Just Checking and Look What I Found
So I'm checking the Seattle Public Schools website and I click on information about capacity issues in the north end. They've updated it since the last Board meeting where, apparently, COO Don Kennedy presented an assessment of the different options. And boy, is it through. My head is spinning with the possibilities (and I'm still not sure what their recommendation is). I mean they give conclusions for differing scenarios but what they really think isn't clear (however, there is some spin to their rationales).
And they also ran through a number of things to carry-over to the assignment plan that had been one year deals. I don't really have a problem with this (and is unclear to me if all of them passed but I suspect so). But a couple really stand out.
One is the end date for waitlists. Instead of end of October, it may be moved to end of September. That's just about 3 weeks after school starts which is a pretty short time. The way the waitlists currently work once the waitlist is dissolved, you have no chance of getting into a school unless you are a new applicant to Seattle Public Schools and there is room at that school. Waitlists do move but 3 weeks seems awful fast. Maybe it won't matter as much under a new assignment plan but until we know how that will work, it seems a bit premature to do this.
Two is Center School which they were voting to drop the distance tiebreaker and just have the tiebreakers be sibling and lottery. I know this was the wish of the student body but I have to point out that Center School was originally created to serve QA/Magnolia which had no high school. It hasn't really worked out because (1) it isn't a comprehensive high school and (2) it's very small and can't serve a lot of students. So by changing the tiebreakers that apply to Center School it seems to me a signal that the Board/district staff have plans for another high school for QA/Magnolia.
Great but when? Where? And how, with budget problems and capacity problems do we justify keeping Center School at the Seattle Center? We spent $5M to fix up the area in Seattle Center and we are paying for a lease on the area. When the Seattle Center gets rebuilt, the Center School will have to move out for awhile and the district will likely be paying for upgrades/costs to whatever the new building will look like. Is this the vision for the district?
I bring this up because it seems to me the district is NOT presenting a comprehensive vision for the district. This got brought up at the assignment plan meeting I attended. People don't want to attend endless meetings on various topics but want to see how it all fits together.
When I see things like the idea that we may have a new high school somewhere and that we haven't reviewed how alternative schools are part of the vision of this district (and are all of them are meeting their mission given their above-average transportation costs, something we must consider in frugal times) AND I see different district staff saying widely varying things, I have to wonder about a coherent message.
So what do I mean about different staff saying varying things? Well, it is clear in this document that staff believe we have too many buildings for too few students; in effect, concurring with the recent State Auditor's report. (And, they find the the 3-year old Ming report as well as other documents is plenty good enough for their opinions and yet we are still paying Ming for a brand-new Facilities report for the BTA levy. Interesting.)
Then we have the BEX Manager, Don Gilmore, telling folks over in West Seattle that the district may want to reserve the Denny site for a new elementary school in the future (after closing three unnamed elementaries). Fascinating. This district would close not one, not two, but three buildings and then build a new one? (I'm sure the folks up in the NE/NW would appreciate the irony of lack of capacity in their area but the district is already thinking of building elsewhere.) I'm sure there's some reasoning in there somewhere but again, it's staff saying seemingly off the wall things at one meeting with no coherent central vision to give it legs.
I know we will have to close more schools. There has to be some political courage on this issue. But if we move programs around like pieces on a chess board (seemingly because "there's room") without a clear and concise vision, then we will have many more problems down the road.
What is our district's vision for the assignment plan, our facilities and where programs are located? Inquiring minds want to know (and know soon).
And they also ran through a number of things to carry-over to the assignment plan that had been one year deals. I don't really have a problem with this (and is unclear to me if all of them passed but I suspect so). But a couple really stand out.
One is the end date for waitlists. Instead of end of October, it may be moved to end of September. That's just about 3 weeks after school starts which is a pretty short time. The way the waitlists currently work once the waitlist is dissolved, you have no chance of getting into a school unless you are a new applicant to Seattle Public Schools and there is room at that school. Waitlists do move but 3 weeks seems awful fast. Maybe it won't matter as much under a new assignment plan but until we know how that will work, it seems a bit premature to do this.
Two is Center School which they were voting to drop the distance tiebreaker and just have the tiebreakers be sibling and lottery. I know this was the wish of the student body but I have to point out that Center School was originally created to serve QA/Magnolia which had no high school. It hasn't really worked out because (1) it isn't a comprehensive high school and (2) it's very small and can't serve a lot of students. So by changing the tiebreakers that apply to Center School it seems to me a signal that the Board/district staff have plans for another high school for QA/Magnolia.
Great but when? Where? And how, with budget problems and capacity problems do we justify keeping Center School at the Seattle Center? We spent $5M to fix up the area in Seattle Center and we are paying for a lease on the area. When the Seattle Center gets rebuilt, the Center School will have to move out for awhile and the district will likely be paying for upgrades/costs to whatever the new building will look like. Is this the vision for the district?
I bring this up because it seems to me the district is NOT presenting a comprehensive vision for the district. This got brought up at the assignment plan meeting I attended. People don't want to attend endless meetings on various topics but want to see how it all fits together.
When I see things like the idea that we may have a new high school somewhere and that we haven't reviewed how alternative schools are part of the vision of this district (and are all of them are meeting their mission given their above-average transportation costs, something we must consider in frugal times) AND I see different district staff saying widely varying things, I have to wonder about a coherent message.
So what do I mean about different staff saying varying things? Well, it is clear in this document that staff believe we have too many buildings for too few students; in effect, concurring with the recent State Auditor's report. (And, they find the the 3-year old Ming report as well as other documents is plenty good enough for their opinions and yet we are still paying Ming for a brand-new Facilities report for the BTA levy. Interesting.)
Then we have the BEX Manager, Don Gilmore, telling folks over in West Seattle that the district may want to reserve the Denny site for a new elementary school in the future (after closing three unnamed elementaries). Fascinating. This district would close not one, not two, but three buildings and then build a new one? (I'm sure the folks up in the NE/NW would appreciate the irony of lack of capacity in their area but the district is already thinking of building elsewhere.) I'm sure there's some reasoning in there somewhere but again, it's staff saying seemingly off the wall things at one meeting with no coherent central vision to give it legs.
I know we will have to close more schools. There has to be some political courage on this issue. But if we move programs around like pieces on a chess board (seemingly because "there's room") without a clear and concise vision, then we will have many more problems down the road.
What is our district's vision for the assignment plan, our facilities and where programs are located? Inquiring minds want to know (and know soon).
Comments
So I'm curious now as to what will be happening to The Center School under the new assignment plan. Right now it is our #1 choice for high school for 2009. We live in the Southend and my daughter is a drama kid. The partnership with The Rep at the Center School is a big draw for us. But, if there is a chance the school will somehow disappear, I might not want to put our eggs in that basket.
I am indeed one of those inquiring minds that want to know what the District's vision is. Right now, I see a system with 3 high schools that are very good and all the rest are lacking in some things, and a few of those are lacking in almost everything.
When I read about all of the variances in classroom hours, course offerings, quality of teachers and staff, I am totally befuddled and wonder if I should just bite the bullet and try to find an affordable independent or out-of-district option.
How can we, as parents, make a good decision when the District gives us nothing to work with?
http://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=11089
(with an image of the district board that includes "potential elementary school")
Adding portables to schools isn't going to do much to address the anger. Opening up space in the Pinehurst building or opening Olympic Hills to NE cluster students doesn't do anything to address the issue. Repurposing Jane Addams as a middle school won't address it, and might make it worse, depending on where the elementary school students now at Summit end up. New classrooms at Broadview-Thompson, Sacajawea, or John Rogers does nothing to address the overcrowding where it is the worst. All the discussion about middle schools and high schools is probably necessary, but irrelevant to the problem of elementary school overcrowding.
The crisis that I thought this process is supposed to be dealing with is that 4 elementary schools in the NE cluster are ridiculously overcrowded, and are hard to get into even for those who live in the area. Parents, I think justifiably, want to have the neighborhood school as an option, and not have it be heavily overcrowded. Yet the only option that I have heard of that really addresses the problem at hand (re-open Sand Point) has been ruled out pre-emptively as infeasible, too expensive, and contrary to what the State Auditor says SPS ought to be doing, which is closing buildings.
Frankly, I think it would be better for SPS to do nothing than to take one of these options which will cost money, won't really address the core issue, and will make people more upset when they are told that their problem has been solved when they know that it, in fact, has not been solved.
FWIW, I don't live in the NE cluster and my child does not go to school in that area, either. I personally am not much affected by this, I am just dismayed at the fact that when presented with a problem, the district thinks of all kinds of things to do which solve different problems (maybe) but aren't likely to solve the original problem, and rules out the things that might make a positive difference in the original problem.
I actually am doubtful this would be that good an idea, but it is startling to me that it hasn't even been mentioned, that I know of.
Moving Summit and re purposing the Jane Adamms building to a K-8, which is what the district has proposed will help if done right. If the k-8 is a cluster draw school and offers a specialty focus, say language immersion or Montessori or a science and math magnet, it will (voluntarily) draw some of those families who live in the Wedgewood, View Ridge, Bryant and Laurelhurst neighborhoods, thus naturally alleviating some of the over crowding. Even without a specialty focus like language immersion, a k-8 will (voluntarily) draw some families as it will offer nine years of continuity (k-8) and guaranteed access to a small middle school. Many families love Bryant, Wedgwood, View Ridge and Laurelhurst, but do not look forward to sending their kids to the largest middle school in the state of WA, Eckstein , with 1250 kids.
So, some families will without coersion choose a K-8, and that will alleviate some of the over crowding in both south end elementary schools and Eckstein.
Do we need more? Probably.
Would I like Sand Point re-opened? You bet I do.
But if done right, a k-8 may work for an immediate solution.
I say this as a Bryant parent. I may have chosen a k-8 school if it were a solid, strong, unique program. And, if they offer openings at the middle school level, I will look at it instead of Eckstein for my son next year!
It would be distressing to the alternative school community to move the program, and I don't think it would not do much good for neighborhood schools in the cluster. They have great test scores and are over enrolled. In fact they are a perfect example of what the district is doing right.
I understand moving Summit, as it is an under enrolled program, with an all city draw. But moving Thornton Creek would be counter productive.
is anybody else worried that by adding the closure complexity to this discussion that any action may be postponed?
also, for those of you who've been down this road before, at what point does an elementary schools huge population allow for doubling up on specialists in order to meet the minimum needs of, say 700 kids?
The highest threshold for elementary schools is 473 students with kindergarten students counting for .5 FFTE. At the highest level, schools get an asst. principal, .1 extra nurse, & .5 certificated staff. Beyond that there is no additional funding.
None of the NE cluster schools was budgeted at the highest level for this year. Even Bryant at more than 540 students. they are all budgeted at the medium level for 300-472 students.
I understand that Bryant lost $200,000 of funding with the budget changes last year. With the district headed for big deficits, I don't see them investing in extra staff for the NE cluster schools.
I know that the additional support staffing granted large schools under the Weighted Staffing Standards isn't much, but I thought they were getting it.
For all of the NE cluster schools, being heavy in kindergarten enrollment makes it harder to make the threshold numbers. But evidently those that did, did not see their budgets adjusted.