Phase II Recommendations Dismissed by Board

The School Board voted tonight to reject Raj's Phase II recommendations.

Late in the meeting (around 11 pm), apparently Irene Stewart introduced a motion to reject Raj's recommendations tonight since she knew there were not enough votes to pass them, and they didn't want to "do this" for two more weeks.

Cheryl Chow and Michael DeBell voted against the motion. All other Board members supported it.

Bottom line, AS#1, Pathfinder, Cooper, and Roxhill all stay put.

See the PI article, "Second phase of school closings halted" for more details.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I just read the article and I'm completely stunned and confused. The P-I article states the 5-2 vote tabled the school-closure proposal indefinitely but that "closures could resurface in the future." How likely is this "resurfacing" to happen during the current school year? Could we still face closures for the 2007-2008 school year? Anybody have any thoughts/ predictions/conclusions on this issue?
10/19/06, 9:52 AM
Beth Bakeman said…
My understanding is that this is DEFINITELY the end for closures for the 2007/2008 school year. They have run out of time.

I have heard several School Board members talking about future discussions around middle schools and high schools.

No idea how/if they are going to reconsider elementary and alternative schools again, but nothing will be done for the 2007/2008 school year.
10/19/06, 10:57 AM
Johnny Calcagno said…
Does this mean that Viewlands just gets closed - and the students dispersed - or can the approval of the merger with Broadview Thompson go through sometime later this year?
10/19/06, 11:18 AM
Beth Bakeman said…
Excellent question. I heard from a Viewlands parent this morning about the same issue. She will update us when she learns more.

My prediction is that Sally Soriano will introduct a separate motion for the Viewlands/Broadview Thompson recommendation and that it will receive Board support.
10/19/06, 11:24 AM
Roy Smith said…
My understanding is that state law requires school closures to be approved no later than November 1 in order to be effective the following year. So, even if they wanted to, they couldn't resurrect it this year.
10/20/06, 8:14 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more