Proposed Changes to the Assignment Plan
As a follow-up to the previous post, here's a short piece from Michael DeBell with thoughts about proposed changes to the assignment plan. I've also copied the 6 proposed policy changes below for reference.
This is a difficult, emotional topic, and I appreciate Michael's willingness to put a draft plan out and solicit public feedback.
*************
Long waitlists and perilously under-enrolled schools indicate we are not using the best assignment policy for our city. I wrote a preliminary essay/plan that I hope will move the discussion forward, help us start talking about changes and tradeoffs.
Sibling and distance tie breakers offer virtually no citywide choice for popular high schools. Equal access to the specialty programs are particularly concerning, so the set-aside seats are a starting point to address this issue.
Some urban, open choice districts have adopted automatic triggers for low enrollment schools resulting in reconstitution, consolidation or closure. An annual Superintendent's report and plan for change presented to the School Board is a less contentious step in that direction.
I am assuming that predictability and inclusion of new arrivers will help to gradually stabilize enrollment patterns and improve SPS market share. I also assume that a systematic solution to the achievement gap will come from the academic model not the assignment plan.
I appreciate the many contributors to this blog which I read regularly. --- Michael
***********
Suggested Policy Changes (from Michael DeBell's draft plan on student assignment)
1. Reduce elementary school options from the entire cluster to three or four schools with some range of programs.
2. Draw reference area boundaries for middle and high schools with assurance of enrollment if that school is a first choice. All schools with excess demand would set aside 10%-20% (depending on research results) of seats for open choice by citywide lottery.
3. Enrollment in the reference area school is available year round to newly arriving families.
4.The goals of the assignment plan will also include minimizing transportation costs, simplicity, predictability and ease of access to enrollment in SPS.
5. The District must annually examine capacity and demand at all schools. Any site that is below 50% of planning capacity will be examined by the Superintendent who will report to the Board and develop a plan to improve or consolidate the school. In areas which have insufficient seats for demand the Superintendent will present a plan to the board for increasing capacity.
6. Program placement will be integrated into assignment plan development to provide a range of pedagogical choices for each geographic region of the city.
This is a difficult, emotional topic, and I appreciate Michael's willingness to put a draft plan out and solicit public feedback.
*************
Long waitlists and perilously under-enrolled schools indicate we are not using the best assignment policy for our city. I wrote a preliminary essay/plan that I hope will move the discussion forward, help us start talking about changes and tradeoffs.
Sibling and distance tie breakers offer virtually no citywide choice for popular high schools. Equal access to the specialty programs are particularly concerning, so the set-aside seats are a starting point to address this issue.
Some urban, open choice districts have adopted automatic triggers for low enrollment schools resulting in reconstitution, consolidation or closure. An annual Superintendent's report and plan for change presented to the School Board is a less contentious step in that direction.
I am assuming that predictability and inclusion of new arrivers will help to gradually stabilize enrollment patterns and improve SPS market share. I also assume that a systematic solution to the achievement gap will come from the academic model not the assignment plan.
I appreciate the many contributors to this blog which I read regularly. --- Michael
***********
Suggested Policy Changes (from Michael DeBell's draft plan on student assignment)
1. Reduce elementary school options from the entire cluster to three or four schools with some range of programs.
2. Draw reference area boundaries for middle and high schools with assurance of enrollment if that school is a first choice. All schools with excess demand would set aside 10%-20% (depending on research results) of seats for open choice by citywide lottery.
3. Enrollment in the reference area school is available year round to newly arriving families.
4.The goals of the assignment plan will also include minimizing transportation costs, simplicity, predictability and ease of access to enrollment in SPS.
5. The District must annually examine capacity and demand at all schools. Any site that is below 50% of planning capacity will be examined by the Superintendent who will report to the Board and develop a plan to improve or consolidate the school. In areas which have insufficient seats for demand the Superintendent will present a plan to the board for increasing capacity.
6. Program placement will be integrated into assignment plan development to provide a range of pedagogical choices for each geographic region of the city.
Comments
The important new wrinkles are
1) The District level interventions when things get out of balance.
2) Set aside seats for special programs. We already do this in elementary and middle schools. We should do it in high schools as well.
3) Set aside seats for all-city draw (by lottery), but with no yellow bus transportation provided.
Of course, this presumes that the District will find some high school capacity for Queen Anne/Magnolia and additional elementary capacity where needed, such as Capitol Hill. After school reference areas are right-sized, we need to fill the gaps between the boundaries. It will probably mean creating some new schools or repurposing some buildings in underserved areas.
Did you know that if APP were not at Washington, all of the central region middle school students could fit easily into that building? If we break away from the model that offers a choice of two middle schools in each region, and APP is moved to Lincoln, the Meany building would be available for re-purposing. That could provide a whole lot of elementary capacity on Capitol Hill. Or it could be a south-end APP/Spectrum 1-8 with a north-end one at Wilson-Pacific.
Would it really cost much more than what we pay to renovate a school from the ground up? What is a better use of the District's capital budget - a newly constructed alternative K-8 just one mile from another alternative K-8 or a newly constructed high school at Interbay?
Mr. deBell -
Where do Alternative Schools fit in this plan?
Mr. Mas' comments about a "plan" as opposed to a process inherent to address failing or underenrolled schools seems worth exploring as well and might make the process more transparent and consistent. Action/non-action = guaranteed consequences as opposed to a new round of acrimony. It would require however good faith on the part of all to use best efforts to engage community at that school, provide resources, early ID of problems, market information including exit interviews and polling, and strong consistent leadership. In business we'd call that a "turn-around team" as opposed to years of neglect and then feigning suprise at the failures.
and, THANK YOU, for stepping up and having a dialogue and having the courage to float ideas and seek input in a constructive way. How I wish more of your colleagues would operate in this fashion - it can only lead to greater good.
What would it cost to build a new high school from scratch in Interbay?
Would it really cost much more than what we pay to renovate a school from the ground up?
If you ignore land acquisition costs, they are probably about the same. However, you can count on paying at least a million dollars an acre for land (probably more in Interbay), and the typical high school site is probably at least 20 acres, and probably closer to 40 acres. I could see how acquiring the land could easily add $50 million to such a project.
1) Make all schools quality schools which would eliminate choice envy. All schools need to be high quality, it's a given. A school assignment plan alone cannot address the issue of quality.
2)Identify draw areas so that many have the predictability they seek and should include a guarantee assignment for sibling enrollment. Distinct draw areas with sibling enrollment protection may limit OR it may expand choice for those who seek a placement outside of their own draw area, it's all in how many seats will be allocated for each of those purposes. An assignment plan would determine the proportion of draw area/sibling seats to student seats purposed for the choice system at each school.
The number of seats identified to be filled by the school district choice plan will then be determined by either a complete random lottery OR a series of complex tie-breakers. The tricky part is in the tie-breaker determinants,the District and Board goals are to provide equitable access, that must be at the heart of figuring the tie-breaker determinants.
The equitable distribution of access will mean a narrowing of choice for some and expansion of choice for others, until ALL SCHOOLS ARE PROVEN QUALITY SCHOOLS and everyone has quality school availability in their own draw area.
No matter what, the district must improve transparancy of the enrollment process, provide families with information in order to thoroughly consider school choice and choice order for their student as early as possible.
Early Sibling Applications are due in the fall for an eligible student, assignments are made in January. By January the district knows exactly how many seats in each school have been pre-assigned to siblings, general education students seeking a choice assignment will benefit by having this information early too.
And another thing, tying the financial health as a result of consistently low enrollment of one school in the district to the assignment plan policy is nonsense. Don't change the assignment plan (or leave in place as the case may be) in order to fill low demand-low enrollment schools to offset the district's financial ills; change an assignment plan to provide equitable access to quality schools for all students. Don't let Seattle School District be the tail that wags the dog.
and Leslie asks: "Where do Alternative Schools fit in this plan? "
Charlie, are you referring to the New School (and Orca)?
The New School has an alternative philosophy, but it seems to have ended up with a neighborhood school assignment process. Orca, from what I hear, is under pressure from within (and administration?) to cut back on its alternative nature and become more traditional. Both schools, I think, are under pressure because of the lack of successful schools in the south end. Alternative school advocates (and I have talked with quite a few people about this)would prefer that all neighborhood schools were successful so that the families who select alternative schools are really there for the program and not just running away from an unsuccessful neighborhood school.
Alternative schools are not interchangeable, access to one does not equal access to all. Many districts create magnet schools or allow charter schools in hopes of improving market share and increasing racial and socioeconomic diversity in urban schools. Seattle already has a group of these schools that can serve that purpose (if they don't have to fear for their lives every two or three years).
Maureen
Yes, that was a swipe at the New School. Well, not actually at the New School but at the District's process for prioritizing capital projects. I have nothing against the New School; I think it's great. I just think that there were other programs that have been waiting longer with capital needs as great or greater. Pathfinder, for example.
I certainly agree that alternative schools are not interchangeable, and didn't mean to suggest that they were. I will say, however, that they should be equitable distributed around the district and it seems wrong to have two so close together as the AAA and the New School, or Pinehurst and Jane Addams, when there is only one for all of West Seattle and none in Queen Anne/Magnolia.
I also agree that people should choose an alternative school because that is what they want or what their child needs, rather than an escape from poor quality traditional schools.
A magnet school can and will work... if it is sufficiently attractive. High Point-Spectrum is an example of one that doesn't work because it is not - and never was - credible.
Magnet schools, however, should be created in buildings is areas where the District has excess capacity. The Lowell building, for example, is a poor choice for a magnet program because the District has inadequate capacity in that neighborhood. The three closest schools are Stevens, Seward and Montlake - all with waitlists. It's not only inefficient, it makes people choose private schools because there is no room for their children in the neighborhood public school.
Here's another question about high school in the Queen Anne/Magnolia area - the two available buildings there, Magnolia and, if the District finds a new location for the secondary B.O.C., Old Hay, each have capacity for only about 300. Neither of them be made any bigger, but both of them are on extremely valuable land. Couldn't the District pay for land for a high school in Interbay by selling those parcels?
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/facilities/analysis_closed_sites2007.pdf
2006 report is a good read too;
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/facilities/FMP/FMP_chapter3.pdf
Maureen
How about this:
What if elementary APP were not in Lowell? That would create space for 400 - 450 elementary general education students. The District could close the Montlake building and the TT Minor building and still have room for new students from Eastlake and Belltown.
Where would the elementary APP students go? There are a couple options.
Option A: The primary students go to McDonald and the intermediate students (4th and 5th grade) to to Lincoln along with the 6th - 8th grade of APP and all of Summit K-12. The district uses either Hale or Jane Addams as the north-end interim site instead of Lincoln.
Option B: APP moves into two 1-8s co-housed with Spectrum. A north one at Wilson-Pacific and a south one at Meany. The students now at Meany all go to Washington instead. This, of course, presumes that either middle school choice is reduced for all students around the District to one reference school instead of two or that central region middle school students get expanded options like the students in southeast Seattle have.