Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Seattle Schools 2015 October Enrollment Numbers

Reader 47 posted this link to the October Enrollment counts.  Thanks.

One early read:

First crazy bits of info from the new 5-yr projections:

1. They used the May 2015 projections of October 2015 enrollment as their 2015/16 projection, rather than the current actual October data. So are the projections are built upon a current year enrollment of 51,745 rather than the 52,399 we actually have. Why start with data you know aren't accurate? Maybe because the lower number helps hide the capacity crisis?

2. Hamilton shows 1068 for the current year, when it's actually close to 1100. Next year's projection is a whopping 1172--so that might be closer to 1200 if they started with the current true count. In either case, there's no way all those kids can fit. Good luck with that!

HIMSmom

81 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here's the link to those new 5-year school-by-school projections.

HIMSmom

Numbers Matter said...

Reposting this here as it is more relevant to this thread:

Reader47 (or anyone) could you explain the numbers I am seeing? I would think that the P223 enrollment count should equal the P223 FTE count. Clearly I must be mistaken because, if that were the case, almost every single elementary school is UNDERSTAFFED by at least 1 FTE. I am just trying to understand. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Numbers Matter, it appears to be a half-day K issue. Enrollment looks like it's all kids, but you only get half an FTE per half-day kindergartener.

HIMSmom

Anonymous said...

Numbers matter:

For elementary schools, it looks like kindergarten enrollment is halved for the P223 FTE count (since the state only pays for half day at most schools).

- D's mom

Liz said...

So, given that a large number of full time kindergarten parents pay for the other half of the day what happens to that money? Does it fund their teachers for the afternoon or is that lost into the district's pockets?

NE mom said...

Ugh, Yes! Where are my $2800 for full day K going?!!

Anonymous said...

Projection document includes Whittier Elementary in the Eagle Staff Middle School service area. Year by year maps posted on the SPS web-site show Whittier Elementary in the Whitman Middle School service area.

Seriously, doesn't anyone proof these docs?

North by NW

Anonymous said...

@ Liz ...

$2,800 x 25 students = $70,000

A full day teacher costs around $85k ... yup, I'd say the district is abusing the pay for K system.

Contacted Sherry Carr about it when my student was in K. Her response "those numbers aren't something I'm aware of".

N by NW

Liz said...

Yeah, well in my case there are 27 kids in my son's class so that makes it $75,600. In the recommended staffing adjustments here http://www.scribd.com/doc/284242524/Seattle-Schools-Staffing-Adjustment-Appendix-2015, Wedgwood shows as 16 above projected, but still loosing a teacher. It is just so hard to figure out the logic behind these changes. Oh, wait that's where I went wrong; expecting logic.

Anonymous said...

They need to double the FTEs for kindergarten just to serve the whole day K students. These aren't the working FTEs are they?
West

Anonymous said...

Back in the old days when individual schools set their Pay 4 K rates, the monies were paid directly to the school and those funds were used to pay K teachers for a full day. The District did not normally fund all of the K teachers at a school for a full day. For example, if you had three K teachers maybe only 2 were funded by the District and then your Pay 4 K dollars would fill in the rest. This is one reason why Pay 4 K rates varied from school to school, as it would cost more to pay for a teacher with more seniority. Also, some PTA's decided to grant funds at some schools to either lower or completely pay for the Pay 4 K amount.

Now, the District sets the rate for Pay 4 K and gathers all of those funds. The PTA is not allowed to grant funds for Pay 4 K. NONE of the Pay 4 K dollars come back to your school - they go into some District account.

Kellie explained the old system to me (thank you), and my elementary principal confirmed for me several years ago about the NO money to the school from Pay 4 K funds. One of the changes when the system changed from local to central.

-StepJ

Melissa Westbrook said...

So I just heard the other day that there really were only about 28 pay for K classrooms left in Seattle Schools. But again, a good question about where the money goes.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone explain how and why there are 12 students in Madrona K-8's 5th grade? And a total of 77 students in the middle school (I presume it is built for 180)? The place is awash in Family and Education Levy money the last several years and seems to have gotten exactly no where. Lots of data being crunched and examined to no end. Very upsetting. The numbers in 1st (42), 2nd (35), 3rd (30) and 4th (29) are equally abysmally low. What is going on? Why is it still open? It always seems to get a free pass. There are 3 kindergartens this year (22 students per class), so that is healthier, but let's see if they stay.

Puzzled.

mirmac1 said...

Here are their real numbers. Sorry to burst the bubble but there's no Tracy Libros doing the analysis, rather there's a Brent Kroon contract employee who knows spreadsheets and databases (but does not know the Public Records Act).

2015-2016 Projections

Anonymous said...

News and events for Kids Not Cuts: http://www.kidsnotcuts.org/

Anonymous said...

I'm a k teacher. When the school got the pay for K funds, we didn't charge parents for supplies or for field trips. Now we don't get any of the money. We charge parents for supplies and for field trips. The pay for k money just goes down a dark hole downtown. If there was enough money before to pay for the teacher and some supplies, why isn't there money now?
wonder why

Lynn said...

I wonder why they're continuing to project APP enrollment at Ingraham when their staff is planning to discontinue IBX. It wouldn't be an HC pathway without IBX. I don't think these projections are based on current data.

Watching said...

The district is elevating K classes to 28-30 students. Where are the pay for K dollars going? Those dollars exceed the cost of a teacher.

"Yeah, well in my case there are 27 kids in my son's class so that makes it $75,600. In the recommended staffing adjustments here http://www.scribd.com/doc/284242524/Seattle-Schools-Staffing-Adjustment-Appendix-2015, Wedgwood shows as 16 above projected, but still loosing a teacher."

Anonymous said...

The IB program will still be intact. And I must say, it is a MUCH better track for APP kids than the district AP curriculum. It is true that without IBx, the Ingraham IB program would have been off our radar. So IBx did lure us to Ingraham but now that we are there we wouldn't want to be anywhere else. We could care less if the program started in 10th or 11th grade. So I suspect that the projections are hoping to reflect that.

The Ingraham IB program is the first........the first.......time we have experienced rigor in the curriculum and jazzed enthusiastic teachers in 9 years in the SPS.

-HappyNow

Anonymous said...

I took a look at the 5-year projections doc (posted above), and found this:

Boundaries:
- Boundaries are modeled on 2015 boundaries, with the exceptions of GeoSplits occurring at
Cedar Park Elementary, Meany Middle School, Eagle Staff Middle School and Lincoln High
School. This provides a conservative estimate for boundary changes not triggered by new
schools, as it assumes that grandfathering occurs at these schools and thus estimates
implications on capacity accordingly.

It's not bad enough to assign all the poor kids in Lake City to a sub-standard building, THEY ARE DOING IT BY GEO-SPLIT!!!!

If I'm not mistaken, all the other elementary schools that have been opened fairly recently were roll-ups?

Wow. Just Wow!

- North-end Mom

SPS Mom said...

RE: Cedar Park - maybe they are doing geo-split because when Olyhills opens the new building, it might not make sense to move families who have been in Cedar Park for interim over to the new building and then start a roll up at cedar park with siblings of those same families? I'm trying to remember a new elementary opening up and trying to think of one that was a roll up. I'm not coming up with any. When Hazel Wolf opened up, they assigned kids at all grades the first year and then admitted at all grades (even though full classes were added sort of like a roll up.). I'm wondering if they are feeling like the capacity needs are just so great that they need to bring on all grades at once? And maybe they think parents won't want split siblings, so they want to keep enough kids at cedar park to make at least 1-2 classes at each grade? It does feel different to me to keep students in a building to which they've become accustomed vs. geo-splitting them OUT of a building in which they've been. And maybe if they geo-split in place, they have a higher probability of maintaining library books, gym equipment, etc. I think that has been some of the main complaints with previous geo-splits?

Just trying to figure out the rationale, not that it's right...

Tresanos said...

What is a geo split?

Anonymous said...

Lynn,

You are right IBx is probably going to change. But nothing permanent has been proposed. I hope it is turned to a choice program that you can do in 3 years or 4. If you are on a 4 year course year 1 and 2 get you up to speed on language and additional classes year 1 and 2. I am looking at it as any HCC families should.

Also, I did not understand the new single domain rules for high IQ kids. They are put into spectrum classes not HC. Here is to hoping that means something for them.

-Do it

Anonymous said...

Sand Point was a roll-up. Initial year was assignment to K based on the new attendance area. Other grades were students that moved into the area from elsewhere, or those that opted for the school during Open Enrollment. I believe it has been the same for all new elementary openings. JAMS (middle school) was the first opening that was not a roll-up. Perhaps, that is the new mode of operation with all new schools? The current crew could really care less about keeping siblings together - it is not that.

-StepJ

Lynn said...

SPS Mom,

As an aside, there is no library at Cedar Park.

In 2010 McDonald opened with just 57 students and Sand Point opened with 78.

Tresanos - in a geosplit when a new school opens all students living in the new attendance area are reassigned to the new building. In a roll-up, an elementary school would start with kindergarteners, plus any grade 1-5 students who move into the attendance area.

Anonymous said...

@SPS Mom

Not all Cedar Park students are coming from Olympic Hills. There are quite a few coming from John Rogers, and if they do it by geo-split, then they will be taking kids way from the school they have been attending since kindergarten, and plopped into a different building, with a bunch of new kids.

John Rogers projected enrollment for 2016-17 = 420
John Rogers projected enrollment for 2017-18 = 274

That's a difference of nearly 150 kids. Lets be generous and say 50 of them are incoming kindergartners. That's 100 kids geo-split out of their elementary school. Not cool!

Lynn is correct, no library, no plumbing/sinks in the 8 outdoor classrooms (about 40% of the classrooms are in portables), and I recently heard there are only 3 boys bathroom stalls in the entire school (2019-20 enrollment is projected to be 374 kids). Cosmetically, the building looks much better than it used too, but it is still a very small, ill-equipped school for a very high-needs population.

- North-end Mom

Anonymous said...

to, not too, above (hate when that happens!)

- North-end Mom

Anonymous said...


From the Scribd link, it is clear that not only is someone not very good at his job, he also doesn't understand the context (public) nor is he very 'savy' (he put his attitude in writing?).



From: Kroon, Brent R
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 2:39 PM
To: Ferguson, Laurel L
Cc: Herndon, Flip; Boy, Ronald D
Subject: RE: PTA parents group requests enrollment data and New Request
Hi Laurel, I understand your conclusion. I would like to discuss this with Flip when he returns on Monday, he is my direct supervisor, he has the final say. I realize you are trying to follow the records act properly; however, this puts an incredible burden on our department, particularly in having to explain what people are looking at in a way that will not be misinterpreted. I’m not understating the impact of this when I say that this may require an additional staff person, just to handle questions from the public who are trying to interpret the data and its context and applications. We went through this same experience with growth boundaries and it had a huge negative impact on our ability to complete our actual work. I strongly advise against the wholesale release of this information, we should get a more detailed request other than ‘the whole drive’. We are not prepared to handle the amount of questions and criticism that will be directed our way unfairly from people who do not know what they are looking at. We will release this information when Flip OKs it.
-Brent
Brent Kroon
Interim Director, Enrollment Planning
Seattle Public Schools(206)252-0747



Thanks to whoever persists to get this stuff to see daylight. It is very, very illuminating.

Vote NO

Anonymous said...

North-end Mom, that is truly terrible news.

For the entire school lives of our oldest, we have fought for some dignity, respect, and recognition from SPS of the true value of the success of a child and school that is accelerated by actively involved parents.

Ripping families apart at the elementary level is the most cruel of splits. There is no logic, no study, no accepted best educational practice that splitting families in any way accelerates, enhances, or enables a child to succeed in school.

No more printable words, just expletives.

-StepJ

Anonymous said...

There has not been any indication that Ingraham would stop being an option pathway for APP/HCC. The change under discussion is whether they move away from the IBX model of having HCC students start the IB diploma program a year early.

-clarifying

Anonymous said...

Can anyone explain how and why there are 12 students in Madrona K-8's 5th grade? And a total of 77 students in the middle school (I presume it is built for 180)? The place is awash in Family and Education Levy money the last several years and seems to have gotten exactly no where. Lots of data being crunched and examined to no end. Very upsetting. The numbers in 1st (42), 2nd (35), 3rd (30) and 4th (29) are equally abysmally low. What is going on? Why is it still open? It always seems to get a free pass. There are 3 kindergartens this year (22 students per class), so that is healthier, but let's see if they stay.
Puzzled


@Puzzled. Look at AS1/Pinehurst/Licton Springs. It only has 8 students in 8th grade. A mere 39 in the total middle school. This in the north end, where schools are bulging with portables. Their biggest grade only has 19 students. It has been trending like this for 10 years. That is why their building was taken and given to a thriving K8, one that has grown substantially during the same period.

Poorly attended schools are costing a lot of money. To run a school of 138, it costs nearly double per student. It is doubtful that those students are getting 'double' the education, and yet, that is what we are paying for. See page 142 of the budget; cost per student is $10,800, compared to about $5K on average in every other K5 or K8. And this is for general ed, not for ELL or SpEd, and there are schools with much high F&RL, so that is not driving the cost for Licton Springs either. Madronna K8's cost is $7,200. Still crazy high, but still a relative bargain compared to $10,800 per student.

http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Budget/Budget%20Book%202015-2016/2015-16%20Budget%20Book%20updated%2006162015v2.pdf


The reason for these low enrollments is perception. In general, if families perceive academic inferiority of a building or that something else that is amiss (maybe a difficult principal, maybe crime surrounding the building, maybe a bad bell time), families figure out ways to escape assignment. Maybe they go to an option school. Maybe they go a Catholic school. Maybe they move. If they are close to a municipal boundary, maybe they get an interdistrict transfer. The district can't push or force families to put kids into schools that families perceive as not making the grade (although they do try with forcible SpEd assignments). There are only a few buildings in this district not at capacity. And those buildings have kids in neighborhoods. Those kids are being redirected by families elsewhere. They need some Teaching and Learning attention to ensure those buildings are performing well and the positive message is getting out. The opposite affect is also true with schools when families perceive excellence. Families will find a way to get in and those schools will become oversubscribed. This happens not just in Seattle, but everywhere in the US: families with means or moxy chase 'hot seats', families with means or savy avoid placements they do not want. It disproportionately affects different communities. And of course, it is inequitable. In a nutshell, not matter how just, social engineering has always been rejected by most families when it comes to their own kids. You can't push people's kids into buildings with policy, you've got to pull them in with good stuff.

Please know we are talking about perceptions, not reality. Wonderful schools with great communities shouldn't be so misunderstood or 'misperceived'. And, shooting the messenger won't change the facts on enrollment or costs.


Falcon

Anonymous said...

Geo-split? They've done it to APP multiple times now. Eckstein was geo-split for JAMS. Yeah, it's pretty lousy to be split from friends multiple times. Plus, equipment, books, etc., stayed with the old school. The students/teachers being moved had to start from scratch with new libraries, gym equipment, etc. Yet roll ups would be worse.

-reality check

Anonymous said...

I have read somewhere the increase in central office (JSCEE) staff in the past year. It is so galling that services to students in buildings are being compromised, such as services to students with disabilities whose least restrictive environment is general education. What is going to happen to these students? Of course, they'll begin to fail, then fail more, then fail more and more and soon big surprise the SPS will be moving them into more restrictive environments. Though they could have succeeded in General Education with appropriate suports. As is their legal right.

By now it is really the School Board that is accountable on the matter of where is the fidelity to the letter and spirit of IDEA and ADA.

Rambler

mirmac1 said...

You're welcome Vote NO,

I've been bending John Cerqui's and Ron Boy's ear about the utter ignorance among well paid staff regarding transparency. I'm developing a thick stack of problematic PRRs that should be pursued in court.

Anonymous said...

After sitting or watching multiple Board meetings during both the NSAP and Growth Boundaries, I remember discussions about roll-ups -vs- geo-splits, and how roll-ups work for elementary schools, but not so much for middle schools. Sand Point, Viewlands, and McDonald were all started as roll-ups.

I've been following this for a long time, and had no idea they were planning to geo-split kids from John Rogers and put them at Cedar Park. I assumed there would be a roll-up, and probably some older kids in the building due to loss of transportation to John Rogers and Olympic Hills and new kids to SPS. I never imagined they would change the assignments for kids already at those schools, many who come from families that are non-English speaking (Cedar Park is taking pretty much all of John Rogers' ELL kids, and is also taking Olympic Hills' highest density ELL neigbhorhoods). Communicating this to families will very, very difficult.

What a nightmare!

- North-end Mom

Anonymous said...

What you see at Madrona K-8 is a school with steadily increasing enrollment in the younger grades as more neighborhood families send their kids to the local school. The enrollment trend is up with 64 kindergartners. The small upper grades are due to past history and the availability of many middle school options in the same area - TOPS K-8 and Washington Middle School as well as lots of private schools. It isn't analogous to AS-1/Pinehurst/licton Springs. -NP

Anonymous said...

Licton Springs K-8 (AS1) has suffered due to lack of support from the school district. Few people want to send their kid to a school which is continually threatened with closure. The school was thriving at one point and will be again once it settles into its new location and has some stability. Hazel Wolf was moved from its building due to the need for another middle school not because Licton Springs was under enrolled.

Licton Springs serves a vital function of serving Native American students and students who do not do well in standard elementary and middle schools. I know it has been a lifesaver for my cousin's kid who is thriving there.

HP

Anonymous said...

Can't help but notice that Olympic Hills has a projected enrollment in the 200s-300s from 2017- 2020, in a big, beautiful new building that will seat up to 660.

-North-end Mom

Anonymous said...

North End mom, I noticed the same thing! Remember they had proposed putting the NE APP/HCC cohort at Olympic Hills a few years ago when they were redrawing the boundaries? I wonder where those extra 200-300 kids that can't fit into the Wilson Pacific bldg will go..?

- Wondering

Melissa Westbrook said...

Puzzled, yes, Madrona K-8 is limping along and needs a org. I'm glad if it is growing at the K level but that may not be soon enough to justify it.

Licton Springs is very different from Madrona K-8 and I don't have a problem waiting to see what happens when the new Wilson-Pacific building opens. But Madrona has a reasonably good building and it should be near full and hasn't been for years.

NE Mom, Cedar Park is going to be a disaster. It also needs a complete overhaul. It's boundaries are ridiculous, the building has just one bathroom each for boys and girls with the boys have just three stalls and it is not safe to walk to. AND, I saw on the district's Early Learning info at yesterday's Ex Ctm meeting that the City wants a pre-k spot there as well. It is wrong to have some Olympic Hills kids who know they will go to a shiny new building (see mostly white families) and the kids of color know they will be staying in the shabby building.

Anonymous said...

The enrollment projections for Oly Hills are crap. They're just not accurate. Unfortunately, "program placement" decisions will be made based on really bad projections, and then great chaos will ensue....

Yes, elem. (Sand Point, McDonald, Viewlands, etc) are generally started by roll up, b/c kids stay mostly with their teacher all day and they don't need as much of a choice of electives like two foreign languages, orchestra, band, multi age sports teams, etc that require both a large cohort of students to create and multi age groups to make vibrant.

However, when JAMS was being started as the first new secondary school in a long time, the rollup model was considered and heavily, vigorously and adamantly agitated AGAINST (despite the unfortunate reality that the APP kids split out from Hamilton had been split before, even a lot of APP parents wanted a geosplit instead of a rollup). Kids who would be 6th graders talked at the Board meeting about how they didn't want to be only 6th graders in a building, they wanted other ages and older kids as mentors, like in other MS programs. They wanted to have multi-age orchestra and band, especially, and enough kids all at once to make a vibrant program.

The issue that you see in the numbers at Madrona 6-8 - parents who can "choice" out somehow doing so - would have probably happened if JAMS had been 6th only. The district refused to commit to enough extra funding if it was 6th only to do things other MS have, like provide 2 foreign language choices and multi-levels of music, multi-levels of math, full time counselors even if the school was less than 200 sixth graders, full time librarian, etc. They were pushed HARD but SPS finance just wouldn't say "we'll put extra money behind making sure every 6th grader gets the same opportunity at a JAMS rollup that they would have had at Eckstein or HIMS." Without that promise, a split - where kids at all grade levels are taken out to start the school as a full community from day one - seemed like the most appropriate (indeed, ONLY) way to make sure that the experience was, at a minimum, equitable.

The secondary school start choices appear to be: rollup with sixth (or ninth!) graders only, bare minimum provided by smaller numbers, with obviously lots of people getting their kids into somewhere else ... so a smaller number of kids impacted, but those kids getting a huge shaft and probably being disproportionately ELL/FRL/etc, and getting nothing comparable to the comprehensive MS education at Eckstein or HIMS,

vs.

A geosplit, incoming sixth graders plus 7 & 8 taken from the existing schools AS A GROUP and enough numbers for a much fuller set of offerings, full funding (such as that is) and much closer to equity - fewer parents probably opting out b/c they can see a large group and a "real" school instead of several years of part of a school.

Many parents would have figured out how not to have their kid in a 6th only school, and thus it would have been even smaller than projected if only 6th grade. The district needed the school to open big and open successfully - as a pattern for the two more MS and at least one more HS coming soon.

That's the brief history of geosplit vs. roll up. And yes, being pulled from your school hurts - but in the big picture that's about systems, kids were still with a group they knew, and they were put in a comprehensive school, not a lesser school. It's a good pattern for Secondary (but seems VERY ODD for elem - gah, lack of institutional knowledge downtown, how is that possible???)

--NoName Today

Anonymous said...

The District makes it sounds like they used actual enrollment numbers on their website

http://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=2802374

But that is total enrollment for the whole District. Are you saying that they did not even bother to get the actual numbers from each school this fall, and that these cuts are all based on projections from May??

HC

Anonymous said...

@HC - I believe that is the case, though don't know for sure - can someone with better knowledge chime in?

reader47

RosieReader said...

-DoIt @ 9:25 am: the requirement that all IB coursework be completed in 2 years is imposed by the IB program itself. IBO or whatever it's called. There is nothing any school district can do to change it.

madpark said...

Crazy numbers for Licton Springs and Madrona.

Can anyone point me to market share numbers for Seattle Public Schools? How many elementary school age kids in Seattle versus how many go to Seattle Public Schools, etc?

Melissa Westbrook said...

MadPark, those might be hard to find. I think you can find the number of school-aged students in Seattle but to find:

- how many are home-schooled
- how many are in private schools
- how many attend out-of-district schools

Might be trickier. OSPI would be a good place to start.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Rosie that is correct. It is a matter of if they start those 2 years in year one or year two at IHS. Year one could allow them to graduate early (which has happened already). If year two they could add additional course work and augment foreign language as the HC pathway is s/w lacking. Then proceed starting IB in year 3.

-Do it

Anonymous said...

Just a note on Licton springs - they deliberately have multi-grade classrooms, and the enrollment is based on having one classroom for each two grades (meaning they can only take 15-16 kids per grade at most), so it is not quite as small as it looks. The 12 7th graders & 8 graders are actually one classroom with one teacher. Although it is still a small class, the 5/6 and 3/4 classes are larger, similar to other schools.

Mom of 4

Anonymous said...

Very strange language describing what may or may not be the Lincoln attendance area (Lincoln will be a geo-split):

"Lincoln High School (projection) is based on three year residents at either Ballard or Roosevelt High Schools,
as a percentage of each grade. The following 2015 elementary attendance areas were used to
approximate the historic Lincoln High School boundary: Green Lake, B.F. Day, West Woodland,
Bagley, and Greenwood.

They went back to the "historic" boundaries?

@NoName

Lincoln, Meany, and Eagle Staff are being opened as geo-splits. I can understand how this makes sense, because the schools are meant to be comprehensive, and it would be very difficult to start as a roll-up and have enough funding to cover a decent selection of electives without tons of mitigation funding.

It makes absolutely no sense to do this for an elementary school, especially when there are examples of recent successes using roll-ups.

-North-end Mom

Joe Wolf said...

Re. Madrona K-8

Madrona is my neighborhood school. The details in "anonymous"' comment above are correct.
Madrona's boundary was also expanded, which plays into the larger numbers in the lower grades.

The trend is for Madrona to transition to a "2-3-up" (2-3 homerooms/grade) school. At present I'm talking with Enrollment Planning about a staff recommendation to make Madrona a K-5 school when Meany MS opens. Please note this discussion is at the staff level for now.

Anonymous said...

OSPI does have data on both home schooled and private school enrollment on their website Private Education and Home-Based Instruction

Attending out of district is probably there someplace too but not as nicely packaged.

Private school enrollment data is on THIS page - scroll down to where it says October Enrollment Report

reader47

Melissa Westbrook said...

And Joe, once again, we take a building built for K-8 and use it as a K-5. What a waste of building dollars.

Anonymous said...

@ Joe Wolf,

Any nuggets for us re: high school capacity and plans? Those 5-year projections confirm that things are going to be very ugly in the couple years before Lincoln HS opens. What sort of options are being tossed around at JSCEE, and at what point might parents be brought into the conversation?

HIMSmom

Anonymous said...

From 2014-15 OSPI Annual Report on Home Based Instruction, Seattle Public Schools:

Registered families - 245
Registered students - 364
Part-time attendance - 26
Returned to District - 0

The private school report lists student attendance numbers by school, and in what school district the school is located, but does not specify in which district the children live.

fyi

Anonymous said...

A note on Eagle Staff ... the district sent out a notice to families last spring that their student would have the CHOICE to remain at their current middle school - OR - move to Eagle Staff when it opened. Have they forgotten - or - does one department not know what the other department is doing?

Also, the Eagle Staff projections include Whittier Elementary as a feeder school. The year by year maps posted on the district web-site show Whittier as a Whitman feeder school.

So ... aren't all the projections regarding Eagle Staff miscalculated?

North by NW

kellie said...

I think returning Madonna to a K-5 is a good plan.

There are so many anomalies in the district that were once-upon-a-time capacity management strategies.

Back at the very beginning of the closure madness, shortly after the whole Olschefski broke the bank fiasco, there was a plan to increase enrollment by selecting a handful of under enrolled schools and alternative schools and "turning them into K8." None of these were intentional education decisions, they were just attempts to better utilize the buildings.

Madronna, Broadview Thompson, Orca, Pathfinder and a handful of other schools were all converted.

Madronna is a medium sized building and it would be better utilized as a K5.

Anonymous said...

North by NW -- actually Hamilton families did not receive that assurance from the District, although I recall that it was on the Whitman website as promised by the District. At the time I was on the PTA board of Hamilton and so I asked Flip Herndon about the matter specifically. He said that the District always wants to offer kids the opportunity to stay at the school where they start, and he felt confident that the new school would fill with people who would want to be there. He then said that because APP is a program, it could be subject to movement and was a different case.

I did look at the Whitman website yesterday (because I had the same question you did) and I guess that text is gone along with everything that was on the old site.

Lisa

Lynn said...

A 200 student wing (8 classrooms I believe) was added to the Mann building in it's recent renovation. NOVA has planned to add a middle school program - it was included in their Creative Approach application. As that has not materialized, and enrollment at NOVA has not increased to fill those rooms, there is an opportunity to use them for Garfield overflow. I think it would be possible to schedule some classes there for a few years until new high schools come online.

Could space be leased somewhere to hold kids until Lincoln reopens and a new wing at Ingraham is built?

Lynn said...

Looking at the high school projections, it appears the district expects Rainier Beach will always have 500 or so empty seats. Utilizing those will be necessary soon. Any predictions on how that will happen?

Anonymous said...

@ Lisa

I think they're willing to let students stay at Whitman b/c Eagle Staff will be packed out with the HCC program - which grows every year - from the get go. I guessing they would "let" Gen-Ed kids stay at Hamilton???

Eagle Staff projections - as presented - are bogus!

North by NW

Anonymous said...

Actually ... above comment is probably inaccurate because in reality ... who gets messed with more than HCC? Who KNOWS what the "plan" is for Eagle Staff ... certainly not the district.

North by NW

Anonymous said...

@ North by NW

Yes, I am being generous with how I characterize his remarks about the movability of the HCC "program." But their actions speak for themselves anyway.

I thought they were being pretty hasty to assure Whitman families that they could opt to stay at Whitman at that point anyway. (And it was obvious that they were not in a position to extend the same courtesy to Hamilton families, given the capacity issues there.) Nothing like making a promise and then having to rescind it.

Lisa

Anonymous said...

"Space...to hold kids until Lincoln reopens..."

As opposed to a space that actually functions efficiently as a high school? Lovely.

But I'm not seeing how it would work... Who would they warehouse, and how could they serve them appropriately?

HF

Lynn said...

HF,

I don't know. Will they be served appropriately in our current schools with double shifts? That will limit access to classes for which only one section is offered (so high level world languages, music, theatre and some math and science courses) and require some students to attend school at times that make it very difficult for them to learn. It sounds like you think this would be preferable to inadequate facilities. I am just wondering what the solutions could be.

Anonymous said...

If they were to move a subgroup of students to a temporary site, that would likely impact access to a full range of courses, too.

HF

Lynn said...

HF,

What do you think would work? What do you think the district is (secretly) planning?

Anonymous said...

No freaking clue, Lynn! But isn't it sad that people think they ARE secretly planning? That they are not engaging those likely to be seriously impacted by the apparent lack of good options?

Or if they aren't secretly planning, then why aren't they planning? The warning sirens are blaring! Time to get moving!

HF

Anonymous said...

Am I reading this right? Garfield will gain almost a thousand more students over the next 5 years? That's almost like adding another high school. Isn't Garfield already at full capacity?

OMG

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the projections for Cascadia Elementary to grow to 912 kids given that the new elementary school SPS is building only has a capacity of around 600 - 650. I assume that the District is planning on splitting APP elementary in the north end? Which I'm not necessarily against - it would just be nice to know who would be split off and where they would go.

Jane

Anonymous said...

Same question as OMG - the projections show Garfield adding 916 APP kids (while Ingraham adds 70). I know APP is growing - but the projections have the high school APP population going from 834 in 2015 to 1,820 in 2019. In other words, they are projecting the high school APP population will more than double in just 4 years. That seems very odd.

Jane

Lynn said...

I think the answer is in the assumptions used when the projections were created. Here's what the report said:

For Highly Capable Cohort (HCC, formerly APP): These rates are calculated by historic
growth rate, and removing these students from their attendance area schools. Non- residents entering have been removed from 6th grade AA school, where they would have otherwise enrolled; however, non-residents at grades 1 through 5 entering HCC would not, as these students would not be assigned to their attendance area school before switching programs.


They are not taking into account that tremendous growth occurred in north end APP when the program was located at Lincoln and HIMS. This happened because families were more willing to move their children to the program when it became a little closer to home. I think that growth rate will not continue - it's not like there's an endless supply of highly capable children in the city.

Anonymous said...

So according to the shiny new projections, Garfield will go from being 32% "APP" this year, to 60% "APP" in 2019!

I found it interesting that the 5-yr projections also include separate breakout for "APP." Has that always been the case, or is this their way of acknowledging that yes, HC students will be the moveable widgets for capacity balancing?

HF

Anonymous said...

@Jane

Given that they are booting Olympic Hills kids out of Olympic Hills (geo-spliting them to Cedar Park), and leaving 300+ empty seats in the shiny new Olympic Hills building, my guess is that is where the "extra" Cascadia kids are landing.

-reality check

Melissa Westbrook said...

Reality Check, I think you are right. Not going to look good when it comes out that APP kids are going to two new buildings.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Lynn and think that using historic growth rates for APP are resulting in projections that are too high. In addition to the increase that happened when APP was located at Lincoln and Hamilton, there's also been a bump after the dismantling of Spectrum. However, now that Spectrum is mostly gone and many of those kids are now at APP, I think that the growth rate will level off.

Jane

Anonymous said...

Melissa - true, but by then Sharon Peaslee will be long gone, and she won't have to deal with the repercussions, or be there to take responsibility for what she pushed so hard for during Growth Boundaries (APP/HCC at Olympic Hills).

It is so NOT COOL to geo-split kids out of their established school community to make room for HCC kids!

-reality check

Anonymous said...

Another reason for app to get slotted in the Decatur building. I would trade stability and a smaller school for a shiny new building a thousand times over. Bonus if we draw 1% less optics ire.

But isn't oly hills supposed to grow quickly anyway? So this would immediately become a problem?

-sleeper

Twister said...

Put APP at Cedar Park and leave Olympic Hills kids where they are.

Anonymous said...

I am absolutely appalled by the idea that our kids at Olympic Hills, who have gone through so much in their lives, may be cast out of their new Olympic Hills school to make room for kids who overwhelmingly come from far more advantaged backgrounds, the possible takeover by the talented and gifted program. AND the vast majority of OH English learners and students below the poverty line sent to Cedar Park. There is only 1 bathroom for boys and 1 for girls in the whole Cedar Park school. It was a great artists colony but so many ways it doesn't work as a school. Now it will be overcrowded right away, with all high poverty kids slammed into a low quality building while more well-to-do kids from all over the north end get the new school with a health center that was designed for OH kids? This is so wrong it makes my stomach turn. What an example of institutional racism. I'm simply speechless as I read this all, yet it makes perfect sense.

OH

Anonymous said...

@OH

I am similarly sickened by the plan to geo-split students and families from John Rogers, some of whom have been a part of the John Rogers community since their child was a kindergartner in 2012. I don't remember hearing anything about using a geo-split for Cedar Park during the Growth Boundaries discussions. It is not an appropriate way to start a new school, and certainly not appropriate for ELL students and students living in poverty.

- North-end Mom

Anonymous said...

Yes! Clearly only HCC students deserve to be "cast out" of their school and relocated to a "low quality building", right? A geo-split is clearly "not an appropriate way to start a new school"...unless were talking about HCC students, of course. Geo-splits and crappy buildings are fine for THOSE kids!

DisAPPointed