Saturday, November 02, 2013

You Be the Director: What Would Your Amendment Be?

I had a request for a thread on Board Director amendments. 

I say the SCPTSA and the SPED PTA should join together and get all the local PTAs to say no to this morass of a mess.  But I don't think even the "go-slow" idea will get much traction. 

Here's the thing.  Past experience shows that there is a fair amount of horsing trading among Directors when these big changes come along.  Most Directors might offer two amendments about their region at most.

I'm not saying every amendment will pass but if it was well thought-out and any ripple effects considered minimal, it stands a better chance of succeeding.  So don't just say "They should change X."  Help the Directors and give any amendment idea legs to stand on.

So what do you think is the most grievous mistake in this third iteration of the Growth Boundaries plan and how would you want to see it amended?

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

How about this, first, a guiding principal:

First, do no harm

Second, the District has to be honest about acknowledging that they don't know what you don't know.

Putting 1 & 2 together? Leads the District to be conservative: do only what you must for 2014. No more, no less. Leaves the system largely intact to be able to cope with the future twin capacity 'shocks' of reintegrated SpEd in a geographically appropriate way (no more will vulnerable children be shipped hither and yon), and high school capacity crashes. Preserve what little margins are left, don't chew through them all right now. The capacity shortfall has squeezed out nearly all of the margin that would otherwise be available for a "margin of error", so the District must keep the scale of whatever action they under take relative to the scale of their ability to manage the fallout. Since they don't have any ability to manage fall-out because capacity is gone, they've got to be very, very targeted in what they do do.

I'll step aside and let capacity wonks say what those 2014 'must have' items are. But, that's all they should do. JAMS, Pinehurst and Fairmount Park come to mind. Hamilton can't take all of the incoming class, so holdback Lincoln. Not a whole lot else that must absolutely be done.

-do no harm

Anonymous said...

Displacing neighborhood MS ids with APP kids, fully realizing that these schools will soon be beyond capacity with APP kids again getting booted. And, splitting south end APP into small chunks that will radically diminish the offering. And most of all, making all these APP decisions in advance of figuring out what the heck Advanced Learning should be.

- Ugh

mirmac1 said...

Leave Boren available for pending secondary explosion in West Seattle.

SB said...

1- have APP students attend Wilson pacific MS

2- have the northeast middle school elementary feeders divided east/west instead of north/south as some have suggested.
Olympic hills, Sacajawea, Wedgewood, Bryant and Laurelhurst would feed into Eckstein.
Sand point, View Ridge, John Rogers and Cedar Park would feed in to JAMS.
This would create more equity, balance and diversity in the middle schools (a good thing) instead of turning Eckstein in to a "white and wealthy" only school which is bad for everyone

3- If APP goes to Wilson Pacific MS, then Olympic View could feed in to Eckstein which would make much more sense as it is on the east side of I-5 (if this happens then Laurelhurst could go to JAMS)

Anonymous said...

I'd support the SB amendment.

VR

Anonymous said...

In the NE, go with proposal #3 except create a soft boundary for Wedgwood kids who live between 75th and 85th -- their default assignment would be JAMS, but they would have the option of choosing Eckstein instead.

--NE family

Anonymous said...

Redraw boundaries for View Ridge and Wedgwood so that kids on the northern portion of those two areas (as currently drawn) go to Wedgwood and kids on the southern portion (possibly from 85th south) go to View Ridge. Then Wedgwood feeds to JAMS and View Ridge feeds to Eckstein.

--Possible Amendment

Anonymous said...

But Possible Amendment, how many current elementary families would end up w/ split sibs due to reassignment, just to draw MS feeder patterns? Why use them?

NE Family, that seems much too special interest.

I wish geographic boundaries wasn't too sweeping a change for an amendment.

VR

Anonymous said...

VR - Why do you think my amendment is too "special interest"? It's a pretty friendly amendment IMO. It merely recognizes that some of those families literally live across the street from Eckstein and it seems ridiculous to draw them out. Why not let them have the choice? I think soft boundaries are a great solution that allow SPS to stick with it's latest proposal and appease the families who would be most hurt/outraged by it. I think in the short term many of those families would choose Eckstein, but over time, I think they would start to choose JAMS. I don't think it would be such a large group at any one time so as to throw off enrollment projections too significantly.

NE Family

Anonymous said...

I posted some of this on the original GB post..

Horse trading and amendments won’t fix this. The whole plan needs more work, and they don’t have the staff nor time to do the work that is needed for this to actually be a viable long term plan before NOV 20.

Passing this plan, even with some horse trading and amendments is like insisting that the plane take off now, when there is NO pilot, people are still boarding, and there isn't enough fuel on board.

WE WILL CRASH

First of all, the top 4 guiding principles are all being violated throughout the plan:


--Ground decisions in data.
This plan is based off of projected numbers out to 2020 which the district hasn't/ can't justify, particularly on a school by school basis. And the total projected capacity (which itself is likely not accurate) doesn't even match what they already think they need.

We've expressed concern and asked for clarification, and this message from Debell is one part of a long thread between my husband, Debell, and staff:

"On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM, DeBell, Michael > wrote:
Eric,
Thanks for your highly informed input. We are in a bit of a jam on testing the accuracy of our previous models as we lost our long time demographer. We have had two outside consultants analyze our data to verify staff work, once four years ago and then 1.5 years ago. It is a pretty simple model that does not incorporate any housing data, just birth roll up but it has been highly tuned and has been 90% accurate the last two years. I am not sure that it can be improved in time for the coming vote.
Michael DeBell"

Seriously. The analysis is incomplete and the data flawed. The projections don't incorporate housing data. New developments around the city are not included. There are other issues, but I won’t bore you with the details.

AND, the person who set up this analysis IS NO LONGER THERE AND NO ONE IS IN HER ROLE DOING THIS WORK! They can't show that the data makes any sense. They don't have a demographer on staff anymore. These numbers are based on analysis done 1.5 years ago, and there is no one on staff now to explain or provide review or verify.

How can they claim that the decisions are grounded in data, when you can’t even verify the data?

--Create boundaries that reflect equitable access to services and programs.
They haven't even finished the planning for SPED and APP, so how can they claim equitable access? Further, there are TONS of inequities in this plan. I won't even bother trying to list them all here. Southie’s comments, while filled with venom for APP, had some good points about the need to prioritize the VERY REAL equitability issues that this plan doesn’t address:

“First, the district needs to take every boundary issue from Beacon Hill south off the table. Right now. It ain’t baked. Then it needs to get the kids living in Lake City and farther north a decent middle school building staffed with excellent staff next year.”

--Maximize walkability.
--Enable cost-effective transportation standards.
These two go hand in hand, and there are TONS of boundaries that are busing kids when maybe there are actually better options. What about Eckstein?, TT Minor? Beacon Hill schools? Olympic View? who else?

AND, where is this transportation cost analysis? They haven’t put ANY work into actually identifying if this plan IS cost effective.

Please, please, please! I urge the Board to vote to delay the long term plan, and do the due diligence, analysis, program planning and public outreach needed before disrupting so many kids, programs and families.

Manage next years capacity emergencies (i.e. DO NO HARM), but the long term plan is NOT READY to FLY.

Eden

Anonymous said...

Why is EVERYTHING ALWAYS about APP? Seriously. We've had 100s, actually probably 1000s of comments plans, replans, options, optional pathways for APP. Are we going to put every single student in either APP or SPED? In other words plan for APP til the cows come home, and dump SPED students anywhere a seat is left? The last post informed us that the upper 10% is now eligible for APP. Since this is Seattle, that will be 75% of the students! And add to that the "exceptionally creative" by objective analysis. Well, that's another 20%. It's pretty obvious that the district will move to ALL kids back to their home reference school once we get all the white kids the gifted label. Let's have a plan for special ed. Where is it?

There Are Others

Anonymous said...

Dump feeder patterns.

In particular, let all West Seattle option, middle, and high schools be all-peninsula draws with rational tie-breakers that include distance/transportation cost. Perhaps include special concerns (like international students attending the international schools), in the form of a teacher recommendation system.

I can walk to the southern border of the city from my house, and now we are in the north feeder pattern. Do not move forward with this bizarre gerrymandering.
--3Kids3Schools

Anonymous said...

If I were a Board Director (scary thought, by the way), these would be my amendments:

1. Table all placement/redistribution of APP cohorts until the appointed task forces have completed their reports. No APP at Eckstein (or JAMS) in 2014-15. Annex Lincoln for Hamilton.

2. Focus on immediately-necessary boundary changes (ones that absolutely HAVE to be in place by 2014-15, due to capacity issues).

2. Revise the JAMS boundaries so that they resemble Nathan Hale boundaries (JAMS/Eckstein border at NE 85th). Explore the possibility of shifting to geographic boundaries, instead of feeder school attendance areas, for all middle schools.

3. Designate Cedar Park as a future option school (Pinehurst?), not an attendance area school, and re-draw the north-end elementary boundaries accordingly. (This could possibly correct the bizarre Olympic Hills and Olympic View boundaries, and, in my opinion, Cedar Park has insufficient core spaces to accommodate 400 students).

- North-end Mom

Anonymous said...

A lot of the unpredictability and disruption seems tied to the elementary to middle school feeder pattern plans (have you looked at Washington's proposed boundaries?!).

Looking at some of the wonky boundary changes, I wonder if going forward, decoupling the elementary and middle school boundaries makes more sense. Would it reduce the gerrymandering of elementary school boundaries and increase the walkability to schools?

The obvious downside is that communities get split at middle school, but the shifting boundaries are splitting families and communities alike.

Anonymous said...

Possible Ammendments:

1. North end APP as a single cohort to Wilson Pacific, temporarily housed at Lincoln, perhaps sharing some programs with Hamilton. Consider future co-housing with Pinehurst.

2. Create middle school geosplits rather than elementary feeder patterns. Don't redraw elementary boundaries for 2014-15 school year, only redraw middle schools.Keep interim plan with JAMS to JAK8 and JAK8 to Marshall, but meet with parents to decide on reasonable geosplit (north to JAMS south to Eckstein). Be mindful of FRL when splitting.

3. Hold off on any changes in South Seattle. Instead begin community engagement. Work hard to communicate with parent communities (that is, both provide information and listen to the communities thoughts), consider small group meetings that are onsite at various South Seattle elementaries. Make these meetings interactive rather than one-way communications.

4. Continue to test all South Seattle 2nd graders for APP (on site at school cogat testing). Keep South Seattle APP strong by maintaining a single elementary-middle-high school path in South Seattle. Build stronger ties within APP by holding city-wide APP meetings and allowing parents to choose to send students from north to south or south to north as they wish.

-uncertain

Anonymous said...

Washington and Meany MS latest boundary proposals are both awful. Talk about gerrymandering Meany draw. Plus, they stand to ruin Washington in the process.

GMG

kellie said...

There are three components to this plan.

1) real world capacity issues. Both from legitimately over-crowded schools and new capacity coming on-line.

2) teaching and learning issues. Teaching and learning wants to use some of the new capacity coming on line to program to support "equitable access" and this translates as set asides for Sped and this "APP for everyone" re-distribution.

3) the NSAP assignment plan rules. These are the rules set up by the board and can only be changed by the board. This is where the elementary to feeder pattern rules come into the picture.

This is what makes an amendment so challenging. The majority of the "problems" that folks are having with this plan have very little to do with #1, real capacity issue. Where there is a real capacity issue, folks want a change.

Items 2 and 3 are causing all of the heart ache. This put APP everywhere and change boundaries solely to support feeder patterns is creating "change just for the sake of sake of change."

By and large, most people are in the camp of Sped first and are pretty opposed to using the limited capacity that is coming online via BEX to create "equitable access" for advanced learning BEFORE sped is handled.

All of that is to say that I don't know if this can be amended because of the substantial number of changes that are being driven purely for politics. But if an amendment like this would work, this is what I would propose.

All changes related to feeder patterns and APP placement are suspended until the board is able to take action on those two items separately. It is a waste of resources to re-boundary half of the school district when the board is contemplating whether or not to maintain the elementary to middle school feeder pattern.

Now this leaves both Fairmont Park and JAMS in a huge bind. Both of those schools will be starting in 2014 and a delay on their boundaries is a real problem. I don't know how to fix the Fairmont Park issue as I don't know what makes the most sense for West Seattle. However, for JAMS as a patch, an amendment could say that the temporary attendance area for JAMS is the same as Nathan Hale, until the feeder pattern issue is addressed. This would both make sense and allow the programming for JAMS to move forward.

Anonymous said...

I nominate ALL North End Middle School APP be co-located at Lincoln with North End Elementary APP until such time that the superintendent with input from district parents as well as advisory committees provide a roadmap to service delivery.

Reasoning and Data Points
There is no room for middle school APP in North End comprehensive middle schools.

There is no roadmap to future APP delivery of services. The service could be delivered school by school, in middle school areas or in larger region draws. Placement of North End Middle school APP at this point is being done with no knowledge of delivery method in the near future. Splitting the North End program, and/or cohousing in another comp middle school without a delivery roadmap is deeply counterproductive.

APP delivery currently is not cookiecutter anywhere in the district. For this reason, putting all of North APP Middle @ Lincoln for the near future does not break strict program patterns. Examples: Thurgood Marshall APP elementary is co-housed. Lincoln North End Elementary is not. The proposed south end middle school cohort would be tiny. North End middle APP is huge. Some kids are bused large distances for APP, some are not. Capitol Hill middle school APP is NOT located near the qualifying students, but rather in a school in which the program is meant to achieve socio-economic diversity.

Again, given the nonstandard delivery method, there is no reason not to create a temporary stand-alone middle school APP in Lincoln.

APP North Middle benefits include:

Cohort remaining together in the near term.

Sharing resources with North End elementary APP.

No more movement of North End Middle School APP until program delivery model is set.

APP families will still have guaranteed access to a comprehensive middle school experience at attendance area middle school if families deem that experience more important than APP course of study. As many families including ELL, Language Immersion, Special Education and Alternative Ed must choose between a specific program and a comprehensive “traditional” model, it is NOT unreasonable to pose the choice to Middle School North APP.

In short, there will not be a perfect solution. This one minimizes collateral damage to the full north end and does provide some benefits to APP.

''Pragmatic'' in posting name ---- and viewpoint

Anonymous said...

Reflecting to Eric's earlier post on the other thread:
"Thanks for your highly informed input. We are in a bit of a jam on testing the accuracy of our previous models as we lost our long time demographer. We have had two outside consultants analyze our data to verify staff work, once four years ago and then 1.5 years ago. It is a pretty simple model that does not incorporate any housing data, just birth roll up but it has been highly tuned and has been 90% accurate the last two years. I am not sure that it can be improved in time for the coming vote.
Michael DeBell"

I would ask the directors for the following:
1. Please make only short term changes this time (for the 2014-25 school year)
2. Please take time and have a professional SPS team with a demographer gather and analyze the current data, and make a future projection and recommendation based on the current data. Also please make this whole process transparent.
3. Gather the task forces recommendations for AL (about both of the identification process and the delivery model) before making any recommendations.
3. Make the recommendations public and spend more time with public engagement before making the final decision.
- SPS mom

A-mom said...

@ North-end Mom
Pinehurst @ Cedar Park makes sense.
Option schools can cap enrollment.
The building is landmarked.
The park/playground/gardens was built with a combined effort of neighbors, resident artists and the Parks Dept.
If Cedar Park becomes a neighborhood school, I believe clashes with the surrounding neighborhood are inevitable, as the site will be permanently and become more of, a portable farm.
The area has no sidewalks and narrow streets.
Traffic from a 400 plus population would be a mess., not to mention parking.

Anonymous said...

I found a lot of great thoughts on the post before this one in which you ask for comments on the latest plan. Your question was whether this latest version is Bound for Glory or Bound for Unhappiness.

My perception is Deep Unhappiness.

Based on ideas on the other thread, my amendments are two-fold.

1) Put all of SNAPP (K8) at Lincoln until the APP program has better definition. Since SPS needs Lincoln to become a high school within a couple years, capacity needs will finally force SPS to build a real advanced learning vision.

Split/move/whatever the APP cohort when that planning is done. Leave it alone at Lincoln until planning and data allow sane discussion.

2) LOVE the suggestion of the West/East division of the northeast area. It solves a bunch of real and perceived equity issues. Thinking it may net a cheaper transportation budget too, especially in the coming years when buses from the north end of the area will have to head south anyhow to deliver JAK8 to Marshall.

In short, the District should keep the boundaries it has hashed out, because the process has to move forward. But it should draw areas on a North/South line.

Copied from the posters on the other thread: Olympic hills, Sacajawea, Wedgewood, Bryant and Laurelhurst would feed into Eckstein.

Sand point, View Ridge, John Rogers and Cedar Park would feed in to JAMS.

Good stuff everybody.

Savvy Voter
(and don't you forget to vote too!)





Anonymous said...

P.S.

Save Pinehurst.

Savvy Voter

Anonymous said...

@Savvy Voter

Olympic Hills will be losing much of its FRL population to Cedar Park. The Cedar Park attendance area is drawn so that it takes low-income housing areas on both sides of Lake City Way. Cedar Park could have very high FRL.

Sand Point has about 60% FRL. John Rogers is currently at about 40%.

The East/West split you are proposing would still have a higher FRL population at JAMS than at Eckstein.

If balancing out the FRL is the reason for proposing an East/West split, I don't think it would be very effective.

- North-end Mom

SB said...

It sounds like a lot of NE parents, both APP and not APP, would like APP students to attend the new Wilson-Pacific Middle School together. However, if APP has to be at Eckstein then the northeast middle school elementary feeders could be divided east/west instead of north/south like this:

Bryant, Wedgwood, Sacajawea, Olympic Hills and the eastern portion of Olympic View (east of I-5) would feed in to Eckstein. laurelhurst, sand point, view ridge, John Rogers and Cedar Park could feed into JAMS.

These boundaries would create more equity, balance and diversity in the NE middle schools (a good thing) instead of segregating NE seattle middle schools

Lynn said...

Drop the optional SE and SW APP sites until the task force on program delivery has completed it's work.

Don't make any changes to SE boundaries or make Dearborn Park an option school for another year. Use that year to find out what the SE region wants.

Find a way to pull more kids into Madison and WSHS without busing Sanislo students north.

Move K-5 STEM to Schmitz Park or Fairmount Park. Boren will be needed for middle school or high school seats.

There is no reason to set Meany boundaries now. Wait a year.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I'm going to keep saying this until I'm blue in the face. To everyone who wants an east west split in the NE, please note that you are doing to View Ridge the same thing SPS has done to Wedgwood in Version 3. All View Ridge kids walk to Eckstein currently. If you put them in JAMS, none of them can walk. Why would you put Wedgwood back in Eckstein (so they can walk) and then remove View Ridge, which also walks?!

--family that walks!

Anonymous said...

Doesn't the VR boundary include areas north of Eckstein? They are VR because they are east of 35th but definitely north of 85th. If so, I doubt all of VR walks to Eckstein. There's definitely some gerrymandering with regard to the boundary lines. I think parts of VR reference area could go to JAMS easily enough.

Wondering

Anonymous said...

Wondering - you are absolutely right, and I have no problem with that. I would be fine with a geographic split of both WW and VR, with the kids on the northern parts going to JAMS and southern parts (85th and below?) going to Eckstein. I just want to let the walkers continue walking.

Thanks for your thoughtful input, which helped me clarify my point.

-family that walks

Melissa Westbrook said...

Pragmatic said:

"I nominate ALL North End Middle School APP be co-located at Lincoln with North End Elementary APP until such time that the superintendent with input from district parents as well as advisory committees provide a roadmap to service delivery."

I agree. It's one thing to have people who are not happy about a decision - it's another to have angry people.

GMG, you said:

"Plus, they stand to ruin Washington in the process.Plus, they stand to ruin Washington in the process."

How so? I don't understand enough about this redraw/reopening to know how it will affect Washington.

SPS Mom, you said,

"1. Please make only short term changes this time (for the 2014-25 school year)"

I would also agree with this go-slow idea.

A-Mom (and others), I agree about Cedar Park and Pinehurst but where will Olympic Hills go for its redo?

Anonymous said...

@Melissa
Olympic Hills should go to Cedar Park (interim), but what about Pinehurst going to John Marshall until Cedar Park is available? I know the numbers they are presenting make it look like John Marshall will be filled by the JA K-8, but I think that a lot of the JA K-8 families will stay with JAMS in the JA building, which would leave room for Pinehurst at John Marshall.

JR Mom

A-mom said...

I think John Marshall capacity is 852 as a K-8,and JA's new building is supposed to hold 680, so it seems there would be room.
I know I've heard JA is predicted to grow to over 700 next year, but I agree with JR Mom's prediction that many will opt to stay at JAMS.

I Know Lincoln has lots of room, but needs lots of work. I'm not sure what the plan for the building is now,but one APP parent did invite Pinehurst!

apparent said...

Dear Superintendent Banda, and Directors Smith-Blum, Carr, DeBell, Martin-Morris, McLaren, Patu, and Peaslee:

Version 3 of the draft Growth Boundaries Plan is introduced with an explanation headed Major Changes which contains 6 paragraphs, of which the final 2 paragraphs address APP along with a one paragraph rationale. In place of the Version 3's Major Changes paragraphs 5 and 6, and their accompanying one paragraph rationale, SPS board members are urgently requested to adopt this following proposed amendment including Major Changes paragraphs 5, 6, 7 & 8 and more convincing rationale:

"Major Changes
* . . . grandfathered if their attendance area is changing.

* One site has been designated for south APP elementary: Thurgood Marshall. South APP elementary (now at Thurgood Marshall) will stay at Thurgood Marshall and will continue to be co-located with attendance area students. With APP at Thurgood Marshall already in place, all advanced learning task force recommendations will be fully reviewed.

* One site has been designated for south APP middle school: Washington. South APP middle (now at Washington) will stay at Washington and will continue to be co-located with attendance area students. With APP at Washington already in place, all advanced learning task force recommendations will be fully reviewed.

* One site has been designated for north APP elementary: Wilson-Pacific. North APP elementary (now at Lincoln) will stay at Lincoln until Wilson-Pacific Elementary opens in 2017. North APP elementary will be located at Wilson-Pacific Elementary as a free-standing APP school beginning in 2017. When APP at Wilson-Pacific is in place, all advanced learning task force recommendations will be fully reviewed.

* One site has been designated for north APP middle school: John Marshall. APP at John Marshall will begin this coming fall. North APP middle (now at Hamilton) will be relocated to John Marshall beginning in 2014 and will be co-located with other school programs (from 2014-16 Jane Addams K-8). When APP at John Marshall is in place, all advanced learning task force recommendations will be fully reviewed.

John Marshall was chosen for north APP middle school because of its central location like Wilson-Pacific elementary school. Note that by far the largest numbers of APP students live closest to Eckstein and Whitman, so north APP middle at John Marshall will significantly reduce overenrollment at those schools. John Marshall will be filled optimally while Eckstein, currently very overcrowded, has its current enrollment reduced significantly with this redesignation of one north APP middle school site and also the opening of Jane Addams Middle School. This major change will also provide significant relief to over-enrollment at Hamilton. John Marshall was also chosen for north APP middle school because of the large number of public comments that favor designating a single site rather than two or three locations (Public Input 10/11-10/30, Comments 28-400, pp. 4-45). And John Marshall was chosen for north APP middle school also because of the large number of public comments from Jane Addams K-8 families who expressed their intention to transfer to Jane Addams Middle School through school choice, rather than move twice to John Marshall in 2014 and then again to their new JA K-8 building at Pinehurst in 2016 (Public Input 10/11-10/30, Comments 962-1028, pp. 104-111). All maps and reference documents will be revised accordingly.”

* * * * *

apparent said...

* * * * *

Requested Major Change Amendment: Co-house all APP (North) MS in John Marshall with Jane Addams K-8 (*JAK8 interim until new building opens in 2016, use either JM or JAMS portables if needed)

. . . for full text of this requested amendment, see preceding post. For supporting numbers:

John Marshall Enrollment Projections: Capacity 952 MS/852 K8

2014-15: 542+? APP MS (– ? x 6,7&8 Hamilton MS choice) + 808* JA K-8 (– ? x 6,7&8 JAMS choice) = John Marshall capacity 952 MS/852 K8 + portables if needed

2015-16: 542+? APP MS (– ? x 6,7&8 Hamilton MS choice) + 819* JA K-8 (– ? x 6,7&8 JAMS choice) = John Marshall capacity 952 MS/852 K8 + portables if needed

2016-17: 542+? APP MS (– ? x 6,7&8 Hamilton MS choice) + Wilson-Pacific MS (interim) (– 749 JA K-8 @New Building (Pinehurst)) = John Marshall capacity 952 MS/852 K8

2017-18: 542+?** APP MS + Loyal Heights (interim) = John Marshall capacity 952 MS/852 K8

* Note: “Forecasted Enrollment W/O Choice” (Version 2, Slide 24), “These numbers exclude any transfers to JAMS through choice, which would reduce Jane Addams K-8 enrollment numbers” (Version 2, Slide 25) – very significantly, by as much as 50% according to public input; if needed during 2014-15 or 2015-16, portables will placed on John Marshall site and/or on JAMS site which has already been identified as an alternative interim co-housing option for JA K-8.

** Note: APP (North) MS 2017-18 enrollment projection is revised because prior 861 students projection is inconsistent with elementary and south enrollment projections, and no longer considered reliable without advanced learning task force recommendations.

Sources: Version 3 of the draft Growth Boundaries Plan gives an APP enrollment overview for highly capable services (Attachment B, revised, Reference Documents, Table 1 at p.2), showing actual 2013-14 MS numbers of 867 middle schoolers including: 542 at Hamilton APP (North) MS + 325 at Washington APP (South) MS; APP (North) MS enrollment projections in the same Table 1 are aberrant compared to elementary and south APP middle and are not considered reliable. Version 2 shows John Marshall Middle School capacity, and gives a JA K-8 enrollment overview in tables under the heading “North Middle Schools: Full Grade Assignment in Year One” (Slides 24 & 25).

* * * * *

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

Apparent. I like how you actually used the amendment language. It makes it harder for an average reader to digest, but sometimes speaking Board-speak seems to help them understand the rationale.

Full APP Middle @ John Marshall or Lincoln. Either way it is a better choice than JA-Eckstein v Hamilton split. Thank you.

apparent2

Anonymous said...

@ apparent

Sorry, maybe it is because I'm multi-tasking here, and your posts are very long...or maybe I just don't comprehend "District speak," but where, in your proposal does the JA K-8 program go? What about JAMS?

Also, why John Marshall for APP, and not the Lincoln annex for Hamilton scenario? I thought most APP parents endorsed that interim arrangement?

Thanks.
- North-end Mom

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

I think making a special grandfathering clause for students with IEPs to allow them to avoid a middle school transition is a great and compassionate idea. I don't have a student that would be affected but it seems like commonsense that transition would be much more damaging to a student who already has extra academic and/or social struggles.

-political

Anonymous said...

re-posting this, in case it is deleted for not being signed:

Anonymous said...
apparent, whomever he/she is, is hell bent on having all of APP at John Marshall. Postings both here and on the APP blog continue without end. This person does not speak for APP.

11/4/13, 12:40 PM

I'm thinking "apparent" is someone who does not want JA K-8 at the John Marshall building.
-nonapparent

Chunfang Qiu said...

I think we need city-wide community engagement and transparency for the boundary growth project.

As now, the board should focus on the middle school overcrowded issue.


Leave the elementary schools boundary intact.

Susan said...

I think transitions are extremely hard. Building the APP program at Hamilton over the past 4 years, only to dissolve it and start again at 2 new sites will be extremly difficult. It sounds like there could be as many as 100 new MS APP students next year, leading to 640 APP students, too much for Hamilton to handle along with the neighborhood feeder schools.

I advocate for the following:

1) move NE APP region area student to JAMS starting in 2014. They will have more success at a new school, starting a program from scratch, rather than moving into Eckstein, where they will end up displacing other children and the culture is not accepting.

2) Wait on the other decision until 2016. Take into account the recommendations of the AL task force and updated capacity numbers. Determine at that point, whether 2 or 3 APP programs are needed. Only dissolve Hamilton APP if absolutely necessary. Consider second (or third site) at Wilson-Pacific rather than Whitman for the reasons listed in #1.

apparent said...

North-end Mom,

Thanks for your curiosity:

“where, in your proposal does the JA K-8 program go? What about JAMS?”
This proposal is for north APP MS to share John Marshall with the JA K-8 program, perhaps with portables, during JA K-8's interim need from 2014 until it moves into its new building at Pinehurst in 2016; many JA K-8 middle school students, perhaps a majority, will exercise their school choice to transfer to their attendance area middle school JAMS. If the remainder of JA K-8 cannot fit into John Marshall with north APP middle school from 2014-16 even with portables, SPS staff have already recommended in Version 1 (both Options 1 & 2) the alternative solution that JA K-8 would cohouse on an interim basis for two years with JAMS using portables.

“Also, why John Marshall for APP, and not the Lincoln annex for Hamilton scenario?”
Superintendent Banda’s ill-advised recommendation is to split north APP MS into three beginning next Fall without any advanced learning task force recommendations. Superintendent Banda’s action request will go before the SPS board with any Directors’ amendments tomorrow November 6 to be voted on by the board November 20. In Superintendent Banda’s almost final draft Version 3, the “Lincoln annex for Hamilton scenario” is nowhere acknowledged despite significant APP parent input. Furthermore unless substantially expanded this interim “Ham/Lin” annex scenario seemingly offers no potential long-term home, in contrast to John Marshall Middle School which is available now at least until this pending board vote.

“I thought most APP parents endorsed that Lincoln annex for Hamilton] interim arrangement?”
In the March 2012 Snapp PTA Survey with 198 responses (linked from Snapp website), one question asked:
“The district is in search of a long-term solution/home for Lowell@Lincoln [elementary] students. How long would you be willing to stay at Lincoln until a permanent location(s) can be found?”
“However long it takes,” was answered by 91% of responses.
The next question asked:
“Thinking about currently available buildings north of the Ship Canal, and the John Marshall building (former middle school near Green Lake, currently leased to community groups) in particular, would that type of building be acceptable for your child?”
“Yes” (over 60%), “Maybe” (under 37%), and “No” (only 3%), were the answers then from these parents of rising north APP middle schoolers.

The extensive public input so far on these draft boundaries plans (linked from SPS website) shows that most north APP middle school parents want one stable location without further disruptive splits.

Anonymous said...

@apparent

So, you are aware that there are approximately 400 -450 elementary kids at JA K-8, right? These kids would still be in the program if ALL the middle school kids went to JAMS.

You somehow think SPS/School Board will assign 450 elementary-aged kids, and a cohort of JA K-8 kids in grades 6-8, together with nearly 600 APP middle school kids in the John Marshall building...which doesn't have room for more than a handful of portables?

Your scheme does not make sense, and is not very well-thought out, unless it is a back-handed way to advocate for the co-location scenario between JA K-8 and JAMS, which fortunately (for numerous reasons) was deemed obsolete weeks ago.

- North-end Mom

apparent said...

North-end Mom,

Yes, to avoid being split next Fall ahead of pending advanced learning task force recommendations, north APP middle school families would be willing to share John Marshall during the two-year interim need of Jane Addams K-8, using whatever combination of portables is needed to increase the 952-seat John Marshall Middle School site. Some portables might also be needed on the 960-seat Jane Addams Middle School site, which will receive very many JA K-8 middle school choice transfers (but with up to 300 new seats vacated by this assignment of NE APP MS to John Marshall).

If you are right that the ultimate enrolled numbers of north APP MS and interim JA K-8, will prove more than John Marshall MS + portables (and also Jane Addams MS + portables for JAMS & JA K-8 middle schoolers) can hold, then you are also correct in your conclusion that the alternative is "the co-location scenario between JA K-8 and JAMS," which was actually the premise of both SPS staff-recommended options in Version 1, and was also overwhelmingly favored in public comments. (Public Input 10/11-10/30, Comments 962-1028, pp. 104-111).

In that event, north APP MS would then share 952-seat John Marshall Middle School instead with a smaller option program such as Pinehurst, or else with other smaller schools needing an interim location.

While you rightly point out that the JA K-8/JAMS cohousing scenario with portables for two years as recommended by SPS capacity staff in Version 1 is certainly not ideal, at the end of that temporary inconvenience your school will eventually move into its new building on the Pinehurst site in 2016.

apparent said...

"However, since the region has the fewest number of APP kids than any other region in north Seattle, it makes very little sense (at least to me) to house an APP cohort at JAMS." North-end Mom, 11/7@8.56

If that's what you think, and you're not alone, then you should be arguing for and not against the amendment proposed above. If not JAMS, north APP MS must go somewhere else, and it should not be split ahead of advanced learning task force recommendations.

So where? 952-seat John Marshall Middle School. You should favor this solution for the sake of JAMS (and JA K-8), not oppose it.