Public Hearings Announced

Here is the schedule for the public hearings. Unfortunately, only those schools whose buildings are closed get them (meaning, Arbor Heights, for example, won't get one as their building is remaining open but their program may close).

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON BUILDING CLOSURE
Public hearings will be held at buildings proposed for closure from 6:30-8:30 p.m. on the days and locations below.

Monday, Dec. 15, 2008
T.T. Minor - 1700 E. Union St.
Pinehurst - 11530 12th Ave. N.E.
Van Asselt - 7201 Beacon Ave. S.

Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2008
 Genesee Hill - 5012 S.W. Genesee St.
Mann - 2410 E. Cherry St.
Old Hay - 411 Boston St.

Thursday, Dec. 18, 2008
Lowell - 1058 E. Mercer St.

Public testimony will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker, and should focus on the school building about which the hearing is being held. To sign up to give testimony, please call (206) 252-0042 or e-mail hearing@seattleschools.org

Comments

e said…
Here are some things nobody has considered:

1) In the last round of closures, Viewlands was closed ONLY because they were closing so many school south of the ship canal and it would have been political suicide not to chose a north end school. Viewlands is NOT in that bad of shape. However, once it has been unoccupied for two years, it loses its occupany certification and then needs millions in upgrades to ever re-gain it. Not using Viewlands is idiotic and people should be outraged.

2) The district for the past year has had internal discussions about co-locating Aki with RBHS. This makes sense! Great sense! However, as usual, good sense is over-ruled by what is politically palatable. People made such a huge deal about the Denny-Sealth co-location that doing another co-location of this kind in the south end becomes a PR issue that the district doesn't want. Someone needs to acknowledge that YES, this is politically difficult, but makes academic and operational sense. The kids at Aki and RBHS need more consistent support and what better way than to give them a consistent home and consistent group of teachers/admin for seven continual years (6th-12th grades)? The operational advantages are obvious.

3) For years people have argued that SpEd kids need to be around typically developing kids (mainstreamed) for their success. Why do APP kids (who so many parents claim have "special needs") not need to also be around typically developing kids? Why do they need their own micro-cosm? I do, however, very much agree that the choice of co-locations was as lame as it could be. Again, Viewlands could have been a better choice for the north end (although it's not right off 99 or I-5) and it could have also helped alleviate some of the crowding in the NW schools (admittedly NW over-crowding isn't as bad as NE... YET). Emerson could be a great choice for south end because it's practically new.

4) I really, really hate to say this, but we need to face it: Summit is an expendable program. It doesn't perform great academically and by golly, there are sure a lot of alternative choices in terms of K-8s and then you've got Nova, Center School, etc for HS. It definitely doesn't deserve its own building since doing so comes at such a high price in terms of money and opportunity for the whole.

5) I simply CANNOT believe that MGJ has kept so many of the "old" advisors. Sure, she brought in new folks at the top, but the top is only as informed as the staff wants them to be. The communications/PR/public engagement people need to be replaced. Patti Spencer has been there forever and still doesn't know what she's doing. Her boss, the director, has proven her philosophy and strategies are failures for the district. Furthermore, none of the folks in facilities have been pushed out... and HELLO? These are the two departments that get the district into trouble again and again and again.
11/27/08, 8:20 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more