Confusion and Finger-Pointing
In a previous thread, a reader (Jamie), provided a link to Cooper Elementary's "Cooper School Works".
It's a great page (and I have to wonder why they were complaining about not being able to get information together - this is very professional looking). On this page they list all the reasons that picking Cooper is wrong. Some of it doesn't make sense like
"Is it because of undercapacity (empty classrooms)?"
They say no because if Pathfinder moves in, there won't be room at other schools for Cooper students (I'm thinking the district is hoping all those students will go to underenrolled West Seattle Elementary but that isn't likely). They also say that their enrollment is rising and yet,
"Many of our students come from the High Point housing development. This development is not yet complete, so the number of families from there opting to bring their children will increase. Also, if another school closes Cooper could take on many of these students."
That kind of puts forth that (1) Cooper IS underenrolled even if the enrollment is slowly rising and also that (2) High Point is by West Seattle Elementary so if anyone will see a rise once the development is done, it is more likely to be WS Elementary. But no school can ask the district to count on future enrollment at this point. (I also have to wonder about Cooper's cries about Arbor Heights throwing them under the bus when, in their last sentence, they say they'll take on students if another school closes.)
They also say:
"Is the reason Cooper is on the closure list because the voices of white, more affluent school communities are being listened to more than ours?"
And they single out Arbor Heights and Lowell. (And what Lowell has to do with their issue, I have no idea.) At any rate, it never works on the district to use this argument and, in fact, it seems to irritate Board members when it is used.
But really what they are missing is the central tenet of this round of closures -
IT'S ABOUT BUILDING CONDITION AND NOTHING ELSE (except maybe for Lowell which seems to be ALL about equity/access - I'm being sarcastic here).
Bottom line - Cooper has a newish building that they are not filling and Pathfinder is (and has been) in a crappy building. In short, Pathfinder is a more valuable program to move than Cooper's program is to save (in the district's view).
(And because the Board and staff were so willing to favor New School over Pathfinder in the last BEX election, someone, somewhere has to give up their building for Pathfinder. Sorry New School; your building score was in the low '70s and yet somehow your school still got on BEX. No fair saying you had been on BEX II already- that was for an entirely different project. And, of course, the irony is that none of the suffering that the communities of Cooper, Arbor Heights and Pathfinder are going through now had to happen if not for New School. Because sure enough, as predicted, AAA is being closed, New School could have been moved there and Pathfinder would be getting a new building as we speak. But money and power ALWAYS win out, no matter what the venue. And New School has those two items in their pocket. And before anyone wants to call me out on this issue - better go read the New School Foundation website and their MOU with the district. If you can read it and still defend New School getting a new building, then we can talk.)
It's a great page (and I have to wonder why they were complaining about not being able to get information together - this is very professional looking). On this page they list all the reasons that picking Cooper is wrong. Some of it doesn't make sense like
"Is it because of undercapacity (empty classrooms)?"
They say no because if Pathfinder moves in, there won't be room at other schools for Cooper students (I'm thinking the district is hoping all those students will go to underenrolled West Seattle Elementary but that isn't likely). They also say that their enrollment is rising and yet,
"Many of our students come from the High Point housing development. This development is not yet complete, so the number of families from there opting to bring their children will increase. Also, if another school closes Cooper could take on many of these students."
That kind of puts forth that (1) Cooper IS underenrolled even if the enrollment is slowly rising and also that (2) High Point is by West Seattle Elementary so if anyone will see a rise once the development is done, it is more likely to be WS Elementary. But no school can ask the district to count on future enrollment at this point. (I also have to wonder about Cooper's cries about Arbor Heights throwing them under the bus when, in their last sentence, they say they'll take on students if another school closes.)
They also say:
"Is the reason Cooper is on the closure list because the voices of white, more affluent school communities are being listened to more than ours?"
And they single out Arbor Heights and Lowell. (And what Lowell has to do with their issue, I have no idea.) At any rate, it never works on the district to use this argument and, in fact, it seems to irritate Board members when it is used.
But really what they are missing is the central tenet of this round of closures -
IT'S ABOUT BUILDING CONDITION AND NOTHING ELSE (except maybe for Lowell which seems to be ALL about equity/access - I'm being sarcastic here).
Bottom line - Cooper has a newish building that they are not filling and Pathfinder is (and has been) in a crappy building. In short, Pathfinder is a more valuable program to move than Cooper's program is to save (in the district's view).
(And because the Board and staff were so willing to favor New School over Pathfinder in the last BEX election, someone, somewhere has to give up their building for Pathfinder. Sorry New School; your building score was in the low '70s and yet somehow your school still got on BEX. No fair saying you had been on BEX II already- that was for an entirely different project. And, of course, the irony is that none of the suffering that the communities of Cooper, Arbor Heights and Pathfinder are going through now had to happen if not for New School. Because sure enough, as predicted, AAA is being closed, New School could have been moved there and Pathfinder would be getting a new building as we speak. But money and power ALWAYS win out, no matter what the venue. And New School has those two items in their pocket. And before anyone wants to call me out on this issue - better go read the New School Foundation website and their MOU with the district. If you can read it and still defend New School getting a new building, then we can talk.)
Comments
Now I'm confused.
What it says is that the district's proposal "has changed to accommodate the interests of ... the Lowell community." And given the district's current proposal to keep the kids from north of the ship canal at Lowell (rather than move them to Marshall) this appears to be true.
To my knowledge, the Lowell community - and certainly the Lowell PTA - has not spoken out regarding the situation at Cooper.
From another thread, it sounds like MoUs are not legally enforceable. Does The New School Foundation have any enforceable legal rights in this issue? Do they have any real objection to being at the AAA building?
Anonymous, why did they bring Lowell up at all? That's the question except to maybe cement this idea that only white, middle-class parents can make the Board change their minds. I just don't know.
Great questions, Maureen. You'd have to ask New School. But like many non-traditional schools with a new building, they all seem to say the building is being designed specially for them (it is) and so no, Aki couldn't possibly use it (even though, yes, it says it is being built as a middle school). Aki would then be right across from Rainier Beach (but separated) and it would probably work better than if Aki were in the building. Would New School go to AAA? Not if the district wants to keep the money coming in would be my guess.
Yes, that MOU is a legally binding document and either side can decide to pull out. New School Foundation had started with TT Minor and made some great progress only to have Stuart Sloan open up the newspaper one day and find that the district wanted to close the school. (Yes, it's a fine way to treat people who try to invest in schools.) And, like AAA, you had conflicts within the community over what TT Minor should be. New School Foundation continues to support some small programs in the building but has largely turned to what is essentially their school and their vision in New School.
Don't get me wrong for one minute; New School and its staff are working hard and doing good work. BUT almost any school in this district (especially at a K-5 or K-8 level) could do a whole lot better if $1M were being pumped into it. So it is painful to not only see that kind of money pumped into 1 school but that the school is also getting a brand-new building designed with it in mind just down the street from a nearly new building in AAA. How does that make sense? I've never been given a good answer.
I know, for instance, that the Pinehurst building now housing AS1 is supposedly a teardown according to the district -- and yet they put over a million bucks into it last year, with new wiring, a teaching kitchen, a great science lab, and so on.
I know there are other examples of this, but if the district plans to close schools, maybe it shouldn't be dumping money into those buildings? The savings for closing the Pinehurst building, for instance, according to the district, are about 130K per year. And they dumped a couple of million dollars into it last year? Say what?
The whole thing makes no sense: if you're considering closing the building, maybe you shouldn't dump 10 times the estimated savings from that closure into upgrades for the building? Is it any wonder that people doubt the ability of the SPS to plan?
I can't speak for the "Why Cooper?" article, I didn't write it, but it has a lot of good facts and there are many at the school who feel more affluent schools are being favored over poorer populations. Lowell and Arbor Heights were mentioned because they were removed from the preliminary closure recommendations.
We want people to know that Cooper Elementary is succeeding academically while many of its students come from low income families. Cooper, West Seattle Elementary and Roxhill Elementary have similar demographics. If you compare WASL scores, Cooper dramatically outperforms them. These lower performing schools are where our children will be forced to attend if Cooper Elementary closes.
Cooper Elementary was not on the original closure list because the West Seattle North Cluster has much less excess capacity than the West Seattle South Cluster (Where Arbor Heights is located). Cooper and West Seattle Elementary are the only 2 elementary schools with seats available in WS North. If Cooper is closed, there will be 56 students from Cooper that won't fit into Pathfinder or West Seattle Elementary and will have to attend an elementary school outside of their cluster. This is against Seattle Public School policy and assumes that all 69 open spots at Pathfinder are filled by Cooper Students. Every student is guaranteed a seat within their cluster. When we ask Seattle Public Schools about this they talk about waiving bussing requirements for Cooper's Students and how it fits in with the new Student Assignment Plan. According to their own website, they are still developing the guiding principals for the plan, and won't begin modeling data until next month.
Cooper Elementary's reference area was redrawn a few years ago. There are only 270 Elementary Students in the Seattle Public School system living there, and 268 students attending the school. Compare that to West Seattle Elementary with 489 elementary students in their reference area, and 263 students attending the school. 111 students from the West Seattle Elementary reference area are enrolled at Cooper and another are 116 enrolled at Pathfinder.
Why is a successful program located in a cluster with no extra capacity on the closure list? No one has given us an answer!
Thanks,
Steve Ball
Cooper School Parent and PTA member
A correction; Lowell's building may not be closing but half their program will move no matter what (at this point) and a whole new school community (Montlake) will move in (possibly). To say that Lowell was removed isn't entirely accurate. And Montlake is certainly a mostly white and middle-class school. Both schools may experience a lot of upheaval so no one is off the hook. (This is why I say that trying to use the argument about white, middle-class parents being able to win arguments against the district doesn't really work.)
For example, the idea that there aren't enough seats in the West Seattle-North cluster for all of the students in the cluster does seem important - until you remember that the District is going to revise the student assignment policy next year and the whole idea of a West Seattle-North cluster may become obsolete.
There are a number of students travelling among the clusters for school and particularly between the West Seattle-North and West Seattle-South clusters. It's really not a big deal.
It is true that there are more excess seats in West Seattle-South (482) than in West Seattle-North (319) based on current enrollment and planning capacities, but Cooper has more (161) than any other school and another West Seattle-North school, West Seattle Elementary, is second with 140.
But, again, these perceptions are based on the current division of reference areas and clusters which will all be obsolete with the new student assignment plan. These divisions are artificial and plastic. If Gatewood were re-classified as a West Seattle-North school - perfectly plausible idea, then the south cluster would have 415 excess seats and the north cluster would have a similar number, 386, without Pathfinder or a greater number, 488, with Pathfinder.
Moreover, the excess seats in West Seattle-South may reflect the dearth of programs in that cluster as much as anything else. West Seattle-South has no Spectrum program, no ALO, no alternative program, no K-8, no Montessori, no International education, and no magnet schools. Students and families seeking all of these things must leave the cluster to get them.
From a butts and seats perspective there is no getting around the fact that Cooper has more excess seats than any other elementary school in West Seattle. That's a simple fact.
It's also a fact that Cooper seats very few neighborhood students (85, among the fewest in West Seattle. In contrast, Arbor Heights has 150 reference area students and West Seattle seats 116.
I think the Cooper community makes a good case for the academic success they are seeing at their school. The WASL pass rates they post are significantly higher than the pass rates of nearby schools with similar demographics. I'm curious about how Cooper thinks they are doing this. They offer no attribution analysis or hypothesis. So why wouldn't the Cooper students do just as well at whatever school they attend next year?
None of the other arguments on the Cooper web site are meaningful. They oddly misrepresented or misunderstood the under capacity issue by neglecting their empty seats. The cost issue is also misunderstood or misstated as it focuses exclusively on transportation and does not provide an apples to apples comparison. I have no idea where the unique programs argument came from. Every school has unique programs of this type. The equity argument and location arguments are just goofy.
The real bad move politically - and they are approaching this as a political issue so they should be politically aware - is the suggestion that Arbor Heights and Lowell got themselves removed from the closure list because their schools are full of White middle class students and Cooper was put on the closure list because it has non-White students from low-income homes.
Consider this: are the other school communities communicating more effective because they are White and affluent or because they are better communicators? Or could it be because they have a better case?
If Cooper wants a specific ratinale for why their program is being closed, they can use this: 160 empty seats in the building. No further rationale is necessary.
While I typically enjoy your posts, I do not understand your comments regarding The New School.
While The New School is getting a new building, it is not being built to suit their needs. The New School will have between 500 and 550 students when it reaches full capacity. The new building can accommodate several hundred more students. As a result, the school is a big target for closure or consolidation. They have already been on and off of this year’s closure/consolidation list. Everyone expects round two of closures next year. Any parent of a New School kid would gladly take the old building (let alone AAA) to get off the list and keep the program intact.
The reality is that the new building is being built in a way that allows the District maximum flexibility -- the option of turning it into a new middle school if appropriate. It is not being built to meet the needs of the New School community.
You write “none of the suffering that the communities of Cooper, Arbor Heights and Pathfinder are going through now had to happen if not for New School.” This is flat-out wrong. The reason why schools are being closed is because the Superintendent thinks the way to fix Seattle Schools is to eliminate overcapacity. I agree with Charlie Mas’ comment: “If Cooper wants a specific rationale for why their program is being closed, they can use this: 160 empty seats in the building. No further rationale is necessary.”
Basically the district does not easily change directions for *anyone*, no matter how supposedly rich and powerful (adjectives which incidentally describe a lot fewer Lowell parents than you might think). They are probably in general *even less* responsive to those with little socioeconomic power, but that doesn't mean affluent white people get listened to a whole lot. If they did, we'd still have a high school in Queen Anne.
Helen Schinske
The size of New School seems to be in dispute. When I previously questioned the size of the building for a K-8 (at about 1,000), Laura Kohn, the head of the New School foundation, chimed in to say that for New School being a Pre-K-8, it would be sized lower at something like 800. (I'll go back and find her post if you want.) So now you say that it's 550? The district is building a new building for a program that will only grow to 550? And pray tell, what will happen with the rest of that capacity?
And if the New School parents were happy with the idea of moving elsewhere, why have we not heard their voices on this subject previously?
Boy, this just gets stranger and stranger. And I don't think it's the end of the story.
Honestly, the vast majority of Seattle is white and middle class - what is it, like 70-80%?
I believe the Lowell parents presented valid arguments -- their building has recently been renovated but not reflected in the building scores presented. If building condition is the primary reason for closing a building/program and you can show otherwise?...Plus, your children are thriving, scoring well on measurement tests, actually bringing money into the district...who can argue against that?
You can stick a pin in a map of Seattle in most any place and hit a white middle class family. Can we get beyond that and advocate for the best education for our children no matter their skin tint or economic strata?
In previous posts about Chris Jackins - who testifies at every school board meeting - he gets on the agenda because he knows and understands the rules. Nothing else.
You will have to excuse us, you put-upon New School parents,for the "nasty coments" that those of us have made. Perhaps we with kids in North Seattle, who have children who go to school in buildings with leaky roofs, attend overcrowded high school and middle schools and have32 kids in a class for elementaries, if we don't exactly feel sorry for you.
Essentially, we have allowed a few private stakeholders, including New School, to pay for disability-free zones in our public schools.
I have to say, however, that I haven't read ANY nasty comments about the New School on this blog and that, from my perspective, Mel's comment was not belittling in any way.
What are you talking about, Ms Wild?
Mel wrote: "New School and its staff are working hard and doing good work." How is that belittling?
Mel wrote: "any school in this district (especially at a K-5 or K-8 level) could do a whole lot better if $1M were being pumped into it". Is that the belittling part? If so, how is it any different from Ms Wild's comment that "The fact that this country and state haven't funded education properly is a disgrace & I totally believe that all schools should have the benefits of the small class size and pre-K education that the New School Foundation money allows for"?
It seems to me that they are saying the same thing - that every school could get the sort of results that the New School gets with the funding that the New School gets. So how it that either belittling or nasty? I'm just not seeing it. Could you please point it out to me?
I have no interest in nasty remarks about anyone who is working to advance education, and I have tremendous respect for work, but I just didn't read anything nasty or belittling here. Please point it out so we can avoid it and discourage it in future.
I am on edge by all the comments that seem to question the Foundation's motives for the new building. All the school parents/teachers (in coordination with TNS Foundation) ever asked for was a safe, dry and warm building to house the program somewhere in the south end, preferably without displacing another school. We were told by the District that middle school capacity was needed in the south end, and a compromise was worked out in BEX I & II between the New School's desire to be K-8, the District's desire for expanded middle school capacity, and the need to house the South Lake High School. Money that had been slated for TNS in BEX I was used for other projects due to escalation/cost overruns elsewhere, leaving enough to construct the South Lake High School, but not enough for a K-8 with expanded middle school. We were told by the District that renovation of the South Shore Building was not cost effective. Now we learn that in actuality middle schools in the SE cluster are under capacity. I can't explain this aspect of things, other than to say it wouldn't be the first time the District miscalculated. I expect there was some hope they could build on the success of TNS. To be honest, I have the same hope. It makes sense to grow successful programs, as long as the growth isn't antithetical to what made the program work in the first place.
So what I should have focused on (and thought I did) was the building itself and all the benefits that seem to come to it (almost) unbidden. If you stand back and take an honest look at it, you have to wonder:
-how did the South Shore project in BEX II (when New School wasn't there) morph from converting the open classrooms to regular classrooms (and adding a cafeteria/auditorium) at a modest $16.7M into the $62M+ project it is today?
-why didn't changing the scope of the project change where it was on the list of BEX projects?
-this building was not, is not, in the worst shape and yet it is being rebuilt while other schools (Pathfinder, Nova, etc.) are losing their buildings outright?
-interesting how the original project was for South Lake and the modest upgrades were good enough for South Lake (including adding 800 seat capacity that the district claimed it needed in the south end - this is in 2001). And, South Lake came out it with ITS own building (although at a modest $14M)
-why is the South Shore project on such a hopped up schedule? No other project is (even Ingraham's modest upgrades are scheduled for 2 years and that was before the permitting issues)?
-why is the South Shore project getting done on extra money (Saturday work costs at least time and a half)from BEX when we are staring down the large number of closure issue costs?
Don't shoot the messenger.
As to quality, it may be of interest to study the teacher survey. You will see that the scores for the 2008 principal are not meeting up to the district averages.
40% of the New School teachers have over 10 years of experience, higher than the district avg. and these higher salaries are paid for by the public.
There are two comprehensive middle schools in the south-end, Mercer, with a planning capacity of 1,022, and Aki Kurose, with a planning capacity of 974. That's a total capacity of 1,996.
The enrollment at these schools are currently 699 at Mercer and 434 at Aki Kurose. Yeah, how about that? With all of this talk about excess seats, no one has mentioned the 540 empty seats at Aki Kurose, have they?
So it sounds like there is a lot of excess capacity in the south-end middle schools, right? Well, there isn't. There are 1,731 middle school students who live closer to Aki Kurose than any other middle school and 568 who live closer to Mercer than any other middle school.
In short, there are 2,299 south-end middle school students and only 1,996 south-end middle school seats.
Here's a couple questions for the District Facilities folks to answer:
1) If Mercer has 323 excess seats right now, why does the school have ten portable classrooms on the site? Is that an efficient use of our portable buildings?
2) If Aki Kurose has 540 excess seats, why does the school have two portable classrooms on the site? Is that an efficient use of our portable buildings?
When the District does their capacity managment calculations and they count butts and seats, they count all of the butts that live in the area whether they are enrolled in the area schools or not.
If all of those south-end students at McClure and Hamilton every try to enroll in their neighborhood school, they will swamp it.
With the closure of the AAA and the Seahawks Academy a few years ago, the only non-reference area middle schools in the south-end are ORCA and The New School. The New School, of course, does not yet offer classes through grade 8. Even when it does, there will be no excess middle school capacity in the south-end.
Charlie, thanks for clarifying the SE cluster middle school capacity issue. It really emphasizes the need to get the SE Initiative in gear so that there isn't a big backlash of SE parents pulling middle school kids from SPS when the new assignment plan is initiated.
I think the Cooper community makes a good case for the academic success they are seeing at their school. The WASL pass rates they post are significantly higher than the pass rates of nearby schools with similar demographics. I'm curious about how Cooper thinks they are doing this. They offer no attribution analysis or hypothesis. So why wouldn't the Cooper students do just as well at whatever school they attend next year?
Cooper does make a good case for itself based on academic performance over nearby schools. Why does it have to spell out every reason or methodology? This isn't a demographic we would expect to perform well (as Montlake is)... so, I don't think anyone would doubt that the instruction-school-community combination is being successful. Nor should we expect that Cooper's students would "do well at another school". The school's students would be forced to attend West Seattle Elementary, and Roxhill... which are arguably the worst schools in the district. To go from a struggling school, into a "worst" school, especially for an impoverished demographic does seem unfair. Although Cooper has been home to an autism inclusion program that has forced students out... (by closing) and then forced students back in again (by openning again midyear)... the situations at Roxhill and W. Seattle Elementary are much worse. Roxhill had around a 30% disability rate. That rate is so high as to be a civil rights violation. The school as a whole is like a giant special education self-contained program. Same with West Seattle... only 15 families selected it as a first choice... as well as an exceedingly high disability rate. The experiment, blend two of the most failing schools togehter, and "hope" that it all works out... was doomed, and should be put to rest before a whole generation of students suffers through it. Both of these schools should be ahead of Cooper on the chopping block... and closing them would actually be providing their students with better opportunities. It certainly would provide the students with disabilities better educations. And I'm sure it would provide all other students a better education too.
Autism Mom, please keep in mind that the joining of Fairmount Park and High Point was an idea generated by their communities. It was not forced on them.
It seemed like having similar communities would help direct solid resources to the building. I don't know enough about how they are doing to say it isn't working.But, yes, it probably was too many students with challenges for one building.
What are they doing there to get these results? We need to know. And then we need to see if we can get the folks at West Seattle Elementary and Roxhill and Highland Park and Concord to all start doing it too!
Also it seems like we should KNOW whether or not it is a mushroom model by now. Isn't the first class in 6th grade?
Re special ed, the New School will finally be moving into a building that has appropriate facilities to serve all students, regardless of disability status. So the special ed situation at the school will certainly change in the future, and that's a good thing. One side note is that the New School has tried hard through its history to support students early and often so that students are served officially as special ed students only if absolutely necessary and appropriate. That has suppressed the school's special ed rate relative to other SPS schools (even others that do not currently house special ed programs, like the New School).
Percent of low income students is half of our neighboring schools' low income population. Will that change, too?
We should be very clear, there's absolutely no special capacity required for autism inclusion programs or any other inclusion programs. Several parents in the last few years have requested this.. and the different principals have always demured and fought off these attempts. The big love for diversity, and "serving the underserved" didn't seem to mean ALL diversity. And given that special education students are very disproportionately of color and poor, it's impossible to claim to serve challenged populations... but then, fail to serve disabled students.
If the New School is indeed trying to reduce special education referals, then that is a laudable effort. Most schools over-refer level 2, and do almost nothing in the SIT process. This practice drives up the sped costs and reduces general education teaching capacity. But, the real reason for a suppressed disability service is the exclusion of all level 3 and level 4 students. You can hardly find a school anymore that does this. Laurelhurst (5.9%), John Stanford (6.0%). Maybe a few others.
But guess what -- it was illegal. The story we got, and I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong, is that Special Ed instruction is paid for by federal dollars entirely, and the strings attached to that require that those teachers teach NOBODY but Special Ed kids.
In short, isolation and stigmatization are written into the laws. Isn't that special? It's a sad fact: The law is an ass.
It's enormously frustrating to our teachers and families. Our program was so successful, teachers were coming from all over the district to see how we were generating the results. I guess it's just like the old saying: if it ain't broke, fix it.
No, wait, is that really how it goes?
Special education students are funded with the BEA (basic education allocation like everyone else) and a special education supplement. Students with disabilities are GENERAL education students, first and foremost,... by law, and by funding. Special education AND BEA funds are supposed to follow special education students where-ever they go, including into self-contained classes.
It is true that special education supplemental funds are not supposed to be used outside of special education. But no, isolation is not "written into the law". Far from it. AS1 should have simply funded it's special education teacher with the BEA provided (or general education funds)... and there should have been no problem.
So, the claim that the arrangment was illegal, sounds very fishy. Co-teaching arrangments exist in a number of places in the district so it IS certainly possible and IS actually done. Not sure why somebody would say it was illegal at AS1 in particular. My guess is that they don't want to use general education funds (funding the students without disabilities) in that way... and so they say it is illegal.... instead of changing the accounting.
But really, the way it should be done is that the CORE classrooms you describe should be the general education classrooms, not the supplemental classrooms. All students are funded there... and it is the recommendation of the special education review. But, it is too bad that something that worked well couldn't be maintained, at least in some form.
The point is to listen to where dollars were and will be allocated. Where will the resources (the funds and the time) come from to run a Design Team when all of these people are currently fully employed? This is not a time to experiment. It is a time to learn from past mistakes.
What about closing up other buildings the district operates (the one in Wallingford where science supplies are stored) and putting that in some empty classrooms? Are there others?
Nobody's saying those 3 or 4features aren't good for the lucky families, but no, it's not "working out the kinks".
But Melissa aren't there many other examples of schools getting preferential treatment and extra funding? For starters, The SE initiative gives millions of dollars in extra funding, extra transportation, low class size, etc to only 3 schools? And how about the compensatory dollars that follow low income schools? Aren't they in essence receiving something that other schools are not? I acknowledge that they need the extra compensatory dollars, but so do the students of The New School need the extra funding.
I don't understand the constant ragging on New School. Yes, they are getting a whole lot of extras, but Shouldn't we be glad that at least some kids are getting that advantage instead of no kids? Especially low income south end kids. Personally, I think it's a great experiment to see what a school serving low income, inner city, minority kids can do with the proper funding. I would have loved to see what TAF could have done too. I know that we will probably never be able to fund our schools in this way, and personally I am thankful that we can at least see a few schools benefit from proper funding.
I'm asking about the building. We all now know that the South Shore building was not one of the worst buildings in the district; the district has said so in this round of closures by what buildings it wants to close (and giving building condition scores). We all know that the money first allotted to South Shore was for modest upgrades that somehow morphed into something much larger and much more expensive. And, we now know that the district is willing to pay extra BEX dollars to get the South Shore building done sooner than almost any other project in recent memory by paying for overtime on the project. (I note that Rainer Beach's modest project has fallen right off the BEX III schedule. What's up with that?)
Extra BEX dollars for a building not in the worst condition while other schools fight to save their programs. Extra BEX dollars while we all know that the district needs dollars to aid the closure and consolidation process for schools soon to receive students from closing buildings. Where will that money come from? Tell me, where will that money come from?
These are hard, cold truths. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I find fault with the New School Foundation and not New School itself. I do not believe the district has acted this way of its own accord and indeed, what I would consider favoritism should be noted so that it doesn't happen again. No regular school should get less than any school involved in a public/private partnership with the district.
Some one at AS1 was either misled or elected to mislead me. I wonder which.
Washington State's "education for all act" was actually first in the nation, and predates IDEA. So, the obligation to fund disabled students has always fallen squarely on the state. When IDEA was enacted, the federal govt promised to pay 40% of the costs... but never has. The feds never said it would pay for all of it.
The BEA + supplement formula applies only to the district. The district then sends the monies out at a variable (and largely unaccountable) rate to each school. It is interesting to note that a handful of districts recently sued the state for more "sped supplemental funding". (All the districts which have the worst sped in the state) The districts lost resoundingly, and state advocacy agencies argued against the districts. The judge pointed out that each and every district had stripped the BEA (basic allocation) from the special education students. The districts were trying to fund their programs with the sped supplements alone, and then complaining when they had to use the BEA... (which they were supposed to use) When a sped kid leaves a classroom... his BEA and his supplement is supposed to leave with him. But that never happens.