What's happened to Hale?
My son graduated from Hale last year. (He was very happy and content there; as parents we had problems with the new principal and the direction Hale was going in.) When we were looking at high schools for him, Hale was one of the most sought-after schools with a great principal. It still has very high WASL scores. I bring this up because Linda Thomas' blog at the Seattle PI was discussing private schools (it was a bit abstract and I wasn't sure if she was talking about K-12 or post). There was a complaint (again) about lack of seats at Roosevelt and I suggested Hale open up more seats (they are way under capacity by choice). Here's what one person replied:
"No one, repeat no one, on the wait list for Roosevelt, Ballard or Garfield wants their kids to attend Hale. Zero. Let that sink in for a moment. Your answer to this sounds like it comes from some ex-Soviet commissar. And people wonder why so many people sacrifice so much money to send their kids to private schools instead. If Hale could attract more students, that would be different.
The people on the wait lists for Roosevelt, Ballard and Garfield want the kind of school programs offered at Roosevelt, Ballard and Garfield, or better. Offering them Hale or West Seattle or Franklin will not attract them to SPS. Forcing them to Hale will not work because they've already looked at Hale and decided not to send their kids there. They will leave the district rather than do as you suggest."
Franklin used to be considered a top high school in early 2000-2001. What the heck has happened to these schools? What is it that is driving people away (largely) into the arms of Garfield and Roosevelt (and to a lesser degree, Ballard)? I think I know some of the answers but let me know. More importantly, we need to let the district know what parents want in a high school and what, as the writer above says, is driving parents away.
"No one, repeat no one, on the wait list for Roosevelt, Ballard or Garfield wants their kids to attend Hale. Zero. Let that sink in for a moment. Your answer to this sounds like it comes from some ex-Soviet commissar. And people wonder why so many people sacrifice so much money to send their kids to private schools instead. If Hale could attract more students, that would be different.
The people on the wait lists for Roosevelt, Ballard and Garfield want the kind of school programs offered at Roosevelt, Ballard and Garfield, or better. Offering them Hale or West Seattle or Franklin will not attract them to SPS. Forcing them to Hale will not work because they've already looked at Hale and decided not to send their kids there. They will leave the district rather than do as you suggest."
Franklin used to be considered a top high school in early 2000-2001. What the heck has happened to these schools? What is it that is driving people away (largely) into the arms of Garfield and Roosevelt (and to a lesser degree, Ballard)? I think I know some of the answers but let me know. More importantly, we need to let the district know what parents want in a high school and what, as the writer above says, is driving parents away.
Comments
What is the most obvious thing that Ballard, Roosevelt, and Garfield have in common? They have recently been rebuilt or (in the case of Garfield) will have a newly renovated building soon). Much of the anecdotal evidence at least (I don't have access myself to any statistics) seems to indicate that Ballard and Roosevelt in particular were not overwhelmingly popular prior to having their buildings updated.
And Garfield was strong even before the rebuild was discussed.
The philistine building-lookers might or might not outnumber other parents who are looking for AP and other academic advantages. But it's entirely possible that the new buildings at Ballard and Roosevelt attracted parents who took a fresh look because of the rebuilds. That might have snowballed to the benefit of those schools. If so, it's not a bad outcome, especially if pressure from the newly attracted hordes of parents to improve the academics there ultimately results in a better school.
1-Hale has no music program to speak of, and since many children want a stong music/band program, they turn to their close neighbor, Roosevelt.
2-Over the past couple of years Hale has phased out all of their AP classes. These classes are very important to students, and are also a consideration in college acceptance. Parents percieve this as lowering the bar, and are less likely to choose Hale with Roosevelt a convenient two miles away. Some kids need and thrive with AP, honors, IB etc., and I strongly believe that they should be offered at EVERY high school.
3-Hale has no yellow bus transportation. Kids ride Metro. I know more schools are now moving toward this model now, but Hale (I think) was the first, which probably discouraged some families. Metro would also discourage families who do not live on a convenient bus route. Consider if you lived in South Seattle, and your child had an hour long commute with a change of buses downtown.
4-Although they have a great new performing arts hall, they don't have a strong visual or performing arts program. They don't have the funds to put on many productions, and the hall is under utilized. In fact they were talking about renting it out to neighborhood venues as it was getting such little use by the school.
5-Then their was all of the publicity about black mold, poor air quality, leaking roof, and seeping walls. And accusations of it causing illness in asthmatic and allergic students and staff.
6-Families that care nothing at all about a shiny new building, may care very much about the fact that Hale is seizmically unstable, and build on a bog!!!
7-It is considered by many to be more of a progressive, loose, alternative type school. Those seeking a strong traditional program may not be satisfied with the "Academy", "small school" approach
This is mostly speculation, but I wonder if the enrollment system facilitates the abrupt decline of some schools? The reason I say this is that there is no real incentive for families to stay in a school if it starts to go downhill (or is perceived to be going downhill), and there are no significant barriers (aside from waitlists) to changing schools. It is generally easier just to enroll your kids in a different school rather than fight the decline. Compounding this is the fact that the families that seem most likely to jump ship at the first signs of trouble are also those most engaged in their children's education, and these are also the people who tend to put the most energy into improving the schools by helping in class and volunteering in other ways. The people who should be counted on to help a school recover from a decline, either real or perceived, are gone.
As a result of all this, it seems to me that a bad year or high staff turnover or any of a number of other factors that would cause some disruption but can be overcome in school districts with more traditional assignment policies (i.e., neighborhood schools) can quickly turn into very destructive meltdowns in Seattle schools as families rush for the exits.
Ironically, I initially found Seattle's school choice system to be very attractive, because the theory looks good. However, it doesn't seem to work in practice, at least not in the context of the way that Seattle Public Schools operates.
Is the problem simply a lack of execution on the part of the district in terms of improving all schools and responding effectively to the needs of the market? Or is it that our current system of school choice aggravates the problems?
If school choice was much more limited, schools would be forced to serve their community/what the community wants or lose more students to private schools or the suburbs.
I think Nathan Hale is becoming known more now as an alternative school and serving a specific population. If you suddenly make it the assigned school or guanteed a school to certain neighborhoods, will they change to serve what those families want?
I'm surprised to hear Nathan Hale has no music program. Music is HUGE at Eckstein and at many of the NE cluster elementary schools so all those kids feeding into the high schools - they obviously don't all fit into Roosevelt...
The lack of music programs, phaseout of AP classes, poor building condition, and transition to what is perceived as an alternative type of school are all exactly the sorts of things that families would be fighting to change about it (and thus make it better serve the local market) IF they had an incentive to do so. However, since the barriers to going elsewhere are so low with school choice as it is currently configured, it is easier to move to another school rather than fight to improve the local school.
I think this happens at all levels, by the way: I live within walking distance of a north Seattle elementary school which has a pretty poor reputation. My family is exactly the type that school administrators and faculty say they want more of (involvement in child's education, volunteering, and all that), and I, hopefully without coming off as conceited, can say that my family would be an asset at that school and would work for positive change there. But we, and families like ours in the neighborhood, don't have the motivation to do so, because it is so easy to send our kids elsewhere.
So we end up with a substandard (due to lack of parental involvement, as much as anything) elementary school right smack in the middle of a fairly affluent neighborhood, which very few of the neighborhood children attend.
They changed their approach and philosphy. They adopted the Academy structure and did away with their AP classes. They had a recent change in leadership, which resulted in the loss of a very strong principal who was well regarded.
A change in philosphy is huge. Hale has moved from a traditional school to a more alternative model.It appears that NE Seattle families want more traditional school seats and less alternative. After all they have the under enrolled Summit alternative high school right across the street and the very over enrolled, traditional , Roosevelt High School a couple miles away. That should speak for itself.
I think a lot of good thoughts got touched on particularly the question of whether schools would get better if choice were curtailed? Meaning, would parents say "okay, I'm coming in and making this the best school I can." You get enough of those parents and many great things can happen. BUT, is the district going to support parents by supporting what changes parents want to see in their neighborhood school? Someone asked that question and it's key to the discussion and buy-in from parents.
Hale seems to be trying to create a musical theater program. Give them credit; you have to start somewhere.
And, by the way, change is painfully slow. If parents were responsible to bring about change at the school level, their child would likely not reap the fruit of their labor. Change takes time, decades sometimes, and time is something our kids can't spare.
I think it has some very strong programs- and I toured it twice- once when daughter was in 7th & in 8th.
The person who did the info session really put me off-had a very high opinion of the school, but the way she talked in hyperbole, it was hard to pull out reality.
We do have friends there however & they are happy.
I didn't think the building was gorgeous, but it felt more like a high school to me, than Ballard did.
I would like to see them( Hale) increase the school size, they could offer more classes and I would like to see them also have at least the opportunity for more advanced classes, although I am very impressed with some of their current programs- the radio station, the photography facilities, and how many colleges, let alone high schools have astrobiology?
Many students from Summit, have taken classes from Hale, although recently that has been more difficult because of scheduling.
When I looked they did have a music program, although some classes were zero period.
I do care about the building- but it isn't a deciding factor.
I live within blocks of West Woodland- and my D didn't attend because at the time the building would have been condemned according to UW study, except they had nowhere for kids to go.
Because she didn't get into the SPS programs that we did like, she began at a private school that was housed in a former City of Seattle print shop- after that school she attended a school that had classes in at least 5 different buildings around Capitol Hill.
Her sister wasnt comfortable with Ballard- despite the new building and I wasn't either either.( or the new West Woodland building- very shiny but it feels like pod families have taken over-)
IF the building is even roughly appropriate but has a great program, it is preferable to a brand new building, but lacks a "community feel".
I do agree however, that many do choose the school based on building ( but then what about Franklin? Nice building, decent programs)
The top SPS high schools we wanted were Ingraham, Hale & Garfield- not in that order- all had buildings that could use help, but good programs.
Along with Hale, we liked that at Ingraham the schools were small enough that you could be on the sport team as a freshman & you could get into the art class.
Its nice that they both have good sports fields on their grounds, but families overlooking Hale and Ingraham for their kids, may be insisting on Div IV schools.
Ingraham also was impressive- they had to do quite a bit to the building when the IB program was added a few years ago-which attracts many families including many neighbors who chose it over Ballard.
Garfield also has very strong programs despite a shabby building, but IMO the district has allowed the perception that Garfield and Roosevelt are the strongest schools in the district, and you are SOL if you go anywhere else ( except for maybe Ballard)
It is very difficult to find good accurate information- hard to know if programs wont be slashed before next fall and teachers pulled.
We don't do a very good job working with what we have, let alone trying to attract new families or coax back former families to the district.
I think the district needs to do much more to identify and support strong principals and allow them to build a community, not move them around every three years ( let the good ones stay in their buildings and get the bad ones out of the district, don't just bump them upstairs)
Even if we have to pay them off- I would much prefer excellent principals in all the schools rather than moving poor ones around for 15 years while SPS tries to find a community that wont complain too much, when that fails promote them to administration, still paying them 6 figures just to get them away from kids and families?
In the case of Hale, the fight would have been to NOT change a school in a direction that most families in the neighborhood didn't like.
Where is the districts responsibility?? Families can and should have input, but isn't the district responsible to make schools and programs equitable? Don't they have the obligation to ensure that each school provides equitable services and programs??
I find the idea that the school district should provide an excellent education for my child without any significant effort on my part to be wishful thinking, at best, and an expression of the attitude that people are entitled to something for nothing. I think you would be hard pressed to find a school anywhere that maintained high performance without significant involvement by a significant number of parents. Better programs and better schools come about because parents and students fight and work for them, not because the district mandates them. The district can and should provide valuable support, but relying on them to carry the entire load is likely to result in high expectations followed by poor results.
What the district needs to do (and generally has a poor track record of doing) is support the commitment of the parents and teachers, rather than ignoring them, or getting in their way.
The fact is that the voice of single principal carries more weight with the District leadership than the voices of 400 families.
Look at what it took - in time and effort - to get a change of principal at Rainier Beach.
The chilling fact is that even if the family of every member of the incoming freshman class at Hale demanded change to a more traditional model, demanded the return of AP and Honors classes, and demanded a music program, the principal could simply say "no", and that would be the end of it.
Until the District compels the school leadership to be more responsive to the needs of the community (and there is absolutely no sign of that anywhere in the past or on the horizon), families are smart and rational to choose a school in the model they want instead of beating their heads against the wall trying in vain to change a school.
If changes like that had been proposed in Shoreline or Edmonds, where it is more of a challenge to change schools (and the school district doesn't provide transportation if you do), the ensuing uproar and political pressure would have forced a lot of backtracking. The uproar never happenned in Seattle because parents have a much simpler option than fighting: just go elsewhere, and the district will provide the transportation.
Also, school choice as currently configured gives principals and district administrators alike a convenient rationale for ignoring the concerns of families with regards to a particular school: if they don't like it, they can always (at least in theory) go elsewhere. Principals can also justify irritating the parents they've got by saying that "even if we lose some families due to these changes, we will attract new families to our unique and improved program". Those "new families" never need to actually be identified, just cited as a rhetorical device. If the "new families" fail to appear, then they are "still building their program" (yes, I've actually heard that one) ...
In a nutshell, school choice lets everybody off the hook because a particular school has no identifiable group of people who are heavily invested in that school's performance. If all the parents in my neighborhood know that we will have to seriously inconvenience ourselves (either by moving, paying for private school, or providing our own transportation for our children) in order to opt out of enrolling our children in the local school, then we will all raise hell if the school is underperforming. However, the district makes it convenient to not care about the local school (I cited a specific example in an earlier comment, and I'm sure there are many others - I can think of at least one just in my cluster), then nobody will care.
I was just looking at the Times school guide-
I see that the Lakewashington school district now has about 27 elementary schools and most seem to enroll about 450 students- and they have immediate plans to build more.
When I attended Lakewashington schools, I seem to remember about 9 or 10 elementary schools- yes this was about 30 years ago, but the whole region has grown not just Kirkland-Redmond.
Why is the Seattle district smaller than it was 30 years ago?
Density has certainly increased.
I agree with this if the school is located in a middle class or upper middle class, affluent neighborhood where families have the resources ($$$ plus time and effort) to work hard to improve the school. But....what about the schools in the low income areas, where there are no $$$$ and very little parent involvement. Will those schools change too? Or will they just under serve more kids? Don't get me wrong, I like limited choice, I love Michael DeBells proposal, and I think it will work. I really like the part about using the $$$ saved on transportation to improve the under performing schools. That may solve the problem that I stated above, little family involvement and no fundraising to speak of.
I think Seattle NEEDS predictibility, and I think families deserve predictibility. Why do you think Lake Washington SD is growing and Seattle is dwindling. Choice, as it stands now, is not working.
Hale is part of a loose coalition of schools under a national umbrella called the Coalition of Essential Schools. Part of that philosophy is inclusion and the administration and staff used that as justification to enact these policies. They would not say if teachers had been trained in differentiated curriculum (crucial to being able to deliver curriculum across multiple ability levels in there were to be no more separate AP and Honors classes). They said exactly what Roy said, namely, "Well, we will just get families that like this type of school." It had nothing to do with the type of school Hale is but what it offers. But they felt it was a philosophy you had to buy into.
And now, 4 years later, Hale is not as popular as it was. And, instead of parents saying, "Well, it may not have the music/drama program that Roosevelt does, it does have a good solid academic base." and making Hale a second choice, they just say no. (And I have to wonder with some people if they couldn't have Roosevelt or Garfield, would any school be good enough?) Hale would argue it does have a solid academic base (they have some very fine teachers) but, if you go to almost any college admissions page, it will say they look for rigor in a student's academic background and that comes primarily from AP, Honors and IB.
And if you ask the district, they'll just shrug.
Deidre
While colleges are looking for students who are prepared for college, they are comparing students against other students in their school, not against students in the district.
Students at Summit- which doesn't have AP or IB, don't often have a problem getting into appropriate colleges- frankly because just taking a college prep curriculum at some high schools, puts you into the top 25% or higher percent in the school, not even looking at your GPA.
Colleges are looking to see if you took the most rigorous curriculum you could, if students from your school are taking 4 or 5 AP classes every year & you are applying to the same colleges they are, you better be taking those classes as well.
( But then my question would be, if college classes are really appropriate for you as a sophomore in high school, why aren't you in EEP?)
That is why I know students from one school without any AP and very few honors classes who were admitted to Harvard, and students who only took one AP class per year from another school, not even ranked in the top 30% and are attending schools with much higher admission rates.
I think there is a place in the district for both comprehensive high schools, and for schools that have different strategies for meeting students needs.
Because there are piles and piles more students that age who are ready for college-level coursework in a few areas than there are kids who are ready to make the leap to college proper. Anyway, EEP is a small program, and turns away a number of qualified students each year (as well as a great many who are well qualified in some aspects, but not so much in others.
Helen Schinske
Also, I know that most of the high schools do NOT offer AP for sophomores. I suspect Garfield may. But, online AP, is becoming very fast-growing for students whose schools either don't offer it or who want to take the material at their own time and pace. It is not cheap, though.
First I looked over their web site and found this.
"Honors options are available in the majority of classes. The school’s program includes a mentorship program for all students, a senior project and required community service. AP opportunities are offered in 11th and 12th grades."
Then I called the school councelor to verify the accuracy of this statement. The councelor told me that they have honors classes at every grade level and AP classes for 11th and 12th graders in Japanese, Spanish, Physics, Calculus, Statistics, English language, and English Literature. The councelor said that they are well aware of the rumors about them phasing out AP classes, and in fact they did have that disscusion, but ultimately decided against it. She assured me that honors and AP were not in danger of being phased out or cut.
Anybody else know anything more??
Deidre
Advanced Placement Opportunities
English Language, English Literature, United States History, Spanish Language, Calculus, Statistics, Physics
Honors
Chemistry; Math 3, Debate
Honors Options
Language Arts 9, 10, 11, 12; Social Studies 9, 10, 11; Physical Science; Biology,
Math 1, 2; Health
Of Note…Nathan Hale High School
* Is ranked highest among Seattle comprehensive public high schools for correlation between its students’ core grades and subsequent University of Washington GPA.
* Is recognized in the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) journal, Fall 2002, pages 3-4: “Elements of Smallness Create Conditions For Success.”
* Is one of four high schools from across the nation noted in the CES report, “Principles At Work.”
* Is featured in the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory journal, Closing The Gap, Fall 2002, pgs 10-15:“Winning Their Hearts.”
Not to shabby if you ask me.
Deidre
compared the two schools (Roosevelt and Hale)annual reports.
Roosevelt 10th GR WASL
Read 92
Write 91
math 74
sci 55
Hale 10th GR WASL
Read 89
Write 90
Math 65
Sci 48
As for SAT's, her they are
Roosevelt
Verbal 572
Math 578
Hale
Verbal 557
Math 560
These two schools are not that far apart performance wise. Based on this info. I would have to consider Hale a stong competitor to Roosevelt academically.
So, then, why the huge waitlist for Roosevelt, and the cold shoulder for Hale?
Also, you will note that they only have 3 separate Honors classes with Honors being optional in some other classes. What that means is that you need a very motivated student to do not only the regular coursework but extra work on top of that. In addition, in any class it's not just the homework, it's the teaching. As I stated before, Hale never identified which teachers had undergone training in differentiated teaching which you have to have in order to teach across ability levels. With Honors option, all the work is on the student and I recall sitting in a meeting with parents and teachers and it was pointed out that very few boys ever did Honors option and the girls did.
But Hale isn't alone in this. Roosevelt does not offer any AP literature because the LA department doesn't want to.
So why, if Hale has good teachers (they do), good counselors (Jeff Jones is outstanding) and proof of academic success do so many parents want their kids to be at Roosevelt? For myself, we chose Roosevelt because we live almost right next to it and because I had little faith in Hale's principal (but she's leaving so maybe they'll find a better one). I think some of it is the music/drama and some of it is that for some neighborhoods, that is where their teens have ALWAYS gone and they won't go anywhere else except maybe Garfield.
Seattle schools are all about perception. As I said before, Hale had a waiting list the year we applied (4 years ago) and, if you believe the posts here, there is virtually none this year. So what's up with that?
So, then, why the huge waitlist for Roosevelt, and the cold shoulder for Hale?
Is it possible that many families look at the reputations of the various schools without really doing any research when making their choices?
Garfield, Ballard, and Roosevelt have strong reputations for high quality academics, and for all sort of other great programs. Ingraham has IB but not a particularly great reputation, which strikes me as odd - there are only 18 IB programs in the entire state, and IB as a whole is a pretty well regarded program. Hale apparently has strong academics, but a reputation that says otherwise.
I think that the social dynamic of wanting to be at the most prestigious school may be a bigger factor here than many people would like to admit with regards to which schools are popular and which ones are not. This might also explain why it often happens that families who are at an underenrolled school often are reasonably satisfied with the school (i.e., as shown during fights over school closures of elementaries with lower enrollments) - the people who are there know that it isn't so bad, even if it has a miserable reputation. (Not to mention that some people like small schools, particularly at the elementary level, so underenrolled isn't necessarily a bad thing at all.)
If you were to take many of the comments in this blog at face value, absolutely nobody wants to be at Hale ... is this another example of perception not squaring with reality? That being said, why are there consistent problems with perceptions and realities being so far apart? Is Charlie's stock answer the correct one - the district, and individual schools, do a miserable job of communicating?
Here are a few more staistics that I found.
Graduation rate 91% !!!!
College bound students 70% !!!!
ACT scores 24.0
I also found that they have a decent music program. It may not be the prestigeous, award winning band that Rosevelt has, but it is substantial.
Music: Wind Ensemble (Concert Band), Orchestra, Jazz Band, small ensembles, Choir, Vocal Jazz, Ladies First (choir)
2) The original question on this post is "What happened to Hale?", the clear implication being that it somehow got worse. Lots of people (myself included, unfortunately) ran off with that meme and debated about why it had "gotten worse", but as it turns out, aybe Hale didn't get worse. It did change, and it did get smaller, though it got smaller by design. Its hard even to argue that it isn't what the community wants, or at least part of the community - after all, they have a waitlist.
3) Any human organization has to contend with rumors and perceptions getting in the way of reality, but it seems to me that this problem is especially pronounced in SPS. Maybe the question that should be asked is, why is that such a problem in SPS?
“Stand-alone” courses that provide preparation for the AP Exams in Japanese Language and Culture (exam first offered spring 07), Spanish Language, Calculus, and Statistics; and
Coursework that may be done on-line or in an addendum meeting with teachers outside of regularly scheduled class time providing for AP Exam preparation: Art, Calculus BC, English Language, English Literature, Physics, and United States History."
Helen Schinske
How many students actually sign up and complete any AP courses online or in "addendum meetings"?
Helen Schinske
I think the key here is the word "opportunities" that Hale uses. What they leave out is the word "separate". Yes, they have AP and Honors but are they separate classes or is most of it in a regular classroom with honors and AP an add-on where the student self-selects to do the extra work? It's the latter and that is disingenious for Hale not to print it that way or state it clearly.
It is not surprising that Hale offers the AP classes as add-ons, it fits with a more alternative, inclusive, every child is gifted, philosophy. I don't buy it. Some kids need remedial programs, some need honors programs. I just don't buy the "all kids work at the same pace, at the same level" philosophy.