Disqus

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

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

1 comment:

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.