One reader noted that two of the attachments that were supposed to be in the original BAR are finally at the SPS website. (And use that in any argument you want to make about going forward - information was not given to the Board and the community in a timely fashion.)
Attachment D - Grandfathering and Fiscal Impact Data
This is quite the terse and less-than-fleshed out fiscal document.
Attachment E - Community Meetings Feedback (62 pages)
From the Oct 21st Friday memo - 2017-18 Growth Boundary Feedback and Consideration
(via Green Lake parent)
This memo is organized into four categories as was mentioned at the School Board meeting on Wednesday, October 12, 2016 when the Growth Boundaries BAR was introduced. The memo covers the following topics: grandfathering recommendations, Cedar Park planning, requests to review specific change areas, and highly capable cohort pathway planning.
For example, it would take 21 portables to grandfather everyone, but only 11 portables to grandfather everyone except John Rogers and Olympic Hills. Therefore implying that Olympic Hill and John Rogers will need 10 of the 21 portables to grandfather their two schools. Except that Olympic Hills is moving into a brand new huge building. How is that possible?? It means that you can't trust the rest of the analysis.
My favorite little part. Area 66 is one of the easiest places to just say yes. Area 66 is a small area of 43 students that is 19% ELL and 62% FRL, being geo-split from McClure to Meany. Meany is going to be 95% split from Washington and therefore all of the programming focus will be matching Washington and there will be little attention paid to this small group. These McClure students just want to be grandfathered at the school that has plenty of space for them.
The reason why this is no OK, is because it would be "inconsistent." Never mind that during the 2013 geo-splits some areas were split and other grandfathered based on capacity. Also never mind that Whitman was promised grandfathering. Now we are going to be concerned about consistency and split these 43 students away from a school that has over 100 empty seats.
SPS has purchased large number of portables every year since 2009 and we have over 200 portables district wide. Some of those are not very portable any longer but some of them are very portable. The four portables at Hamilton were permitted for only one year and they need to moved elsewhere next year. There are also still portables at the Old Schmitz Park budding that could be re-deployed.
Gerry Pollet has been an incredibly gift to SPS. He has worked consistently to get additional money and to always be available.
Cedar Park was not part of the BEX IV plan, Gerry had secured the money to make Cedar Park an interim facility so that BOTH Olympic Hills and John Rogers could be rebuilt. It was a shock to many when at the very last moment, Cedar Park became an attendance area school under Growth Boundaries.
It would be excellent if Gerry could secure funds to accelerate the rebuild of John Rogers as that would actually solve multiple capacity and segregation/integration problems. John Rogers has been on the BEX planning list for many cycles.North-end Mom on Cedar Park:
Here are some FRL numbers (dated May 2016, from OSPI):Go Eagle Staff:
Sacajawea, 25.7% FRL
Olympic View, 38.6% FRL
John Rogers, 40.2% FRL
Olympic Hills, 74.6% FRL
The official FRL estimate for Cedar Park is 69%. In my opinion, this is very conservative, because it includes portions of the Cedar Park attendance area that would go private rather than send kids to a school with high FRL.
Under the 2017-18 growth boundaries plan, almost all the FRL and ELL kids in the region will be assigned to either Cedar Park or Olympic Hills, instead of being distributed between four schools (as they are now). As a consequence of opening Cedar Park as an attendance area school, the FRL and ELL population of John Rogers, Sacajawea, and possibly Olympic View will drop sharply. More importantly, actual kids will be re-assigned to a different "neighborhood" school mid-way through elementary school, and many of these kids qualify for FRL and/or ELL, and are least-equipped to handle the transition.
At least the memo makes it very clear that HCC will be placed at Eagle Staff and will be geosplit from Hamilton.North-End Mom:
That section doesn't contain any "options" making it clear that it is a done deal.
For those of you following the ever-growing list of "what to do with the "extra" kids at Cascadia," there is a new option in the above-mentioned Friday memo:Green Lake parent:
"Option 8: Cascadia split and Olympic Hills serves as an Option Site for HCC similar to Fairmount Park.
North end boundary changes would still be implemented in order to provide capacity relief. Requestsfor testing have already ended and historically very few students in this area are eligible for HCC, so itis not likely that many students from this area would attend HCC in the first year. More families in the northeast may start testing since there is an option closer to them. Keeps HCC integrated rather than creating another standalone HCC school. The Olympic Hills community were not planning on housing HCC in their building, so this would be new information that would have to be communicated and the school would have to plan for this."
Is there no memory of how this idea was received when Director Peaslee proposed it back in 2013? That they would resurrect this repulsive and convoluted plan to split the high-poverty kids out of Olympic Hills in order to make room for HCC kids in the shiny new building is beyond comprehension!
One of many things that bother me about the document is that it doesn't include any analysis of alternatives for Eagle Staff's boundaries so that Whitman's enrollment doesn't see a drastic drop to half it's current size next year. Is this on anyone's radar?! Board or SPS staff???Me:
You might want to get masses of people to the next Board meeting. This is about to get very, very real.