it is OK for JAMS to be more over-crowded than Eckstein, just because it has a decent-sized parking lot.

I understand that you are trying to help, and that APP is a big part of the puzzle, but it is not all about APP.

- North-end Mom

Anonymous said...

Eden - I appreciate your posts and all the work you've been putting into running the numbers. Thank you. I find your posts informative and helpful. I do not find them condescending. Like you, I missed that really harsh comment directed at you up the thread, or I would have replied earlier. Please do not take one person's snarky comments to heart.

-uncertain

Melissa Westbrook said...

Wow, this is the place we are because our district could not project this would come. And yet, all the signs were there. Some of this (righteous) anger needs to be directed at the district and the Board (and no one gets to say "I wasn't here then.)

I know, what good will that do? It makes them know that you won't stand for it. That you are watching and really, if the district keeps this up, the public (parents) may clamor for someone else to do a better job.

I can see it got heated here but I also saw an apology and no name calling or swearing. I urge all to please be respectful, consider the BIG picture (because honestly, that's what the district and the Board will do, no matter your own situation) and look for the least harmful solutions .

Anonymous said...

Eden -I have also appreciated the running of the numbers.

Regarding the numbers -- what are you modelling precisely? My take, and I haven't been reading extremely carefully, is a location for the North APP programs based on the demand and capacity for different buildings. Is this right? Or is a more complicated question being addressed?

And, as a long time participant in this board, what works for me is to simply ignore posts that are attacks One can always consider whether the attack has something in it to consider -- but if you know you have integrity, I just ignore it and move on.

zb

Anonymous said...

Eckstein has 18 portables, and less usable common space. So it would be the same overcrowded, not really more. Which is awful, don't get me wrong. And I'd rather not see it. I think we can all come up with a better plan.

I appreciate any and all comers thinking about and working on this, even when(maybe especially when) I disagree. But appreciating their work in no way means I am going to agree with them just because they did it!

I would like to state my particular bias, as I agree it's helpful, but under this moniker I have posted way too much specific information about my kids' private test scores, learning styles, classrooms, etc to be more transparent about who I am(and by extension who they are) though I'm happy to have added to the discussion in that way, and at this point I post enough that I sort of would like to attach my name since I would stand by my opinions. Oh well. I am a NE parent, with APP and gen ed kids. I don't have a 5th grader.

LN, I looked back at what I said in the other thread, and I think the only responses I have are 1) when I said some NW parents were happy with the plan, I specifically meant the older grade ones, plus some younger grade ones, especially who feel the Whitman to JM roll up or current third graders need not and will not happen. (See above, really). I was just not going to call them out like that. So it does seem divided over there to me; I don't think that's inaccurate. As opposed to the NE parents, who dislike the plan pretty equally. I don't think there will be a full middle school at JAMS next year. It will be 6th graders with a couple straggler older grade kids, not a meaningful addition to the cohort size. Would you pull your 7th grader out of Hamilton next year to go to year one of a brand new school, with our district's track record? I would absolutely not. I don't think anyone will. And the district is using growth numbers from when people were trying to escape overcrowded Eckstein(and at the time, threats of pulling kids out fromEckstein in upper grades the following year to start JAMS) not likely growth when they shove two programs into their new Siberia. I think it will be very small.

I also generally do not have a problem with interim locations In general and John Marshall in specific, so that does not seem that bad to me. What seems bad to me is 1) 6th grade academies and 2) too small of cohorts for app, and both sides have that in the current plan, only the NE has it starting basically now. I don't exactly see the point of misery poker here, though, and the only advocacy I have seen is for peeling off the NE app kids and leaving you all in Hamilton, or for if JAMS starts making it good. That does not sound like a NE mob squad to me.

Eden- Just because the district has not yet gone for the Lincoln annex plan does not mean it could not. That is not a fact at all. It means it preferred this plan, I think partly because it likes splits, doesn't really care about cohort size for app, and because it's wedded to cohousing as a theory, but I believe that could change. Although I don't like 6th grade academies, putting all of app at John Marshall for a roll up before w-p opens is preferable to the current plan. Maybe pull all of app out of Hamilton after the Lincoln annex space runs out in 2 years. I agree something has to give. I disagree that it needs to be the poorest section of the NE and the app kids who have been yanked around the most.

-sleeper

Unknown said...

North end Mom,

Thanks for your nice explanation of your issues and concerns. Yes, I am aware that Eckstein is way over crowded with multiple portables. And No, I did NOT mean that 20 portables at JAMS was a good thing at all. In fact, this current proposal is better than the last because it does not rely on a huge portable field at JAMS.

The model of the current scenario that the district is proposing simply shows that Eckstein is still WAY over crowded (by between 200 and 400 kids OVER the existing capacity that includes portables). And Jane Addams MS is short by some 600 kids, NOT including portables. In those numbers are the schools that the district has designated to feed into JAMS. AND the NE APP kids.

One of the things that is difficult to show in the model is the number of kids in 7th and 8th that will "option" in to JAMS. Theoretically there could be 400 kids that choose it, on top of the kids that are feeding in. I'm not sure how that will work, but I suppose it's possible.

But the fear that APP will crowd out JAMS is not playing out in the numbers I'm seeing, particularly if the APP population is split be between HIMS and JAMS.

The model shows that in 2014 there are only around 200 "assigned" kids, including APP at JAMS. In 2015 it shows around 400.

My thoughts at the moment is that it makes sense to split APP (though many in APP would not agree) between HIMS and JAMS. That would put around (I say AROUND because that isn't an exact number, just a reasonable estimation based on the data we have) 300 APP kids at each of the schools once they are fully populated with all grades by 2016, and at JAMS, that leave 600+ for the AA population without portables. Currently the AA assigned schools are less than 400 kids in 2015-2018, even if ALL of the kids from those schools go there.

We are using the actual 2012-13 enrollment numbers.

I do hear you that you don't want APP kids to push out or crowd AA.

And what I'm trying to say is that the districts current proposal does NOT overload JAMS even with 1/2 the APP MS population there.

And lastly, the districts projection for APP growing to 850 in 2017 looks to us (and many others) to be over stated. I hesitate to throw out numbers here, but I think the more reasonable middle school APP projection in 2017 is closer to 600-650, maybe growing to 800-850 in by 2019 or 2020. But I'm still working on trying to get the right data to validate or invalidated those projections.

Thanks again for your calm explanation of your thoughts, and I hope this helped clarify what I'm saying.

Cheers,
Eden

Unknown said...

ZB-

We modeled the enrollment and capacity of the north end middle schools. It is simply using the enrollment data from 2012-13 and moving kids up into their respective middle schools. But it looks at ALL of the middle schools in the North end, including McClure.

It isn't a perfect picture because it can't account for growth or loss to the system, but it give a good picture of what is likely to happen if a given feeder pattern is assigned.

We vetted the model with several folks that have been at this for ever, as well as district staff. And while I might get blasted for saying it, my husband has 14 years doing intensely complicated analysis around capacity management and supply chain at Amazon. This isn't back of the envelope scratches.

the reason we did it was because I kept hearing folks say that you could simply move this one here and that one there and everything would be fine. But I needed to be able to look at verifiable data in a holistic way.

It is a good tool to verify if our assumptions about what happen if we move this one here and that one there and...

Thanks for asking.
Eden

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

Moves of full programs are better than starting a program inside an unwelcoming school with half the leadership and cohort. I don't think I understand the predictability argument about choosing Hamilton- you mean at the end, instead of going to Wilson pacific, hamilton aa kids might go to Hamilton instead? That's true of any plan. I certainly think based on the number of fifth grade parents I heard talking about private school open houses and homeschooling the JAMS 6th grade app cohort would be tiny next year.

The annex I mean is not just 6th graders, but the la/ss block at Lincoln, probably 7th or 8th graders. I get that in this plan NW app kids don't have anything to worry about, and in fact will have a better experience than current Hamilton students. I just still don't like the plan and think it is worse for everyone else and inequitable. Because of both what it does to NE app kids and JAMS middle school kids. They need a more robust elementary feeder pattern, and frankly not to have app in there at all, both for the sake of JAMS diversity and to actually get some kids out of Eckstein.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

Plus, I have not looked since the latest capacity plan came out- what are the FRL percentages of w-p feeder schools? I do not generally hear w-p neighbors clamoring for a middle school the way I have NNE neighbors for years. Do they want one? Are they dissatisfied with Whitman? I thought the satisfaction level at Whitman was pretty high; Hamilton too.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...


I'm relatively new to APP as a parent with a first year middle schooler and a non-APP elementary kid. I have to admit that bringing APP closer by making it available in more schools has its attractions to me.

I see a lot of discussion about cohort though. I'm curious as to what is considered a good cohort size?

My rather simplistic take is that you need at least enough kids to offer accelerated classes - e.g., 25-30. Perhaps more if you want to offer 11th grade math in middle school. But how much more? Is there a benefit beyond a certain size? Have there been studies on this?

jsh

Unknown said...

Sorry Sleeper, I wrote a post that didn't actually respond to what you said. So I deleted it. :)

Thanks, yes, I think that Keeping all of APP at HIMS in the short term before WPMS opens as an annex to Lincoln is the best case scenario for APP.

But I don't know that it will fly for a variety of reasons and this vote will take place in a month and if we keep pushing to insist on the other building, I don't see us either getting it and we stand to lose a lot in the process.

I'll write and converse more later, but it's time to sign off for now...
Eden



Sea of Schools said...

The annex at Lincoln will not and has not been accepted with the school board or the enrollment department, so we should move beyond advocating for it. Is it possible to hit three birds with one stone under the current plan? If we moved all APP North 6-7-8 to John Marshall next year, they could all have a comprehensive middle school experience until Wil-Pac M.S. opens in 2017, at which time a decision can be made if APP will fill all the space. The JA K-8 can be kept at JAMS until Fall 2016 when next year's class will be in 8th Grade ensuring equal access to upper grade level peers, blending the current 6-8 of JA K-8 with the roll up JAMS until then.

This seems to meet everyone's objections and would impact all populations in similar way with an ability to serve each based on given need.

Sea of Schools said...

If I could add on, Eden and North-end mom especially, I appreciate the data analysis both of you did, and can see the downsides of the presented options. APP, however does not belong at HIMS at this point, and I have a current APP 6th Grader there (among another child in the NE. The International focus, especially for the immersion students has been sidelined in order to provide the necessary seats for APP. This also began to happen before my child was moved from Lowell, in their Gen Ed program. Having so many focuses at one school does not work from any point of view.

Anonymous said...

Most of the feeder attendance area schools that would go into Wilson Pacific serve a fairly high poverty kids. Nothing wrong with that obviously - but typically these aren't the families that have the ability to volunteer and do the heavy lifting that a brand new school requires. And there's going to be such a small co-hort of APP kids, I just don't think there will be enough parent volunteers to get a school like this off the ground. Especially when it's just the 6th grade at John Marshall. I think the District is setting Wilson-Pacific up to fail. I don't think they are setting it up to fail on purpose - but I wonder if they've really taken a look at the families that will be going there for their attendance area school, thought about the fact that it's going to be a very small co-hort of APP kids, and had any consideration of what it takes to get a new school started.

Jane

Anonymous said...

Sea of Schools, many of those current 6th grade APP students, after moving to Lowell from their neighborhood school, went through the first split, the move to Lincoln, and now you are suggesting they move - again - to John Marshall? Why? What is the limit for how many times a student body gets moved from place to place? They are not just part of APP, they are a part of Hamilton at this point. You are suggesting removing fully half of Hamilton's student body. It's hard to say what is the least worst at this point.

stumped

Melissa Westbrook said...

Sea of Schools, interesting idea and seemingly more fair (Stumped not withstanding and I get your points).

What I think would help is if each idea were laid out in a flowchart fashion so that Directors could see it in one fell swoop without a lot of explanation.

Could people do that? Because I would be happy to get them all together and get it to them (and show it to as many directors as I may be able to see).

Sea of Schools said...

Stumped,

I agree 100%, my 6th grader is one of them. But the current Lincoln 4th and 5th graders went through the same thing, so it's not exact easy to argue either way. But being the last APP class at HIMS could also have it's down sides as could removing my 6th grader to John Marshall.

It's not easy but if it would avoid a spilt or unfair roll ups to any north end students... who's to know?

Melissa, yes I am working on such a handout now.

Anonymous said...

Sea of Schools - No, the current 4th graders and 5th graders did not go though the split. They did not start at new school, only to have their class split in half the following year. They went through the move, yes, but not the split. To ask this same group to transition yet again, in the name of the cohort, well, it's asking a lot. The current 6th graders that started APP at Lowell in 1st grade are the last class to have attended pre-split.

nitpicker

Spruiter said...

Remember that with the boundary changes and legacy of the old school assignment/choice plan, the numbers of kids rolling up into JAMS next year is not simply the currently enrolled 5th graders at Oly Hills and John Rogers. Both the Sac and Oly View boundaries are shifting south - leaving a number of those kids feeding into JAMS. With a phasing in of the boundaries, it is hard to create independent projections of what the gen ed enrollment would be at JAMS based on elementary school enrollment.

Has anyone seen updated capacity numbers for John Marshall (broken out by student population)? The most recent one I can find is from December 2012, and lists the John Marshall K-8 capacity at about 550 and the 6-8 capacity at about 750. District staff have said they can fit more in the building, but I haven't seen the actual numbers (nor cost estimates for portables on that site). Anyone have updated capacity numbers (for both K-8 and 6-8) for John Marshall?

Anonymous said...

I started looking at FRLs and it is interesting. The proposed WP and JAMS areas are largely made up of poorer schools. The proposed plan exacerbates inequities.

Percent 2011-12 FRL in proposed Wilson-Pacific feeder schools:
Bagley: 14%, Olympic View: 30%, Greenwood: 31%, Broadview Thompson: 56%, Northgate: 88%.

Percent 2011-12 FRL in proposed Jane Addams feeder schools: John Rogers: 35%, Olympic Hills: 73%.

Percent 2011-12 FRL in proposed Hamilton feeder schools: JSIS: 7%: West Woodland: 9%, McDonald: 12%,
Greenlake: 17%, BF Day: 38%.

Percent 2011-12 FRL in proposed Eckstein feeder schools: View Ridge: 4%, Wedgewood: 7%, Bryant: 8%, Laurelhurst 8%, Sacajawea: 25%, Sandpoint: 57%.

Percent 2011-12 FRL in proposed Whitman feeder schools:
Loyal Heights: 4%, North Beach: 11%, Whittier Adams: 27%, Viewlands: 60%.

-uncertain

Lynn said...

Uncertain,

That is really interesting. Here are the FRL % for some south end schools:

Washington 51%
Mercer 74%
Aki 86%
Denny 67%

FRL %s are not balanced throughout the district. How much weight should balancing them region-wide get in this process?


Anonymous said...

Sea of Schools -
I think your idea is interesting from a few different perspectives:

1) APP would be able to stay a single MS cohort until WP is opened in 2017 (which would put APP in a much better position to advocate for a single N end APP site, possibly avoiding a split altogether or at least only splitting into 2 sites, but those sites, if two, would be JAMS and WP).

2) it would provide the cohort size that really is necessary to ensure a reasonable number of offerings/course levels for APP between now and 2017. The teachers and parents could work together over the next 3 years to bring on new teachers, provide professional development, ensure consistency in the curriculum and advocate to stay together or make the split work more smoothly, if one is necessary.

3) it would avoid the APP 6th grade academy rollups at JAMS in 2014 and Marshall in 2016.

4) Gen Ed for WP MS could stay at current schools and avoid a transition until 2017. WP MS could start rolling up in 2017 instead of 2016.

5) JAMS could stay co-located with the K8 and there would be enough 6,7 and 8th graders for comprehensive MS offerings for them and they would be a full 6-8 MS when the K8 left in 2016 for their building.

6) the K8 would just transition once.

7) the Jane Addams building would be fully utilized each year through the transitions, rather than having years that were underutilized.

8) it would avoid the option that WP APP students get moved twice (once to JAMS and then to WP) and, with that option, the situation where APP numbers exceed JAMS Gen Ed numbers.

9) Hamilton would experience more substantial relief and it might even make it more likely that more 7th and 8th graders would opt for JAMS from Eckstein to provide relief there, too.

10) Because Marshall is needed for Oly Hills in 2017, the district would need to find a spot for APP in 2017 (and it would be the path of least resistance to put all of APP into WP MS, since that building will be totally empty at that point.) The district, within 2 years, will have the data to see that a 3 way split isn't going to give large enough APP cohorts to each area without displacing AA students at JAMS and Hamilton.

It would seem like it is likely the best option for APP MS to stay together in the long run, for the Gen Ed populations to be better supported during ramp up, and the K8 to have fewer transitions.

Of course it isn't ideal for ANYONE (APP would need to move as a program, JAMS would still have to share facilities and WP still have to ramp up later, and the K8 would have to share a facility that included 15-16 portables - the 20+ portables were if JAMS APP were to join as well), but it would spread the pain about more evenly.

~ solution searching

Green Lake Parent said...

"Spruiter said...
Remember that with the boundary changes and legacy of the old school assignment/choice plan, the numbers of kids rolling up into JAMS next year is not simply the currently enrolled 5th graders at Oly Hills and John Rogers"

I've been having this same thought.

@Eden you said you've been using the enrollment data from 2012-13 and moving kids up into their respective middle schools. I'm not sure how well that works. If assignment to middle school was based on where you attended 5th grade -- a true "feeder school" pathway, it would. However, my understanding is that assignments will still be based on address (yes? someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Because of all the boundary changes over time and the grandfathering in after the New Student Assignment plan was implemented, the current elementary students don't necessarily live within the new boundaries.

Take Green Lake Elementary which has been drastically impacted by the past boundary changes and the opening of McDonald. The kids in the upper grades came in before McDonald opened and a large percentage live in what is now the McDonald area. When McDonald opened the boundary with Green Lake became 61st, and to compensate a large chunk of Maple Leaf and Ravenna/Roosevelt was added to Green Lake's assignment area. Now, with the new proposed boundary Green Lake's boundary is quite different and even though it's a feeder school for Hamilton students who live in parts of Maple Leaf would be assigned to Wilson Pacific and those in Ravenna/Roosevelt would go to Ekstein.

If there are many other schools with boundary changes like this, and current populations that were grandfathered in after the NSAP, I wonder how accurate the predictions based on feeder schools are.

I would actually really like to see a path to middle school based on the elementary school you attended in 5th grade, rather than by address. Let them truly be feeder schools, so cohorts can move on together, and not be split due to boundary and assignment plan changes over time.

Green Lake Parent

dw said...

Sea of Schools and solution searching (and Eden),

I've been wondering if that scenario would work myself. I'd thought of a bunch of those same benefits as well (though your list is even longer).

Most of us here, afaik, have no particular reason to believe that Eden's models are fully developed (without reviewing them in detail), and it's almost certain that they are missing relevant data that the individual communities understand but are not reflected in the district's numbers and plans (happens Every Single Time).

That said, my gut says it's probably more developed overall than most of us are doing, because seriously, how many of us are attempting to rigorously model all the moving pieces at the same time, with real #s throughout the entire system over the next 5-7 years? I can hold a lot of information in my head, but I'm not doing any kind of formal modeling. Is anyone else?

It would be great to see the model in detail so the community can fill in the holes (big meetup anyone?), but time constraints are at hand. Not sure how feasible that is.

In any case, Eden, I'm curious about the following:

1) What does your model shows with regard to this plan, i.e. move APP 6,7,8 all together, immediately, starting next year, then move in its entirety to WP in 2017.

2) What are you using to do this modeling. Is it canned professional software, a series of spreadsheets, hand-coded proprietary "magic"?

3) If there are some issues with this plan, are there reasonable adjustments in the system that can make it work without disenfranchising entire regions (as it seems pretty much every other plan does).

I'm suggesting this as a possible model, even though I would be adversely affected. I think it's for the better good of both APP and the entire north end, if it can be made to work. It affects the fewest number of kids (by far!) over the years, has the best chance (really, the only chance) of keeping APP together, doesn't put the entire north end on a collision course again in 5 years when APP populations and AA populations collide in (N) buildings next time. 'solution searching' provides a great list of benefits above.

The one thing is doesn't "solve" is the district's desire to further split APP. However, if there is a formal model that shows this could work, I think it might be possible to build support for this plan from both inside AND outside of APP? If neighborhood schools got on board with it, to prevent APP from overrunning their buildings and APP was on board (even with an unpleasant move) to keep the integrity of the program in the long term, I think it's feasible. A coalition of both neighborhood schools and APP, along with formally modeled data would be pretty hard for the district to ignore.

Anonymous said...

@Spruiter

I get what you are saying about the changes in the Sacajawea and Olympic View boundaries, and how that may affect the incoming 6th grade class at JAMS.

I wonder, though...if these are just JAMS attendance area counts, then perhaps a significant number of these kids are actually JA K-8 students? If so, these kids are double-counted; as they are included in both the projected enrollment for JA K-8 at John Marshall, as well as rolling up at JAMS.

If they stay with the JA K-8 program, the actual number of JAMS gen-ed kids in the roll-up could be much less than what is projected. On the other-hand, if they decide to stay in the JA building, with JAMS, then the JA K-8 enrollment would be less than what is stated.

It would be nice to see the JAMS attendance area numbers corrected for students enrolled in the JA K-8 program.

- North-end Mom

Lynn said...

Most of this information is available on the Enrollment Data page.

You have to back into some numbers, but the reports are quite thorough. I'll bet that's what Eden is working with.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Uncertain, good work on calling out FR/L. Having those numbers spread unevenly - when there IS the possibility of somewhat evening them out - is wrong. It hurts students and schools.

Unknown said...

Sea of Schools said:
“If we moved all APP North 6-7-8 to John Marshall next year, they could all have a comprehensive middle school experience until Wil-Pac M.S. opens in 2017, at which time a decision can be made if APP will fill all the space. The JA K-8 can be kept at JAMS until Fall 2016 when next year's class will be in 8th Grade ensuring equal access to upper grade level peers, blending the current 6-8 of JA K-8 with the roll up JAMS until then.”

HMMMM. This is the first time I’m considering this scenario, so let me play it out in the Model.

I’ll come back with the results of what happens when.

Eden

Unknown said...

Ok, so ran the model on SEA OF SCHOOLS suggestion. It is based on the described feeder schools for 2014. As SEA of Schools suggested:
• APP is relocated to John Marshal in 2014, and then to WPMS in 2017
• Eckstein keeps feeding in Sacagawea and Wedgwood
• JAMS is full with the JAK8 until 2016 AND feeds in MS population from the list described below

One thing I need to point out first is that we believe that the districts analysis for enrollment projections is a bit wonky. We JUST started looking at this stuff 3 weeks ago, so we can’t quite say exactly how or what yet, and we are hopeful that the district will talk with us about the rational and we can revisit their methodology on the enrollment projections.

For the APP projections, I THINK that it might be way overstated. As I said above, I’m making some educated guesses at the moment based on the enrollment numbers, and I could see all of APP Middle school being around 650 in 2017 and growing from there, but the 860 in 2017 looks to be too high.

None the less, here are the results of Sea of Schools suggestion. This models JUST the MS capacity in the North End, and it is JUST putting kids into the schools they are assigned to. It uses the most recent published enrollment data with is from 2012-13. I’ll e-mail you the graph if you like.

Eckstein: Is OVER existing capacity (including the portables) in 2014 and beyond by around 200 kids a year)
-Thornton Creek
-Sand Point
-Bryant
-View Ridge
-Laurelhurst
-Sacagawea
-Wedgewood

HIMS: Is Under capacity in 2014 by 200 kids, but fills up by 2018
-BF Day
-John Stanford
-West Woodland
-McDonald
-Green Lake

JAMS: Since the JAK8 is filling up the building now, the middle school capacity is filled already, and the “new” MS kids would need to be accommodated in portables starting 2014. My numbers show 100 over in 2014 rising to 300 in 2015.
-Jane Addams K-8
-John Rogers
-Olympic Hills
-Olympic View

Whitman: Ends up slightly over capacity (including the existing portables) in 2016 and by 2018 it is 100 over
-Viewlands
-Adams
-Bagley
-Greenwood
-Loyal Heights
-North Beach
-Northgate
-Whittier

John Marshal (2014-2017): (APP only) Reportedly as a MS the building capacity is around 940, but this number is not entirely verified. There would be a good number of HIMS APP kids that would refused to leave, so the idea that you could pull out all of APP is a challenging thing to pull off. Regardless, in 2014 there would be about 200, 2015 about 400 and 2016. Those numbers might be a bit greater due to the possibility that kids join APP at 6th grade, but our model does not project in not currently enrolled kids. So, theoretically the numbers at JM could be up to around 500-600 in 2016.

Eden

Unknown said...

DW- Thanks for the questions

1) What does your model shows with regard to this plan, i.e. move APP 6,7,8 all together, immediately, starting next year, then move in its entirety to WP in 2017.

I just posted the results, and am happy to send you the graph if you want the actual picture. The model simply "feeds" kids from elementary into the MS using the 2012-13 enrollment data. It does not account for growth or loss. So things like kids moving away or choosing private or other things aren't included. We can both "relocate" a given population, or "transition" (i.e. roll up). So the numbers I've provided for the JM APP portion are reasonable given the fact that some HIMS APP kids will not leave HIMS, for example.

2) What are you using to do this modeling. Is it canned professional software, a series of spreadsheets, hand-coded proprietary "magic"?
My husband has been at this stuff for a very long time and is an expert in what he does. He developed the model in MS Excel. It is a much higher level of Excel magic than I can do on my own, and it does exactly what we think it does. :)

3) If there are some issues with this plan, are there reasonable adjustments in the system that can make it work without disenfranchising entire regions (as it seems pretty much every other plan does).

After the first draft proposal we modeled the plan, and met with them to go over the results, and to work to identify an alternative that would create the smoothest distribution and minimize the educational disruption to the majority of kids. I've spent many hours trying different scenarios, and I landed on one option that I submitted to them which I think would have been the best solution for the most people. The new plan they've release has many of the elements that would create that smoothness, but there are still a few issues. In short, I think that the plan they released is FAR better than the original, BUT still has some issues. I'll describe those in a minute.

Eden

Anonymous said...

@Eden

I am confused. You are saying that if you pulled all of APP out of Hamilton and put it at John Marshall, there would only be 200 kids at John Marshall in 2014-15? Aren't there more APP kids than that already enrolled in APP at Hamilton? Did you model a roll-up, starting with 6th grade in 2014-15, or a split of grades 6, 7 and 8?

Also, SPS presented their data for the co-housing of JA K-8 and JAMS at the Jane Addams site in the previous Growth Boundaries draft. Without APP, they estimated 16-17 portables and something called a "quad modular core space" would be needed to accommodate the co-housing of both programs at the JA building/parking lot.

- North-end Mom

Anonymous said...

A couple of points- since Thornton Creek is an option school, kids are sent to ms by their address, which is the upper grades is mostly JAMS. But is also a small number of kids, I think just 54 in 5th, some of whom will go to private, and maybe a third to a quarter go to Eckstein.

I would assume if APP does not go to JAMS, then more neighborhood kids go to JAMS. That would actually be the point of pulling app out of JaMs- to both provide relief to Eckstein and provide a more diverse experience for JAMS. I would suggest pulling the Wedgwood border north and sending Wedgwood there (which would also provide needed relief to Wedgwood), and expanding Sandpoint's border so it is not drawn so completely around all the poor people in south NE, and Bryant doesn't get as overloaded.

As for being 200 under in JM with just app middle, I hear Pinehurst is looking for a home...

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

She's saying it would be UNDER capacity by 200.

I know my sending another school makes JAMS more crowded in the interim, but is worry that not sending some more affluent schools up there tip the populations of Eckstein and JAMS into serious inequity longer term.
But I also believe you are right that JAMS will not have as many kids as they are projecting to start, and since JA k-8 is an option school their enrollment can actually be shrunk with attrition/caps. So I don't think it will be quite so bad. But not great.


-sleeper

dw said...

She's saying it would be UNDER capacity by 200.

Nah, because she said: in 2014 there would be about 200, 2015 about 400 and 2016. Those numbers might be a bit greater due to the possibility that kids join APP at 6th grade, but our model does not project in not currently enrolled kids. So, theoretically the numbers at JM could be up to around 500-600 in 2016.

So having the under capacity numbers growing over the next couple years doesn't make sense. I think Eden either typed something in wrong or some kind of mis-assupmtion trickled in. Hopefully she can explain.

Given that there are already around 550 APP kids at HIMS (according to earlier reported #s), I'm not sure how it would take a couple years to get to '500-600'.

Anonymous said...

In the latest draft, Olympic View is not going to JAMS anymore, so I'm not sure why Eden modeled it that way.

North-End mom, the District's original draft plan is clearly off, because in their new interim plan they show only 183 kids coming to JAMS from the Gen Ed and JAMS APP populations. If those APP kids go with the rest of middle school APP to John Marshall, then there's maybe 100-120 kids left in JAMS. That's what, 4 portables?

The JAMS design team is already planning to create at least 3 additional classrooms in the building in the near future, which would either reduce the portables needed if they could do that work this summer, or allow additional kids to get drawn into JAMS, and still not wind up with close to 15-16 portables.

-wondering

Unknown said...

Green lake mom and all--

Here is Tracy Libros' response to this question about MS assignment:

"Students are assigned to a middle school based on where they live. If they go to their attendance area elementary school, they would move to their attendance area middle school with the same group of students. In many cases, even if they went to a non-attendance area school, they may share the same middle school. So, for instance (with current boundaries and feeder patterns), if a student lives in the Bryant attendance area but goes to Sand Point, they would still share the same middle school, so it would be a non-issue.

If a student attends an elementary school outside of their middle school service area, their guaranteed assignment is still to their attendance area middle school. However, there is a "feeder school" tiebreaker so they would get priority to move to middle school with the same group of students from elementary school."

So, it is complicated, and will impact some kids and enrollment numbers if there are a bunch of kids that now live within the boundaries of a school that has a different MS than it did before. They will be assigned to the new MS, but if they went to a school that feeds into a different MS, they may get to choose the different MS.

I'm think how that directly impacts Green Lake kids in the current plan, is that if you live in the Green Lake boundary, and/or any one of the HIMS designated school areas, your kids MS would be HIMS now instead of Eckstein. I suppose that also means that if your current 6th grader who is at Eckstein now wanted to change to HIMS for 7th grade next year, that could happen.

In the current plan, these schools are getting re-assigned:

Green Lake from Eckstein to HIMS
John rogers and Olympic hills from Eckstein to JAMS
Olympic view from Eckstein to Wilson pacific.
Bagley, Greenwood, and Northgate from Whitman to Wilson Pacific.

As it pertains to our model, there are kids who are at a school that is currently not their attendance area school, Yes. But the model only rolls up the population of those schools, not individual kids, so on aggregate the numbers are only valid from that perspective. We don't have clear visibility yet into the actual geographic distribution of kids, so we have no way to know exactly the impact to enrollment. But the feeder pattern is a decent proxy.

APP kids have a different "pathway" which is decided by where they live, entirely.

Another thing to remember is that once a kid starts at a MS they can continue through per the SPS current practice. So the idea of pulling out all of and population from a middle school (i.e. APP) is problematic. What they have offered up in the plan is the idea that kids in 7th and 8th grade currently at Eckstein could "option" in to JAMS. I don't quite understand how this is meant to work, but I think they don't think they can require that any existing kids move to a new school. So they seem to be banking on the idea that kids will choose the new JAMS instead of super overcrowded Eckstein.

RE: the questions about the data we are using...Our model shows exactly that based on the 2012-13 data. We would prefer to be using more recent data, because we know that there is growth from last year to this, BUT the amount of growth in the later grades is likely not as great as the incoming K-1. So the picture we create by modeling it this way is a valid one. But is just that. A picture of what happens when based on the inputs of the model.

We also looked only at the MS schools, and all of them holistically in the North End. So ALL of the existing kids with butts in seats in 2012-13 have to go somewhere and they are all counted in the model. Exactly who those kids are (i.e. if they currently go to a different elementary school than the newly assigned boundary/MS feeder designation) isn't modeled. Simply the total of the classes moving out of elementary schools.

Happy to answer any other questions...
Eden

dw said...

Eden said: So the numbers I've provided for the JM APP portion are reasonable given the fact that some HIMS APP kids will not leave HIMS, for example.

Perhaps a small handful, but this is a very different proposal from the ones discussed previously. A roll-up APP at John Marshall will likely leave a bunch of 6th graders at HIMS because it's a crappy experience in many ways. But a full move of 6,7,8 intact will almost certainly bring 98-99% of the APP kids out of HIMS in one shot. Remember, for many of us here, this is not our first rodeo. Unfortunately.

Thanks for info on your Model. I have a decent understanding of what it does, and lest anyone doubt the power of spreadsheet models, when used properly they can be very, very powerful. That said, what you're talking about sounds like a fairly straightforward (simple) model that's likely missing significant "oddities" that long time edu-wonk experts have baked in their brains. I wish there was time to build more of these kind of ITTT stuff in, but it may or may not fit easily into your model.

Could you re-look at your assumptions on the proposed plan, i.e. move ALL of north end APP from HIMS to John Marshall this coming year. Go ahead and model that 98% will make the move, because that's a reasonable estimate. Somehow, something seems to be off in what you wrote earlier with the 200/400 numbers.

Anonymous said...

OK, so I've tried to delve a little deeper into the JAMS attendance area numbers.

I don't think they included the kids who are currently enrolled at JA K-8, because if they did, the JAMS AA numbers would be quite a bit higher than those given in the North Middle School Capacity Management Report.

I think these numbers are derived from all the kids who live within the proposed JAMS attendance area, and attend SPS attendance area schools. Especially for the upper elementary grades, those kids who entered SPS during the era of choice, a pretty high percentage of kids living in the John Rogers, Olympic Hills, Sacajawea, and Olympic View attendance areas attended schools outside of their attendance area.

For instance, if I understand the data correctly, then only 26% of the John Rogers attendance area kids who will be assigned to JAMS for 6th grade in 2014-15 actually attended John Rogers. This works out to be 24 out of about 92 kids. For the current Olympic Hills attendance area, it works out to be 23 out of about 71 kids.

92 + 71 = 163, which is pretty close to the 183 number for JAMS AA kids in the Capacity Management Plan (this number includes JAMS APP kids). The kids picked up in the new OH boundaries (areas formerly part of Sacajawea and Olympic View) probably make up the remainder.

- North-end Mom

Joe Wolf said...

Eden -

The SPS staff-calculated capacity for John Marshall:

- Housing a middle school program: 952
- Housing a K-8 program: 850

Happy to share other data info from Capital Planning.

Joe Wolf
K-12 Planning Coordinator, SPS
jawolf@seattleschools.org

Spruiter said...

Thanks for posting this Joe,
how many homerooms does John Marshall have?

Joe Wolf said...

North-end Mom: Your assumptions are spot on. That's exactly how it was done.

Anonymous said...

@ wondering

Using the 2012-13 enrollment data, if you add up all the APP kids in the current John Rogers and Olympic Hills attendance areas, you get a grand total of 24 kids who attend APP, distributed throughout the grade bands (1-5 for APP).

If you add up all of the APP kids living within the Sacajawea and Olympic View attendance areas (a portion of which could be assigned to JAMS), you get a total of 23 kids, again distributed across grades 1-5.

There may be more kids living in the JAMS attendance area who are APP-qualified, but who do not attend APP@Lincoln. I haven't looked for that data, but I have a hunch that they mostly attend JA K-8, so they would already be in the building, and perhaps not likely leave to join APP.

I think your assumption that there are 63-83 APP kids out of the 183 projected to feed into the JAMS 6th grade class in 2014-15 is an over-estimation.

- North-end Mom

Unknown said...

North end mom—

It is confusing and complex, so no worries! The model simply moves up kids from the classes that existed in 2012-13. For APP in 2014 it does not relocate the entire APP population, and I think it is a valid picture for the following reasons:

Here are the current enrollment numbers for APP, this year:
Grade 2013-2014 enrolled
1 68
2 100
3 150
4 153
5 151
6 212
7 167
8 164

If we just look at what happens next year, the total population for APP MS is currently is 151+212+167= 530. However, because the district isn’t suggesting, or doesn’t believe that can force all of APP to move out of HIMS next year, the model puts a total of 242 kids in JM next year. That is a lower number than what would actually happen if ALL APP were moved, but here’s why it’s potentially valid:

There is also another variable that the model doesn’t account for which is the fact that many APP qualified kids don’t join until 6th grade. If the APP location is another temporary start up site, the likely hood that more kids will join in 6th is presumably less than if it is a more “desirable” and established program.

Long story short, IF the district tries to relocate the SAME kids who’ve already been moved with the Lowell split, those APP kids currently at HIMS are not likely to leave, AND with JM another temporary start up location the kids that might join in 6th grade might be more likely to choose their assigned MS.

If, on the other hand, the entire APP MS community agreed to move to JM next year, then we could also assume that HIMS would be half filled because it is currently ½ of HIMS. So there would be around 500 kids at JM an HIMS would be empty by the same number.

School choice is impacted by a variety of factors, not the least of which is the assignment plan.

Eden

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Joe.

- North-end Mom

Joe Wolf said...

Spruiter: John Marshall has 48 *classrooms* - rooms of appropriate size/dimensions for instruction. In the middle school model 42 are used as homerooms and the other six for SpEd (self-contained and resource), CTE,etc.

(My lunch break is just about over, but can/will get back to emails.)_

Anonymous said...

@ Joe Wolf
When you get a chance, what is the homeroom count for the Jane Addams building, in its current configuration (before re-purposing renovations), with and without the portables currently at the site.

Also, is the capacity of the Jane Addams building currently 960 as a middle school, or is that what it will be after the renovations?

Thank you!
- North-end Mom

Unknown said...

North end mom and all

Re: the portables at JAMS. Yes, if the JAk8 stays at JAMS for the next two years, the only way to accommodate the incoming MS population is to put them in portables, as I understand it.

This, I think is why the district landed on the plan they presented. Nothing is going to be ideal in this whole thing. It is all versions of less bad. And if JAK8 frees up the JAMS then JAMS can be the middle school it is meant to be without needing to spend millions on portables.

To compare their current plan against the one that I just modeled and explained:

JAMS:
SPS current proposal: Has plenty of space to start up as a middle school without needing to have a portable field
SEA proposal: Will require additional portables to accommodate needed MS space because JAK8 is there.

Eckstein:
SPS current proposal: Still overloaded if they don't feed in a couple of more schools to JAMS.
SEA proposal: Same as above, except that JAMS doesn't have the space.

HIMS:
SPS current proposal: Will be slightly over starting in 2014, unless some APP (i.e. some portion of the WP area APP kids) are assigned to JAMS APP.
SEA proposal: Is underutilized ranging from 200-500 kids starting 2014

John Marshal:
SPS current Proposal: JAK8 is there in entirety and reportedly fits the space nicely for the next two years before their new building is opened. WP starts up here in 2016 with AA kids.
SEA proposal: Is underutilized with only APP there.

Eden

Anonymous said...

Again though, say there are 160 attendance area Gen Ed JAMS 6th graders next year- that does not mean a portable field in the parking lot as was originally estimated. 160 middle school kids go into a little over 5 homerooms. That would be 5 additional portables assuming no additional homerooms are created in the JA building between now and next fall.

HIMS is already over capacity right now, it will continue to be over capacity by a couple hundred kids until 2016 when WP kids are pulled out.

-worried

Joe Wolf said...

North-end Mom:

- To your second question, 960 is the capacity as a "generic" middle school and after the BEX IV renovations are complete. I parse the answer that way because - as you intimated - the capacity of a building is dependent on the programs/uses it supports. The program/operating capacity of the Jane Addams building housing JAMS may be a number different than 960, depending on how the JAMS program mix sorts itself out. But it should not be wildly different.

If you'll send me an email at jawolf@seattleschools.org we can continue the conversation.

Unknown said...

Continuing on…
The thing that I think we all keep getting stuck by is the fact that these boundaries reflect a future state of buildings, not the current state. WP does not open until 2017, and the JAK8 doesn’t open until 2016, so in the meantime where will everyone go?!

It is a puzzle, and the most challenging aspect is how to connect the end state of the boundaries to a reasonable interim capacity plan that is the least amount of churn for everyone.

Considering the picture holistically, as I’ve expressed before, I’m starting to favor the current boundaries plan, and interim capacity MGMT plan WITH a few adjustments. Those adjustments are:

1. Feed more of the NE kids into JAMS. I don’t know if that is Sacagawea or Wedgwood or both, but Eckstein needs more relief.

2. Inspire a comprehensive MS school at JAMS from the start in 2014. Entice NE APP kids currently in 7th and 8th at HIMS into the school with AWESOME offerings. Don’t just do a roll up for APP.

3. Define only 2 APP MS Pathways: HIMS and JAMS. I don’t believe that there is enough kids for a 3 way middle school split. And I would prefer not to have a split at all, but I think it is unfortunately necessary given the capacity constraints. Keeping APP at HIMS maintains a solid program, and JAMS can and will (with a ton of blood sweat and tears, I KNOW) be a great place for NE APP kids. And there is no need to split off a tiny cohort of WP APP kids in 2016.

Yes, JAK8 doesn’t want to move, but the NE needs a middle school NOW, and in 2016 JAK8 gets a $40 million new building. And they are all kept TOGETHER. The churn for them is being temporarily located for 2 years, not having their school split in 2.

Yes, APP still does not win the ideal single MS location. They get split up, and it will take a ton of work to develop at JAMS. But APP in its entirety is too big for HIMS NOW, not in 2017 when WP opens. And there is no good option of what to do with APP in the meantime. APP IS being promised WP elementary as a standalone site. With the capacity constraints that exist, I think it is actually more equitable and “smoother” from a capacity perspective to split APP MS into JAMS and HIMS in 2014 instead of fighting for both WP schools.

Again, not an ideal solution for anyone, but a less bad solution that creates less churn for more kids.

Eden

Lynn said...

Eden,

The district can require current 7th and 8th grader APP students at HIMS to leave for Marshall next year. (Except for APP students who live in the Hamilton attendance area. That was just 103 students last year.) They just really don't want to.

Also, earlier you said that once a student starts at a school, they are allowed to stay there. This is not true if you move out of the attendance area. Students who were at their attendance area school are automatically assigned to their new attendance area school.

Unknown said...

I'm sorry, I can't keep up with the comments, but I hope I've answered many questions that came up I the meantime.

Joe, thanks for comin in with the numbers and your e-mail. Can we check in at some point? I'll send an e-mail.

RE: Two questions that were asked but I can't find them to copy and paste quickly:

Why is one of the Olympic's schools modeled in the SEA proposal? Because to do what is being suggested to leave WP MS entirely empty and available for APP in 2017, those schools have to go somewhere if they aren't going to WP. there are a few alternatives, and this is the one I selected to model. I could run the whole thing again, but the picture doesn't change too much with regards to JAMS/HIMS/JM.

RE: what happens if All of APP goes to JM next year... I think I answered most of that in a previous post, but if not...

If 98% of APP MS were at JM next year, that would be around 520-600 kids. So HIMS would have that same deficit, and JAMS would be overloaded with both JAk8 in the building and the new MS populations.

I wish that there was an interim solution that works to keep APP together before WP opens in 2017. That would be Annexing Lincoln, as I and many other suggested.

If the Annex to HIMS isn't going to happen, there simply is no space not to split off APP. Either you kick out the AA kids or the International schools, or you kick out APP, or a portion of it.

Eden

Anonymous said...

@worried

Let's assume that all 183 gen ed kids didn't get a feeder pattern tiebreaker to attend Eckstein, and they all show up at JAMS next year. They would need about 6 portables if JAMS was co-located with the K-8. That's not so bad, but the following year, when there are more kids moving up, they will need more than 6 more. I don't think SPS was that far off in its original portable usage estimates, though they did include all of Olympic View in the original JAMS assignments.

Still, if it is a co-location situation with the JA K-8, that would still leave JAMS with a pitiful budget for a "comprehensive" middle school, especially for the first year.

The only way a co-location would work is if there was a considerable sharing of resources, electives, staff, etc... between the K-8 program and JAMS.

Maybe that would work, I don't know.

- North-end Mom

Unknown said...

RE:


"Nah, because she said: in 2014 there would be about 200, 2015 about 400 and 2016. Those numbers might be a bit greater due to the possibility that kids join APP at 6th grade, but our model does not project in not currently enrolled kids. So, theoretically the numbers at JM could be up to around 500-600 in 2016.

So having the under capacity numbers growing over the next couple years doesn't make sense. I think Eden either typed something in wrong or some kind of mis-assupmtion trickled in. Hopefully she can explain"

This is in regards to what happens at JM if APP is placed there next year, assuming that not all of APP is willing to move over, and many of the kids that often choose APP for MS will not because it will be another start up program and in another temp building and so forth.

The model shows that 242 kids in JM in 2014. It shows 365 in 2015.

If ALL APP qualified kids are at JM in 2014, then that number would be closer to 550. And in 2015 and 2016 we could expect that APP in total in the north end would be anywhere from 550-650, but I DON"T believe that APP will grow to 861 by 2017. I think their total APP projections are off, and we are, again, working on getting the base data to validate/invalidate.

Thanks again,
Eden

I hope this clarifies.

dw said...

Eden said, regarding APP MS split: I would prefer not to have a split at all, but I think it is unfortunately necessary given the capacity constraints.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. A credible proposal has been made to move 6,7,8 in its entirety to John Marshal immediately, which has positive ramifications to the other buildings/programs as well. An adjustment would likely need to be made to move at least one more elementary to the HIMS feeder path, and that would help whichever middle school it came from. This is the kind of information I'd like to see worked through your model, and it would take a little trial and error to see which elementaries would make sense to swap.

( Lynn, are you saying there are 103 middle school APP kids that live in Hamilton area, or 103 north end APP including elementary? )

Regardless, as Lynn said, the district can most certainly make the decision to move the entire middle school program to John Marshall next year, and all but the few HIMS AA kids will be required to make that move or go back to their AA school. Virtually no one in that group will go back to their AA school because they've already made the decision to leave that school for APP. Given that most of the kids would make the move, very few HIMS AA kids would stay because there isn't a program for them anymore, and their friends would be at JM, along with a fully populated APP program. So from a practical standpoint, the district could easily move the entire middle school APP program with one swish of their pen.

This is the only scenario that can maintain the integrity of APP (to the degree that any is left at this point). For those of you who have not been through the previous split firsthand, you have no idea the pain and work it causes, and how much the program has been diminished already. It hasn't recovered from the last split, and likely never will. Another one, especially into hostile buildings (I don't really blame them) is just not going to work. Are people here aware that the current HIMS principal, who many of us thought might be an "all star" is now mixing teachers between APP and non-APP classes because, well, every teacher can teach every class. This is the naive mindset that dooms APP when it get scattered, and it's worth exploring any possible opportunity to keep APP intact.

Could you run your numbers again, with ALL of APP MS moving to JM? The previous run didn't fully make sense. There would be some room left over in the building for another group of kids as well, though I'm not sure who would be the best fit.

dw said...

The model shows that 242 kids in JM in 2014. It shows 365 in 2015.

If ALL APP qualified kids are at JM in 2014, then that number would be closer to 550. And in 2015 and 2016 we could expect that APP in total in the north end would be anywhere from 550-650, but I DON"T believe that APP will grow to 861 by 2017. I think their total APP projections are off, and we are, again, working on getting the base data to validate/invalidate.


We're cross-posting now, but that's okay!

Yes, what I'm saying is that virtually all APP kids would make the move. We've been through this before, and at the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, trust me. Really.

Yes, that would be roughly 550 the first year, and maybe up to 600 or so over the following year or two (I fully agree that SPS growth #s are bogus, unless they have some big secret plan in mind), at which point it moves to WP, because that's the only thing that will make sense at that time.

That leaves a bunch of capacity at HIMS right away, though not a fully 550 because it's running over-capacity right now. That means pulling in one or more elementary schools to its feeder path, which can reduce capacity problems at one or more of the other MS buildings (Eckstein?). The only potential complaints I see would be from the 1 or 2 elementary programs that change feeder paths, but I think that's less churn overall than the district-proposed plan. Not to mention that it doesn't set things up for another disaster 3-5 years from now and it doesn't put an "APP squeeze" on JA.

Anonymous said...

DW, I assume she means 103 over 3 grades. That is entirely possible. As a mom of a HIMS AA area APP 6th grader, I'm leaning towards leaving him at HIMS. He's taking Japanese and has a lot of friends in the Gen Ed program. We would probably have to homeschool him in math since he's taking algebra this year, but we would absolutely give him that option. I have heard the same from other APP parents with 6th graders in the HIMS attendance area. 6th and 7th grade at HIMS are the only ones that have gone through both the split and the move. I'm not sure I want to subject my kid to more turmoil. Don't underestimate the number of parents who feel the same way.

--Former Lincoln Mom

Lynn said...

Former Lincoln Mom,

There really were only 103 APP middle school students last year in the HIMS attendance area. Everyone else could be moved. You'd be giving up accelerated science too. Maybe he has close neighborhood friends though and that would make up for it?

Unknown said...

Lynn-Thanks

"The district can require current 7th and 8th grader APP students at HIMS to leave for Marshall next year. (Except for APP students who live in the Hamilton attendance area. That was just 103 students last year.) They just really don't want to."

Thanks for the number of how many APP at HIMS were there last year. That helps me understand how many kids might choose to stay at HIMS.

"Also, earlier you said that once a student starts at a school, they are allowed to stay there. This is not true if you move out of the attendance area. Students who were at their attendance area school are automatically assigned to their new attendance area school."

Yes, if a kid moves they get a new school. And with regards to modeling the picture, we don't account for any changes based on kids moving in or out of attendance areas. In order to do the actual enrollment projections correctly, I think the district also needs to look also at where kids live. We are presently trying to get a better understanding of how they do this currently. It is a piece of the enrollment and capacity picture that is VERY important to consider.

In the mean time, this model shows the what happens when elementary schools feed into middle schools, based on the most current enrollment data. If there were 1000 kids in the North end that are currently at private elementary schools, for example, who decided to go to SPS middle schools, this model does not account for them.

Thanks again,
Eden

Anonymous said...

Eden, you keep saying that there's no way for app to stay together until 2017, but we keep showing you over and over that that's not true.

I get that you like Hamilton and want to keep it for the NW, but you're doing it by making some other kids have a crap middle schools experience, when instead it could all be pretty good, together at John Marshall. Fill the excess with Pinehurst. A JAMS roll up would be tolerable so long as the k-8 stays there and shares resources (they are already working together), and the numbers are inflated right now. So it does not have to be a 6th grade academy- there are lots of rising k-8 7th graders and 8th graders. Keep next years's k-8 kindergarten classes to 2, no new middle school sections; this can be managed. There is no way for he district to adequately mitigate for a 6th grade roll up, and to be honest, they just won't. They will, however, staff full programs appropriately, which app at JM would be. I wouldn't send my kid to a standalone 6th grade academy, but I would be in the first year of a developed middle school program. Not everyone will(see flm above), but dw is right, most people will. Once you get closer to having children in middle school, you will probably understand these issues better.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

Lynn, uh, I wouldn't keep him at HIMS for science. I have an APP 8th grader there too. APP science at HIMS is a joke. But it wouldn't be an easy decision -- he's been in APP since 1st grade. But HIMS has been really good and he can walk to school. I'm not saying for any district wide decisions to be made based on my personal situation, I just posted to inform dw that I'm not sure that 98% of the 6th and 7th grade APP students would go to John Marshall. I mean, my son doesn't even play an instrument.
-- Former Lincoln Mom

dw said...

Former Lincoln Mom,

Everyone's situation is their own, so I would never presume to tell you what's best for your own kid and your own family. But I will say that time and time again I hear people talk about not wanting to uplift their kids from their local school or not wanting to bus to WMS or whatever, and at the end of the day the program and its cohort win out. Not for every last person, but for almost all of them in spite of their individual issues. My guess is that less than 10 kids would stay at HIMS. But that's *ONLY* *IF* the entire cohort moved, because it would be a robust program with full math options, strong music and the kids would be able to stay with most of their friends. With a 6th grade roll-up, I haven't a clue, but I'd guess a lot more families would look for other options, including staying at HIMS and/or other neighborhood schools.

You're concerned about your kid's friendships, and with good cause. The first split was terrible in that regard. The subsequent "summer panic move" was not really devastating socially, because virtually all the kids made the move together. That's what a 6,7,8 move would look like (and the building wouldn't be nearly as inappropriate as Lincoln was for elementary kids!).

But my question for you is this: you said He's taking Japanese and has a lot of friends in the Gen Ed program. Understood. But he's also taking LA, SS, Science and Math with a cadre of APP kids that he has probably known for much longer, plus the language classes have lots of APP kids as well. By staying at HIMS, most kids would be losing far more friendships than making the move. Not to mention homeschooling in math, which is a lot more effort than you probably know. At the end of the day everyone makes their own decisions, and you'll do what feels best for you kid, but my prediction is that like the many people I've heard grouse over the past 10+ years, almost all of you will grit your teeth and make the move.

Also, sleeper said: it could all be pretty good, together at John Marshall. Fill the excess with Pinehurst.

Perfect! I was wondering who else would be a good fit to fill out Marshall, and Pinehurst would be an outstanding fit! Any Pinehurst parents reading this post? The only way this kind of intact move of APP is likely to fly with the administration is if other communities support it, and I do think it's in the best interest of most of these other schools and programs to keep APP out of their buildings.

Unknown said...

worried--

"Again though, say there are 160 attendance area Gen Ed JAMS 6th graders next year- that does not mean a portable field in the parking lot as was originally estimated. 160 middle school kids go into a little over 5 homerooms. That would be 5 additional portables assuming no additional homerooms are created in the JA building between now and next fall."

Let me see if I can’t unravel what you are asking:

If JAK8 stays, and you only send AA Middle school in 2014, the AA population NOT already from JAK8 is about 160. But, the total MS capacity at the JAMS when it is partially filled with 1-5 is only 247. That is the Middle school capacity in the building, when the rest of the building is being used as for k-5 classes.

Between both the AA population and the JAK8 MS portion in 2014 the total is 358, and is 528 in 2018. That is 109 and 279 OVER capacity for the MS population, respectively. That means more portables.

Add to the problem that Eckstein is overcrowded by 350 in 2014 and 400 in 2015. Just peeling of these couple of AA schools from Eckstein does not provide enough relief. And the JAK8 is filling up the building.

The reality of the numbers is that with JAk8 still in JAMS, there are somewhere around 450-650 kids in the NE that don’t have a middle school to attend next year.

I suppose we could place them all in John Marshall and move them back once JAK8’s building is opened, but it seems to be less churn to move the JAK8, and let JAMS start up as a middles school.

It isn't easy to figure out the best case scenario, at all. But the NE really need JAMS to be JAMS, and it is expensive to continue to place portables, when JAK8 will fit nicely in JM for a couple of years before their building opens.

I hope that helped explain the numbers a bit better.
Eden

Unknown said...

dw-Thanks

RE "A credible proposal has been made to move 6,7,8 in its entirety to John Marshal immediately, which has positive ramifications to the other buildings/programs as well. An adjustment would likely need to be made to move at least one more elementary to the HIMS feeder path, and that would help whichever middle school it came from. This is the kind of information I'd like to see worked through your model, and it would take a little trial and error to see which elementaries would make sense to swap."

I'm happy to send you the graph if you want to provide your e-mail I wish I could post a picture here.

Unfortunately, what actually happens if all of APP is pulled out of HIMS next year is that HIMS is 1/2 full. Yes, the population will grow over time, but it doesn't actually resolve the issues of the North end middle schools capacity problem next year.

The main challenge which I can see people are having a hard time accepting is that there are some where between 400-600 kids in the NE that need a middle school NEXT year. those kids need to go some where, and JAMS IS a middle school in the NE. Pulling APP out of HIMS does not relieve the capacity challenge of the middle schools in the NE.

Does that help?
Eden

Unknown said...

BTW, Pinehust is tiny. The middle school portion is around 50 this year, and projected to be 38 next year. They need a place to be too, of course. I just wanted to put things into scale.

LN said...

Eden,

You say, with this plan so many people here support, that by 2018 JAMS will be overcrowded with AA kids and the JA k-8 kids. Unless I am misunderstanding you, that is a non-event since the JA K-8 NEW building @ Pinehurst will open for the 2016-2017 school year. I am clearly missing something.

Sleeper - Eden isn't proposing NW kids go to Hamilton. She is proposing QA and Magnolia plus APP kids in HIMS attendance area get to stay at HIMS while the rest are pulled out to start the new programs.

Unknown said...

sleeper, all do respect, and I do have tons of respect for all of your thoughts and posts.

But, I'm sorry. the numbers don't bear out that sending APP to JM next year achieves the desired outcome for managing capacity in the North End.

And, I might throw out that NONE of these buildings get to return to their original intended capacity any time soon. It is a tight squeeze across the entire north end.

The outcome to that option is:

HIMS: under capacity by 400 ish
JAMS: filled with JAk8 and need portables for at least 300 kids in 2015
Eckstein: is over capacity by 400 kids.

I'm really sorry. this is the picture. The numbers are what the are.

Freeing up capacity at HIMS does not help the NE and Eckstein problem. It just means that HIMS is not actually utilized and kids at Eckstein and JAMS are squeezed into portables.

This is not a biased picture. It just is what it is. and I'm sorry. I wish we could have only one MS school too.

I'm really sorry.
Eden

LN said...

Eden,

You could easily shift some elementary feeder schools around to provide relief to the NE while filling the spots at Hamilton.

Since Wilson Pacific will no longer be available as an attendance area school, you can shift some far north central kids to Whitman and move some south NW (i.e. Adams) kids to Hamilton. You can also add Bagley, Greenwood, etc. into Hamilton's AA.

This will also help (albeit not a lot) balance the FRL weights.

Anonymous said...

DW, let me guess, you have a 5th grader at Lincoln? Actually, it doesn't matter. I think that this is a moot point. Eden is right, they'll never leave HIMS half full (which is what would happen if they pulled all of APP out).

-- Former Lincoln Mom

dw said...

Unfortunately, what actually happens if all of APP is pulled out of HIMS next year is that HIMS is 1/2 full.

Roughly, yes, but a bit more than 1/2 full because the building is overcapacity right now. But that's why I said you need to pull in at least one elementary school into HIMS feeder path. Not sure how you missed that, it's half of the proposal. ;-) I'm not sure which elementary I would propose, but I leave that as an exercise for the modelers!

Can you post on scribd or something easily accessible like that? Mirmac1 does that a lot. I'm not cool with posting my email here on the blog.

Also, Pinehurst is a K-8, so the middle-school-only #s are not that relevant in this case. The full K-8 would all fit easily together with all of MS APP in JM. Honestly, I think it would be a pretty good match, though both programs would have their own separate staff. JoshH, what do you think?

Unknown said...

LN--

I hesitate responding to your points for the risk of being blasted, but here goes.

"You say, with this plan so many people here support, that by 2018 JAMS will be overcrowded with AA kids and the JA k-8 kids. Unless I am misunderstanding you, that is a non-event since the JA K-8 NEW building @ Pinehurst will open for the 2016-2017 school year. I am clearly missing something."

Yes, I think you are missing something. JAk8 has 6-8 graders. Those guys plus the AA 6-8 graders make up the MS population at JAMS in 2014-15 in the SEA proposal I ran. I don't know what you are referring to exactly, but I hope this clarifies. The JAk8 kids leave in 2016.

"Sleeper - Eden isn't proposing NW kids go to Hamilton. She is proposing QA and Magnolia plus APP kids in HIMS attendance area get to stay at HIMS while the rest are pulled out to start the new programs."

Actually, what I am proposing is that the APP population be split between 2 MS instead of the 3 they are currently proposing. The split would be geographically reflective of a natural split between those two schools.

Cheers, and please don't blast me again.
Eden

Anonymous said...

@Eden-

You wrote:
"Between both the AA population and the JAK8 MS portion in 2014 the total is 358, and is 528 in 2018. That is 109 and 279 OVER capacity for the MS population, respectively. That means more portables."

I know it is not really your fault, since you are going by the 2012-13 enrollment numbers, and the 2013-14 numbers have not yet been posted, but here is an approximate count of how many middle school kids there will be at the JA K-8 next year, purely based upon the configuration of the program:

JA K-8 (2014-15)
6th grade class: 90 students (3 cores)
7th grade class: 180 students (6 cores)
8th grade class: 90 students (3 cores)
Total: 360 students

Add to that the JAMS kids (apparently 183 of them, if just Olympic Hills and John Rogers join in the fun).

I am not a capacity planner, so please feel free to correct me, but I come up with a total of 543 middle school kids plus 450 elementary kids....for the first year of co-housing (2014-15). Co-housing would be for two years, IF the new building at Pinehurst is ready on time. I don't have time to do the rest of the math, but there will be a lot more kids at the JA site than your model is showing.

- North-end Mom

True Colors said...

Quoting Eden:

"The outcome to that option is:

HIMS: under capacity by 400 ish
JAMS: filled with JAk8 and need portables for at least 300 kids in 2015
Eckstein: is over capacity by 400 kids.

I'm really sorry. this is the picture. The numbers are what the are."


Eden - Look at the numbers you posted. Eckstein, which is not too far from HIMS, is over-enrolled by the exact SAME number of kids you say HIMS is under-enrolled.

Creative solutions for many of the 300 kids over-capacity at JAMS could be found for ONE year. For example, early elementary kids don't need tons of services. They only need 1 classroom and a gym. You could put JAk-8 K & 1st graders at John Marshall (NOT moving kids who've already started there). Then, they move to their new school. They'll already have to move once so kids that little will have no idea. Then, they get to move to a brand new school! How cool!

Your bias for Magnolia to go to HIMS is really starting to show.

dw said...

FLM said: let me guess, you have a 5th grader at Lincoln? Actually, it doesn't matter. I think that this is a moot point. Eden is right, they'll never leave HIMS half full (which is what would happen if they pulled all of APP out).

No, in fact I'm supporting a move that would be yet another disruption for my kid. But it's absolutely the best thing for the program, and I think probably for the overall north end. Some of us really are willing to make sacrifices like that. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder about LN's earlier comments questioning Eden's neutrality, because this proposal is pretty good and could really use some creative exploration. Then again, there's a good deal of cross posting when things are moving this quickly.

But back to your comment, mostly I'm just pointing out what I've seen year after year after year, which is that regardless of (legitimate) complaints about APP management and logistics, the cohort almost always wins out and we parents hold our nose and stick with the program. It's just what happens.

I do think that the district does want to split APP again, which makes it more difficult. But if other north end schools get on board, even if it's only to save their own schools, I think it's possible.

LN said...

Eden,

Sorry, I looked at my recent comments, but I didn't see a blast. I am sincerely asking about this comment of yours at 3:20pm:

"Between both the AA population and the JAK8 MS portion in 2014 the total is 358, and is 528 in 2018. That is 109 and 279 OVER capacity for the MS population, respectively. That means more portables."

I was simply asking about the reference to 'over capacity by 279 in 2018'. I don't understand your comment when JA k-8 leaves in 2016. No blast meant.

And, I am really sorry if you think it is a blast, but coming from Ballard, I feel I have equal rights to attend HIMS as you do, but you'd send my kid across town to JAMS. I don't think that's a blast, and I am very sorry (truly).

That being said, many of us much closer to middle school and/or already in APP @ HIMS are supportive of moving this entire cohort to John Marshall and then to Wilson Pacific. You shoot down every reasonable suggestion to make that happen. ALL solutions to this fine mess we're in will require some creativity.

Anonymous said...

No, that's the outcome if you don't use any of your new space and only pigheadedly leave some spaces overcrowded out of spite(like the current plan does to eckstein). There's no reason not to move more kids to Hamilton after app moves out. Either some Whitman kids or Eckstein, both of which need much more relief than these plans offer. You can absolutely fill the buildings back up; you just don't want that outcome so keep saying we "can't." I don't mind disagreeing about the best and most equitable plan, but I do mind personal preference being stated as fact. The district plan today underutilized jams next year by several hundred seats-moving app wholesale next year actually improves on usage for 2014.

-sleeper

Unknown said...

Trying to respond to all these questions is challenging, so please know that I’m trying hard.

LN said this:

“You could easily shift some elementary feeder schools around to provide relief to the NE while filling the spots at Hamilton.

Since Wilson Pacific will no longer be available as an attendance area school, you can shift some far north central kids to Whitman and move some south NW (i.e. Adams) kids to Hamilton. You can also add Bagley, Greenwood, etc. into Hamilton's AA.”

The SEA proposal leaves WP empty except for APP and Northgate, just as needs to be the case for APP populating WP in 2017. Those schools that were identified in the current SPS proposal as feeding to WP do need to go somewhere, and Whitman is already overfilled, just like Eckstein and Hamilton.

But what you are proposing is to pull APP out of HIMS, and replace with Bagley, Greenwood. That would result in perhaps HIMS being full, but Whitman then would be underutilized. To fill Whitman you would need to add in Olympic View, or Olympic Hills, which are both on the other side of I-5 from Whitman and closer to JAMS. I suppose it could work in theory, but is that really equitable for those two schools?

Eden

Unknown said...

North end mom--

YES! "I am not a capacity planner, so please feel free to correct me, but I come up with a total of 543 middle school kids plus 450 elementary kids....for the first year of co-housing (2014-15). Co-housing would be for two years, IF the new building at Pinehurst is ready on time. I don't have time to do the rest of the math, but there will be a lot more kids at the JA site than your model is showing."

Our model does not EVEN account for the growth that we know is happening. There are more kids in the NE that need a middle school next year than my numbers even show.

Thank you.
Eden

LN said...

Eden, I would not suggest sending Olympic View or Olympic Hills to Whitman.

You could add West Woodland into Whitman, Greenwood, etc. and then move more South NE schools to Hamilton.

It can work.

Unknown said...

LN-

"
I was simply asking about the reference to 'over capacity by 279 in 2018'. I don't understand your comment when JA k-8 leaves in 2016. No blast meant"

Sorry, I meant to respond to this, but got distracted.

The model is looking only at middle school capacity. So the middle school capacity at JAMS while JAK8 is there is only 247. If it is JAMS, a full middle school, it is 960 or there abouts. So when JAK8 is there, the MS portion of the population is over capacity by that number. and then JAK8 does in fact leave JAMS in 2016, so what is left is all middle school.

It is hard to communicate all of this clearly in such rapid succession.

and my point about the blast was related to your post from yesterday. Thanks for being civil today.

and further, about the point about your kid being able to go to HIMS. I don't know what the exact right dividing line between the APP HIMS and APP JAMS should be, but I believe it should include the South end of the NW, including some portion of Ballard, if not most of it....

If your kid is a gen Ed kid, the feeder pattern per the current SPS proposal sends some Bagley and Greenwood to WP in 2017 with a roll up at JM in 2016.

I'm not sure what exactly you are objecting to, though.

Eden

Anonymous said...

Re-posting from another thread (this one seems to be the most active):

I understand that this post may not be popular with some folks, but I feel it's important to mention it.

With respect to dw, please don't underestimate the number of parents who DO NOT want their current 6th or 7th grade APP student yanked out of HIMS, and please try to understand their position. I know that this has been stated before, but it's important to realize that these are the kids (and the families) who have borne the brunt - several times already - of the District's failure to plan.

They were in 1st and 2nd grade when the Lowell/TM split occurred, and were going into 4th and 5th grade when they were moved to Lincoln in July. The 6th graders are the same kids (and families) who went through a lot of uncertainty last year at this time, and didn't even get final confirmation that they would attend HIMS until last June.

They consider themselves HIMS students, not just APP students, and have a number of friends and interests that are outside of APP.

Also keep in mind that WP will not come online until these current 6th and 7th graders are out of middle school. So while they get the hassle of starting up a new building (wait - they already had to do that at Lincoln just a little over 2 years ago), they don't ever - and won't ever - consider themselves to be WP students.

For the current 6th graders, they will spend 4 of 5 important, formative years in "temporary space" that does not have the facilities appropriate to their school level (playground at Lincoln, sports fields at Marshall, etc.). No other group of kids has been asked to do this, and you can bet that any parent facing the same situation would argue against it. To borrow the District's mantra, it's not equitable to move these kids to temporary space yet again.

Notsofast, please

Unknown said...

LN-

Please do share with me the scenario you think will work. I'll model it.

The original SPS proposal did move in more of those schools into HIMS and moved out APP. And the result of that was that HIMS is not overloaded in 2014, but by 2015 it is.

Post the list for me, and I'll run the numbers.

thanks!
Eden

Anonymous said...

@Eden
JA K-8 is over its middle school capacity THIS year, and that is with only about 60 kids in the 8th grade.

- North-end Mom

Unknown said...

North End Mom-

Yep. the NE needs more MS capacity now and definitely next year.

Thanks.
Eden

Sea of Schools said...

To all who have commented, including Eden with her data running, I was happy to hear my proposal generated so much discussion.

For Interim Capacity, I had developed a few additions that I did not list in my previous proposal, that worked with my estimates (using North-end mom's calculations) but would be curious to hear if they work with Eden's methodology.

Even though I am in the group with an APP 6th grader subjected to the spilt and the move, keeping any portion of APP at HIMS is a bad capacity decision and continues a bad practice of having so many programs housed at a single building. And as another commenter mentioned above, flipping teachers from general ed to APP and vice versa as was the case for many this year does not help stability and the development of a stable program. Having an APP site elsewhere will help HIMS serve Language Immersion and the neighborhood far better than it is currently able to.

For the NE, the JAMS middle school roll up is a terrible mistake as no 7th and 8th graders are likely to opt out and if they do, they will come to a one classroom per grade "comprehensive" school. While some portables would be required, a blended MS approach could be used to a point until JA K-8 moves out in 2016 and all grades are established at JAMS.

This proposal would also eliminate the Wilson-Pacific roll up for ALL students.

Under my proposal for North End assignment feeder patterns (incorporating most suggestions given here):

Next Year-2014
-Move all HIMS APP to John Marshall (Grades 6, 7, and 8)
-Move Bagley and Greenwood Elementary (as proposed in Round 1) to HIMS Service Area, filling some of the available capacity, increased language immersion numbers will account for the empty space in the long term.
-Begin roll up of JAMS alongside JA K-8 onsite with John Rogers, Cedar Park/Olympic Hills, and Olympic View (proposed area). No 7th and 8th grade option, you could join the K-8 however.
-Broadview Thomson K-8 would be reassigned back to Whitman AA with no impact
-Temporarily hold Northgate Elementary, Sacajawea, and Wedgwood in current feeder patterns until 2016.

2015-2016
-Continue to roll up of JAMS with Grade 7 added

2016-2017 School Year
-Move JA K-8 to new site at Pinehurst
-Establish stand-alone site for JAMS in Grades 6, 7, and 8 (integrate Sacajawea, Northgate, and Wedgwood-if needed to JAMS)

2017-2018 School Year
-Open the Wilson-Pacific Middle School site (determine if an all APP move is the correct choice at that time and determine if additional space is available for another program)

If you have any other questions or comments, please comment! I would like to circulate this proposal among the entire north end staff and family communities, to see if it is viable for implementation.

Anonymous said...

Dw and Eden
My children are either in APP or are qualified to join the program, and I assure you that we would NOT leave Hamilton. And the families I know feel the same way. You underestimate how great it is for our children to be able to walk to school with their friends. Math and Science, they can pick up from many sources, the fledging independence from not being driven everywhere by mom and dad is irreplaceable.

CCA

Unknown said...

CCA--

I know there are tons of posts here, so I'll clarify my thoughts.

I personally have landed on the idea that APP needs to be at HIMS and JAMS.

thanks for sharing your perspective and confirming the commitment that many have to HIMS.

SEA of Schools, I'll run it the way you outlined.

Eden

Sea of Schools said...

As Eden and others suggested, the feeder schools between HIMS and Whitman are interchangeable, I simply chose two that had been proposed. Adams is a similar distance to HIMS. However, as many said keeping APP at HIMS, including a part of it, will benefit far fewer than pulling it out. I am also part of the group with a child who would be moved to Marshall next year (currently in 6th grade and has similar relationships with non-APP and HIMS families) but I am trying to think of what is best for the entire community.

Sea of Schools said...

I second the thought that we have a large commitment to HIMS, and if we stayed, would Spectrum increase to a point where non-self contained classrooms would be implemented for LA and SS. For non-APP HIMS families, would the addition of several strong feeder elementary schools be sufficient for the departure of APP?

Anonymous said...

Add that to having to get up 1/2-1 hr earlier to catch the bus! Perhaps the kids who can only make friends with other APP kids will move, but many of the others will stay if they can.I do not see the AA kids and the ones who joined in 6th grade being willing to move. So yeah, speculate as you wish, but please do not advocate for the district to force other people's children to leave their school so YOUR kids can have a comprehensive MS experience. If comprehensive MS is important to you, leave APP, and go to your AA MS, that is what our family and our friends are planning to do if APP gets moved from HIMS. Make a choice, and be thankful you HAVE a choice, unlike > 90% of the parents in the district. Public School, remember? Make the best of it, or pay more taxes.

CCA

Sea of Schools said...

CCA, both of my children would have a comprehensive middle school experience under the current plan (at HIMS or at JAMS in a few years). This proposal has come primarily from thoughts I have gathered from other North end and HIMS families.

I have as much problem with moving APP out of HIMS as you do, but leaving APP because of it, my APP child needs the services it provides and would not function in another classroom environment.

Unknown said...

SEA of Schools--

Ok, so I ran it the way you described

HIMS: with in reason next year, but climbing over up to 400 over by 2018
JAMS: 200 over in 2015
Eckstein: 100-200 0ver for 2014-2016
Whitman: under by 200-400 from 2014 on

Eden

Lynn said...

CCA,

To be clear, you live in the current HIMS attendance area? And you would not have enrolled your child in APP if the school was not within walking distance from your home?

Data dork said...

Eden, the fix is to move the school that causes the overage at Hamilton to Whitman. The more you say it won't work, the more I'm starting to believe you are presenting biased data.

Another dork said...

There will also be attrition. It will be larger than folks think if the economy improves and SPS doesn't! It's not appropriate to model straight-line growth.

dw said...

Data Dork is exactly right. (love that name, haha!)

Pick one of the two schools that you just swapped to HIMS feeder path (either Bagley or Greenwood, whichever gives better #s) and leave them be. In fact that's better, it will be even one less change!

Really looking forward to the #s. I think we're honing in on something.

Anonymous said...

Lynn,
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your questions, but yes, we do live in HIMS AA. I do not know what we would have chosen to do if APP was not at Hamilton, since that was not the choice we had to make. I suppose we would have toured both school and see which one fits bette, like we did with elementary.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 7:37 is me. Sorry, annoying verification ate my sig.

CCA

Ok with JM said...

Lynn, I get why you asked. CCA, see your comment at 5:44. You can stay at your AA MS if APP all leaves for JM. Be thankful you have that choice! And, before you respond, go read your 5:44 comment first.

Anonymous said...

and my r - better. I do wonder what the parents of the children who are going to these other schools- Bagley, Greenwood, Adams etc. think about APP parents moving their kids around to make the best scenario for APP!

CCA

Sea of Schools said...

Eden, thank you for being another check for the number verification. From what I've surmised, the JAMS community and potential families (including my own) would be okay with a manageable portable number with new in-building classrooms for two years to avoid a roll up. And the crowding at Eckstein would decline at a slower rate for the next two years and then decrease to ideal numbers when JA K-8 moves to Pinehurst. If this scenario ends up working out from all angles at a capacity point of view, I would like to include a list of cons (as you and other HIMS AA families have stated) to such a proposition, as to avoid being bias in any shape or form.

Again thanks to everyone for their comments!

Anonymous said...

Ok with JM, I AM thankful I have that choice, do YOU, and all APP parents, not ALSO have the choice of going back to YOUR comprehensive AA MS?

CCA

Anonymous said...

@ Eden

In response to "Sea of Schools' post, you posted this:

"Ok, so I ran it the way you described...
JAMS: 200 over in 2015"

Please clarify that you did your calculations based upon a co-housing arrangement of JA K-8 plus a two-year roll-up of JAMS, with John Rogers, Olympic Hills/Cedar Park and Olympic View in the feeder pattern. Of course all the proposed boundaries for those schools are different than they are currently, so I would imagine it would be difficult to model?

At any rate, you've come up with numbers that are almost 300 students less than the District projections, from the last Growth Boundaries draft, for the JAMS/JA K-8 co-location using the same feeder schools (w/o APP), though with slightly different elementary boundaries. This translates to about 10 fewer portables needed at Jane Addams than what was projected by SPS, and probably no need for the quad modular core space, either!

Wow!

Yes, that was a sarcastic "wow." I'm sorry. I know you mean well, at least I hope you do, but I'm not sure why you feel that your analysis is more accurate than the one presented by SPS a month ago? I am starting to doubt your intentions, as well, because you continually downplay the impact on the JAMS and JA K-8 families in your wide-sweeping analyses.

Who knows though, perhaps the concept of a parking lot middle school with 400+ elementary kids in it will be enough to drive JAMS enrollment down by a couple of hundred kids, or maybe everyone assigned to JAMS will get a feeder pattern tiebreaker to Eckstein, or head to Shoreline? Were those possibilities somehow factored into your model?

- North-end Mom

Anonymous said...

Sea of schools, there are also 4 possible in building classrooms available in the k-8 building currently with repurposing. So I think the portables number is able to be kept reasonable, not a parking lot school, especially assuming we are right and the JAMS projections are currently high. Really looking forward to seeing whatever you propose (and again I appreciate everyone thinking about this).

-sleeper

dw said...

CCA,

Please understand, if this proposal magically does come to fruition, and APP gets to stay intact (well, only 1/2 intact at this point) outside of HIMS and you make the decision to stay in the HIMS building because you value proximity over the academics and cohort that come with APP, I would absolutely support that decision. It is your choice as a parent and as a family. I just wanted to point out that I've heard parents complain about logistics and potential logistics over the years and frankly the plans to leave APP rarely materialize because they usually opt for academics and cohort. Perhaps this time will be different, but when the chips finally settle and friendships and class offerings are on the line, well, it's your call.

Again, your choice, fully supported; just don't complain if/when APP is not in your neighborhood building, because it's not intended (and doesn't make sense) to be a program in every neighborhood. It's really just a freak of luck for you that it has been in your neighborhood for the past 4 years. Consider it as an exceptional gift for you during this time, because it's not the case for almost everyone else in the city, and there won't be a lot of sympathy for you when it does move because it simply means you're faced with the same questions everyone else is faced with year after year, i.e. which is more important to me, neighborhood and convenience or academics and cohort. That is the bottom line.

For me, I'm ready to sacrifice the balance of my kid's (short term) stability in that building for the long-term viability of a program that is being ripped apart. For kids who really, truly, need this program, what's happening is a disaster. If neighborhood proximity is more important to you, as a family, then by definition you're not in that classification, which is fine. But if APP splits again, it's pretty much over (some would argue it already is). That's why I'm so much in favor of this proposal.

Ok with jm said...

CCA, with respect, the ideal thing for APP is staying at HIMS. Since that's not an option, I think everyone's comments are actually quite respectful to the kids at the schools you mention. There are many, many people commenting that they would put their kids through something less than desirable to benefit all the other SPS kids. I haven't seen one negative suggestion for bagley, greenwood or Adams kids.

dw said...

CCA said: I do wonder what the parents of the children who are going to these other schools- Bagley, Greenwood, Adams etc. think about APP parents moving their kids around to make the best scenario for APP!

I take a little offense at this comment. If it was better for APP, but significantly worse for other communities and schools I don't think I could support it. But at least from what I'm seeing right now, this seems much better for virtually all other communities, with the possible exception of one elementary that gets re-routed to HIMS, which I think was going to happen in one of the SPS plans anyway, and a small number of HIMS families that might not want to make the move along with their cohort. In the big picture of school district reshuffling, that's incredibly non-disruptive.

Plus, it helps prevent other schools around the north end from facing stupid capacity issues down the road because the the "problem" is contained at one facility. Win-win.

I'm not naive enough to think there aren't still some hidden gotchas, but I haven't seen them yet. And rest assured, if the kids currently in APP at HIMS get to stay put, my kid will have a wonderful time finishing out MS there. Just want to reiterate that I'm NOT doing this for selfish reasons, in fact, it's quite the opposite.

Sea of Schools said...

Eden, maybe this question is for you, in 2016 if JAMS had feeder schools of: Cedar Park, Olympic Hills, Olympic View, John Rogers, and Sacajawea, would Wedgewood need to move from Eckstein to JAMS service area? If or if not, JAMS would be much more balanced in terms of racial and F+R L numbers from what I am seeing.

Anonymous said...

Is returning to your neighborhood school really an option after having been in APP? Wouldn't it be like repeating a grade? Just "pick up" high school math and science? Um, ok.

Anonymous said...

Wedgwood to JAMS?! Just stop. Stop making suggestions for other people's kids. A good portion of Wedgwood is out of the JAMS walk zone, but well within Eckstein's.

Unknown said...

SEA of Schools, Data Dork and North Seattle Mom--

I had to step out to do dinner and bed time, and it's late so please forgive the brevity.

For all the reasons I've explained, the idea of moving all of APP to JM and co-housing JAK8 with JAMS does NOT work from a capacity stand point. Bagley and Greenwood, either of them cause HIMS to go over capacity in a couple of years. co-housing JAMS with JAk8 will result in not a couple of portables, but 400-600 kids will need to be housed in portables.

And Yes, the model does not show growth. It is based simply on the butts that were in seats in 2012-13. The numbers I'm providing do not show any growth. Yes, JAK8 already has portables. Because they are already overloaded. And trying to put more MS kids there will mean more portables.

Why don't these numbers match the districts projections? Because they do their projection analysis based on a different methodology. We don't have enough visibility into that methodology to either validate or invalidate.

All we have done is take the REAL enrollment numbers from 2012-13 and move those kids into the respective middle schools. I've not mis-represented any of this, and the output is not biased. It just is what it is.

My fast post about the results of the scenario that SEA provided is what it is. I'm sorry the output of the model does not match your ideal.

Again, this is not back of the envelope scratches, and it isn't biased data. It simply models the scenario that is provided.

I know you don't know me, and you aren't looking at the model and you don't know that my husband's work is highly regarded. But I do, and I personally wouldn't put something out that I didn't think was solidly based in fact.

Thanks for the conversation, and discussion, and most of all the civility today!!!!!

Eden

Unknown said...

Sorry, North End Mom to respond to this:

"Please clarify that you did your calculations based upon a co-housing arrangement of JA K-8 plus a two-year roll-up of JAMS, with John Rogers, Olympic Hills/Cedar Park and Olympic View in the feeder pattern. Of course all the proposed boundaries for those schools are different than they are currently, so I would imagine it would be difficult to model?"

Yes, I modeled it exactly as SEA of Schools stated. I can't exactly state the magnitude of the impact of the boundary changes, but it is likely a relatively small impact because of the feeder school tie breaker.

However, it could create a much bigger overage for HIMS than stated if now there are many more kids in attendance area that previously went to Whitman schools, AND not only do the actual kids with butts in seats from bagely and Greenwood feed in to HIMS, but so do a few hundred other kids.

We could go on, but I need some sleep. thanks again for engaging in this discussion.

Eden

Anonymous said...

Reposting for anonymous who did not sign...not my words exactly but akin to what I said earlier albeit more passionately and have to agree.

Anonymous said...

Wedgwood to JAMS?! Just stop. Stop making suggestions for other people's kids. A good portion of Wedgwood is out of the JAMS walk zone, but well within Eckstein's.

kp

dw said...

Eden,

You may not see this until morning, but I want to put it out here asap.

Your last comment at 10:10pm For all the reasons I've explained, the idea of moving all of APP to JM and co-housing JAK8 with JAMS does NOT work from a capacity stand point. Bagley and Greenwood, either of them cause HIMS to go over capacity in a couple of years.

Is inconsistent with the data you presented at 6:14pm
HIMS: with in reason next year, but climbing over up to 400 over by 2018
JAMS: 200 over in 2015
Eckstein: 100-200 0ver for 2014-2016
Whitman: under by 200-400 from 2014 on


If you use this last model, but pull just ONE school back from HIMS to Whitman (say Greenwood), that distributes things almost perfectly even if you use the same yearly ranges. This is what both Data Dork and I suggested, and I would really like to see that result set, spelled out just like this one.

It should be easy to change one assumption and copy out the results, could you do that please? Thanks!

Data dork said...

Some think my work is respected, too. :) I also have enormous respect for many other capacity and facility geeks who I've followed on this blog for years.

I've run my own models and have no skin in this game.

Putting APP all at John Marshall then WPMS and changing a few feeder schools to Hamilton, works well, is the least disruptive for the gened/neighborhood kids (other than in the NNE) and best balances the FRL population if done thoughtfully. I wish there was a good solution for the NNE, but the capacity issues are too great. I don't feel the need to list specific schools since I believe SPS can handle that task if this plan seems viable to them.

Data dork said...

By the way, please note, I said best balances FRL not balances FRL. Given the location of the largest FRL populations, it is not possible to keep schools as neighborhood schools and also balance FRL.

Unknown said...

OK DW--

I should be sleeping but I got pulled back in.

So, I moved Greenwood back into Whitman and left Bagely at HIMS The rest stays the same as before

Eckstein: each year over from 2013to 2015 131, 171, and 188 respectively. that is ADITIONAL portables. It does drop in 2016

HIMS: slightly over in 2016 (17), and climbs to 156 and 244 in 2017 and 2018. There is no room for portables at HIMS, so this is NOT workable. (and if it was possible to run HIMS over like this, then there is no justification for APP leaving in the first place.)

JAMS: over in 2014 by 109 and in 2015 by 279

Data dork, I'm certain you are super bright and run good numbers. I'm just actually focused on helping to find the best solution for the whole north end, not just APP. If they put JAK8 at JM, there is no space to put APP at JM too.

If they don't, there will need to be many more portables at JAMS and Eckstein is still overcrowded beyond what the current portables manage. I don't think it is cool to add 6 more portables to Eckstein. Do you?

Their proposed solution to the NNE capacity is to put JAK8 at JM and start JAMS next year.

The numbers don't show that the all of "APP at JM until 2017" is a good solution. I'm sorry. I would rather there be a solution that could keep APP MS together at one site.

Eden

Anonymous said...

@Eden

Just so we are clear.
I am in total agreement that there is NO room at Jane Addams to co-house JAMS, JA K-8 and APP. That scenario was presented last month, and frankly bombed. It required filling the entire JA parking lot with up to 23 portables and purchasing an expensive modular core space with bathrooms.

The option of co-housing JA K-8 with JAMS, with no APP, was also presented last month by SPS, and was projected to require 15-17 portables plus modular core space. That is the equivalent of housing a school the size of John Rogers in the JA parking lot. Could it be done? Maybe. Is it appropriate? I don't think so.

I understand that you are using last year's data, but you continue to ignore what others, including myself, have posted regarding growth at JA K-8. You also ignore the District's projections.

The Oct. 1 2012 count for JA K-8 was 581. I'm assuming this is the number you continue to use in your analyses?

Due, in part, to doubling their 6th grade class this year, enrollment has climbed at JA K-8 to somewhere around 760-780 students. It really did grow by almost 200 students! This number is reflected in SPS projections (Intermediate Capacity Management Plan), which have the program at 808 students for 2014-15 an 819 students in 2015-16. The enrollment is projected to climb as smaller classes are replaced by those at full program capacity.

These projections do not take into consideration any students who may leave the JA K-8 program, and, as such represent a high-end enrollment scenario for JA K-8. SPS needs to consider the high-end projections when placing a program at an interim site, so I'm OK with them using these numbers for their projections.

Earlier in this incredibly-long thread, Joe Wolf commented on how SPS calculated the projections for JAMS students. They do not use roll-ups from feeder pattern schools. They base their analyses on resident counts, because assignment is by address, not by feeder pattern.

For instance, from the 2012-13 data, you can estimate that there are 40 students in 5th grade this year at John Rogers. On the surface, it appears that the John Rogers contribution to JAMS' 6th grade class will be only 40 students.

If you dig a little deeper, you will find that a significant portion of 5th grade students who live in the John Rogers AA attend other attendance-area schools. I looked at this, and came up with over 90 5th graders hailing from the John Rogers attendance area. These kids will be assigned to JAMS, based upon their residence.

Many of these John Rogers resident 5th graders currently attend schools which will most-likely feed into Eckstein, so they can try for a feeder pattern tiebreaker to Eckstein if they do not wish to attend JAMS. I don't know if SPS made any corrections for this in their projections.

For those of us who will have a kid assigned to JAMS in the next couple of years, it is really annoying for you to continually post such low numbers in comparison to what SPS has projected for co-housing at Jane Addams. You are hundreds of kids low in your projections, and yet you continue to present these numbers as if they are based on reality, when, in fact, they are not.

You are giving the impression that implementing JAMS is as simple as assigning a few kids to a K-8, so that you can use the John Marshall building to house APP. We want a proper comprehensive middle school for our kids, and since that is the default pathway in SPS, it really shouldn't be too much to ask.

- North-end Mom

Sea of Schools said...

Thank you for all the discussion yesterday and out of pure exhaustion, I have to pull out of this thread. However, I hope that discussion around alternative proposals will continue and have passed my information and all your comments on to a new set of community members who seem ready to create an alternate plan to meet all student needs.

Again, thank you! I really learned a lot from yesterday's discussion.

Anonymous said...

wow, this thread is quite a wild ride, and after reading through it, it does look like Eden is biased against moving APP out of HIMS. When modeling and throwing out numbers, the appearance of bias is important. I am glad to see data dork stepping in. I was wondering if Eden might release her spreadsheet so that others could work through her models and possibly plug in their own numbers. this would increase transparency. Maybe data dork could do the same. I was thinking of building my own - they are time consuming to build but not hard to build if you do this sort of work. But I would rather not re-invent the wheel.

I feel strongly that APP needs a stand-alone school, co-housed with an option program, where there will be consistent teaching (no flipping between app and gened classes) and the program can stop competing with attendance area kids for space. Make the option attractive, and the program (once it has a building) will draw middle school students from overcrowded schools. none of the models consider this.

NNE is a harder nut to crack than the rest of north Seattle.

-uncertain

Anonymous said...

I don't know if it's necessarily intentional bias (I'm willing to give you, Eden, the benefit of the doubt) but I think it's the way you answer to the other suggestions/proposals. Bottom line, your reponses tend to be a flat out NO. I think we'd rather all hear how it can work, not just that it can't work. I think we can all determine if there are too many IFs and conditions necessary for our preferred solution to work...Sea of Schools has a proposal that seems to have a lot of support. But, I'm not hearing how it can work or even necessarily why it can't work...only that the model says it doesn't.

So, sticking with this latest idea, what needs to happen for it to work? Can your model be helpful in showing us the answer to that?

kp

jujubee said...

Wow! A wild ride indeed!

@North-end Mom, you said to Eden: “You are giving the impression that implementing JAMS is as simple as assigning a few kids to a K-8, so that you can use the John Marshall building to house APP.”

I might be mistaken (sorry, I didn’t have the time to re-read all of the posts) but I don’t think Eden is suggesting that APP go to John Marshall. On the contrary, she has been pretty clear that her simulations indicate the proposal to move all of the north APP middle school students to John Marshall is NOT the best solution, from a capacity standpoint.

For those who feel Eden has a bias: I don’t know Eden personally, and I don’t want to speak for her, but it seems like she’s very open to sharing her output and methods. Would it be possible to set up a way for Eden to share more details? I’m not savvy enough to know whether what I’m suggesting is easy or oversteps the boundaries of what people feel comfortable doing, but it feels more productive than discounting everything Eden proposes just because there’s a perception of bias.

Finally, I really appreciate all of the ideas and discussion here. I have an APP 6th grader at HIMS, and right now I am uncertain of the best solution. Well, maybe at this point it’s not a matter of finding the “best” solution, but instead, of finding the least worst solution? Sounds like all north end middle schoolers are going to be put in less-than-ideal situations (crowded, starting new schools, etc.). I have high hopes that the discussion here will illuminate a solution that will not make any one population bear a disproportionate amount of the pain. Thanks!

jujubee

apparent said...

Reopening John Marshall Middle School . . .

"I would rather there be a solution that could keep APP MS together at one site." Eden, 10/17 @12.58am

"The SPS staff-calculated capacity for John Marshall:
- Housing a middle school program: 952
- Housing a K-8 program: 850
Happy to share other data info from Capital Planning." Joe Wolf,
K-12 Planning Coordinator, SPS, jawolf@seattleschools.org

There is indeed one obvious solution that will *permanently* keep all of north Seattle MS APP together at one site, not just on an interim basis. It stares us all in the face, yet only now do we return its gaze.

John Marshall was originally built as a middle school and it should be used now to keep all of the north Seattle MS APP together without needlessly splitting this cohort any further. Establishing JM from the outset as its own comprehensive middle school including all of north Seattle APP together with Pinehurst or some other right-sized option program ensures full music, sport, etc., so there will be little attrition or loss of critical academic mass. Like Wilson-Pacific Elementary, John Marshall Middle School is ideally located for families both northeast and northwest.

In the long term, a reopened John Marshall Middle School is large enough to include all of the north Seattle MS APP cohort, even accepting the wildly inflated and unsupported number increase projected by SPS (which the board should treat with more than a grain of salt). The revised decision is now being made to maintain the north Seattle ES APP cohort intact at Wilson-Pacific, seemingly meeting with popular approval as evidenced by these threads. SPS will win corresponding popular support for keeping MS APP intact at a revived John Marshall Middle School and thus relieving MS capacity pressure elsewhere throughout all north Seattle neighborhoods.

While moving all of north Seattle MS APP to the reopened John Marshall Middle School makes perfect sense as a permanent solution, by keeping the entire cohort and ideally teaching staff intact it would also make sense even as an interim solution in the event that any later move should ever occur. For example, to Wilson-Pacific MS, although SPS staff are not pointing in that direction, nor does there seem to be a continued unified chorus on these threads identifying an intact MS WP cohort as a realistic likelihood since the revised ES WP choice was announced. Yet starting John Marshall Middle School as a (brand?) new (in fact reopened!) comprehensive middle school including the intact APP cohort does not foreclose any such continuing deliberations; rather at a very minimum it buys the district as many years of time as it needs to do this right.

Once the necessary decision to reopen John Mashall Middle School now as a comprehensive middle school including APP is made, many if not most of the neighborhood capacity issues raised in these threads will be significantly relieved or sometimes eliminated; and like ES APP the MS APP program will flourish into the future without needless splitting.

Eden and others, thank you for all your hard work modelling these numbers, as evidenced by your after midnight post, but can we all please do this one more time on the revised assumption that John Marshall Middle School is reopened now as a comprehensive middle school including an intact north Seattle APP?

Joe Wolf, thanks so much for reading, chiming in, and helping us out with the numbers, I really hope and other SPS capacity planners are still reading this, and will bring this proposal to reopen John Marshall Middle School as its own new fully comprehensive MS with you to the work session this afternoon and beyond, and that you will eventually present it as the favored option to the board.

Anonymous said...

Sigh. Look, my children, while very capable cognitively, have challenges with social skills. One thinks very quickly, and is very impatient with others who do not. She gets extremely rude! Adults and teachers love her, kids who have been victims of her rudeness, not so much. With our others, we have bossiness, precociousness, extreme need to get their way, beliefs that they are always right. They do not work and play well with others without a lot of coaching and reminders. We have been working on these problems for years, and they are getting better, but slowly! The skills do not come naturally. Do I want them back in Gen Ed to be snappy and bossy to other kids? NO! But the reality is THERE IS NO ROOM, and NOT ENOUGH MONEY to build more schools. Everyone is going to be getting less than what is desired. We have to make do, unless we can miraculously find more seats. So unless one of the many gazillionaires who live here step up and donate 3-4 buildings suitable for schools in this next year, we must deal with the realities of less than desirable choices. I just think that we in APP, who are NOT working 2-3 jobs, or living in unsafe neighborhoods, would have more time and energy to deal with the challenges. So it is not cool for us to advocate for our program by suggesting that other communities get moved around and slotted in here and there so APP can have its own school and stay together. Greenwood, Bagley and Adams might not want to go to Hamilton. Adams, especially, is an arts based curriculum school. Those kids usually want Whitman and Ballard, which have excellent TV and film programs. And if they come to Hamilton, what happen to high school, when they are going to lose 80% of their friends who go to Roosevelt? I'm sure other schools also have concerns and preferences. It is very presumptuous to be making plans for their assignments. And to Dw, Lynn and any others who might wonder, we are fully prepared to deal with APP being removed fron Hamilton, we knew this could happen, as do the rest of you! There is no buyer's remorse here.

CCA

Anonymous said...

The single site APP actually benefits both APP and GenEd kids so is a win-win.

1. Regarding Bagley and Greenwood kids: Under this plan, they would be assigned a comprehensive school rather than the dreadful sixth grade roll-up, and they would be going with their classmates. So this plan is better for them. Families with kids already at Whitman could request reassignment for consistency within families.

2. Regarding high school assignment: Assigment is based on address, not middle school placement. The Bagley/Greenwood kids would go to Ballard together (along with West Woodland and BF Day), so no change there.

-uncertain

Option mom said...

As an option school parent, the APP stand alone site is a win in my mind as well. I do not want an option program placed w/APP to take up the "leftover" space in the building, to be squeezed smaller and smaller every year as APP grows. Not fair to have two programs in a building, one with guaranteed space and one with caps.

Lynn said...

APP, Pinehurst and Cascade Parent Partnership at Marshall next year? Then move Pinehurst into the Old TC building when it's available.
Could we backfill HIMS with JAMS 6th grade students next year? (Assuming empty seats after moving APP out.)

apparent said...

On reopening John Marshall Middle School as a fully comprehensive middle school now . . .

Requesting indulgence for this following post on a very important topic, for speed and efficiency let me try to refute now the most likely objections to *reopening* John Marshall Middle School as its own fully comprehensive middle school asap including the north Seattle APP community intact.

1. "Needed as Interim Site"?
This has been claimed in the past, but the claim is mathematically incoherent. Every student must be seated somewhere and by definition putting every enrolled MS APP student together with some other program into the reopened John Marshall Middle School will release an exactly equal number of seats elsewhere in the system in whatever school building that can then be released for "interim" use as north seattle school construction projects continue without interruption. Moreover, we should always search for long-term rather than interim capacity solutions: this would remove a major source of neighborhood instability; and if necessary, SPS can find new buildings like the old Mohai museum, the University Heights School Building which they recently sold for $1.00 (like the nearby Ravenna School building around the same time), or rent buildings or use eminent domain as needed for interim use.

2. "Won't Solve Capacity Crunch Elsewhere"
This has been claimed in the current discussion of alternatives to the draft Intermediate Capacity Plan. This claim too is mathematically incoherent. After reopening John Marshall Middle School, vacated APP seats at Hamilton MS, for example, can obviously be filled by other programs or else adjusting neigborhood boundaries. As one obvious example, keep Laurelhurst Elementary feeding into Hamilton as it does now instead of shifting it to Eckstein under the current proposal, others can easily be devised by the plenty smart SPS planners and engaged community already working on this together.

3. "Proximity to Freeway"?
This has been claimed in the past, but it is an unprincipled argument unless its environmentalist advocates also advocate shutting down TOPS K-8 and John Stanford International School, both of which stand closer to I-5 and go unchallenged. A counter argument in the environmentalist literature condemns the abandonment of historic school buildings including John Marshall Middle School in favor of constant new construction with major environmental damage. It is also easy to visualize the necessary filtering systems, a solid freeway barrier, and a dense stand of tall columnar trees as obvious measures, maybe with some federal financing?

4. "APP Family Approval"?
This claim is unsupported by the voices on these threads, and indeed was specfically posed to APP families in the PTA survey taken when previously threatened with splitting: a clear majority (no time to check percentage right now) favored the John Marshall Middle School building over elementary splitting. The same middle school sentiment appears on these threads.

5. "Equity"?
This claim may be raised, although the decision to keep north Seattle APP ES together at Wilson-Pacific is being made while south Seattle would be split with two additional options. Since enrollment is guaranteed to all qualified students, and a separate task force is now looking and outreach, there is no reason why reopening John Marshall Middle School cannot enhance advanced learning equity in north Seattle.

Apart from those above, is there any stronger objection to reopening John Marshall Middle School including north Seattle MS APP intact?

Anonymous said...

@ Lynn
You wrote this:
"Could we backfill HIMS with JAMS 6th grade students next year?"

So you are suggesting that we go back to busing north-end kids to Hamilton...kind of like pre-NSAP?

FYI. JAMS has an actual planning principal. I'm pretty sure she would like to plan an actual middle school, and not figure out how to use her students as filler for another middle school.

Also, I haven't been following the argument to open John Marshall as a permanent APP site very closely, but I think it is possible that they might need the John Marshall building for a Roosevelt 9th grade annex again someday.

- North-end Mom

Lynn said...

But what about the comprehensive high school experience?

Anonymous said...

@ Lynn
The John Marshall building was used as a Roosevelt 9th grade annex back in the 70's. I'm not advocating for it to become a 9th grade annex, but if it becomes a choice between HS in shifts and a 9th grade annex, then the annex doesn't sound so bad. It might be prudent to leave our options open, since Lincoln won't come online as a high school until 2019.

dw said...

North-end mom, I'll presume this was you, even though there wasn't a name attached, so I'll quote you: The John Marshall building was used as a Roosevelt 9th grade annex back in the 70's. I'm not advocating for it to become a 9th grade annex, but if it becomes a choice between HS in shifts and a 9th grade annex, then the annex doesn't sound so bad. It might be prudent to leave our options open, since Lincoln won't come online as a high school until 2019.

To be sure, there are NO scenarios where John Marshall will be held aside for a Roosevelt Annex "just in case". In fact, there are no scenarios where JM will not be used immediately, period.

With that in mind, placing APP at JM intact for the next couple years until either WP opens and/or the changes to APP identification and services become clear, is easily the best option for the most kids in the north end.

It might seem selfish to fight to keep APP together, but this move will also help other buildings be less adversely affected over the next few years than other plans, which include these 6th grade roll-ups. It allows for the easiest balance of overcrowding (not perfect, but better balance), and more flexibility to make other changes over the next couple years because lets be honest, all the predictions and modeling in the world isn't going to be perfect. There are going to necessarily be some other adjustments over the next 3-4 years, and having APP in one building is going to make that easier.

dw said...

I don't know if it's necessarily intentional bias (I'm willing to give you, Eden, the benefit of the doubt) but I think it's the way you answer to the other suggestions/proposals. Bottom line, your reponses tend to be a flat out NO. I think we'd rather all hear how it can work, not just that it can't work.
....
Can your model be helpful in showing us the answer to that?


I was wondering if Eden might release her spreadsheet so that others could work through her models and possibly plug in their own numbers. this would increase transparency. Maybe data dork could do the same. I was thinking of building my own - they are time consuming to build but not hard to build if you do this sort of work. But I would rather not re-invent the wheel.

I too would like to see and work with these models.

The problem I'm having is that it's not just the inputs and assumptions; the reality is far too complex to expect perfect models. But they are a good starting point, and the ability to optimize for optimal (sorry, "better") outcomes is part of that. But most of all, the interpretation of the results.

Eden, the results that your own models are giving tell me and other people here that the best option is to move APP out of HIMS next year, intact. It gives the most flexibility to spread the overcrowding more evenly, it allows for fewer buildings to be adversely affected by APP in the coming years, and removes the need for multiple schools to have 6th grade roll-ups (which no one wants). You're saying it flat out doesn't work, but we're interpreting the results very differently, and you've sent your message with a rather hardline attitude. I'm pretty sure that's why you're being accused of bias, regardless of your hard work (which I think most of us appreciate).

One other thing I do want to bring up. You are relatively new to APP, and I think you have only elementary kid(s) at the moment. You haven't lived through threats, splits, moves, more threats, teachers being pushed out, teachers being purposely mixed between programs, etc. Year after year after year it's one thing after another, and middle school has a whole different set of problems than does elementary. At this stage in your "APP life" it's impossible for you (and many others) to understand how important it is to keep this program as intact as possible. Quite literally, the viability of the program in the coming years depends on it. If middle school splits, your kids will have a greatly reduced experience at that time (if APP even still exists, and yes I'm serious about this possibility). My kids will not be nearly as adversely affected as yours, and yet I'm fighting to keep the program alive for you and your kids' age peers.

In spite of all the evidence that this would be best for APP, if this proposal adversely affected huge swaths of gen ed kids in the north end I would not push for it. But it appears that it's actually beneficial to most of the other buildings and populations as well. Heck, it even gives the possibility of keeping Pinehurst alive.

Please consider sharing your models and/or looking at them with an open mind as to the interpretation of the results. Thanks.