Roosevelt Capacity Meeting
I attended the district's meeting about Capacity Planning and Management Phase 1 Community Meeting (the actual title). I wandered in about 6:15 and there were maybe 40 people, started talking to a couple of people and turned around - there were about 100 people in line. By the time the meeting started (late), there were about 300 people there, some sitting on the stairs and for small group sessions, two groups went to the library. I was told by someone that the meeting at Blaine had about 125 people.
School Board members there: Harium Martin-Morris, Cheryl Chow, Steve Sundquist, Michael de Bell and Peter Maier. There were a couple of legislators (and candidates) including Senator Ed Murray and Rep. Jamie Peterson along with Gerry Pollet, a candidate for the 46th district.
We were told that this meeting was only for a short-term solution(s) for the 2009-2010 school year. They explained why we were at this time and place (not enough capacity in NE/NW) and basically said the 10-year demographic projections from 1999 were not right. (What they didn't say is that they knew, at least 2 years ago, that they were wrong and did nothing to try to right this ship. Why not is a mystery.)
Tracy Libros, the Enrollment Manager, said that there will be space for every student in each geographic cluster for next year (meaning, space at some school but maybe not near the student).
Kathy Johnson is the Capacity Planning Project Manager and said Phase Two of this project will start in January 2009.
They explained that capacity planning affects or is affected by:
They handed out several documents, most of them confusing. It's just so sad that nothing can be clearly written in this district. Some were labeled and some weren't. A green sheet with info on closed buildings had no capacity numbers with them. There was a Frequently Asked Questions sheet which I believe may be online. The map they handed out had a couple of oddities (New School at Columbia and Garfield still at Lincoln).
Here is a link to the website for Capacity Planning and Management.
Here's what our choices were for a short-term solution:
What the district considered but rejects on their own:
Candidate Pollet had these ideas on his handout:
Parents want to be part of this process and if these numbers are any evidence, it's Parent Power in action. I warned my table (a delightful group of parents with Michael de Bell and Senator Murray joining us) that they had to put the pressure on the School Board and it had to be sustained. Senator Murray offered that he was somewhat baffled at the length of time the district thought it would take to reopen a building. He offered to help if he could.
Part of the problem of reopening buildings is their condition. Look at Viewlands and it hasn't been closed a year. And, the district is WAY behind on basic maintenance. However, the Facilities department has been known to exaggerate so I don't know if their numbers are totally valid.
Where to find this money? Take it from an BEX project? Wait for the next BTA, hope that it passes (lots of hard feelings out there about Sealth/Denny and Ingraham) and use that money (thus putting off other projects needing to be done)?
A little sensitivity (plus some history) is needed when talking about Summit which is an obvious target. I get that they don't fill their school and that the need is right in our faces. But Summit is a school of over 500 students with a dedicated staff who deserve a little respect and not being swept away like so much dust.
So what to do? I have no great solutions. Maybe we can hash it out here. My belief is a co-sharing at Summit might work or Summit could be moved to co-house with Hamilton at Lincoln for next year (with Lincoln becoming its permanent home) or the district could start up a school in the unused part of Sand Point as they gradually move the tenants out.
P.S. I'm not back to blog continuously but this meeting was near my house so I attended it.
School Board members there: Harium Martin-Morris, Cheryl Chow, Steve Sundquist, Michael de Bell and Peter Maier. There were a couple of legislators (and candidates) including Senator Ed Murray and Rep. Jamie Peterson along with Gerry Pollet, a candidate for the 46th district.
We were told that this meeting was only for a short-term solution(s) for the 2009-2010 school year. They explained why we were at this time and place (not enough capacity in NE/NW) and basically said the 10-year demographic projections from 1999 were not right. (What they didn't say is that they knew, at least 2 years ago, that they were wrong and did nothing to try to right this ship. Why not is a mystery.)
Tracy Libros, the Enrollment Manager, said that there will be space for every student in each geographic cluster for next year (meaning, space at some school but maybe not near the student).
Kathy Johnson is the Capacity Planning Project Manager and said Phase Two of this project will start in January 2009.
They explained that capacity planning affects or is affected by:
- assignment plan
- safety net planning
- Special Ed, Advanced learning, bilingual, etc.
- BTA (the maintenance workhorse levy for all non-building items like roofs, HVAC, etc. coming up in Feb. 2010)
They handed out several documents, most of them confusing. It's just so sad that nothing can be clearly written in this district. Some were labeled and some weren't. A green sheet with info on closed buildings had no capacity numbers with them. There was a Frequently Asked Questions sheet which I believe may be online. The map they handed out had a couple of oddities (New School at Columbia and Garfield still at Lincoln).
Here is a link to the website for Capacity Planning and Management.
Here's what our choices were for a short-term solution:
- conduct space efficiency evaluations
- create new classrooms within existing buildings (Blaine, Broadview-Thompson, Day and Sacajawea)
- minor modifications to the current assignment plan (meaning, they have space in faraway schools and would provide transportation to them)
- consider some program placements
- add portables
What the district considered but rejects on their own:
- consolidate under capacity schools, repurpose or change status to a reference area school (can't do because this would require the Board to act by November 12th - why they believe the Board, if so moved, would be unable to do this, I don't know)
- open a closed building (two have occupancy permits - Marshall and Viewlands. Cedar Park, Sandpoint, McDonald and Magnolia do not. Sandpoint and Cedar Park have tenants. So, if they have tenants, isn't that occupancy? And, the City might be willing to expedite permits; has the district asked? Nope, because they don't want to do this one.)
- modify the assignment plan tiebreakers to alternative schools (can't do it because the system can't take it - really "there are issues technologically that prohibit making this change with the current assignment plan."
Candidate Pollet had these ideas on his handout:
- modifying a few spaces or reopen Sand Point (which he points out is not being fully used)
- using North Seattle CC space for middle or high school students, freeing up other space (this was Harium's idea which I don't fully understand)
- getting the State Legislature to immediately step in to provide school construction funds for short term expansion (good luck with that one)
- asking the District and City to have a task force which includes parents to advise on options and offer additional proposals (I'd agree)
- What has taken some of us years to get, most people have caught on to quickly. Meaning, why accept at face value what the district says can and cannot be done? Most groups rejected any short-term solutions without a long-term vision.
- Maybe start at Sand Point in stages; maybe Summit as well since they have space
- rent space somewhere for a new school
- almost 80% of people raised their hands when it was asked, "How many of you have children under 5?"
- More half-day kindergarten to allow more children in
- Summit certainly took it on the chin as table after table seemed to think they could be easily moved or "changed".
Parents want to be part of this process and if these numbers are any evidence, it's Parent Power in action. I warned my table (a delightful group of parents with Michael de Bell and Senator Murray joining us) that they had to put the pressure on the School Board and it had to be sustained. Senator Murray offered that he was somewhat baffled at the length of time the district thought it would take to reopen a building. He offered to help if he could.
Part of the problem of reopening buildings is their condition. Look at Viewlands and it hasn't been closed a year. And, the district is WAY behind on basic maintenance. However, the Facilities department has been known to exaggerate so I don't know if their numbers are totally valid.
Where to find this money? Take it from an BEX project? Wait for the next BTA, hope that it passes (lots of hard feelings out there about Sealth/Denny and Ingraham) and use that money (thus putting off other projects needing to be done)?
A little sensitivity (plus some history) is needed when talking about Summit which is an obvious target. I get that they don't fill their school and that the need is right in our faces. But Summit is a school of over 500 students with a dedicated staff who deserve a little respect and not being swept away like so much dust.
So what to do? I have no great solutions. Maybe we can hash it out here. My belief is a co-sharing at Summit might work or Summit could be moved to co-house with Hamilton at Lincoln for next year (with Lincoln becoming its permanent home) or the district could start up a school in the unused part of Sand Point as they gradually move the tenants out.
P.S. I'm not back to blog continuously but this meeting was near my house so I attended it.
Comments
General Ed would probably be easiest to set up, but Language Immersion, Montessori, a TOPS clone, or some combination of APP, Spectrum and General Ed might also work.
1) Summit was using its two gyms full-time - AS#1 would have had no gym access whatsoever.
2) Less playground space to be shared between the two schools than AS#1 has in the Pinehurst building (they have big sports fields, but those aren't very useful for elementary kids at recess)
3) Summit was already using the cafeteria at capacity with two lunch shifts. A third shift would have had to be added, resulting in either a very early or very late lunch for a bunch of kids.
The list of problems was much longer than this, these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head.
One of the biggest problems that has resulted in the failure of a number of co-location schemes (including at least one in Seattle in years past) is inadequate separation of the populations of the two schools involved. The Jane Addams building is large, but it simply is not configured to accomodate two schools, and can't be reconfigured without a pretty significant level of capital investment for renovation. The only answer there that makes sense is to either grow Summit so that it uses the entire building capacity, or to move Summit elsewhere and put in one school that would use the whole building.
Roy,
I wonder if new general ed classes could be added without it being a wholly separate school? I'm thinking of a model more like the Montessori or spectrum programs at some schools. Same principal, same school, just different classes and (I think) separate enrollment processes. The k-5 kids from both programs could share PE and cafeteria time, maybe other electives. Same with the 6-8 students.
It's a little different in that it's adding general we to an existing apt program, rather than the other way around. But maybe what you end up with isn't that different?
In IMO they would have been compatible with AS#1, they already shared a winter sports program and yellow buses, & it would have strengthened the parent community and the high school.
As an alternative all city draw, Summit really needs to be centrally located in order to attract families who are interested in the program.
Bryant has 550 students and one gym, and one small cafeteria, and does fine. They also have three lunch periods. One for k-1, one for 2-3 and one for 4-5, and seem to do fine with it.
And what is so wrong with two different co-housed programs eating lunch together? One set of students does not have to be isolated from the other, just because their academic programs are different. I'm sure in schools where they have some Montessori classrooms and some general ed, the children share some common space, eat lunch together, have recess together, etc.
As a parent who has been interested in alternative education for at least 35 years
( I attended an alternative high school in the Lake Washington district & attempted to get my older daughter into Summit for k/1st grade almost 20 years ago- my younger daughter attended Summit for 6 years & I was on the parent board)-
I find it ironic that an alternative school, is so resistant to being flexible enough to retain their " alternative" status & the building that the community has worked hard to improve, (raising money to build a black box theatre, a playground...)
I find it frustrating, that one of the most alternative thing about it, is that it is K-12, although considering my mother attended a K-12 classroom in rural Missouri in the 40's, you could say that is " old-school".*smile*
However,there are still parents/teachers who are very dedicated to the school & whose children are did/doing well.
There are also students who did much better in a comprehensive school, with greater resources and programs that were " alternative" in application.
My own child for example, senior year @ Garfield, finally got a seat in the Global Technology academy where she learned to refurbish computers and work on a team.
Then along with about two dozen others, took those computers to a school in Ghana and spent three weeks living and working in that community. ( including the village where Nana Labi, a counselor @ Garfield, is a chief) That made such a difference to her, that she is spending her free time getting sponsors & earning funds, so that she can return to the school & teach next year.- That is also " alternative".
There are a lot of alternative/worthy programs in SPS, but unless they are recognized as such, we risk losing them, when the principal/teachers/parents change.
We already have lost the GTA program & the instructor, and the replacement technology program while needed, will be much different.
Buildings IMO, don't matter as much as commitment & programs ( & people)
Eckstein also has 3 lunches. Perhaps not ideal, but it works.
Sounds to me like sharing is the only way capacity problems will be solved, short term.
And if you really want a diversified, alternative education, why not have two types of schools in on one campus?
The world won't come to an end if kids eat lunch together who are not in the same programs, nor will the world end if students have 3 different times for lunch...or be really unique My elementary school didn't have a lunch room, we ate in our classrooms, then went out to recess.
Compromise.
And Hard feelings is hardly what I would call Denny/Sealth and Ingraham communities vs the School District. Unfortunately that has escalated to all out war! And the worse part is the kids have become the casualties....
"Summit was using its two gyms full-time - AS#1 would have had no gym access whatsoever"
Two gyms for 450 or 500 kids? Perhaps they could stagger gym times? Perhaps during decent weather they could go outside?
"Less playground space to be shared between the two schools than AS#1 has in the Pinehurst building"
They could stagger recess. And have you seen their site, they have PLENTY of unused space on the north side of the building and some on the west side too (not the sports fields).
"Summit was already using the cafeteria at capacity with two lunch shifts. A third shift would have had to be added, resulting in either a very early or very late lunch for a bunch of kids"
Sorry, this excuse won't work - many many schools in the NE cluster already stagger 3 lunches. Summit has to pull it's weight too.
"One of the biggest problems that has resulted in the failure of a number of co-location schemes is inadequate separation of the populations of the two schools involved."
Some co-housed schools have been very successful. Namely Coho/NOMS, now Salmon Bay, and several Montessori programs, etc. And, why do the populations have to be separated? Why can't they share non academic time (gym, lunch, art)