Going to the SAP Q&A Tomorrow: What Do You Want to Know?
So I am going to attend the Q&A tomorrow morning (Tracy, you are forewarned). I am asking what people want to know BUT you know, some of you should get out of bed and come. It's a dangerous thing when only a few people show up. That said, I'm going to ask:
Also, FYI, as I mentioned I told the Board that they really should approve this SAP unless the district has a detailed and concrete plan for capacity issues whereever they are in the district. For example, in the NE , they could go to the Mayor and ask for fasttracking of any permitting to reopen a closed building. Or the district could take some of the BTA II money (currently sitting at $56M) and redirect it to buying portables (yes, I know there's the statements from the district that they can't even order them but I'd have to see it to believe it). We do have the money and yes, some other project wouldn't happen but is this an emergency? Do we want the new SAP to have the best chance to succeed so we can move onto to REAL issues like academics and how to help all the schools achieve?
What the Board needs to do is not listen to Facilities. As Charlie says, facilities should not be the tail that wags the dog in this district.
- what about the distance tiebreaker?
- is there going to be an official transition period and how long will it be?
- if there is an official transition period, will the district entertain the idea of grandfathering those siblings who are incoming during it? My feeling is that the district (and the Board) may be taking a hard line on this BUT might be persuaded to a middle ground. Please note that word - middle. I personally don't agree that every single student in SPS today should also get all their siblings into the same school. BUT it seems like if there is a transition period, they could grandfather those sibs in and then give a date like September 2011 and say, "If you are in SPS on this date, you can remain at whatever school you started at. The sibling tiebreaker applies under the new SAP rules." Seems like a compromise.
Also, FYI, as I mentioned I told the Board that they really should approve this SAP unless the district has a detailed and concrete plan for capacity issues whereever they are in the district. For example, in the NE , they could go to the Mayor and ask for fasttracking of any permitting to reopen a closed building. Or the district could take some of the BTA II money (currently sitting at $56M) and redirect it to buying portables (yes, I know there's the statements from the district that they can't even order them but I'd have to see it to believe it). We do have the money and yes, some other project wouldn't happen but is this an emergency? Do we want the new SAP to have the best chance to succeed so we can move onto to REAL issues like academics and how to help all the schools achieve?
What the Board needs to do is not listen to Facilities. As Charlie says, facilities should not be the tail that wags the dog in this district.
Comments
I want to know why the District didn't place north-end elementary APP in the north-end.
I want to know when and how the District will duplicate popular programs with waitlists like TOPS (85 @ K and 78 @ 6), Thornton Creek (52), Salmon Bay (65 @ K and 67 @ 6), and South Shore (47 @ K and 56 @ 6).
I want to know how the District is going to provide equitable access to CTE programs and academies in the high schools.
I want to know what is going on with the Southeast Initiative and the accountability element of that project.
Still no word on open choice seats for high school. How many for each school: percentage? fixed number?
I would also appreciate clarification about how the actual enrollment process will be different in how the software will sort and assign second and subsequent choices (for families applying to schools other than their assigned reference school). Currently if a student is not assigned their firt choice, then the second choice is entered into the system and sorted as a first choice. My understanding is that will no longer be the case. That leads me to believe that it will be harder to get a second choice school.
I am going to try and participate
tomorrow. I hope more folks than usual show up. Makes it look as though parents don't have alot of questions and confusions which of course, is not true.
I want to know if crossing small bodies of water will be acceptable if it aleviates crowding. For example, could Laurelhurst and Bryant feed to Meany.
I want to know if the district is reconsidering Nova/SBOC/Meany now that the numbers don't add up, AND we need the middle school capacity. (Note, this isn't contradictory with #1 because it could be stopped before it happens. If the school opens in September, then I think it needs to stay that way for awhile.)
I want to know what they heck they plan to do with JA over the next 5-8 years, so families can plan appropriately. Even though I'm not impacted directly by this, it has really damaged my ability to trust anything the district says or does.
I'd really like to know:
1) Why does the district feel it doesn't need to adhere to the board approved framework (6/2007)in the final version of the plan? Specifically, why is it abandoning sibling priority when the framework states it will be maintained, "as is"? I know you don't agree with this Melissa, but it's absolutly a fair question and someone should feel the need to answer it.
2) What exactly transpired between 3/18 and 3/25 of this year to dramaticallly change the ordering of tiebreakers?
3) Why the confusing, misleading, misnumbering of tiebreakers - excluding attendance area?
4) Why is the district trying to fix capacity shortages by re-engineering the assignment rules an tiebreakers? What, if any,
plans does the district have to address capacity shortages with actual schools and new seats - elementary and middle in NE?
5)Why is it OK to renege on promises made to current families in order to make new, different promises to future families?
6) Why is there no alternative to the either/or, win/lose scenario in the plan for siblings vs. attendance area? ie. phasing in, phasing out, underdrawing attendance areas to allow for sibs/choice...
7) Why has nothing gone home to families specifically explaining the new vs old plan changes?
I could go on, but 7 seems enough :-) Thanks for asking! I'd love to come, but family commitments have me booked this weekend.
The "Barnhardt-Waldman" choice algorithm replaced a system where you were penalized for making your first choice a school that you were unlikely to get. Using the current algorithm you can submit choices in the order you really want them. Under the previous algorithm you had to put choices you were likely to get, first.
Why is it good to go back to the old way of doing it?
I would like to know: If my child is in an alternative/option school now - is she guaranteed a seat in her reference school if we decide against an alternative in the next few years? Or is she just stuck with wherever the district can find space for her? Does it matter if the alt she'd be transferring from is under NCLB sanctions? (It's AS1 for the record).
We kept her at AS1 for next year thinking that if the school falls apart under the new principal/restructuring plan or gets closed we could just put her at our reference school, North Beach. But it looks like she's not guaranteed a seat there because she's not in an entry grade? It's confusing.
Thanks!
Your chance to quiz Seattle's schools chief
Schools have closed, teachers have been laid off and hundreds of students have been uprooted as the Seattle Public Schools wrestles with a bad economy and changing population patterns around the city.
These are interesting times for the school district -- and things don't look like they'll settle down anytime soon. Next year the district plans to introduce a new student assignment plan.
If you have questions and concerns about what the district is doing, and where it's going, we're offering you a chance to get an answer directly from the top. Schools superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson will participate in a live online chat this coming Monday, June 15, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
If you can't join us at that time, you can still submit questions in advance. A full transcript will be available as soon as the chat ends.
Here are my questions:
The goals of the plan are simplification of assignment plan and providing parents with requested continuity & predictability. Borders will be drawn to align attendance areas with current demographics. The district acknowledges that the plan needs to be transitioned in.
1) If the goal is continuity and predictability for parents, then why is sibling preference being abandoned with no transition period?
2) Families will always choose homes that give them the best school options that they can afford, and with guaranteed attendance this will happen with greater frequency. Given that boundaries will need to be redrawn to manage capacity, what will happen to families whose attendance area is redrawn if one child is in SPS and a second child is about to enter SPS?
3) Given that the boundaries will need to be redrawn, why not draw them initially planning for siblings?
4) What can you say to a family with an incoming kindergartener whose second grader was assigned to a 2nd or 3rd choice school, out of their attendance area, or even to a family who chose to and was assigned to their reference area but is ‘drawn out’ of the new attendance area? Why can’t SPS make the new assignment plan work for these families during a transition period?
5) In Dr. Libros presentation on June 2, it sounded as if an older sibling could be assigned to attendance area school if the family had an entry-grade student coming in. How can the district manage this capacity, but not manage capacity to allow for younger siblings to attend the older siblings’ school?
6) If proximity and reduced transportation are so important, why does the proposed SAP drop the distance tiebreaker in favor of a lottery? A distance tie-breaker would bring families into the school who are just outside of the attendance area boundary.
Why are Madrona and language immmersion schools placed into the attendance school category rather than the option school category?
If not, will Lowell general ed attendance area kids (walk-zone or not) who test into APP go to Lowell and Hamilton or TM and Washington?
1) are they changing the way the algorithm works for choosing out of attendance area schools?
2) what guidelines will be used for re-drawing attendance areas as capacity issues arise?
3) which programs will be "option" programs and which will be attendance area programs? (Madrona/International programs seem non-standard; TOPS/Thornton Creek not so much).
Well, I can answer this one. No, they won't, and even if they would, it wouldn't be worth anything. And, it would be a meaningless promise anyway, because it's individual children who were affected by those changes (take, for example, Cooper children, who are now dispersed to a relatively large variety of programs -- would their displacement mean that no capacity/closure/program issues can affect any school in WS that received those children)?
if nothing else, it can remind them that children and programs are not as portable as they sometimes think.
1. Why aren't the international schools option schools?
2. Will early entrance kindergarteners be guaranteed their attendance area school?
I think they can manage the capacity both ways - they just DONT WANT TO because the object of the exercise is to force families back to their neighbourhood schools, and putting kindergarteners in with their older siblings in non-neighbourhood schools defeats that purpose and keeps the current situation going ad infinitum... over time, I think they will discontinue all busing and they can do that faster if all kids (or most)are living within coo-ee or easy metro accessibility...
The District recognizes that there is not yet equitable access to international schools and Montessori programs. There will not be equitable access to these programs until the program capacity is significantly expanded. As funds become available to create more of these programs they will create them. When they do, they will create the programs in currently underserved parts of the district. While there are some benefits available from making these programs option programs, and that is something the Board could choose to do, that change would have to also find some means for providing attendance area capacity in the neighborhood around the Option school.
-- in short, yes, the current situation is sub-obtimal, and they know it is a problem, but they can't fix it right now. Maybe someday they will be able to. Or, if a Board member proposes this as an amendment and the Board approves it, they will find a way to make it work now.
Tracy Libros could not speak to the program placement issues, whether in K-8 or high school. There isn't anyone in the District with the job of creating new programs or duplicating existing popular, successful ones. Consequently, this isn't getting done. Program Placement doesn't generate proposals, it only reviews them - and sometimes it doesn't even do that.
Dr. Libros couldn't speak to the Southeast Initiative either.
Elizabeth's question: Yes, the new algorithm, by which all first choices are processed first and then all second choices, etc. does introduce a disincentive to take a low-percentage chance with your first choice if your second choice is also unlikely. It does introduce an additional layer of strategy for the family. You will, of course, always be assured of your attendance area school.
SE Mom's question: Not much word on equitable access to high school programs. That's a program placement thing or the school's decision about what to offer. Dr. Libros could not speak to that.
Still no word on the percentage of open seats in high schools. That's for the Board to decide, perhaps on Wednesday.
SE Mom is right; it will be harder to get a second choice school.
TechyMom's question: I didn't hear any special reluctance to draw boundaries across bodies of water. They really aren't there yet and can't go there until the Board votes on the Policy.
beansa's question: Yes, your child, now at an option school, can move to the attendance area school for sure at an entry grade (6). Transferring in at other grades is on a space available basis, but is likely to be possible.
dj's question: The District will have to periodically redraw the boundaries, but they have no particular schedule in mind as yet.
More later.
BL's question: There are no planned changes in the APP assignments. The only south-end APP students who are sure to be assigned to Lowell will be those in the Lowell walk zone (not attendance area) who request it. Other south-end APP students can be assigned to Lowell on a space available basis.
zb's question: The options schools are the ones listed in the draft document as option schools - unless the Board changes that.
adhoc's question: The District will announce the new boundaries in the fall.
BadgerGal's question: Early entrance kindergarten students will be assured of assignment to their attendance area school.
Cool! Thanks you guys.
"Closed buildings, including Old
Hay, Sand Point, Viewlands and McDonald Elementary Schools will be analyzed for capacity, timeline and capital costs since there is significant interrelationship between drawing boundary lines for the new student assignment plan and the identification of what specific building(s) should be re-opened."
Another subtle point clarified by Tracy Libros: The district doesn't necessarily view alts and Option schools as the same. An option school simply won't have an attendence area. Theoretically, at any grade level, there can be option schools with standard programming.
With JSIS especially, it's clear that the district wishes to use the building to handle attendance area capacity management. This could become an issue at Beacon Hill sooner rather than later, also.
I still strongly believe that the district has it wrong here and that access to language immersion programs should be much more equitable, especially since there is no roadmap for bringing more K-5 programs online. I'd like to see an amendment for the Wednesday vote that puts these programs into the Option category. This would allow maybe 20 families per year into the JSIS program at kindergarten via lottery after sibs and a small geographic zone to accommodate the very closest Wallingford neighbors.
It would almost certainly result in another building being opened in the north end sooner rather than later for attendance area space. This would be in addition to the well-noted NE attendance pressures. It would also cause the district to look now at true functional capacity issues near Beacon Hill, assuming that program fills very quickly in the next few years.
What board member might put such an amendment forward? Which members might vote in favor of it?
But, I've also strongly disagreed with taking school buildings in high demand areas and making them into option schools (my problem with TOPS location) and taking JSIS (the building) away from the neighborhood would be unacceptable if there is high neighborhood demand.
I think that if JSIS's language program was going to become an option program, that the JSIS program should be moved to Jane Addams. It could then be expanded into a K-8 language immersion. I think that would fill Jane Addams, and perhaps, enough to relieve the crowding at Eckstein. It might ease capacity management in both NE & N. I think this floater fits with the idea of putting "option" programs in underserved areas.
And, CM is right about getting amendments in. Otherwise, we're just talking to no effect.
Thank you both for attending yesterday and getting answers for questions posed here. There weren't many that attended but those who did were obviously advocating/questioning for more than just themselves, trying to understand how all families will be impacted under the proposed changes.
I was able to attend - toward the end - and get questions answered for both myself as well as others who asked me to inquire on various topics.
I may have not liked some of the answers but I got them - and am so impressed by Tracy and her willingness to actually listen to what we are saying/asking and it is obvious she has thoughtfully considered much of what has been said. In addition, she fielded many questions that aren't in her area of expertise - thank you to Tracy!
I mentioned this yesterday - I am sure a very small percentage of parents actually know what they are in for when this all shakes out. Many are not even aware of the SAP changing...
The SE mom with a child at Garfield, two children currently bussed to McClure and an elementary student who she would like to see go to McClure comes to mind. McClure may or may not be an option for her elementary student, depending on space, but transportation almost certainly won't. Her "attendance area" option middle school is not on par with what her older children have a McClure. What a huge adjustment... she left the room and I just wanted to follow her out and give her a hug.
Do most in her situation have any idea this is coming? They will find out when it is "a done deal" and be wondering what just happened to them/their children.
Or how about those who assume once you are in a school, you stay there? Are they going to know that if they move and their address changes they can finish out the year but after that, out you go?
My personal issues with sibling grandfathering and early kindergarten entrance seem trivial compared to what others will certainly experience.
I anticipate the fall is going to be quite overwhelming - with boundaries being drawn and all sorts of battles there. But also as parents who aren't as involved as those who follow this blog find out the details and are confused and overwhelmed. Has the district done enough to solicit input on this issue? I'm not sure.
Melissa's post this morning about PTAs makes me wonder whose role it is to get this info out??
On specific topics
- As far as international schools, I went there certain they should be option schools - but when Tracy outlined the logistics of capacity, I understand now why that is down the road instead of now.
-Siblings - it also makes sense to me now why they can't guarantee younger siblings a spot in the older sib school but can guarantee the older siblings a spot in the new attendance area school (see Charlie's example in another post).
WV - somicry - certainly some WILL cry when they realize what the SAP will mean to them.
Interestingly enough, most of us here in the NE gravitated to one of 3 models for Jane Addams- A language immersion K-8, an IB K-8, or a TRADITIONAL math K-8. That's what most of us thought would be needed to ATTRACT families away from the other high performing NE cluster schools.
I don't remember one person suggesting environmental science? Not that this isn't a good idea/option, it's just not something parents in the NE asked for or expressed an interest in.
My son LOVES science (in any form) so JA will be a good fit for him. But I do think the district should have carefully considered what the community asked for.....
Now, part of the answers seem to indicate that Montessori/International options require money. I'm not sure I understand exactly why, but wonder if it has something to do with staffing?
The international model also has the problem that you probably can't have immersion in the 3rd grade unless you've been growing the program, but I don't see what the problem would be with providing more Montessori options if they're desired.
I can see that moving JSIS intact to JA would help a language immersion program become accessible to more families, but how would it help with the NE over crowding?
The NE is going to need the space at JA to accomodate NE students, don't you think?
- Tracy said that international school won't be option schools because it would make it harder to open more of them. If they are attendance area schools, it makes it easier if resources become available later because you probably wouldn't have to redraw boundaries. Also, some of these schools (Beacon Hill) have native speakers who live in the area and if the school was an option school, could be shut out. (Of course, this raises the issue of immersion versus bilingual education - is immersion a better way to get kids whose native language isn't English to learn English? Are they basically the same thing? I don't know. What I do know is that we should not drag out the process - non-native speakers need to get onboard faster. It only hurts them the longer it takes.)
CA Mom is right and I should just put it in its own thread (and I'm going to right after this): speak now or that's it.
BadgerGirl - it's the DISTRICT's job to get this out. The superintendent should be directing the principals to send out robocalls tomorrow about this plan. Will they? No, because it works in their favor the fewer people who know this is happening. I can't believe the Board thinks what has proceeded this is unenough notification.
"Now, part of the answers seem to indicate that Montessori/International options require money. I'm not sure I understand exactly why, but wonder if it has something to do with staffing? "
My child spent 8 years in Graham Hill's public Montessori. There definitely are additional costs in the way of specific Montessori materials—especially for the earlier grades. Once the WASL (or whatever it will be called) kicks in though, the classes can no longer be pure Montessori and have to adhere to a more traditional curriculum.
Our school community did fundraising for the materials (a once-in-a-while need; they last a long time), so there was NO cost to the District. I honestly don't know if this was the case in subsequent Montessori programs (Daniel Bagley and TT Minor).
As for staffing, at GH, we did require teachers to be Montessori certified. Finding teachers for the upper grades who are both Montessori-certified AND certified to teach in Washington state is a problem as there are not al lot of training facilities for upper-level Montessori. Again, we did fundraising to have one of GH's traditional teacher take the training (in Kent, I think). Montessori-certified teachers are NOT paid any more than traditional teachers, BUT they are protected from RIF unless they can be replaced with another Montessori-certified teacher.
So, yes, it DOES cost more to have a Montessori program, but, at least at GH, that burden was placed on the participating families.
Frankly I don't think it's such a huge investment for the district when what it produces is a genuinely diverse program with people actively choosing the program, with a waitlist, in a school that parents wouldn't likely otherwise consider. But it is becoming clear to me that "doing things to improve schools" isn't on the district's agenda.
But, this isn't really a good answer, because a mandatory international school really shouldn't be an automatic assignment. I looked at the JSIS web site -- and they plan to teach math in spanish or japanese! That's great, *if* you choose it. But, it'd be extremely frustrating if you hadn't (well, and you didn't already speak one of the languages).
I actually think that having native speakers (i.e bilingual) integrated into a international program is a significant benefit, after watching it in operation. One aspect, that benefits all the students, is that the level of language interaction is higher, if some students speak the language, because the teacher isn't the only one trying to remain in the immersion. (and I say this as someone who learned English through immersion as a kinder -- in a public school).