School Board Agenda and Facilities
From the agenda for the Board meeting on Wednesday:
"The current design for work at Denny Middle School and Chief Sealth High School calls for the replacement of Denny Middle School, built in 1952; the modernization of Chief Sealth High School, built in 1957 and the construction of shared facilities on the existing Chief Sealth High School property. Denny Middle School will be relocated to the Chief Sealth High School campus. New shared facilities will include classrooms, cafeteria and commons.
The current configuration is undergoing review. Whatever configuration is selected, there will not be instructional use of the replaced sections of the schools."
So now we know for sure that the District wants Denny to move to Sealth's campus. This was, again, an issue that was not clear. I'm with Charlie; how much overlap is there for Sealth from the work done on it from BEX II to BEX III?
Also,
"The Martin Luther King property is no longer needed for District purposes, and can be declared surplus. If this motion is approved, any disposition of this property will be done consistent with Board policies and will require additional School Board action. Proposed changes to the School Board policy on use of Closed Buildings are being developed for presentation to the School Board in early 2008."
Bye, bye MLK.
The italics are mine but I wanted to highlight that sentence as an FYI.
"The current design for work at Denny Middle School and Chief Sealth High School calls for the replacement of Denny Middle School, built in 1952; the modernization of Chief Sealth High School, built in 1957 and the construction of shared facilities on the existing Chief Sealth High School property. Denny Middle School will be relocated to the Chief Sealth High School campus. New shared facilities will include classrooms, cafeteria and commons.
The current configuration is undergoing review. Whatever configuration is selected, there will not be instructional use of the replaced sections of the schools."
So now we know for sure that the District wants Denny to move to Sealth's campus. This was, again, an issue that was not clear. I'm with Charlie; how much overlap is there for Sealth from the work done on it from BEX II to BEX III?
Also,
"The Martin Luther King property is no longer needed for District purposes, and can be declared surplus. If this motion is approved, any disposition of this property will be done consistent with Board policies and will require additional School Board action. Proposed changes to the School Board policy on use of Closed Buildings are being developed for presentation to the School Board in early 2008."
Bye, bye MLK.
The italics are mine but I wanted to highlight that sentence as an FYI.
Comments
Seems like a good idea to me, keeping the middle school kids focused on high school and beyond to college, especially at a school with an IB program. My neighborhood HS is Garfield, a good school, but I might just put my kid on a bus for a 6-12 IB program.
I'd like to understand the concerns people have around this idea.
that many students especially girls have difficulty with the (k-5)elementary to (6-8)middle school transition.
This gave rise to an increase in k-8 schools.
The district better have a really good plan for the student transition from a k-5 into a 6-12.
Having taught in k-8, 7-8, 9-12, 10-12. I preferred k-8 to 7-8.
I liked 9-12 and 10-12 equally well.
I found k-8 far superior to 7-8 for middle level kids.
The problem is keeping kids focused on learning. That is probably more a teachers and curriculum issue along with good administration than any other issue.
In a few years when my granddaughter goes to sixth grade, my preference would be for her to be in a school without 18 year old students.
She is currently in second grade in a k-8 school. Having moved from a k-5 school for first grade due to moving to a new house.
It would be nice if parents had more options that were not a long bus ride away. Unfortunately the public has very little input that is thoughtfully considered by this district.
Most requests for input are a sham. It appears decisions have already been made. These requests for input often seem to be a legal inconvenience that the SPS must tolerate but rarely uses.