KCTS Connects
Cheryl Chow was the guest on KCTS Connects tonight (the program will be re-aired on Sunday at 5 am and noon). I was asked by the producer to call in and I did.
The host, Enrique Cernas, was really trying to cover a lot of ground. He asked about the levy/bond measures, the superintendent search and the problems with board. I was sorry he was trying to cover so much ground in such a short time. I only discussed the levy/bond measures.
I found what Cheryl said to be confusing. She first said the district was all about safety. When I pointed out that the worst buildings/those with the most seismic problems were not being addressed, she said that back in Jan 2006 when they looked at the long range plan, that they decided it would not be based just on capacity and building condition but improving academics.
First of all, this means that they made the list before they had any idea about school closures. I find that very odd. How did they make plans without knowing how that would play out?
Two, I have never heard from staff or seen in any document anything about capacity being used as part of the considerations. I guess this means Montlake, McGilvra, Nova, all the small schools are just not going to ever get a rebuild. (Take that back; McGilvra could be rebuilt to be larger, they have the site for that but Montlake and Nova don't.)
Three, they put academic improvement before building condition? Buildings in bad condition or worse, with safety issues, are behind other buildings where they believe that a rebuild will improve academics? What can I say to that? I've got to assume this is their new reason for New School's rebuild.
The host, Enrique Cernas, was really trying to cover a lot of ground. He asked about the levy/bond measures, the superintendent search and the problems with board. I was sorry he was trying to cover so much ground in such a short time. I only discussed the levy/bond measures.
I found what Cheryl said to be confusing. She first said the district was all about safety. When I pointed out that the worst buildings/those with the most seismic problems were not being addressed, she said that back in Jan 2006 when they looked at the long range plan, that they decided it would not be based just on capacity and building condition but improving academics.
First of all, this means that they made the list before they had any idea about school closures. I find that very odd. How did they make plans without knowing how that would play out?
Two, I have never heard from staff or seen in any document anything about capacity being used as part of the considerations. I guess this means Montlake, McGilvra, Nova, all the small schools are just not going to ever get a rebuild. (Take that back; McGilvra could be rebuilt to be larger, they have the site for that but Montlake and Nova don't.)
Three, they put academic improvement before building condition? Buildings in bad condition or worse, with safety issues, are behind other buildings where they believe that a rebuild will improve academics? What can I say to that? I've got to assume this is their new reason for New School's rebuild.
Comments
The closest I can come to that is renovating the open floor plan buildings to add walls and form classrooms. But look at the open concept buildings: Kimball, Beacon Hill, and Maple. They are all doing quite well academically.
So what, exactly, does it mean when they say that they are doing the renovations that will improve academics?
You mention the open concept buildings. One piece of irony is that, according to the minutes, New School is either going to be an open concept or partial open concept building. The original money in BEX II for the South Shore building was to reconfigure it from a middle school open concept because it no longer worked as such.
It's interesting because in the December 2006 South Shore Amended SEPA Environmental Checklist it states, "Open-concept schools, popular in the '60s and 70's were built without walls to facilitate team teaching and interaction between teachers and students. The open-concept school is no longer popular and the South Shore building no longer meets the education needs of the programs housed in it. The lack of walls between classrooms leads to noise and disruptions that are distracting to teaching."
I wonder what the folks at Kimball, Beacon Hill and Maple would say to that and I wonder why the district used that design at those schools if they believe it is "no longer popular".
From what I can gather, the remodels at Beacon Hill and Maple include enclosed classrooms, which are not "open concept".
The more important issue is that this is one more jab at The New School. I can only assume that these jabs keep coming because The New School receives private money through The New School Foundation. Please just come out and say that and stop attacking it from every other angle - the issue of private funding can be debated on it's own. My feeling is that all schools get private money, be it through PTAs, programs like Powerful Schools, donations of computers, etc. It is true that The New School gets a lot of money, but it is doing really good things with this money, and it is my sincere hope that things learned through The New School programs can be applied to schools across the state. Having hard data proving that increased funding makes a real difference in test scores is good for all schools, especially as the state studies the issue as it is now.
I am dismayed by the way that these thinly veiled attacks on The New School muddy the water regarding Seattle Schools in general and those in the Southeast Quadrant in particular. For example, in their guest editorial in the Seattle PI regarding a K-* New School, Ms. Westbrook and Ms. Murakami say: "The district claims it wants to do it because it needs more middle school capacity in the South End. That directly disputes its own 2010 Facilities Master Plan, which states, "current middle school capacity can accommodate enrollment on a district-wide level." That region's two middle schools are both underenrolled by at least 300 students each." Although they don't misquote the Master Plan, they phrase the whole thing to make it appear that there are 600 extra seats because there aren't enough students in the south end to fill those seats. The tuth is (according to the same Master Plan they quote from) - the Southeast Quadrant has only 15 vacant middle seats (by far the tightest ratio in the City). The problem is - and what we are trying to address with expansion of The New School to K-8, is that kids are leaving the Southeast Quadrant in droves because the middle school options here are not good ones. Aki Kurose is improving, but has a poor academic track record, and the African American Academy's program is not appealing to the whole spectrum of students. So kids go to private schools or they go to public middle schools outside of the south end.
This is just one of many misrepresentations of fact regarding The New School and the education needs of the south end community that Ms. Westbrook and others have made public. I have tried to address others elsewhere. If folks have trouble with the private funding, be clear about it. The New School is doing great things for the kids and community in Rainier Beach and should be commended for it.
I also agree that it is misleading to judge middle school seats in the South end on space at Aki and AAA. Aki has a dynamic principal, but a whole host of problems including a dilapidated building. AAA does not have a program that has broad appeal. It has its place for some, but it is not a concept that many families will choose. Even if ultimately the New School fails (which I doubt it will), SPS could use the new building at South Shore as a location for a middle school to replace the Aki building.
1) I'm not an architect but I did some research online. Open concept (and partial open concept) do NOT cover everything besides "turn-of-the-century long hallways". I can name you a number of new school buildings in this district that are not open concept.
2)I am not jabbing at New School. I support public/private partnerships and I think New School is doing a great job. However, I will point out that when legislators were being given an overview of how more money could create better test scores and New School was used as example, they said it was unrealistic to believe the legislature could ever fund schools to that level.
3) Yes, the difference in how many middle school residents in the SE is close between its total and the capacity. However it still remains that there are 600+ middle school seats in the SE not being filled. The district is likely to pull back on choice through a new enrollment plan, forcing some of those students back to the south end but I'd like to see those seats filled before we build new ones. I'm sorry you don't like Aki and Mercer and Africian-American Academy. So the answer is to keep creating new schools until we find one that residents like? You can add seats by building New School but that will only continue to marginalize those programs (although I hear that AAA will be joined by TAF academy and maybe that will revitalize its program).
Lastly, all I can say is that New School got to the top of BEX III a lot faster than other schools that have waited longer and are in worse buildings. Maybe Aki Kurose with its "dilapidated" building should have been there first.
More than half of Seattle Public Schools could realistically make the argument for BEX III money being appropriate for the improvement of their buildings to replace outdated systems, improve seismic safety, replace portable structures, build capacity in over-enrolled schools, promote ADA access and/or make facility improvements for academic gain.
Choosing which schools should be included in BEX III is like choosing a favorite child. There are too many reasons that make each of them special, too many reasons why each should be first, and too many reasons why they shouldn't continue to flounder in facilities that don't support academics/health of students / access / capacity/ geographic need / (fill in the blank).
I've read Melissa's report, reviewed on my own, and continue to be dismayed by her opposition to BEX III based on two schools that she would not choose.
She makes valids arguments against why New School and Nathan Hale shouldn't be included, however, if you look at the data from another perspective there is rationale to support why they should be included. New School has demonstrated excellent improvements in the achievement gap, their program is popular, their building is in need of repair, their opportunities to grow a program to a K-8 that would continue their momentum for academic success for at-risk youth are all reasons why the should be on the list.
I am appalled that New School must continue to have to defend themselves for being included on BEXIII. Their academic success should be a model not a target.
Nathan Hale is located on a less than optimum environmental area, however, there currently is and forecasts show a growing need for public school seats in the northeast region. The school district needs more buildings for forecasted middle school, elementary, and high schools in that order and doesn't own any land to build them on. Based on Melissa's rationale Nathan Hale should continue to fall into ruins and then be condemned. There is a need to retain seats, available academic choices, and public school students in the northeast.
My children likely won't be in updated buildings during their elementary or middle school years. I still hold out hope for high school. However, we need to be making the improvements to buildings throughout the district.
There are more schools in need than there are dollars. Every school could make an argument why their building should be first, however, that should not hold us back from moving forward on some.
Northend Parent
The big question we all need to ask ourselves is: Do we err on the side giving the district the money they need, and hopefully we can monitor & pressure the district to spend it wisely? OR, do we err on the side of forcing the district to first spend more time and money on planning (and running a whole new campaign), and we risk that they may end up short on funds even if they have important projects ready to go and with broad support?
Those who say No to the capital bond aren't saying the district doesn't need this money. And, whether now or later, there is always going to be debate about the details of the list. So, I say YES. We will have a new superintendent, some new Board members, and a concerned citizenry. Melissa raises some very good details that need to be discussed, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Also, if you go to the district's Bond and Levy page, take a look at the Fall 2006 and Feb. 6, 2007 documents. First, in the 2006 document, New School is listed as the school getting the South Shore remodel. Then, go to the erroniously labelled "Winter 2007" (the district needs to watch that proofreading), poof! it's now the "South Shore" K-8. So I guess this means it will be a generic building with the name "South Shore" on it. After all the Board did vote, in April, to take New School's name off the project. But that just confusing; I mean, the title of the minutes say New School and the design is around Mind, Body, Soul which is New School's motto and everyone on the SDT is from New School. What could the district be trying to say with these mixed messages?
To another assertion: no one I know who objects to the New School's presence on the bond has an issue with its program or the source of its funding - don't make this any more of a melodrama than it is, please.
And to the middle school flight issue, I get frustrated with south-enders who say "if I don't get in to TOPS or the New School, I'm going to private school - and who pass judgment on all of the elementary and middle schools in the south end likely without ever having stepped foot in many of them. It's all buzz, and much of it inaccurate. I'll be glad when SPS tightens choice and the catchment areas for alternative schools.