Saturday, November 16, 2013

Seattle Schools School Board Meeting- November 20th

Here is the updated agenda for the Board meeting on Wednesday.   To sign up to speak, you must call (252-0040) or e-mail ( at 8 am on Monday morning.

To note:

- changes were made to the Pinehurst Action Item.  Kudos to parent John Chapman who crunched the numbers and made the query to staff about comparing the costs per student at Pinehurst versus other K-8s.  It went from about $3,000 more per student down to $1350 more per student.  (And again, Pinehurst's underenrollment - some of which can be related to the district's multiple attempts to close it or ignore it during enrollment - is driving that per student cost up.)

New recommendation includes possibly moving Pinehurst to Thornton Creek or JA K-8.

- revisions to the Growth Boundaries Action Item.  I have not read through these changes thoroughly so I'll ask readers to let us know what they are (and possible implications). 

Somehow there are 15 amendments on the docket which surprises me because I thought more got whittled down.  I see at least one new one which is #9 from Director Patu wanting to NOT change any APP pathways for her district.

- the Intermediate Capacity Management Plan has also been revised and again, I have not read through it.

Update: parent Julie van Arcken believes there are several errors in the Growth Boundaries Action Report.  To whit:

"I know you had to work quickly on this; I think there may be errors/omissions in this version of the document:

1) On Page 1 (section V1) of the Action Report, it says "I move that the Board approve the attendance area boundaries (Growth Boundaries), feeder patterns, and option school GeoZones as shown in Attachment A to the Board Action Report and direct the Superintendent to take any appropriate actions to implement this decision, including authorization for the staff to make minor clean-up or correction adjustments to boundary and GeoZone maps."

However, Slide 4 of the presentation for the 11/13 Growth Boundaries work session states that "Board action will be needed each year to determine whether to implement specific boundary changes and/or feeder patterns for subsequent years." (

Based on the new assumption announced 11/13, shouldn't Section V1 say:
"I move that the Board approve the attendance area boundaries (Growth Boundaries), feeder patterns, and option school GeoZones as shown in Attachment A to the Board Action Report and direct the Superintendent to take any appropriate actions to implement this decision for the 2014-15 school year only, including authorization for the staff to make minor clean-up or correction adjustments to boundary and GeoZone maps. Board action will be needed each year to determine whether to implement specific boundary changes and/or feeder patterns for subsequent years."

2) On Page 2 (section V2) of the Action Report, it says "Zone 3 to Van Asselt." Is this supposed to say "Zone 7" to Van Asselt?

3) Didn't Betty Patu instruct staff to change her Amendment 8, to clarify she wants to rescind recommended changes for both the 2014-15 school year as well as in subsequent years? Why isn't that reflected in Amendment 8?"

We'll have to see what reply she gets.


Joe Wolf said...

Good morning - FYI, the two major revisions to my BAR (Intermediate Term Capacity Management Plan) are:

- All narrative and maps/attachments related to recommended 2014-15 boundary adjustments have been transferred to Tracy's BAR.

- We have revised the recommendation around the 2016-17 opening of Wilson-Pacific MS in an interim site (John Marshall). That recommendation is now qualified with the statement "only if needed to address capacity management". In other words the leading recommendation now is to open Wilson-Pacific MS in 2017-18 at its new, permanent campus. A 2016-17 opening at Marshall is still an option if enrollment at Whitman and Hamilton grows significantly beyond current projections.

The next obvious questions are: What would trigger the 2016-17 Marshall option, and what is the process/timeline for arriving at a decision one way or the other. We need time and school/community input to work through both issues. But again, staff prefers a 2017-18 opening.

This revision is daylighted in Section VII and Attachment 3.

Plesse drop me a message at if you have questions on my BAR. Questions on the Growth Boundary BAR should be directed to Tracy.

Anonymous said...

We went to the PTSA meeting at Arbor Heights elementary last Thursday, and Marty McClaren mentioned that Fairmount Park in WS would likely not be opening in Fall 2014. I'm confused about this. Am I understanding correctly? Why would the building not open? Is it due to construction delay, or not wanting to rush the opening as a new neighborhood school? The principal also said that the majority of the Arbor Heights students would be in portables during the interim co-housing with K5/K8 STEM at Boren. This sounds like a terrible plan for both schools. If EC Hughes isn't available until 2015, is there any discussion to use Fairmount Park at an interim site for Arbor Heights 2014-16 if they are not ready to create a new neighborhood boundary for Fairmount Park?


Anonymous said...

Joe-there's some confusion around APP and WP or Whitman? Can you clarify?


Charlie Mas said...

There is, again, an item for introduction and action on the agenda, the collective bargaining agreement with the Principals' association.

It is bad form for the Board to introduce and act on motions at the same meeting. Doing so robs the public of the opportunity to offer input on motions and robs the Board of the value of that input. It is contrary to the Board's stated values of transparency and engagement. It also robs the Board of additional needed time to consider motions.

It should only be done when the action is extraordinarily urgent and immediate action is in the best interest of the District. Even in those cases, the Board owes the public an explanation of the urgency and a justification for the short-cut. No such explanation or justification is offered in the Board Action Report. In fact, the BAR doesn't even make reference to it.

There is no urgency here. The principals are not going to walk off the job if their CBA goes another couple weeks before it's approved. There is no urgency, and the motion should not be introduced and acted upon at the same meeting.

Charlie Mas said...

Principal evaluation and accountability are a keen concern for the public.

Here is a summary of the changes in the Principals' Collective Bargaining Agreement.

I'm not impressed. This accountability is not nearly as sharp as the accountability for teachers or students.

Anonymous said...

I'm not understanding the new growth boundaries action document. In the NE, it looks like JAMS is not opening in fall 2014, and JA K-8 is staying in the JA building. Does anyone else read it this way?

Anonymous said...

Nevermind. I think I figured it out. Boundaries in NE (for middle school) same as before but WW to Eckstein, right? What about APP?


Anonymous said...

This is so complicated - much more complicated than the choice plan ever was. There are some very energized parent groups, who will get what they want, and other groups that won't know what hit them until it is over.

I think I know where my 3rd grader and 5th grader will end up for middle school (we are in WP boundary), but I can't say for certain.

And then we get to do this all over again when my 5th grader heads to high school. I really wish the board would consider these changes and upcoming high school changes together. Some parts of the city are going to be slammed by both of these changes.


Lynn said...


I'm sure Fairmount Park is opening next fall - it's still included in the list of boundary changes for 2013-14 on the growth boundaries BAR. I think Marty was saying that the school won't be an APP site next year.

Lynn said...

There's no mention of APP in the growth boundaries BAR or it's attachments. The NE and NE middle school borders have changed so that Wedgwood is at Eckstein and Whittier and Viewlands remain at Whitman. That leaves space at JAMS, WP and possibly Hamilton for APP students. The ITCM north middle school appears to support this three-way split.

Unless the percentage of North End middle school students increases, there will be about 630 students for those three programs. They'll probably move APP out of Hamilton when WP opens.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Charlie, what the heck? I completely missed that the Principals CBA is intro/action.

No, no and no. Everyone deserves to look at this CBA and comment (and the principals are getting some good stuff here).

Joe, we ALL thank you for (obviously) working on the weekend. But the newest version of the plan does not have a red-line version so that changes can be compared and I think you can see the confusion/questions this is generating.

There is also concern that the wording of the amendments (not your concern but to say it out loud) is not tight enough. It's my experience that when the wording is not solid, there tends to be confusion later on.

Joe Wolf said...

Kris and WS Q: In response to your questions -

APP middle school recommendations - North Seattle. The current staff recommendation is to place APP cohorts at JAMS (serving JAMS and Eckstein service areas) and Wilson-Pacific (serving Wil-Pac and Whitman service areas). Retain APP at Hamilton; cohort will drop in size twice, in 2014-15 (NE to JAMS) and in 2017-18 (NW to Wil-Pac).

WS Q: I am pretty darn certain Fairmount Park Elementary is opening next fall. Many folks are working to make that happen, and none of us have been told of a change in plans. The community overall seems OK with the attendance boundary recommendation; my guess is that it or something close will be approved this Wednesday.

Re. Boren, Arbor Heights two-year co-location with STEM: It is true that a fair amount of the unclaimed gen ed classroom space at Boren will be in the row of portables on the east side of the building. Other specialty classrooms and support areas will be in the main building. I encourage you to visit the site and the spaces that AH will be in. The project to open and update Boren was headed by Jeanette Iminishi, who is also managing the Fairmount Park reno/expansion project. She does great work.

Joe Wolf said...

Melissa: No worries. We're all working this weekend, I think.

Not to excuse BAR revision protocol, but yesterday afternoon was a bit nutty and a lot changes being submitted to us up to the last minute. In my BAR all new text should be in blue and underlined, and all redacted text should be in red and lined out. Tracy is the contact/resource for her BAR.

Anonymous said...

@ Joe Wolf,

All due respect to the amount of work you all have had to do in a short amount of time, but unfortunately the actual BAR's don't correspond to your description and it is causing us all confusion. I think it might be time to consult with the General Counsel on if these BARs regarding the Growth Boundaries and Intermediate capacity plans are in compliance with board policy adoption rules.

Here is why:
There is no motion in Tracy's BAR that requests that the board approve any specific 2014-15 plan. The first motion in the GB BAR specifically states that the approval is for attachment "A" which, for example, does not include the description of the APP pathways. The second motion in the BAR only references some specific boundary areas. It does not request the board to approve "Growth Boundaries Implementation for 2014-15." which has not been posted yet, and replaces the previous attachment B titled “reference materials”

Today leaves only 2 working days before the board meeting, and policy 1420 requires that materials be posted 3 working days in advance of the meeting. AND this attachment B in neither available, NOR is there a motion which will ask the board for approval. Therefore, procedurally, this attachment B which is NOT available as required, I don't think that it does what you say here: "- All narrative and maps/attachments related to recommended 2014-15 boundary adjustments have been transferred to Tracy's BAR."

I’m trying hard to write clearly, but this is challenging. So forgive me for the repeat, but without Tracy’s BAR stating a motion to approve the 2014-15 plan as described in the new attachment B, (to which the motion cannot be added now because the agenda is already posted with BAR’s and that motion was NOT included AND this information has not yet been provided) the only place where the "Growth Boundaries Implementation for 2014-15" (including APP placement) shows up on the action agenda is in amendments and in “your” BAR.

Additionally, “Your” BAR attachment here INCLUDES 2014:

AND this table conflicts with the language of approval of section VII. Which is it supposed to be? APP goes to Whitman, or APP goes to Wilson Pacific?

Please help clarify, and please do consult with general counsel. I am terribly confused.


JvA said...

I echo Eden's comments.

The Work Session presentation on Wednesday specifically called out that future Board approval on all post-2014 changes was a "CHANGE IN ASSUMPTIONS."

The word "change" indicates that this was NOT previously the plan. Therefore, the wording of the Recommended Motion itself needs to be updated. The Recommended Motion still states that the Board would authorize the Superintendent to implement all these changes.

This would not have been a late-breaking Friday change. This was published on Wednesday.

JvA said...

The latest version of the Growth Boundaries Board Action Report lists all the community input that the district has received about the growth boundaries plan. They say they've received 1,285 meeting comments, 400 "walk the boundaries" survey responses, 3,984 survey responses, 122 postcards, and "several thousand" emails.

If you count "several thousand" as 4,000, that's a total of 9,791 responses.

Given that the district has not done any outreach to the low-income and racially and linguistically diverse families in the Southeast, I was curious what percentage of responses came from the 5 lower Southeast grade schools in particular. All of these grade schools will have boundary changes by 2017, so all these communities will experience the kind of disruption that has the rest of the city up in arms.

The answer? The total number of comments from lower Southeast schools was 11. This represents 0.11% of responses citywide.

Based on the near-total lack of response, it's clear that the city has not engaged these communities about all the changes in store for them. In fact, at the Seattle Council PTSA meeting on Nov. 12, Superintendent Jose Banda announced to the group that "we missed the boat" on outreach to the diverse communities of the Southeast.

That is why the School Board must support Director Betty Patu's Amendment 8 to rescind all proposed changes for the Southeast, until she has time to work with the district to inform these communities and collect their input. There are no imminent capacity issues facing the Southeast, so there is no need to rush through any changes without engaging the affected communities.

See a table of this data, including diversity info about these schools, here:
5 Lower SE Grade Schools Send in 11 Comments Total

Anonymous said...

I'd like to also echo Julie's comments about the new language in the GB BAR.

This statement, in my opinion, will give staff the ability to change feeder patterns and boundaries at will. This takes away board oversight. This is fundamentally changing the role of the board and staff. This is INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS precedence to set.

"move that the Board approve the attendance area boundaries (Growth Boundaries),
feeder patterns, and option school GeoZones as shown in Attachment A to the Board
Action Report and direct the Superintendent to take any appropriate actions to implement
this decision, including authorization for the staff to make minor clean-up or correction
adjustments to boundary and GeoZone maps."

Minor clean up? what if "minor clean up" means taking 1/2 of the homes out of a given boundary? OOOPs, we didn't realize that there were 300 new town homes in the Ballard neighborhood because we don't include housing starts or data in our analysis. So we need to make a "minor adjustment" and move the boundary for Whittier by a 7 blocks on each side. ?!

If the board passes this GB plan as stated, things like this become fair game.



Joe Wolf said...

Eden and all:

I will contact Flip, Tracy and Ron (interim general counsel) via email this evening, direct them to this post and comment thread and include a brief synopsis of the concerns expressed. I'm going to refrain from any further comment here on Tracy's BAR

Eden: Regarding the conflict you related in my BAR/attachments: See my reply to Kris up-thread on staff's recommendations for middle school APP placement details.

Regarding Board policy and deadlines, I know the Board can and sometimes does approve s Monday post. And no, no one likes or wants to do that. But it is possible.

Josh Hayes said...

Let me just say how great it is that Joe Wolf is participating here: I know it can't be easy, but wow, it's great to have someone who actually WORKS FOR SPS and can say authoritative things. I know I speak for a lot of people here when I say how much I appreciate the effort. Thank you, Joe.

And, to stay on topic, I am for the first time feeling hopeful that AS1 will continue to exist, somewhere. Kudos to all those who continue to fight for this school.

Ragweed said...


The new Pinehurst action report does not offer alternatives of moving Pinehurst to Thornton Creek or Jane Addams K-8. It proposes priority tie-breakers to Pinehurst K-7 graders to TC and JAK8, but specifically shoots down the idea of any kind of significant co-location. Sine Thornton creek is already full and has a waitlist, and Jane Addams K-8 may or may not be full, it doesn't offer any sort of meaningful option for the 124stdents currently in those grades at PK8.

The new language in the BAR is like a theater of the absurd. We are told that option schools have a unique mission, vision, culture, history, etc. and that is why they cannot be co-located or merged. So its not OK to co-locate two programs because they have unique identities, instead you just have to shut one down.

It also talk about Montessori programs within some of the schools and says "the Montessori program is applied within selected classrooms, and does not impact the entire school culture and learning experience..." So it is OK to have a 3 classrooms with a completely different educational philosophy than the rest of the school, but it's not OK to have 7 classrooms with a different educational philosophy?


Lynn said...

I still have a question in to Tracy about those APP middle school projections. She has assumed that APP middle school enrollment in the North End will jump from 11% to 15% in four years. Unless she's anticipating that the identification process will be changing to make qualification easier, it just doesn't make sense.

Anonymous said...

Here is something I don't understand. There has been a lot of talk about splitting a lot of communities. Splitting App. Geo-splitting Eckstein. Splits with geographic zones vs feeder patterns.

Why hasn't there be any conversation about splitting the K8. Sending the K5 to interim and leaving the 6-8 in the Jane Addams building. It would seem that leaving the 6-8 in the building would solve a lot of problems with the whole 6th grade roll up and let everyone else finish at their current middle school. Did that happen and i just missed it?

- also confused

NEParent said...

@also confused -
What problems are solved by dismantling Jane Addams K-8?

John Sullivan said...

Now let me make sure I have this straight: Earlier this year the NE Middle School overcrowding was so life-threatening that people wanted JAK8 out of the building ASAP so JAMS could start this fall, and now suddenly you want to peel off their middle school because you don't have enough students?

Maybe it hasn't been proposed because most reasonable people would think it's a pretty crappy thing to do to JAK8.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Joe for all of that. Tracy actually has been great about trying to respond to questions, and apparently she was up at 1 am. That is dedication to SPS if I've ever seen it.

There is another issue with the BAR that is cause for concern. This is what I wrote back to Tracy:

"Thanks Tracy for e-mailing at 1 AM! I sent the attached e-mail yesterday as well with questions specific to the APP pathways and where they are in the BAR.

Again, I'm still confused and unclear on the APP pathway assignments and where they appear in the BAR. APP Pathways boundaries are school assignments. Yet, they are NOT included in the Attachment A. They have previously been included as "reference materials" in Attachment B (which does not have a motion in the BAR) have not been posted yet in this version.

Just yesterday when I was looking at this I realized that this omission of the APP pathway boundaries in the Attachment A, and the lack of a motion related to the Attachment “B” technically means that neither of these things up for a vote on Nov. 20.

Here is why:

The first motion in the BAR is to accept the "Attachment A" Specifically it states: "move that the Board approve the attendance area boundaries (Growth Boundaries), feeder patterns, and option school GeoZones as shown in Attachment A to the Board Action Report." Attachment A does not include the APP pathway boundaries or assignments. Since they are not included in the Attachment A, they are not up for a vote in that motion.

The second motion does not include APP pathway boundaries or reference any additional materials or attachments. "I further move that changes in attendance area boundaries and GeoZone be implemented beginning with assignments for 2014-15 for the following areas, as shown in Attachment A, pages 4 and 6:" This means that Attachment B now titled "Growth Boundaries Implementation for 2014-15" is NOT up for a vote. There are two motions in the BAR, and neither reference Attachment B.

I do think that general counsel needs to look at this. The motions in the BAR relates to specific actions. Neither the APP pathway boundary assignments NOR the "Growth Boundaries Implementation for 2014-15" are included in the two motions in the BAR

Further, the policy requires that this be posted by the Friday before a Wednesday board meeting. Joe stated that the board can approve a Monday post, but that is not indicated in the policy. If there is an exception to the policy that I’m not aware of, please let me know.

Thanks for all of your hard work, and for helping to bring some clarity to these issues."


Lynn said...


It's almost as if the Superintendent has finally realized the Board does not have responsibility for program placement. Maybe he's finally listening to Charlie?

Anonymous said...


Thanks, but I think you are missing the point.

--Option schools get geozones
--Neighborhood elementary schools get boundaries
--Middle schools get feeder patterns
--High schools are assigned by boundaries

AND APP is assigned by "pathway" which is defined by boundaries.

The current APP pathway boundaries are divided between the North and South for those respective pathways.

If this GB plan is voted in without amendments, those APP boundaries remain as they are.

It may be that the superintendent is responsible for program placement, but the board is responsible for approving boundaries.

The APP boundaries are not identified in this current plan. Neither are high school boundaries.

So they would be unchanged, unless one of the amendments includes boundaries for APP, which none of them do.


Anonymous said...

Eden: Board policies, Board votes, Board operational standards have been a mess for at least the decade I have watched them. Stated guidelines or even Roberts Rules of Order are unevenly applied. Make a legal mistake? Attn. English will have it all smoothed over with legalese that every member will read at the next meeting.

You won't get anywhere on the APP and enrollment issues by trying to argue about BAR reports and voting technicalities. Your naiveté is on display.


Anonymous said...

See Attachment A for what the GB proposal is that is being voted on:

The attachment A only defines:

Recommended Growth Boundary Maps
o District Map
o Elementary Attendance Areas:
--Recommended Implementation for 2014-15 /
--Recommended Growth Boundaries for 2020
--Attendance Area Changes

o Middle School Service Areas:
 --Recommended Middle School Implementation for
--Recommended Growth Boundaries for 2020 Middle
School Service Area Changes

o Individual Service Area Maps
o Individual Attendance Area Maps
--Feeder Patterns for Growth Boundaries
--Option School GeoZone Maps

APP boundaries are not in here.

Therefore, I think that means that they remain unchanged, unless one of the amendments changes them.


Jessica said...

Hi Joe, and thanks so much for responding to questions. Can you please tell us the status of plans for APP south and potential splits for elementary?

Thank you

Charlie Mas said...

Can someone direct me to the Board policy that gives the Board authority over boundaries?

To my mind they are not a policy or governance matter but a management and administration matter. The Superintendent should just decide them without the need for any Board ratification.

Melissa Westbrook said...

I have written to Tracy Libros to try to get a clarifying paragraph/list of what the situation is for APP.

Again, if you can't read the BAR and understand what is being said - as a layperson parent - it's not well-written.

But again, staff is being rushed and the process is not what it should have been.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone explain what the plans are for special education in these proposals? I can't even read between the lines to find this information. Thanks.

Sped parent

Lynn said...

Sped parent,

I don't think you're missing anything - it's just not there.

Lynn said...


The New Student Assignment Plan 2013-14 Transition Plan says (on page one)

Unless otherwise specified, boundaries, feeder patterns, option school GeoZones, and assignment rules will remain in effect until there are changes approved by the School Board.

I wasn't able to find the policy that requires board approval - but it seems staff believes it's required.

Lynn said...

The New Student Assignment Plan says:

A new facilities management policy will provide metrics, procedures, and timelines to establish a process for periodic review of enrollment, facilities, and functional capacity in relationship to current and anticipated capacity issues. It will also establish procedures for when changes in boundary lines may need to be considered in response to enrollment changes.

Whiplashed in Phinney said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Whiplashed in Phinney said...

Correct to assume that APP students who live in the Whitman and Wil-Pac attendance areas will continue to go to APP@Hamilton through 2015-16?

Attachment 2 Chart is blank. Statement doesn't refer specifically to APP -- just want to be certain.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Lynn for the NSAP quotes. I think it is pretty universal that school districts are responsible for approving boundaries and school assignment plans. If there are any districts that leave these incredibly important decisions up to staff, I'd love to hear about it.

Most districts plan for a lengthy (a year or more) process to redraw boundaries, and don't try to do it more than every few decades.

This district closes schools, reopens them, completely over hauls the assignment plan and does a boundary process all within 5 years.

Did anyone else catch the news that DC schools are going through the process after decades of the same boundaries?:

They are giving themselves a little under a year to run the process...


Whiplashed in Phinney said...

Crossed eyed studying all the various documents. It was right there in the Interim Capacity report:

 Assign APP from Whitman, &
WilPac to Whitman in 2016-17

There's an Interim APP at Whitman for 2016-17 and then it will move to the new WilPac MS building which opens in 2017-18.

Whiplashed in Phinney said...

The nieghborhood that is getting cutoff from the Bagley AA and now appears to been assigned to Green Lake Elementary -- the area below 85th and between Wallingford Ave N and I-5....where do the APP kids who live there go for middle school?

It appears that since Green Lake feeds into Eckstein MS, that would put them at APP@JAMS, yet they are exceedingly close to WilPac MS.

Lynn said...

Greenlake feeds into HIMS beginning next fall under the current proposal. (Current Green Lake area students will be moved out of Eckstein.)

Green Lake Parent said...

Lynn: Nope, the staff changed that in this final version. It's noted in the Growth Boundaries BAR that Area 204 (which is Green Lake's current existing boundary) would not be reassigned to Hamilton for 2014-2015. From the 2020 maps it appears to be the long term plan, but it's unclear when that would happen. (Perhaps when Wilson Pacific opens and there is further shuffling of APP, making more room at Hamilton???) Because Green Lake's boundary is being extended to the south to include most of McDonald's and JSIS's current areas, that means Green Lake's total attendance area will be split between Eckstein and Hamilton, at least for now. (Is this true for any other elementary school?)

Whiplashed in Phinney: It's not clear to me when Area 81, the area below 85th and between Wallingford Ave N and I-5 that is currently assigned to Bagley, would be reassigned to Green Lake. It's grey in the charts for 2014-2015 and is not called out as one of the changes for next year. So, I would assume they will continue to be assigned with Bagley until that change is made. Regardless, you still have a point about how close that area is to Wilson Pacific.

Green Lake Parent

Anonymous said...

So where does my APP 7th grader (currently at HIMS) go next year if Greenlake Elementary is our neighborhood elementary school?

-please help

Anonymous said...

I'll take a hack here...Area 204 is highlighted the same color as JAMS but it says that for 13-14 it's Eckstein and for 14-15, will be HIMS. Everywhere else I see Greenlake as going to HIMS. The color schema is confusing but the key says differently. I would agree with Lynn that Greenlake goes to HIMS and therefore HIMS 7th grader with a reference school of Greenlake would stay at HIMS. Greenlake will not be going to JAMS or Eckstein.

Anonymous said...

kp above

Anonymous said...

OK...feel like an idiot...looked at the map again. The highlighted areas on page 6 are the areas to be changed from 13-14 to 14-15 (obviously in the north end). The key is essential to understanding that those highlighted areas are the ones effectively changed. So, I still stand with Greenlake going to HIMS. You have a whole new area that was Eckstein that is now JAMS and one other area (206 - Laurelhurst?), going to Eckstein instead of HIMS.

Greenlake parent - not sure where you are seeing Greenlake going to JAMS? Not as familiar with those boundaries so apologies if I'm way off base.


Green Lake Parent said...

kp: In the text of the Growth Boundaries Briefing/Proposed Action Report it says on page 2 "Note: There is an error in the map on page 6; Area 204 would not be reassigned to Hamilton for 2014-15. This will be corrected in the final posting of the Agenda." (Also, I never said Green Lake to JAMS -- that area is currently assigned to Eckstein.)

please help: I don't know what that means for your APP 7th grader living in the current Green Lake area. Really good question.

Green Lake Parent

Anonymous said...

Follow up question based on the 8:24 AM post by Whiplashed in Phinney. So am I to understand that my current 4th-grader at Lincoln (living in Viewlands boundaries) will have the pleasure of attending three different middle school buildings in three years? Hamilton in 2015-16, Whitman in 2016-17, and Wil-Pac in 2017-18. If so, that is ludicrous and outright cruel.

For all of us that remember how stressful one's middle-school years usually are just generally, this prospect is not acceptable, so I'm hoping that my interpretation is wrong or that the plan changes yet again.

Anonymous said...

Greenlake feeds into HIMS beginning next fall under the current proposal. (Current Green Lake area students will be moved out of Eckstein.)

My understanding is that the newly assigned areas of Greenlake go to Hamilton for next year. If you have been drawn out of Greenlake for next year, then the assignment could be JAMS or Eckstein, depending on your newly assigned elementary.

For APP students, who knows. It sounds as though those drawn into Eckstein or JAMS boundaries will attend a split program at JAMS, while other NE APP students will remain at HIMS for next year. Some parents are advocating for no 6th grade roll-up, which is essentially requesting no grandfathering for current 6th and 7th grade APP students at Hamilton.

...and all that is subject to change. I can't keep up anymore.