Board Work Session Part Three: Boundaries
After 3 hours the Work Session finally got to boundary discussions. This included the PowerPoint as well as a sheet which I haven't found yet online. One side as high school enrollment, overall and by clusters (which is very interesting) and the other side has what Tracy termed "dummy data" to illustrate what might patterns might occur because of the new SAP.
As Tracy said, this is very complex. They listed 8 steps to the boundary planning process (slide 53). Then slide 54 listed the first step - Identify Factors (like proximity, walk zones, demographics, etc.) As I have previously said, the Board is not going to rank or weigh any of these so you may think proximity is the most important but that's not how it will be for the Board. Keep that in mind.
(I'll have an update on the proximity issue. As Tracy ran through it, I had a scenario in my head. I e-mailed her to ask her if I got it right and I'm waiting for an answer. Basically she said they are going to give consideration to the boundaries for kids who may only have one school (any level) close to them versus another student who may have 2 school in proximity. So they would draw the boundary to allow the student with only one choice to get that choice even if it meant the first student might go to a slightly further away school.
Slide 56 was an interesting one simply showing the number of students who live nearest each high school in a straight line distance. There are a couple of schools that just couldn't fit everyone in their area, namely, Ballard, RBHS and Sealth.
Michael made a good point saying that under this new SAP that the district is no longer asking schools to compete for students and that's true. What a difference this will make to what schools do is unknown.
They seemed to talk a lot about high schools in this section. There was discussion about how classrooms are utilized and how if you only utilized a high school classroom for 5 out of the 6 periods that the 6th period could be a "passive capacity management tool".
Tracy mentioned how the City, the District and Feet First create the walk zones. They have not been replacing open crossing guard positions and that the money for the guards will run out in December. (I wrote to the Alliance for Education and suggested using the PIC court settlement money for crossing guards. ) Slide 58 had a district chart of the walk and no walk areas. Director Bass asked to see this with school superimposed which I thought was a good idea.
One of the key slides was Slide 60 about Variables and Assumptions. This is key because the question is "If students knew they had a guaranteed assignment to School A..." what would their choice be in terms of going to an option school? APP at Garfield? staying at an out-of-attendance school? The issue is, how many seats do we hold for students who may not go to their attendance area school? According to Tracy's cute Slide 62 (with 3 little bears, one too big, one too small and one, well, you know), the assumptions have to be specified so they know the size of boundary to build.
Jumping to Slide 64, this is another key slide as this is going from rough to specific as they get deeper and deeper to specific boundaries.
Mary asked about what if there were a high concentration of special ed but she got a vague answer.
Slide 63 was the one with the "dummy data". This was about high schools and trying to figure out, for example, what number of APP students would stick with Garfield. Their assumption was all of them same as it was for NOVA students. However, they "assume" that some Center students if they knew they would be assigned to Roosevelt, would not then choose Center. That's the kind of assumptions they are trying to suss out to build the boundaries.
Peter asked, because of Hale and Ingraham, whether these assumptions would be based on the schools today or as they will be in 2 years (after rebuilds/remodels). The answer was as they will be.
Okay, so some nitty-gritty. Tracy said they would not always use the same boundary patterns for the lines. Meaning on a larger street like MLK, the line might go down the middle and for a smaller street, on occasion, might go down the middle of the block.
Discussion
Mary asked about capacity lids in the past for some schools. Tracy said that the functional capacity will follow a consistent set of standards and so that shouldn't happen.
Sherry suggested something they have at Boeing and for the district it would be a "surge capacity". Meaning, if they have a sudden increased capacity (on a short-term basis), they have a method to deal with it. She mentioned it in terms of dealing with the sibling issue for example. (She also mentioned a two-year window for grandfathered sibs. I'm thinking they are all thinking about the sibling issue a lot.) Tracy liked the surge idea.
Steve asked about diversity and Tracy said that the some segments of data would contain demographic info so that would be part of the boundary planning. Steve also said that he thought that when they generated the maps that there might a certain amount of suspicion about possible gerrymandering. He said the shape of the map might matter and asked about a "reasonableness test". Tracy was nonplussed and said (to laughter), "I have enough work to do."
Peter then followed up with asking if there could be multiple maps and she said no. (I agree; what a nightmare.) Peter also asked if when they created the maps if there were a way to show the percentage of current students to the percentage of new students as a result of the new boundaries. Tracy said yes.
Sherry asked about community engagement. Tracy said Communications was developing a plan but I don't know. I just feel like we are going into a lull here as Tracy and her staff work and then suddenly in the dead of summer they will have 3 back-to-back community meetings and call it a day.
Michael asked about physical barriers in the city. He was specific about bridges and high school travel versus elementary. Tracy agreed about this point.
And then the genie came out of the bag via Michael - Open Choice seats. He said he didn't want it to disappear and then he said well, we had been tentatively working with a 10% working model. Tracy said that had been her understanding. Peter said he thought it might not be a solid 10% at all schools (variation between 9-12%) and Tracy said that was possible. But she said a key thing which was if all the Open Choice seats didn't get taken, they wouldn't leave them open and would fill them (likely from any waitlist).
Michael asked for a read from the Board on this tentative number and no one disagreed. So unless Harium and Cheryl disagree, for right now, it is 10% for the Open Choice seats for high school.
Steve did say (and I agree) that they need to start with a firm number and it turns out to vary a bit school to school, fine but have a start number.
Just on the high school stats, I found some "new" functional capacity numbers and man, I wish they would get their stories straight. I think the Board should get to vote on them so they are solid until programs change. For example, there's Roosevelt at 1606. I've never seen this number before. Ever. They have Garfield, in their new building, at 1508. Huh?
What is interesting is that Sealth is more underenrolled than Cleveland and I wouldn't have thought that the case. (Cleveland by 266 and Sealth by 353). Also, it looks like Garfield has the most equal (more or less) share of all the clusters. West Seattle has the most students from its area (not a surprise) at 89.8% followed by Hale at 87.7%, Roosevelt at 85.6% and Franklin at 84.8%. According to this chart, Ballard is at 105.% of its functional capacity, followed by Roosevelt, (104.3%), Garfield at 111.4% (!), and West Seattle at 106.9%. On the low end, there's RBHS at 41.7%, Sealth at 70.1 % and Cleveland at 71.3%.
Okay, that is the last of my notes on this Work Session.
As Tracy said, this is very complex. They listed 8 steps to the boundary planning process (slide 53). Then slide 54 listed the first step - Identify Factors (like proximity, walk zones, demographics, etc.) As I have previously said, the Board is not going to rank or weigh any of these so you may think proximity is the most important but that's not how it will be for the Board. Keep that in mind.
(I'll have an update on the proximity issue. As Tracy ran through it, I had a scenario in my head. I e-mailed her to ask her if I got it right and I'm waiting for an answer. Basically she said they are going to give consideration to the boundaries for kids who may only have one school (any level) close to them versus another student who may have 2 school in proximity. So they would draw the boundary to allow the student with only one choice to get that choice even if it meant the first student might go to a slightly further away school.
Slide 56 was an interesting one simply showing the number of students who live nearest each high school in a straight line distance. There are a couple of schools that just couldn't fit everyone in their area, namely, Ballard, RBHS and Sealth.
Michael made a good point saying that under this new SAP that the district is no longer asking schools to compete for students and that's true. What a difference this will make to what schools do is unknown.
They seemed to talk a lot about high schools in this section. There was discussion about how classrooms are utilized and how if you only utilized a high school classroom for 5 out of the 6 periods that the 6th period could be a "passive capacity management tool".
Tracy mentioned how the City, the District and Feet First create the walk zones. They have not been replacing open crossing guard positions and that the money for the guards will run out in December. (I wrote to the Alliance for Education and suggested using the PIC court settlement money for crossing guards. ) Slide 58 had a district chart of the walk and no walk areas. Director Bass asked to see this with school superimposed which I thought was a good idea.
One of the key slides was Slide 60 about Variables and Assumptions. This is key because the question is "If students knew they had a guaranteed assignment to School A..." what would their choice be in terms of going to an option school? APP at Garfield? staying at an out-of-attendance school? The issue is, how many seats do we hold for students who may not go to their attendance area school? According to Tracy's cute Slide 62 (with 3 little bears, one too big, one too small and one, well, you know), the assumptions have to be specified so they know the size of boundary to build.
Jumping to Slide 64, this is another key slide as this is going from rough to specific as they get deeper and deeper to specific boundaries.
Mary asked about what if there were a high concentration of special ed but she got a vague answer.
Slide 63 was the one with the "dummy data". This was about high schools and trying to figure out, for example, what number of APP students would stick with Garfield. Their assumption was all of them same as it was for NOVA students. However, they "assume" that some Center students if they knew they would be assigned to Roosevelt, would not then choose Center. That's the kind of assumptions they are trying to suss out to build the boundaries.
Peter asked, because of Hale and Ingraham, whether these assumptions would be based on the schools today or as they will be in 2 years (after rebuilds/remodels). The answer was as they will be.
Okay, so some nitty-gritty. Tracy said they would not always use the same boundary patterns for the lines. Meaning on a larger street like MLK, the line might go down the middle and for a smaller street, on occasion, might go down the middle of the block.
Discussion
Mary asked about capacity lids in the past for some schools. Tracy said that the functional capacity will follow a consistent set of standards and so that shouldn't happen.
Sherry suggested something they have at Boeing and for the district it would be a "surge capacity". Meaning, if they have a sudden increased capacity (on a short-term basis), they have a method to deal with it. She mentioned it in terms of dealing with the sibling issue for example. (She also mentioned a two-year window for grandfathered sibs. I'm thinking they are all thinking about the sibling issue a lot.) Tracy liked the surge idea.
Steve asked about diversity and Tracy said that the some segments of data would contain demographic info so that would be part of the boundary planning. Steve also said that he thought that when they generated the maps that there might a certain amount of suspicion about possible gerrymandering. He said the shape of the map might matter and asked about a "reasonableness test". Tracy was nonplussed and said (to laughter), "I have enough work to do."
Peter then followed up with asking if there could be multiple maps and she said no. (I agree; what a nightmare.) Peter also asked if when they created the maps if there were a way to show the percentage of current students to the percentage of new students as a result of the new boundaries. Tracy said yes.
Sherry asked about community engagement. Tracy said Communications was developing a plan but I don't know. I just feel like we are going into a lull here as Tracy and her staff work and then suddenly in the dead of summer they will have 3 back-to-back community meetings and call it a day.
Michael asked about physical barriers in the city. He was specific about bridges and high school travel versus elementary. Tracy agreed about this point.
And then the genie came out of the bag via Michael - Open Choice seats. He said he didn't want it to disappear and then he said well, we had been tentatively working with a 10% working model. Tracy said that had been her understanding. Peter said he thought it might not be a solid 10% at all schools (variation between 9-12%) and Tracy said that was possible. But she said a key thing which was if all the Open Choice seats didn't get taken, they wouldn't leave them open and would fill them (likely from any waitlist).
Michael asked for a read from the Board on this tentative number and no one disagreed. So unless Harium and Cheryl disagree, for right now, it is 10% for the Open Choice seats for high school.
Steve did say (and I agree) that they need to start with a firm number and it turns out to vary a bit school to school, fine but have a start number.
Just on the high school stats, I found some "new" functional capacity numbers and man, I wish they would get their stories straight. I think the Board should get to vote on them so they are solid until programs change. For example, there's Roosevelt at 1606. I've never seen this number before. Ever. They have Garfield, in their new building, at 1508. Huh?
What is interesting is that Sealth is more underenrolled than Cleveland and I wouldn't have thought that the case. (Cleveland by 266 and Sealth by 353). Also, it looks like Garfield has the most equal (more or less) share of all the clusters. West Seattle has the most students from its area (not a surprise) at 89.8% followed by Hale at 87.7%, Roosevelt at 85.6% and Franklin at 84.8%. According to this chart, Ballard is at 105.% of its functional capacity, followed by Roosevelt, (104.3%), Garfield at 111.4% (!), and West Seattle at 106.9%. On the low end, there's RBHS at 41.7%, Sealth at 70.1 % and Cleveland at 71.3%.
Okay, that is the last of my notes on this Work Session.
Comments
Comment about high school classrooms used 5 out of 6 periods. Remember, when a classroom is used 6 periods it means that some poor teacher has to schlepp all of his or her materials to the classroom for one period, and then onto another temporarily free space. And it means that the regular teacher in that room does not have the room available to meet students or parents, prepare it for the next class or day. That's the situation now at RHS which is at more than 100% functional capacity. I am not sure I understand that extra sixth class being *the* wiggle room. Does this mean that they normally wouldn't use that 6th period but in the occasional time that the school was above functional capacity then they would? So as Roosevelt ramps down to functional capacity, they won't have any roving teachers? And remember, not all classrooms and not all teachers could rove like that. Band rooms, science labs, home ec, art... Those are not multipurpose and the teachers who teach those classes can't relocate easily either.
Open choice seats not getting filled and then filling the school from a waitlist? I am confused because I would have thought that the only way to have a waitlist would be from people trying for an open choice seat. So what sort of waitlist are we talking about?
1. Start along the corners and edges of the district. This will cut down on the number of students who have to go past a school to get to their school.
2. Assign one walk-zone students before two walk-zone students or zero walk-zone students. Those in only one walk-zone are less flexible assignments. Assign the twos and zeros in the space left available by the ones.
If every middle school offers Spectrum, then I guess they won't need set-aside seats for it anymore. Nor will they need to pre-determine or limit the size of the program. If 200 Spectrum students enroll, then the school has a 200-student Spectrum program. If 150 or 300 enroll, then that is the size of the Spectrum program. Right? There is no longer any reason to set a limit on the size of the program, as the Washington program has been capped at 180 for as long as I can remember. After all, the student is in the school either way, right? Why wouldn't the program's size be flexible to meet the demand?
Spectrum will continue to need set-aside seats in the elementary schools. And that means that the Spectrum school attendance areas have to be drawn smaller to allow for the out-of-area students coming to the school for Spectrum from other parts of the service area.
That, of course, means that Program Placement has to come before student assignment. Doesn't it?
Here's what I think it means. Let's say that Jimmy Carter High School holds 1600 kids so there are 400 slots for Freshmen. They right-size the boundary so there should be on average about 360 freshmen in the guaranteed seat area. That leaves 40 seats, or 10% for choice. Well, Let's say that only 320 kids within the boundary want a seat, but 80 choice applicants. I believe that this means they would fill up the school from the Choice applicants, instead of randomly picking 40 and leaving 40 on the waitlist.
I see some kinks here. Kids in each and every grade level over time are not uniformly distributed, so the on average right sizing of a high school area is going to have some variation. Perhaps this year there are only 320 freshmen in the area, next year there could be 380.
Also, do we know for sure that these choice seats do not come with sibling priority?
But every MS does not offer Spectrum and there are differences between Spectrum programs at the different schools. For example, McClure is downgrading Spectrum so that it is only in 7th/8th grade - and for math only. Eckstein still seems to be the only NE MS that offers the true rigor of a Spectrum. Hamilton might, to early to say. Not sure about the Whittier Spectrum program nor am I familier with Denny, Madison Aki.
Supposedly, however, when the curricula are aligned, then the Spectrum curricula will be aligned as well. They will align the written, taught and tested curriculum from the District.
Some things just jump right out.
First, based on population, the Southeast high schools, Cleveland and Rainier Beach, should need 950 more seats, but because the demand for these seats is so low, the schools actually have 850 extra seats. This is a clear indication that something is seriously, seriously wrong. These schools should be overbooked by about 800 students, but instead they are under-enrolled by that many.
Second, the West Seattle area has an excellent match of capacity and demand. There are 2,330 students in the area and 2,279 comprehensive high school seats, nearly a perfect match. The total enrollment of the two schools is, of course, less, 2,002 (due to students at Option schools, Service schools and APP) which is a good match to the attendance area target size total of 2,051.
Third, the excess demand on Ballard (602 more local students than seats) is almost exactly equal to the number of students living in Queen Anne and Magnolia (610). This will require either finding another location for the Queen Anne and Magnolia students or moving 40% of the Ballard area students out of the Ballard attendance area. The obvious best solution is to find another location for the Queen Anne and Magnolia students.
If the Attendance Areas are right-sized to 90% of the functional capacity of the school, the North needs another 500 seats.
This data would support the creation of a new comprehensive high school with an attendance area that covers Queen Anne and Magnolia (610 students). Lincoln presents an excellent solution. The enrollment there could be augmented with students from the University District, Wallingford, and Fremont.
This data would also argue strenuously against any expansion of Ingraham. Why are we doing that when the school is under-enrolled by 246 students and has much more space than it needs to serve its local demand?
The Central high schools, Garfield and Franklin, are just about exactly right-sized as well - once adjustments to Garfield's capacity is made for APP.
What about Lincoln as the district's international high school for students in bilingual immersion programs, or at least the site for an international program within a high school, like the biotech program contained within Ballard? Could work well with the ~600 QA/Magnolia students Charlie mentioned.
The capacity of Lincoln as a high school is about 1,600. That's how many Garfield students were in it. I think it would do very nicely for 1,200 or so.
There are no athletic fields, but that doesn't have to be a deal-killer. There is a park with open space close by and Woodland Park - with softball and soccer fields - is not far.
From board members comments,and community meetings, it is my understanding that Lincoln will absolutely not be re-opened as a comprehensive high school. Their intent is what Charlie said - to push Ballard families out of Ballard into Ingraham, in order to accommodate Queen Anne and Magnolia, and fill Ingraham. I guess they figure Ballard won't or can't sue them for access as QA/MAG families rightly did. I also think they will experience a push back on this that makes closures look like child's play,.
Perhaps the "closure" of Wilson-Pacific will give them the political cover they need to allow it. Perhaps escaping the deferred maintainance at Wilson-Pacific will give them the accounting cover they need. Whatever it takes.
It is absolutely unacceptable to require 40% of Ballard neighborhood students to attend Ingraham instead of Ballard High School. They are free to choose it, and I think the District can and should do whatever they can to make it an attractive choice, but it is just a bad, bad idea to make Ingraham their attendance area school.
Aren't residents in the north and east part of Ballard just as close to Ingraham HS as they are to Ballard HS? If there is adequate capacity between the two schools why would the district open Lincoln?
Many Ballard parents I've spoken with are upset about the potential of not having access to THEIR school but instead, having a predictable assigment to another relatively close school. Do they realize that this would actually be LESS frustration than what QA/Magnolia parents have been living with for years - that of NO SCHOOL.
So Charlie, where do QA/Magnolia students go if Lincoln can't be reopened? Bus them past Ballard to Ingraham? I just did a quick metro search from central QA to Ingraham and it is 3 buses and 1.5hrs. Central QA to Ballard High is 2 buses and 20 minutes.
I agree with AdHoc, it is fiscally irresponsible to open Lincoln if Ballard and Ingraham can accomodate them all.
There will be hundreds of emotional stories, of how it unfair it is for an individual to be sent here, there, etc. I hope the people drawing these lines have the willpower to do what is best for the whole system. They are going to need it.
I have met very, very few parents who are willing to trade increased frustration for themselves for a larger decrease in frustration for someone else. If something affects their kids, then almost all rationalism and appeals to fairness go out the window.
So, for most of the Ballard parents upset about the potential of not having access to THEIR school but instead, having a predictable assigment to another relatively close school, what Magnolia and Queen Anne parents have gone through does nothing at all to make them feel better.
Citywide fairness is an argument that carries zero weight with most parents faced with an increase in their own inconvenience. To put it another way, parents are quite willing to let SPS solve problems for other people, as long as the solutions do not inconvenience them.
I agree with all of those who have observed that this battle is going to be very nasty before it is all done. I'm quite happy to not have a dog in this fight.
Agreed 100% - which is why those in charge of making the final boundary decisions MUST consider the whole picture of capacity and cost, and not consider the individual or group frustration levels/tradeoffs I outline (and I'm sure there are MANY others).
The idea of opening Lincoln is appealing to many, we shall see where those cards fall.
I don't have a dog in this fights either, but am seeing groups of friends from QA/Ballard already being torn apart by it.
wv - maybe i can drive MICAR to school instead of taking 3 buses?
Just to pick a nit, I have to wonder why it takes 1.5 hours to bus from Queen Anne to Ingraham -- take a bus to downtown, hop on the 358, and ride it up to 130th and Aurora. Walk two blocks from there. I rode that 358 back and forth all the time, and I can tell you that part of the ride is about 20 minutes to half an hour.
I agree with everyone else, it seems, that Lincoln as a high school is a no-brainer, but nobody ever said SPS managers were anything but stubborn. And really, does anyone doubt that a, say, 1200-seat high school in Wallingford would fill up instantly?
FWIW, I have a 7th grader next year and I'm pretty sure I'm in the Ingraham catchment area (right by North Seattle CC), so I guess I DO have something of a "dog in this fight".
I don't, but if it comes at the cost of emptying the already open Ingraham, then it shouldn't be done. I have a (6th grade) dog in this fight. We live in the walk zone for both Ballard and RHS, but will probably be assigned to Ingraham. That probably makes sense. I don't think the idea that everyone in the 'walk zone' for a given school should be assigned there makes much sense. In practice, how many kids who live 1.5-2.5 miles from the schools actually walk there? The time involved (and safety issues in the dark) just makes it impractical. My, perfectly able bodied, 15 year old takes Metro (we pay) to RHS and back everyday. In theory, he could walk, but it's worth $27 per month to us to save him 30 hours of walking with a (very) heavy backpack, often in the dark.
Ironically, if my 6th grader gets assigned to IHS, SPS will have to pay for her bus pass AND probably for one for a kid from Laurelhurst or Magnolia who gets "her" spot at RHs or BHS.
I think the lawsuit should have been directed at the district for not providing their neighborhood a comprehensive high school, rather than on the race-based tiebreaker. If those active families had reached out to the Ballard community, and we had worked together, we probably could have forced the district to do something about this years ago. Instead, we are all now pitted against each other.
I think we need to work together, Ballard, Queen Anne and Magnolia, and force the district to open Lincoln as a comprehensive high school, to relieve capacity issues, and move the Center school there to start with as well.
Part of the problem is that Ingraham may be as close for some families as Ballard, but it is n no way part of the Ballard community. it is simply not a school that Ballard families choose, for many reasons. Forcing them there is not the answer. Forcing QA/MAG families there is not he answer either.
Josh - I went to the King County Metro trip planner and typed in an address central/top of QA as start, Ingraham as end. Morning options... that is what it gave me for the shortest trip. I don't recall the exact routing. I believe you when you say there may be faster ways, but depends upon where on QA you start. (I also limited walk to 1/2 mile).
Maureen - you bring up a good point. I do hear many Ballard parents say they live in the walk zone as justification for going to Ballard... but how many will actually walk it?
Walk Zones. If we are talking CURRENT high school walk zones, isn't that like a 2 mile radius around the school? Roosevelt fills by distance tiebreaker at less than that. That's so not going to work for the new plan.
Wow, what self-righteous palaver! It was the district who sold off QA high, not the QA/Mag residents. And the current residents, (those moving in after the sale of the high school), had a choice system that actually provided a modicum of choice. But now, if it's changing, it's changing. I thought the new plan meant that kids would be assigned a high school in their region... that is, they wouldn't cross boundaries and pass other schools, on the way to their school. If so, some people may be closer to 1 high school than their "reference" high school, eg H20_girl (who isn't that close). And yes, she still does not get in. No, we shouldn't open new high schools if we have enough capcity. H20_girl, if you don't like living in the Ingraham reference area... maybe you should be the one who needs to move closer to the school you prefer! You shouldn't have picked a home so far from Ballard High and likely to be drawn into Ingraham's circle. How's that for walking in someone elses shoes?
My guess is they'll split up QA/Mag. Mag goes to Ballard. QA goes to Garfield. The attendance area for Ballard will largely be south of Ballard High. The attendance area for Garfield will largely be north of Garfield. Unfortunate to split up a middle school reference. Many (probaby most) Mag residents attend Blaine, so maybe Mag residents who attended McClure could follow the feeder pattern to Garfield.
Geesh: if a kid can walk 2.5 miles in 20 minutes, he or she should definitely consider going out for the cross-country team.
I have to admit to some sympathy with H2ogirl on this: if one lives 20 blocks from one high school, and 75 blocks from another, one would expect to have some priority at the nearer school. The suggestion that proximity will have little to do with assignment is what sticks in the craw.
Let's make a thought experiment. What if Ballard High School, for instance, did not fall within its own assignment area? Crazy!, you'd say. What if it was on the edge of its assignment area? Is that also crazy? (I think, yes, it is.)
I just can't get past proximity as the main driver for a school at ANY level. Every time we hear about some kid who lives across the street from a school into which he or she cannot get, we think something is broken. Does it make sense for a kid who lives 2.5 miles from a high school to get priority over a kid who lives 0.5 miles from the same school?
I recognize that much of the problem stems from the uneven distribution of high school capacity relative to prospective high school students. The obvious solution, to strum the ol' harp, is to provide capacity in the area where the stress is highest, namely, the QA/Magnolia/Ball/Wall/Fremont area.
As I wrote,proximity becomes quite tricky especially because of the sometimes odd placement of our schools. It may seem unfair to have to go past a nearest school to get to another one but if you are the kid with a nearest school 2-3 miles away, then that kid has an especially long bus ride. I think the district believes it fairer to give first proximity to kids with only one choice rather than kids who have two choices. Debate Tracy Libros on this if you disagree.
I'm still in the camp to reopen Lincoln and I think I'll have to find out why that changed. I was told - by a Board member a couple of years back - that it was happening and now poof! it's not. Maybe filling the existing schools is the most important thing but Lincoln did exist as a school once.
Lastly, this issue of "it's our high school". Well, I know neighborhoods who feel that way about Roosevelt. The district will decide who belongs at what neighborhood and the historical data may not matter.
First off, it was 50 blocks vs 20 blocks. And we don't know the cross street. Both close, and for such an athlete, maybe we should suggest bicycle. That ought to make Ingraham possible in 20 minutes, or even less. Secondly, of course proximity will have something to do with the assignment. It just might not be the absolute first consideration. QA/Mag residents are closest to the following schools: Ballard, Roosevelt, Garfield. Why should they have to forego not 1, but 3 closer schools, to be shipped literally across town? Clearly the district hasn't placed schools where they are actually needed. And because schools were not placed where needed, the distance "tie-breaker" will not fly. And that is why the distance tie-breaker has to be out.
As to bus transfers, perhaps the city should do something about them to facilitate high school attendance patterns.
Yes, absolutely. It's not who is closest to a school. That's the current tie breaker system and we are abandoning it. Now the relevant information is for how many students is that school their closest school. For the student 2.5 miles away, it could be the closest school. Minimizing the max distance traveled.
And I know what the current definition of Walk Zone means. That's my point. The district does seem to be talking about maintaining some bubble of walk zone around a school but anyone who thinks it will be the current "walk zone" is in for a huge shock.
Really, I'm not begrudging QA/Magnolia kids a spot in a high school! The problem is, schools are static, and people are mobile. The demographics change with time, and a building that seemed surplus now turns out to be necessary -- but too late. If we lump QA/Mag with the NW/N/NE clusters, it's obvious there isn't enough capacity right now for all the high school kids, is there? Even if we stuff Ingraham full? Maybe someone with the data to hand can address this.
But if the above hypothesis is true - that there isn't capacity to handle all the kids - doesn't opening Lincoln seem bloody obvious?
From this PDF entitled "High School Enrollment", we see that the combined functional capacities of Ballard, Hale, Ingraham, and Roosevelt is 5,659.
By adding up the "Elementary Cluster of Residence" columns for the N, NW, NE, and QA/M clusters, we find that there are a total of 4,999 high schools students that live in those areas.
Even allowing for 10% of those schools to be set aside for choice, the capacity of those schools, according to the numbers on this document, would be 5,093.
So, the district staff can conclude, if they so desire, that every high schooler living in Queen Anne, Magnolia, or north of the ship canal can be provided a seat without opening Lincoln.
The main advantage I see of opening Lincoln is not because we need the capacity (we really, truly don't), but to avoid a truly nasty political battle over what attendance area high school to assign Queen Anne and Magnolia to.
Key assumptions:
1) Ingraham and Hale are both filled to functional capacity.
2) The number of students (currently 812) from outside this area that are currently served by the four north end high schools is significantly reduced (Ingraham in particular gets 35% of its student body from south of the ship canal).
3) The number of high school students living north of the ship canal doesn't spike upwards with guaranteed enrollment areas.
I suppose a lot of this depends on whether what comprises a "neighborhood school" is a "school for people who live in the surrounding neighborhood," or a "neighborhood school" comprises "the school that would make it so that most people don't have to drive past one school to get to another school." Because those aren't the same thing.
The data I have, from the page I referenced earlier, shows a total of 5,578 SPS high school students living in the areas north of the Ship Canal plus Queen Anne and Magnolia and the Functional Capacity of the four northern comprehensive high schools as 5,659. This would indicate that there is enough high school capacity for all of the area students plus 81 more.
Since a number of those 5,659 students are either at Option high schools (The Center School or The NOVA Project) or at Service high schools (Middle College, South Lake, etc.), there is plenty of room at the north-end high schools for all of the students in the area.
That's viewing it on a practical basis.
The District could look at it another way. They could say that they want to preserve 10% of the functional capacity at each school for school choice. In that case, they would only be able to guarantee assignment to 5,092 students and would apparently need someplace else to assign 486 of the north-end students. Someplace such as Lincoln.
While I won't contend that this represents a practical approach, it is one that the District could take.
Here's another approach: There are 13,244 high school students total. There are 12,477 total seats available at attendance area high schools. It appears that we have a deficit of 767 high school seats citywide and need to open another high school. The breakdown of this simplistic analysis is that there are only 11,066 students enrolled at comprehensive high schools, so - because there are 2,178 high school students enrolled elsewhere - we actually have 1,411 more seats than we need.
There is a possibility that the District, like Solomon, will split the baby in half. If they assign the Magnolia students to Ballard and the Queen Anne students to Garfield, they will only push 20% of the Ballard area students to Ingraham (instead of 40%). Of course, it will push a few hundred Garfield area students - there are about 1,500 them, of whom only about 1,300 can fit into the school - out of Garfield and into Franklin. Of the 1,500 students who live closest to Garfield, only 1,000 of them can get assignments to the school. The remainder will fit at Franklin (it has 1,447 seats and only 951 local students), but it will pull the boundary between Garfield and Franklin north of Garfield itself. Garfield High School will be in the Franklin High School attendance area.
There are 2,891 SPS high school students in the Southeast - living closest to Cleveland or Rainier Beach. The functional capacity of these schools is only 1,944. So it would appear that the District needs to put a whole additional high school there to accomodate the 947 students who don't fit into the local schools. Instead, of that horrendous overcrowding however, there are 1,142 empty seats in these schools.
2,891 local students and only 1,086 students in these two schools. The number enrolled is only 37.6% of the local population. In other words, if you see a high schooler who lives in the Southeast, that student is twice a likely to go to school somewhere else than at Cleveland or Rainier Beach.
Didn't they already said that the attendance area will include the school? So no, the scheme will not include "Garfield in Franklin's attendance area".
The district, on the other hand, wants: predictably cheap.
And anon, I disagree. The number of parents in this city who would be very happy to send their kids to Garfield, Ballard, or Roosevelt, even though those aren't their neighborhood high schools, is pretty good evidence that "relatively close by" is not the thing people value most. I don't care how far I have to drive my kids to make sure that they attend schools that prepare them for college, if the alternative is to send them to closer schools that don't prepare them to attend college.
Of course, there are kids closer to those schools who will be displaced, so "close" isn't the actual criteria, right? Or "closest." It's "relatively close," which as far as I can tell is a supposedly neutral criteria that is only going to benefit one geographic area while disadvantaging others.
"Sure, every parent and kid in Seattle would like those 3 high schools. That is really saying almost nothing. But everyone can't have that option."
I'll just presume that by "every parent" you mean "the great majority of student families" and not run down that rabbit hole.
Instead, I would much rather focus on your belief that "everyone can't have that option". Why not? Why can't Rainier Beach or Franklin or West Seattle offer the same sort of experience as Ballard, Roosevelt, and Garfield? What is keeping them from it?
Is it money? Do these three schools have more money or do they spend their money better? Is it the students? Do these schools have access to populations that make the school good and the other schools, with their student populations, are doomed to inadequacy? Is it the teacher corps? Is it the principal? What is this elusive quality that only these three schools have and that no other school can have?
If Lincoln were re-opened, would Lincoln have it?
Of the 1,841 SPS high school students who live closest to Rainier Beach High School, here is where they are enrolled:
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS: 1548
548 at Franklin
255 at Rainier Beach
229 at Cleveland
143 at Ingraham
139 at Garfield
81 at Sealth
62 at Roosevelt
37 at Ballard
35 at West Seattle
19 at Nathan Hale
OPTION HIGH SCHOOLS: 39
13 at Center School
13 at Nova
13 at Summit K-12
SAFETY-NET HIGH SCHOOLS: 254
121 at InterAgency
51 at South Lake
49 at Secondary BOC
13 at Ed. Service Center
12 at Middle College
8 at Home School
Of the 1,051 SPS high school students who live closest to Cleveland High School, here is where they are enrolled:
COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS: 936
301 at Franklin
175 at Garfield
169 at Cleveland
97 at Ingraham
52 at Rainier Beach
38 at Roosevelt
35 at Sealth
28 at Ballard
26 at West Seattle
15 at Nathan Hale
OPTION HIGH SCHOOLS: 26
12 at Center School
10 at Nova
4 at Summit
SAFETY-NET HIGH SCHOOLS: 89
49 at InterAgency
14 at Secondary BOC
11 at Middle College
9 at South Lake
6 at Ed. Serv. Center
So the totals for the two schools are:
2,892 Total Students
2,484 (86%) at Comprehensive High Schools
65 (2%) at Option schools
343 (12%) at Safety Net schools
This ratio is similar to those for the District in total.
Obviously, everyone can't attend the listed 3 schools. That much is self-evident. Sure, other schools could be good... but not if people are just assigned to them willy nilly as is currently the case... and the resulting quality of the current assignment plan is also the case we now see.
I've read on this blog (confirmed in the Times) about problems with violence on south end campuses that disturb me. And then there is the academic program. Again, I've read here about problems with offerings at south end schools. My understanding it's not a matter of throwing money at the problem (though money can help), and that these issues are not due primarily to the economic status of the student/family population.
To get to the bottom of this is going to take someone (I'm thinking superintendent and/or designates) smart who is willing to spend some time at the schools, talking with people at all levels (students, families teachers, and principals). Expert advice may be useful, but I don't think we need a whole lot of expensive expert consulting. Doesn't the UW have an excellent education program? If so, why aren't we tapping into these resources?
Money spent on diesel, bus maintenance, bus drivers' salaries, and metro passes does nothing to increase educational effectiveness.
Imagine how surprised and pleased parents would be be to find that the district figured out all these kids were going to grow up and progress through the system and was ready for them!