Two Schools at Step 5 Must be Restructured
There are two Seattle public schools which have reached Step 5 of NCLB sanctions: Aki Kurose Middle School and The African-American Academy. Federal law requires that these schools be restructured. Last year, when the schools were at Step 4, they were required to write a restructuring plan. This year they are required to implement it.
So what are these restructuring plans? What do they say?
I wrote to the District and asked for copies but have no reply as yet.
So what are these restructuring plans? What do they say?
I wrote to the District and asked for copies but have no reply as yet.
Comments
The African-American Academy contracts to a K-5 and relocates to T T Minor. This would probably be sufficient "restructuring" to satisfy the requirements of the law. Most of the school's academic trouble is in the middle school portion, not in the K-5 part. By moving several hundred students into the T T Minor building, the district addresses their excess capacity problem in the Central Cluster. This would relieve the pressure to close another school there. It would save a school in the CD. T T Minor is perfectly suitable for the AAA in size, configuration and location. The students there already wear uniforms and the Afro-centric curriculum would be just one step further down the "culturally relevent content" spectrum from where they already are.
If the AAA building were then vacant, The New School could move into it. The AAA building was constructed as a K-8 so it is perfectly suitable for The New School in size, configuration and location.
The District has always claimed that the renovated Southshore building could be used as a PreK-8 or as a traditional middle school. Good thing, because they should make it a traditional middle school and close Aki Kurose. I have no doubt that closing Aki Kurose will fulfill the definition of "restructuring". The new permanent principal the District was going to hire at Aki Kurose can start instead at a new middle school at Southshore (could they call it Sharples?) with a staff of his or her own choosing.
A new building will be a draw for enrollment. In addition, a middle school at Southshore will have ready access to the amenities at the Community Center and at Rainier Beach High School across the street.
The District should keep the Aki Kurose building for use as an interim site for schools in the Southend that are undergoing renovation. There are no interim sites in the southend right now so southeast Seattle schools have to go outside the area to E.C. Hughes (Brighton, South Lake), to Boren (Cleveland) or to Lincoln (Madrona, Garfield) when they have capital projects. Aki Kurose is large enough to host middle schools and high schools.
The District will soon be shuffling the deck with a new Student Assignment Plan. They would really welcome the added versitility that an open building of that size in the southend would offer. It could eventually become the home of the B.O.C., of a K-8 international school, or a new alternative program.
This makes no sense. The New School will be a Pre-K to 8 school upon completion of the new building next fall-why in the world would you want it to change buildings to another Pre-K to 8 school? All you'd be doing is moving kids around-there is no need at all to move one of the ONLY school populations in the south end actually meeting AYP!
And what would be the point of closing Aki and moving the kids to the New School Building? Why would achange in location suddenly make it better? I have seen how rebuilt schools sometimes become "popular", but in this case, unless you attend to the REASONS the kids are failing (and let's be clear, the WASL is at the heart of the "failing" designation)
nothing in going to change.
My own daughter attended Aki and never had a problem, and went to Franklin where she started out in AP classes, so it IS possible to get a good education at Aki.
The kids who aren't are failing for a number of reasons, from home life problems to the perception that studying is for the "uncool" to poverty to English not being their first language. And that isn't just at Aki. Playing musical chairs with kids isn't the solution.
I'd sure like to see the district try that in the north end. Oh, wait, they did. And parents went ballistic. The closings never happened. It's not, never has been, about just the kids inside the building. Locations matter. They always have. The protests in north Seattle a couple of years ago should be proof enough of that.
The potential benefits of closing Aki and opening a new middle school would come from three sources:
1) The new building would be free to hire staff starting fresh. They would be under no obligation to hire the teachers now at Aki Kurose. So it would not be the same teachers.
2) A new building might attract families that would otherwise choose a school other than Aki Kurose for their children. So it would not be the same students.
3) The District could select a new principal for this new middle school. So it would not be the same administration.
With a new building, new student body, new teachers, and new administration the school could establish a new culture - a culture of academic achievement with no history of "how it has always been done" and no legacy of "the way we do it".
Let's face it. The District has to do SOMETHING. They are under a federal mandate to restructure the school. Musical chairs won't suffice.
I'm sure it is possible to get a good education at Aki. No one suggested otherwise. The truth, of course, is that most of the students there are not coming out ready to do high school work, let alone take AP classes. I'm happy for your daughter, but something has to be done for the other students.
I agree that the District has not addressed the causes of the Academic Achievement gap. Despite all of the talk about it, the District has no plan for closing the gap and never has made a plan for closing the gap.
Let's be really clear: The federal government has mandated that Aki Kurose and the African-American Academy be restructured. What would you propose that wouldn't be simply playing musical chairs?
They did not close the school, but brought on a new principal who brought her own hands-on way of doing things. She rallied that staff and worked very hard with the kids to bring up their interest in learning. Like Aki, the school has a large minority population, and one that is very transient as well. A state-assigned advisor was helping with curriculum and additional money from the state was also in play.
At the end of the school year, the school's district-level acheivement tests showed significant gainsi n math and reading, better even than some of the "better" schools in the district. Of course, the WASL scores were not in yet. I just looked them up, and they were mixed.
I honestly don't see the point of moving kids to another building and getting rid of everyone previously teaching them. Why not look at what works and KEEP that, while trying to address the real problems, most of which are not just teaching to the test.
As for the New School it will have a middle school, and started with a 6th grade this year. It's ALREADY attracting new students and parents, why move it to another location when the intent was from the beginning to have a comprehensive Pre-K to 8 near a S. Seattle high school.
And I repeat-why is it ok to move kids around like chess pieces in South Seattle when north end parents nearly rioted when it was suggested for both TOPS and Montlake a couple of years ago?
If you look at data, you will find students with disabilities systematically excluded from our "white" schools and segregated along with minorities into undesirable schools. Unlike the minority students, the students in the disability programs don't have any choice in this. If you look at the data, you'll see students with disabilities do well when placed proportionally.
Speaking of step 4. We only have 1 more year to wait until Madrona reaches step 5. Summit's not far behind.