Thursday, June 26, 2014

Updates

March and Rally to Gates Foundation

To note: there is the march and rally to protest the ed reform work of the Gates Foundation today, starting at 5 pm at Westlake Park.  The march will then go to the Gates Foundation on Mercer at 5th.  There will be speeches and some kind of flash mob dance.

The police are warning of possible traffic issues.  

From Diane Ravitch:

Speakers: Anthony Cody (prolific education leader from CA) & Kshama Sawant (speaking as a teacher & city council member) will engage the crowd by connecting public education issues to larger issues of democracy vs. oligarchy. Morna McDermott & other education heroes will also make the case for school transformation, not corporate reformation.

(Editor's note: Cody is a former teacher and writer at Education Week.)

Anthony Cody will be speaking at 10:30 on Friday June 27th at the University of Washington HUB Room 332. His talk about the education ‘reform’ movement and how to reclaim our schools will be live streamed @ schoolhouselive.org

There will then be three breakout sessions for you to choose from (these are as valuable as YOU make them! We aren’t teaching you what to do, we are asking you to plan next steps for yourselves & to inspire others new to organizing):

Opt Out planning in your locale: Why & How?
Creating 21st Century Schools-what is our vision?
Coalition Building with other organizers who see Gates as a threat to social justice 


Following those three work groups we will show the movie Standardized. A panel of speakers will do some Q & A following the movie.

Details here: https://m.facebook.com/events/742638552449687
Location here: http://depts.washington.edu/thehub/reserve-the-hub/hub-spaces/hub-332/

Downtown School
Crosscut is saying (without attribution) that the City, the district and the Downtown Association are working on a proposal for the old Federal Building.  Dr. Herdon is on vacation and I haven't yet been able to verify anything on this.  The deadline is July 3rd. 

Wilson-Pacific  
The district's request for departures from City zoning were all passed by the committee in charge last night.

This turned into an ugly (and expensive) situation.  I will attempt to post all the back and forth between the district and the lawyer hired by neighbors to protect their rights but I can only say - not pretty.

The district's hired lawyers (and I'm finding out the cost) said some of the issues around the bus areas were because of APP (not noting that the district also had to transport some students from around the region for the K-8 program).  They also "noted" (read: threatened) the neighbors that if the district didn't get the departures, they might have to use the power of eminent domain and take some houses, stating, "as it has done in the past as necessary."  (I am also asking when this last happened.) 

The neighbors truly believe that two schools can't fit on that site.  It seems to be the fields will definitely be smaller but weigh in if I am mistaken. 

79 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, the w-p situation has gotten ugly. I have been at the meetings, which helps for context for people who think the district should just la de da build straight up, add extra buildings(even assuming we could find some money trees to get the money off of).

They are very angry that field use will be interrupted for even one day, that children will be bussed in from anywhere else(aren't many current students not local? But I suppose there are not that many), that any buildings will be more than one story, that any new traffic will come, and of course that there will be more than one building. At the first meeting last school year the community basically wanted one buildings same shape and size, though moved, with sps footing the bill for daylighting the creek(and it was this input that led to some atrocious design suggestions, and I think to the pretty bad one we have now).This is a more organized group than even the Wedgwood anti Thornton Creek building neighbors, but it is the same basic NIMBY-ism that I am so aghast at in this town. It's not a nuclear facility- it's a school. 9 months of having to walk your dog around the block instead of illegally using school district fields as a dog park is apparently too high a price to pay for an educated populace.

I guess I have not gotten a healthy detachment about it, yet. Still bitter.

-sleeper

mirmac1 said...

SPS will take peoples' homes, but not take back lost school buildings. Huh!?

Anonymous said...

WP was a Banda promise to L@L pta to appease them and get them off his back over the terrible situation at Lincoln--- Did anyone ever think that he was going to make good on that promise? Or that he could once word got out that there was going to be a new school that those elitist were going to have? Now the numbers, with portables, will barley hold the current north APP and a new bldg will not help that. Get ready APP because the District is sharpening its french chef and will inevitably be chopping you up again.

-Rover

SPS Stinks! said...

Why even have public engagement or community input on anything anymore? Big money and lawyers always win. This isn't just SPS. It's all the public DPD meetings asking for input. Then, they just bend over for the developers regardless.

The problem with WP is SPS gave many bad pieces of information for the architect to work with, i.e. the number of buses and cars going to the property. The number of buses was LESS than the number of buses going to Lincoln this year. Add in 150 more APP kids, the k-8 kids and the MS kids who will get bus service and they radically underestimated. So, they got away with a lie (it's a lie when they don't correct the bad information after it was pointed out numerous times). Who will be held accountable when 2x as many buses and cars show up in 2017?

Melissa Westbrook said...

"WP was a Banda promise to L@L pta to appease them..."

Just not true. What evidence do you have of this?

Sorry you think gifted learning is elitist - the government doesn't.

dan dempsey said...

Try this from Rasmussen polling data:

Common Core support drops

Only 34% of adults with children in k-12 schools now favor Common Core.

This is a great time to:
Get Gates to stop meddling with education.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if the event at UW tomorrow is open to the public? I'm think of going.

--- swk

Melissa Westbrook said...

SWK, it is so please come.

Anonymous said...

Any supe updates?

@mirmac,
Read your linked-in link for Enoch - did you contact Peaslee directly and other board members too and suggest they reach out to him? He looks like a decent man; experienced and straightforward. Wondering if anybody called a director to ask to try for Enoch.

curious

Anonymous said...

Rover said : "WP was a Banda promise to L@L pta to appease them..."

Melissa said: "Just not true. What evidence do you have of this?"

Why else would he say they would get a new neighborhood building then all to themselves? It doesn't help the program's image for sure. It was an easy thing to do and something I'm sure he never intended to implement. So in short, none ;-)


And which government law supports self contained "APP" class rooms, let alone buildings? Not the SPED laws those are Federal and they don't cover gifted. WAC codes says nothing about delivery - just identification and provide services. How APP kids are educated is left to the individual district and in SPS' case the individual principal.

-Rover

Anonymous said...

Suggest we all argue for a high school at WP. The high school kids are coming anyway b/c that's where all their fields are going to be - a football field for Lincoln HS down in Wallingford - so they'll be coming into the neighborhood for sports at the same time the Elem and MS kids/buses are leaving - disaster. I think they should switch it up, and put the HS at WP (one big building - probably lets them have more land/less bldg.) - and the MS at Lincoln. Gets more seats all around. And then put a HUGE Elem. at Hamilton -- App elem and the K8, for sure, and the K8 will have space to grow which it won't if it's in the MS at WP.

That was the recent FACMAC rec (the only document using up to date enrollment numbers, and based in response to SPS insisting on bad design/sky is falling a WP). It's been floating around here. Kate Martin's put it up on PhinneyWood blog too, I think.

Unfortunately we don't have a super so guess what ... no leadership to fix this problem.

Hope the board looked into that doc and thinks about it, since they seem to be the only people who can direct the runaway WP train.

Signed: WP mess

Anonymous said...

-Rover

I dont want to get in the middle of your debate, but I must correct one thing.

US Dept of Education, OSEP Policy Document, January 13, 2010 (Topic: Evaluation Procedures), regarding “twice exceptional students,” students who have high cognition and who have a disability and may need an IEP. MS Word l PDF

The letter states the Department's believes IDEA does provide protections for students with high cognition and disabilities who require special education services.

"The IDEA is silent regarding “twice exceptional” or “gifted” students. It remains the Department’s position that students who have high cognition, have disabilities and require special education and related services are protected under the IDEA and its implementing regulations."

The No Child Left Behind Act defines “Gifted & Talented” students as those…”who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities.” 20 U.S.C. Section 7801(22).
Children with IEPs receive protection from discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504)

So to say Federal SPED laws don't cover "Gifted" is not true.

--Michael

Anonymous said...

I attended WP back in the day.I was there when forced desegregation happened at WP.

It was a mess, I get sick every time I drive by the building..please tear it down ASAP!

--Another WP disaster

Eric B said...

Rover, it's just like why Fairmount Park, Olympic Hills, Hazel Wolf K-8 (formerly Jane Addams K-8), etc. all get a shiny new building all to themselves. A program needed space. Space will be built for them. End of story. Exactly like Hazel Wolf, APP elementary is going to be displaced by another program that needs their space more, and so new space has to be built to house those students.

APP elementary takes ~600-700 students out of the most crowded schools in the District. If you want to disband APP as a self-contained program, you'll need to find land to build another ~600 seat elementary school in the NE. Good luck with that.

Lynn said...

Rover,

Yes - state law requires highly capable students to be identified and provided services. The method of serving them is left up to each district.

We should of course aim to use the acknowledged best practices when providing all educational services. The most effective grouping model for elementary gifted students is homogeneous grouping by ability (self-contained classrooms.)

When you said a new school that those elitist were going to have were you referring the the 6-11 year old elementary students enrolled in APP at Lincoln? I hope not. Name calling aimed at children by an adult is detestable.

Anonymous said...

Banda left because Peters told him the math fight would look like a thumb wrestle compared to trying to reduce APP self contained.The same Peters who apparently didn't know that non verbal math was and had been in use in SPS for years helping ELL and other students. OOPS, I guess she was too busy grandstanding.
Banda was no doubt told he would help ease the transition to a saner AL policy like they have at Sac schools. Go look it up, what tey do at Sac.
Then Peters came on board and made it clear a bloated APP was the future she wanted and it looked like she had the votes and the willingness to foment enough anger and hatred to get her and her pal's way, so he said, bye. He was lied to by the previous board that APP was going away as a separate school, was going to become fair, going to include brown and poor.
he was lied to and he left.
Simple

tom

mirmac1 said...

I have reached out to the board, as many others have I'm sure. Among my friends we all want someone different.

One thing I've been thinking about alot lately is another protracted search, hire and then back to "square one" process. Did the extensive focus groups and consultant fees really deliver the best candidate? I want less beauty pageant and more "best qualified".

Anonymous said...

Now Banda left because of APP?????

Um, no.

Cal

Lynn said...

I like the idea of building a high school and a small Licton Springs K-8 at the Woodrow Wilson site. That way the Licton Springs students could attend high school at Wilson while retaining easy access to cultural activities and support at the K-8.

Is there enough outdoor space available at Hamilton for a huge elementary school?

Lynn said...

tom,

Ha! That's a good one. An administrator who cares so much about the delivery method for highly capable services that it is a determining factor (or really any factor) in whether he takes or retains a job.

Also - you should consider putting an I think or I believe or I assume or I surmise before Banda left because Peters told him the math fight would look like a thumb wrestle compared to trying to reduce APP self contained if you want anyone to take you seriously.

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

And which government law supports self contained "APP" class rooms, let alone buildings?

I didn't say that; please read what I wrote BEFORE you comment.

W-P is not an all-APP school. Where did you get that? Not from the district. Is Washington all APP? Nope. Hamilton? Nope.

"Banda left because Peters told him the math fight would look like a thumb wrestle compared to trying to reduce APP self contained."

And you know this how? Please tell us what e-mail you have or conversation you heard.

mirmac1 said...

I can't imagine anyone taking tom seriously...

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

I think Banda was a Brodie

I found this below and it's almost verbatim to what Banda said at Ballard high school.

I got it from a broad foundation flier'

Recent research shows a correlation between the rate of students taking and scoring a 3 or higher
on AP exams and the rate of students graduating from college.2 Yet, according to the College
Board, though 60 percent of high school graduates go to college, only 21 percent of high school
graduates take even one AP or International Baccalaureate (IB) course. These statistics highlight
the gap between the number of students with college aspirations and the number of students
actually completing high school courses that will prepare them for rigorous college coursework.


No More Brodies

Anonymous said...

Tom:
"Banda left because Peters told him..."
Hahaha. That was the joke of the day. No, the whole month...
- Too simple

Melissa Westbrook said...

Actually, Tom had nothing deleted. What got deleted are comments that did not follow our Comment rules.

Anonymous said...

Oh boy after reading these posts, good thing Sup. Banda is leaving. Otherwise we have to give him a raise just to keep him here. What are we, a bunch of gossipy, negative nancies? Enoch is gonna run for the hill if we keep this up.

Not inhaling

mirmac1 said...

Not inhaling,

And what are YOU doing to fix the mess Banda left us in? Passin' the doobie? Or stirrin' the schizz with tom?

Either way it does nothing to help the district, individual schools or students. I don't care if you want Genghis Khan for the next supe, just do more than being a gossipy, negative nancy schizz-stirrer. We can all judge others based on who they support. When can Genghis start?

Get a Life said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Get a Life said...

Mirimac,

I think tom and Not Inhaling are stirring the schizzz.....;)

If you stretch your imagination, you will find their comments entertaining. Otherwise, their comments reflect sheer nonsense in the form of a temper tantrum.

mirmac1 said...

Get a life,

It's hard to tell sometimes. If I'm missing their sarcasm, must be my ASD.

Anonymous said...

attack the messenger
read Sac schools G&T program
deny that Banda was told he would "fix" AL. He put together two TFs.
Deny Peters is very much an APP self contained proponent who has kids IN the program
Deny Peters knew nothing about the use of non verbal math
Deny she has a reputation of being abrasive
deny Banda is not
a head butter.
deny high level public administrators lie about why they quit
deny the district is resegregated and is looking at a federal lawsuit regarding such resegregation

the future

Patrick said...

Tom, your argument doesn't make sense just based on timing. You don't get to be a finalist for a superintendent's job without being a candidate for at least a few months before, which would be before the Board chose the stronger math texts.

apparent said...


"I don't care if you want Genghis Khan for the next supe, just do more than being a gossipy, negative nancy schizz-stirrer. We can all judge others based on who they support. When can Genghis start?"

Mirmac, do you mean Salman?

Anonymous said...

Well can't speak for all schools, but having tutored math in different schools and with different populations, including ELL students who come in at different proficiency and needs, I didn't use one text exclusively. Teachers I worked with pulled from different sources and no admin person told us to stop it and that could be because these schools are high need schools. This was true also with students who were dyslexic, dyscalculic, or just struggling with math. The strategy was whatever it takes to learn the materials. Guess I just didn't feel the Banda's effect or Enfield's for that matter. We just plodded on regardless of who's in charge. What was happening in the classroom was going to happen even if God wrote the math text and was Superintendent to boot. (Too much free will or at this point, too much cynicism on my part with the politics of it all.) Perhaps at some point, I'll be bright enough to get all the fury on this blog. For now, I save it for what I see come next week at camp and back in the fall. As one veteran teacher whom I admired greatly puts it, from her vantage, all she sees are individual saplings and not the forest. But that's her nursery and she's a pretty special caretaker, even if some might consider her myopic.
Not inhaling

Lynn said...

the future,

*Find a parent of gifted children in gifted classrooms in Sacramento public schools who wants to tell us now great they are.
*Next find a parent of a gifted child who didn't get a seat in the lottery for the gifted classrooms who wants to tell us how wonderfully that works for them.
*Produce a Banda quote about his plans to reduce our self-contained gifted program.
*Research the change in law regarding basic education for highly capable students in WA state and report back on whether that might be the reason we have task forces studying the program.
*Produce a list of all the issues decided by the board from which Director Blanford should recuse himself. (General education classrooms, language immersion, neighborhood assignment schools, college and career readiness?)
*Nonverbal math? How do you access it? My friend's dyslexic child sure could use it. Her school is using the very wordy Envision.
*Explain why Ms. Peters was elected if abrasiveness decreases the effectiveness of a school board member? (Better abrasive than clueless.)
*Head butter? I have no clue what you meant there.
*Lying is fine - as long as they don't lie in an abrasive manner. Right?
*Show us proof of the federal lawsuit related to our assignment plan. (Hint - it's about disproportionate discipline.)

Anonymous said...

Melissa,

I do read what you write and have a ton of admiration for the tremendous job you do both in reporting/advocating as well as keeping it real. I think you and I just speak from a different perspective.

((A special thanks to you for the reminder on water safety being as I nearly drowned 3 times (slow learner).))

Here's my point

1./ Based on a promise by Banda WP Elementary is slated to be self-contained classrooms and self contained programs for APP. Which unfortunately means families who live next door have to bus their kids to a k-5 somewhere else. Which rings unfair to me. Why isn't the program more inline with TM? Or at least like the old Lowell with a combination of the Medically fragile/SPED program and APP. But it doesn't really matter as I can't see such a program being more than a false promise for political expedience - (read: until Banda could get closer to his pension).

2./ Can you share where a governmental body has made a law or anything truly supporting the academically highly gifted or proclaimed those programs (developed by grownups) not elitist? As I said it is merely "identify and serve" here based on the WAC; i.e. wink wink nod nod>>> do whatever you damn well please. Which is a huge step forward from nothing. Yeah the state does fund districts more for APP kids but that really only covers the identify piece.

((Michael your info in regards to 2e - with 504s or IEPs and therefor federal support - has to be a small percentage of any APP elementary.))

-Rover

Eric B said...

Rover,the thing is, we tried the Lowell model and it didn't work. APP growth outstripped capacity in the building. That will likely happen anywhere you have two populations (neighborhood and APP students) that are both guaranteed access to a building.

North End APP elementary is about 600 students now, and will be 700 in the near future. To even fit that in a single building will require a split. Let's say for the sake of argument that you did split the APP cohort and put 250 of them in the Webster building, reclaimed from the Nordic Heritage Museum. That would leave something like 150 spots for neighborhood kids, taking a bunch of pressure off Adams. Good all around, right?

The problem is that with a closer APP site, many parents whose kids are eligible but staying in their neighborhood schools (like mine) would jump to a closer site. Two or three more apartment buildings going up in the Webster assignment area would add a bunch more students. That all adds up to an overcrowded school and someone getting squeezed out. It's a good idea in theory, but a terrible one for long-term planning.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Rover, the district has written/stated that Wilson-Pacific elementary will serve both gen ed and APP. The building is NOT just for APP students. I am not aware that any nearby students will be excluded. Why do you think that? Why do you believe it will be Lowell situation (previous Lowell, not today's)?

I'm supposed to go out and gather quotes and research on governmental bodies supporting gifted education? For what? Because you don't believe me.

I am a very busy person. I am not going to answer every query to prove my points (especially when I know a quick Google search would do it). I would suggest you do that research.

While the law is not as strong as it should be, that does not mean that elected officials and government entities do not support gifted education. That our own Board and Superintendent seem less than interested is another issue.

Zella917 said...

There wouldn't be any need to bus students who live near Wilson-Pacific to some far away elementary school. My family lives very near Wilson-Pacific now, and my daughter walks to Daniel Bagley Elementary, which is only 9 blocks from our house, and 10 blocks from W-P. Olympic View is also close to Wilson-Pacific, just on the other side of the freeway. So this argument doesn't really make much sense, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Melissa, I thought that W-P elementary actually IS planned to house only APP students? Is that not true?

Cal

Melissa Westbrook said...

"The comprehensive neighborhood middle school building will be constructed to house 1,000 students, including Accelerated Progress Program (APP) north end students, as well as students from the Pinehurst K-8/Indian Heritage program (soon to have a new name). The elementary school building will house up to 650 students, including the north end elementary APP program."

That's what the district says and when I see "including" I believe that to mean students "including" APP but not just APP. I have never - in any document or at any meeting - heard that either building would be stand-alone for APP. If anyone else has, please supply the evidence.

Eric B said...

Wilson-Pacific Elementary is APP only. The building capacity is ~650, and APP elementary north is predicted to be ~700 the year it opens. Also, note that on this page (http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=ac08642cff74f1213813998b44ad97bd&pageid=308717&sessionid=ac08642cff74f1213813998b44ad97bd) there is no W-P Elementary assignment area boundary because it isn't an attendance area school.

W-P Middle is an assignment area school in addition to housing some APP and Licton Springs K-8.

Mark said...

The attendance area school for the area around Wilson Pacific is now Olympic View, close by but on the other side of the freeway. In fact, the Olympic View area now extends west past Aurora, very much along the pre-1950 census tract lines. So some kids will be bused across both Aurora and I5.

I attended the one Olympic View meeting that took place during the boundary changes last year, and I'm 95% sure there was no one there from the Licton Springs neighborhood.

At one point, the district had the current Olympic View attendance split into three future paths; Olympic View, Sacajawea, and Olympic Hills, replaced by kids from Licton Springs and the area corresponding area west of Aurora. Given the rapid last minute updates to the boundary maps, and so many changes, it was hard for these areas to organize. Not exactly sure about the Licton Springs parents, but if it was like Olympic View, they were probably blinded sided.

I do support APP and there aren't many good options. It would appear that a school like Bryant has about 15% (74) of its attendance area kids attending APP at Lincoln versus for example Olympic View that has around 3% (15). So I'm guessing the number of local area kids that will end up attending from Licton Springs will be very small. Anyway, that's what I was able to calculate but I could be mis-interpreting the districts numbers. Not sure about the elementary they've inserted into the middle school building.

The fact that old schools in north east Seattle like Ravenna School (now a community center and senior housing) and University Heights (now a community center) and Fairview (now a private school) were closed seems to be a part of the problem, but someone else probably knows the history better. Since these schools were closed, part of the solution for the extra kids is to put them in APP where there is space (unfortunately someone else's backyard), and it’s not surprising they are unhappy about it. But it appears the district has few choices because of past decisions by others.

Anonymous said...

Melissa, W-P ELEMENTARY was definitely communicated as being planned as stand-alone APP. When I have more time I can search it out; I'm positive there are even threads here on the blog that cover this.

NEP

Anonymous said...

If you go here http://bex.seattleschools.org/bex-iv/wilson-pacific/

and click on 5/21 FAQ, you will find many references to APP-only elementary, including the excerpts below. (I know there were posts on this blog about it back in the fall.)

Is the immediate neighborhood slotted for the new schools? How can we ensure
or advocate that the immediate neighborhood is included?

The Board voted on 11.20.13 to place the SNAPP program at the Wilson-Pacific
elementary school. Board action would be needed to change that decision.

Will Wilson-Pacific Elementary be only APP or will it also serve the
neighborhood?

At the November 20 Board vote on Growth Boundaries, Wilson-Pacific elementary was
designated as an APP elementary without a neighborhood elementary program.

However, the doc also implies in several places that if Lincoln APP gets too big to fit, there would be a split and potential assignment of neighborhood kids to W-P elementary, but this would take Board action.

NEP

Melissa Westbrook said...

NEP, you may find district info that said this but I know that Charlie and I never said that. It was never my understanding. If true, the district has sure been quiet about it.

Anonymous said...

From the WP FAQ:

35. Is the Elementary School still going to be all APP (Accelerated Progress Program)?

A: Yes, that was decided as part of the Growth Boundaries for Student Growth plan approved by the School Board in November 2013.

http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=312597

-midnight

Melissa Westbrook said...

Well, those are interesting links. I recall talk but I did not believe it had been codified. Strange that the item I just put up does not say that clearly.

Once again. the district is not being clear in its communications.

I will say, despite Thurgood Marshall, that I agree with John Stanford that co-housing doesn't work well.

Wilson-Pacific becomes a bigger issue every day.

Anonymous said...

SPS has announced that WP elementary will be for only APP. Such news has appeared in the Seattle Times:

"APP elementary students north of the Ship Canal will remain at Lincoln until 2017, when the new Wilson-Pacific Elementary School opens exclusively for APP."

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022308929_boundarydetailsxml.html

-midnight

Anonymous said...

MW, here is what I pulled directly from the blog:

http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2013/11/growth-boundaries-announced-round-three.html

From your bulleted list:
"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."

Can't imagine why anyone would find all this confusing, ha ha.

NEP

Anonymous said...

From the Wilson-Pacific FAQ page on the district site:

35. Is the Elementary School still going to be all APP (Accelerated Progress Program)?

A: Yes, that was decided as part of the Growth Boundaries for Student Growth plan approved by the School Board in November 2013.

~lookingaround

Anonymous said...

I think most families who live near Lichton Springs would rather go to Olympic View, which is in walking distance if you go over 92nd, rather than Northgate where many were assigned. I have friends that live right next to Wilson Pacific who went private until they could get into Public Montessori just to avoid Northgate. They would have loved to be able to attend Olympic View which was much more walk-able for them than Northgate.

HP

mirmac1 said...

Melissa's entitled to "old-timers" disease. I certainly experience it everyday....

Melissa Westbrook said...

Well, I would say it's three things: age, way too much to track and the district itself not being as clear (at least where I checked) as they should on this project.

Anonymous said...

Thank you to NEP and all other posters for laying out WP = stand alone APP elementary so clearly. Not that with current numbers and probable growth it will ever be. And again Banda knew that but sure why make waves?

Also Melissa I never said that it was going the way of the old Lowell. I just questioned why it couldn't be like TM or or the old Lowell (my preference) as I think that is unfortunately the only Seattle-palatable way to run the program and not be perceived elitist. So please read my post before you respond ;)

And I have a real problem with posting things like the government doesn't consider AL elitist without being able to support it. In my opinion to write that you must have already seen some major government proclamation that said that right? I just don't see it in deed or word as such. In fact, as I mentioned I see just the opposite. I think "the government" sees AL just like the general population - mixed or uncertain. That is why I asked you to support your post, but pls don't because I agree your time is better spent.

But, if by the "government" you mean SPS hahahahahahhahahhah. Tell that to Tully who if had his way would be showing you why all those kids need to be in their neighborhood schools. Reasons like: raise all schools' grades, student-teachers and of course you don't have to deal with all those test and private test and appeals and principals not knowing how many kids are going to what school. It really IS the best way to manage our data or... I mean students.


I don't believe APP/AL is elitist - but I think that is the perspective of many parents who aren't in the program. Also APP/AL has a real problem being promised a self contained program in a new bldg and forcing kids to be bused past it. All I can say is thank god they didn't try that in the south end!

AL/APP has a perception problem and it isn't around what the government thinks, it's what the other parents think. Most non- AL/APP folks don't know the sacrifice the program is. Look at L@L, the building is shot the lunch room is tiny and it is a freaking HS not a 1-5 building. (But they are making it work!) And every APP/AL school has had their issues at one time since the first "splits." But most outsiders see the issues as being limited to being bussed across town. Imagine being half the school population in which the past two administrators don't believe in AL?

APP/AL families deserve the same stability and benefit of growing a program that a neighborhood school has but I just don't see it ever happening. Face it they are the ballast that keeps the enrollment ship afloat. We might as well rename the program AL/Rovers as that is what they are going to be...

-Rover

Anonymous said...

Sorry this reads better from my previous post:

"AL/APP has a perception problem and it isn't around what the government thinks, it's what the other parents think. Most non- AL/APP folks don't know the sacrifice the program is. Look at L@L, the building is shot the lunch room is tiny and it is a freaking HS not a 1-5 building. (But they are making it work!) And every APP/AL school has had their issues at one time since the first "splits." Imagine being half the school population in which the past two administrators don't believe in advanced learning? But most outsiders see the issues as being limited to being bussed across town."

-Rover

apparent said...


"Thank you to NEP and all other posters for laying out WP = stand alone APP elementary so clearly. Not that with current numbers and probable growth it will ever be."

John Marshall? Plenty of room for all of north elementary APP without splits for many, many years to come, while cohousing with a smaller option school or program. So neither standalone nor elitist. And no more roving . . .

Anonymous said...

I heard that JM is too close to the freeway and down hill too so it can only be used as an interim site and probably not a 1-5 program (b/c of recesses).

-Rover

Melissa Westbrook said...

For the last time, schools can legally be "next" to freeways. TOPS and JSIS are closer to a freeway than John Marshall.

Anonymous said...

And both of those bldgs are going to be put BACK into service? Times and laws have changed? I am just perpetuating a rumor that I have heard several times? Sorry... I believe it when I see it.

-Rover

Anonymous said...

"I'll believe it when I see it."

Sorry

Rover

apparent said...


"I'll believe it when I see it."

Rover, you can see it for youself tomorrow if you like. Just hop in your car.

Both much-beloved school buildings stand beside and are plainly visible from the southbound I-5 lanes, John Stanford International School (JSIS) elementary K-5 in Wallingford just before you cross the Ship Canal, and TOPS K-8 in Eastlake soon after you cross the Ship Canal. As Melissa points out, both those working permanent school buildings stand closer to the freeway than John Marshall, which is temporarily dedicated to the Hazel Wolf (formerly Jane Adams) K-8 as an interim use.

Anonymous said...

Thanks apparent, interim use is indeed what the rumor is.

-Rover

Anonymous said...

@apparent, your argument has been put forth numerous times and discounted. Just because schools are currently sited near the freeway does not mean it's okay to open new schools when similarly situated. Health effects data could be used to argue against JM being used as anything but an interim site. The interim use is bad enough, and the new playground is situated with no barrier between it and the freeway - no trees and no wall (which can somewhat reduce the particulate levels), and in very close proximity to the freeway.

King5 report on JM

JM is a cool old building that is simply in an unhealthy location.

John Marshall vs JSIS

interim only

Anonymous said...

I would not say it has been discounted. I would say some people went to the news. Many of those pieces of data are from valley areas- incredibly different wind and pollution patterns than in our sea side town. I have read all the studies, and I would love to have my kids go to school in the JM building.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

I would not say it has been discounted. I would say some people went to the news

They went to the news with feedback from environmental health specialists. So we should just discount the information from specialists in the field?

If others want to read up, the East Bay Children's Respiratory Health Study can provide a starting point. Condensed summary here. As stated in the methods for the CA study, traffic congestion is high, but the regional air quality is relatively good because of ocean breezes.

JM is within 300m of a roadway with AADT of more than 90,000 vehicles, as in the CA study. According to WDOT, AADT (average annual daily traffic) is around 160,000 on I-5 near JM. JM's new play structure looks to be about only 30-40 m from the freeway as shown on the google map.

More reading here.

interim only

Lori said...

This is probably a crazy idea and I admit I haven't thought it through fully, but here goes.

Hazel Wolf (aka Jane Addams) has an environmental science focus, right? And they do project-based learning (PBL), right? If I were a middle school science teacher there, I would be thinking about how to work an air quality study into the curriculum.

Has the district or anyone else actually taken air samples and analyzed them at the site? If not, this could be an opportunity to teach science and math while solving an actual problem with real-life implications.

You'd study the issue in class, design experiments based on what you learn (examples: how much particulate matter is in the air samples collected on the playground versus in the gym and classrooms, versus somewhere else in the city? How do levels change with weather [rain versus sunny days] and wind patterns and traffic flow [rush hour versus mid-day], bring in local experts to teach and help analyze results, and so on.

Best case scenario: we learn it's perfectly safe to use the site permanently. Worst case scenario: we learn it's risky to put young kids there - but, seriously, that is not a bad thing to know!

Crazy idea? Good idea? I don't know. But it's something interesting to think about, given the focus of the incoming school program.

(and there is precedent somewhat - kids at Lincoln did a months-long energy audit project on the building, which is enormous and expensive to heat and run. I remember being impressed with their results and the cost-savings they achieved for the district. Just seems like using PBL to solve actual problems is a win:win)

Anonymous said...

New building at old Pinehurst location will have CTE, science labs, health clinic.... We no that Roosevelt and Hale and Ballard will be far over capacity by the time new building is ready - it could be the 9th grade annex! As Hazel Wolf will already be settled @ Marshall, they could stay there for 6 years while the enrollment bubble passes through high school while the next high school solution gets phased in (like the elementary kids at Lincoln who will have been interim from Sept 2011 through to Sept 2017). The high school problem is the now is at our feet; Sept 2015 is going to be a mess; Lincoln HS won't be online until Sept 2019 -- kids who just finished 4th grade are in danger of getting geo-split out of high school to a highschool with NO UPPERCLASSMEN and NO "reputation" for college recruiters. It doesn't matter that Lincoln has an alumni group who will be happy to provide coffee and some volunteer hours. High school is serious business for college bound students, and given the location of Lincoln, that area has families who ardently prize educational attainment. A 9th grade annex at Pinehurst could keep the system going and basically 'screw over' the fewest amount of kids in the absolutely worst way (the worst being the geo-split leading edge of a geo-split/roll-up of a new high school -- that is totally unfair to do to just one group of kids so that everyone else can keep fitting in their high schools and have a stable experience). An annex at new building for a few years works!

Desperate times...

- highschool crash

Anonymous said...

What about using Lincoln as your 9th grade annex? There are more HS appropriate facilities there than there will be at the new Pinehurst site and it's more centrally located?

Although with the staunch opposition there was to a 6th grade annex, I doubt you're going to find buy-in for a 9th grade annex.

- won't fly

apparent said...


"Just because schools [JSIS K-5 & TOPS K-8] are currently sited near the freeway does not mean it's okay to open new schools when similarly situated."

Interim Only, are you advocating that the JSIS and TOPS buildings should therefore be closed or removed from SPS permanent inventory to protect the health of the children in those schools too?

"Health effects data could be used to argue against JM being used as anything but an interim site. The interim use is bad enough, and the new playground is situated with no barrier between it and the freeway - no trees and no wall (which can somewhat reduce the particulate levels), and in very close proximity to the freeway."

Again, both TOPS and JSIS are in closer proximity to the freeway than John Marshall. Like John Marshall, neither is mitigated by any wall or dense stand of tall trees which would certainly benefit each of these three sites. And the only barrier between the TOPS playground and the freeway is the school building itself with its windows almost abutting the freeway, so is that really better or worse? Remember that like TOPS K-8 and JSIS K-5, the John Marshall building is already fully in use and crowded with kids, a reality that does not change one whit just because we also slap an "interim" label onto it.

"JM is a cool old building that is simply in an unhealthy location."

We do agree that JM is a big cool old building -- but you and Rover are both quite wrong to peddle what Rover acknowledges as merely the "rumor" that any final or conclusive governmental authority has somehow taken JM off the table for future use as a permanent school location.

But leaving our difference on that important point aside, assume that Rover is indeed correct on his or her other point and that north Seattle elementary APP will never actually fit together into the inadequately designed, too small Wilson-Pacific building(s) when they eventually open.

What will your solution be then -- yet another last-minute APP split? Which two or more elementary school buildings will you then suggest for cohousing part of north Seattle elementary APP?

Anonymous said...

Lowell Elementary could probably house the other half QA/Mag/CH. Ironic no?

-Rover

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

repost for anon at 6:33 because no name/"According to OSPI, enrollment at Lowell was 216 in May 2013, compared to 635 May 2012 (overcapacity). Yeah, underutilized. Crazy, huh?"

Anon that is because in June 2012 they pulled all the APP kids out and put them in a HS with no library, play field or adequate space to eat lunch... the interim site at Lincoln HS. They are anticipated to be there for a few more years.

-Rover

Joe Wolf said...

Response to Mark's comment on school assignment/boundaries for kids living in the Wilson-Pacific neighborhood.

The school assignment is *not* Olympic View. Not yet anyway. The Growth Boundaries approved last November are to be phased in over the next six years.

Currently for K-5 the neighborhood around Wilson-Pacific is assigned to Bagley south of 92nd, and Viewlands north of 92nd.

http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Maps/boundarymaps/pdfs/AA_ES_Bagley.pdf?sessionid=e63e429123a352b9e5a8251cd14a7f4a

FYI: The Growth Boundary map set can be viewed here.

http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/school%20board/13-14%20agendas/112013agenda/20131120_GrowthBoundaries_AttachmentA_Revised11_20.pdf

Joe Wolf said...

Clarification ((I hope) on student assignment at the K-5 and 6-8 schools on the Wilson-Pacific site to be built in the BEX IV program

Elementary building:

The elementary building will house Grades 1-5 APP students living in the McClure, Hamilton, Whitman, JAMS, Eckstein and (starting 2017-18) Wilson-Pacific service areas *only*.

The 6-8 portion of the other building will have both a neighborhood and an APP assignment. The neighborhood assignment: Feeder elementary schools Northgate, Olympic View, Bagley, Greenwood; Broadview-Thomson K-8.

APP assignment: Students living in the Whitman and Wilson-Pacific service areas.

Joe Wolf said...

Clarification ((I hope) on student assignment at the K-5 and 6-8 schools on the Wilson-Pacific site to be built in the BEX IV program

Elementary building:

The elementary building will house Grades 1-5 APP students living in the McClure, Hamilton, Whitman, JAMS, Eckstein and (starting 2017-18) Wilson-Pacific service areas *only*.

The 6-8 portion of the other building will have both a neighborhood and an APP assignment. The neighborhood assignment: Feeder elementary schools Northgate, Olympic View, Bagley, Greenwood; Broadview-Thomson K-8.

APP assignment: Students living in the Whitman and Wilson-Pacific service areas.

swapna rajesh said...

Assignment Help solutions offered by assignment 4 help .com is among the leading assignment composing help solutions offered online. Assignment help usa