Parsing APP Outcomes

I attended last night's community meeting and I'll address it in a separate post. (In case I don't get to it today and you are pondering about whether to go to the one tomorrow, I'd go. You can go late because the Superintendent (or whoever it will be tomorrow) went over the background and if you've heard it or read it once, you know it. What is key is the handouts are pretty good including a sheet with every school on it with its stats; building condition score, enrollment, etc. We broke out into table groups and discussed and then reported back. It was interesting enough just to hear what each group had to say and if there were overlapping threads.)

I'm going to write about Lowell first because of a thread in another post I wanted to talk about and because I had planned on writing about each proposed action.

The APP community seems to be leaning towards wanting to stay together if they can. However, parents I spoke to last night as well as in posts here indicate a willingness to make the best of a move. The overwhelming thing I heard last night was that Lowell's population will swell both Marshall and Hawthorne from the get go, making life uncomfortable for all. And, when APP students have sibs start enrolling (if they test into APP or decide to also go to their sib's school - this will be a new option not available currently at Lowell for parents with one child in APP and one not), then the schools will really be crowded. Also, some Lowell parents worry about adequate support and resources from the District to support the moves. The numbers bear them out on the capacity issues.

Also, as I said previously, this is not a one school joining another, it's a group of students from a closed school joining an existing school. Lowell effectively ends as a school community with their own identity and now these students take on the mantle of their new school. As Charlie said previously:

"Let's also be clear that splitting APP does not duplicate APP. When you duplicate a program you still have the original intact. If, for example, we wanted to duplicate TOPS, we would no do it by closing the Seward building and moving half of the TOPS students into one building as a separate program within that building and moving the other half of the TOPS students into another building as a separate program within that building. Not at all. To duplicate TOPS we would leave TOPS intact and start another program with all new students and teachers in the TOPS model."

So from the Capacity narrative on APP, here's the district's rationale on the move:

"This inability to provide special education students at Lowell with access to general education curriculum and age appropriate typically developing peers resulted in a desire to move students out of the Lowell building."

It took an audit for the Special Ed department and the district to figure this out? This wasn't a best practice that they likely knew about for years? Sure, it's a reason but for the number of years that APP students and their Special Ed peers have comfortably shared a building, it seems odd that now is the time it needs to change.

"This program is an all-city draw—by dividing the program into two cohorts we will decrease transportation time and cost for some students, and offer an opportunity to seed programs for future expansion."

I think the district would be hard pressed to prove that they are going to decrease overall transportation time. If anything, it'll be a wash. They will likely lose some students because of the longer transportation time this move will cause. I also find it interesting that the district talks about expansion because APP is the top 2% of tested students. It's a pretty finite number. If they mean they may get more kids to test from more areas of town as the program appears more diverse and accessible, they may get a few more kids but it's still a finite number.

"We note that this will put Hawthorne above the stated planning capacity of 428. However, as discussed in the Capacity section, above, with creative use of PCP spaces schools can go above their stated planning capacity."

Okay, but again, cherrypicking to support their rationale. If you can't squeeze more space out of one school, how can you do it in another? If I were Arbor Heights, I'd use this rationale against the District in their reasoning about why Pathfinder can't go to Cooper.

"In order to accommodate the APP students at the Thurgood Marshall building the three
elementary bilingual orientation center (EBOC) classrooms need to be relocated."

Okay, but more musical chair movement of students, especially ones that need more support and stability.

"Leadership and staff to support this vision will be carefully chosen, and a design team will be identified to work with the school communities to ensure a smooth transition for the fall. We anticipate that the strong interest of APP students and parents in music and fine arts will likely extend that opportunity to everyone at Hawthorne and Marshall, as will the tradition of an active, resource-enhancing PTSA." (bold-face mine)


And here's where I'll bring in the post that troubled me and ties into this rationale:

"There are certainly many positives. The more affluent APP community would infuse the school with fund raising dollars and all of the enrichment opportunities that come along with those dollars."

(Looking at Hawthorne's website, there is no working link to any information. This would signal to me they may or may not have an active PTA. The same appears to be true for Marshall. I have known schools that have had a 5-person PTA who worked like crazy for their school so I mean no disrespect to a small PTA with fewer resources but I believe this is part of the district's reasoning whether they say so or not.)

The post is more direct than the district's rationale but it all seems the same to me. And that is the idea that (1) APP parents are wealthy and (2) that parents are a resource and (3) that in putting APP at Hawthorne and Thurgood Marshall, music and arts will appear.

In answer to (1) no, I've met APP parents of all stripes and what they generally are, rather than well-off, is uniformly dedicated to their child's education. In answer to (2), I believe that parents are a benefit to their child's school and not so much a resource. In answer to (3), what is stopping music and arts from being at these schools already? Or is it that any already existing programs will gain strength, again, from highly motivated parents?

It all feels a little paternalistic to me. I believe the district when they say they will be working on a design and a coming together of families. And I believe that parents will work together. But, it sure would be hard to suddenly have a large group of parents come into my school and say, well, we know how to run a music program and raise money so let us do it. How would you feel? Obviously, it didn't work when some new parents at Madrona tried to suggest after-school language or creating a garden. Neither the administration nor the other parents wanted to listen.

I recall reading, many years back, about an auction at a small SPS elementary that raised over $100,000. It was jaw-dropping but the school truly did have wealthy parents. But the problem was that not all the parents were wealthy and there were families who could not afford to even attend the fundraiser (no less participate). Now, many people would say, "Who cares? If people raise a ton of money for my school, I don't care if I'm not part of it." Okay, but what if there were parents who were sad/upset/feeling left out who said nothing because they felt they couldn't or were embarrassed? What if you felt somewhat patronized by the wealthier parents? Would you have a say in how the money was spent if you didn't participate?

For the district to list, as a rationale, that new parents, known to be dedicated to education, are coming into a building as a resource seems wrong to me. While I believe every child has gifts to give to other children (no matter their academic ability) I have to wonder in reverse - what is the direct benefit to the APP parents and students beyond a better building?