JA Meeting Tonight: Want a Preview of What Dr. Goodloe-Johnson Will Say?
You just never know what you'll hear at meetings. And so it was last night when I attended a meeting of the Seattle Council PTSA. It was to say thanks to outgoing members of the Board (and they all deserve a BIG thanks especially Sharon Rodgers, the President) and introduce new Board members. They announced that they created a role, District Information Liaison, so there would be one person going to district meetings and being a link between the district and the PTSA. Great idea. They did pick someone, Gary Sievert. (Update: I forgot to mention that Director Carr was in attendance.)
There was also an announcement about a one day conference for Special Ed PTSA, tentatively on October 10th, called Best Practices for Inclusion Schools.
I also put out, with permission, flyers about this blog. If you are new here, welcome.
In addition, the National President of the PTSA, Jan Domene, was there and gave a speech. (FYI, the term NCLB is probably on its way out. The new term to use is ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act.) She said that in the seven years under George Bush, no one from National PTSA was invited to the White House. And that the PTSA is the largest child advocacy group in the country. Oh.
I know, I know - get to the point.
So we had to wait for Dr. Goodloe-Johnson who came in right on the dot of when she was to start to speak. She turned and asked the new president what to talk about and Ramona Hattendorf said something to the effect of "with the many changes coming in the district, what's the best way for parents to stay involved?" Not a bad question.
But Dr. Goodloe-Johnson turned it around and asked us how the district should keep us involved. She didn't get specific but referenced poor turnouts at some community meetings. About this point I did want to raise my hand and say, "How about not dividing us into groups we don't want to be in (and this format has been questioned, repeatedly, at meetings)?" or "How about answering questions at meetings?" She said she didn't want to hear, "You didn't tell me!" from parents when the district has make efforts at communicating and outreach.
She then went on a meandering route. She said that
And for her final say, she talked about Jane Addams. I have no idea why she would have brought it up but she did.
She said, "No decision on Jane Addams have been made." (I presume that to mean about any changes to what is already set up for Fall.) She said that it was the truth.
Naturally, I could stand it no longer so I put up my hand. She called on me and I pointed out that the JA building is mentioned, in specific, in the latest draft of the SAP for a possible change. I also said if there was no change planned, why did the principal at Summit tell staff there might be and they might want to go and check out a job fair? She ignored the latter.
Okay, here's the preview part for tonight's meeting. She said, "We can't make promises about capacity management." And on and on about demographics and needs and assessing buildings.
I rarely use language like this here but this time it's warranted. Bullshit.
She is clearly laying the groundwork for a couple of things. One, to say "oh it's all hazy crazy and enrollment needs could change at any time and we need to be flexible." Two, to say "Capacity management, capacity management, capacity management." Remember that phrase because I believe you will be hearing it quite a lot as the district spins this story.
Does this engender faith? Anyone can use capacity management to excuse anything they do in this district. Is it right?
Then came the final cherry on top. She asked the audience and frighteningly, it was not a rhetorical question, "Do you believe me?" And there was a few yesses, a low murmur and a few noes and a little nervous laughter. She said she had never lied and had no reason to start now.
I'm not calling her a liar. I'm saying, at this point, she is misleading parents for her own hubris. It is just shocking to hear her continue to try to wave this off as though it was all rumor. And we all know the capacity issues in the NE/N; nothing has changed so something likely will change at JA and it'll be in the next couple of years. They can open another elementary at Sand Point but it will not change the middle school issue.
She is cutting a swath through this district that I feel will mostly be for the worse. And I truly believe she will leave us in, say 16 months to 2 years. (She's an ambitious person and nothing wrong with that but she's not going to make this a long-term stop.)
After she spoke there were workshops on various topics. I went to two great ones - one, security and how to handle it ( as you can guess it was high school and middle school leaders) and one called "Communicating in controversial times" (yes, I know, the irony).
In the latter we had a roundtable discussion of how to discuss tough topics in our schools. We had a president from McGilvra who was lamenting the loss of 30% (!) of their staff, both 1st grade and kindergarten teachers plus a change of principal. He was very good in his thinking, saying they had gotten a great 5th grade teacher from a previous RIF but he was troubled by the impact on the school. He said that Dr. Goodloe-Johnson was having a meeting with their Board. Several people said she could be very responsive and that is good news to hear. And he said they would go in with a positive attitude.
I think that's great. But I truly hope they don't go in hat in hand. They do have a right to question how this will affect their school. Good schools don't run on fumes and vapors. Anything that undermines the foundation can really hurt. And when morale goes, the whole thing starts to slid (see Whittier). There can't be an expectation that good schools will always be good through some magic because it isn't magic. It's hard work.
There was also an announcement about a one day conference for Special Ed PTSA, tentatively on October 10th, called Best Practices for Inclusion Schools.
I also put out, with permission, flyers about this blog. If you are new here, welcome.
In addition, the National President of the PTSA, Jan Domene, was there and gave a speech. (FYI, the term NCLB is probably on its way out. The new term to use is ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act.) She said that in the seven years under George Bush, no one from National PTSA was invited to the White House. And that the PTSA is the largest child advocacy group in the country. Oh.
I know, I know - get to the point.
So we had to wait for Dr. Goodloe-Johnson who came in right on the dot of when she was to start to speak. She turned and asked the new president what to talk about and Ramona Hattendorf said something to the effect of "with the many changes coming in the district, what's the best way for parents to stay involved?" Not a bad question.
But Dr. Goodloe-Johnson turned it around and asked us how the district should keep us involved. She didn't get specific but referenced poor turnouts at some community meetings. About this point I did want to raise my hand and say, "How about not dividing us into groups we don't want to be in (and this format has been questioned, repeatedly, at meetings)?" or "How about answering questions at meetings?" She said she didn't want to hear, "You didn't tell me!" from parents when the district has make efforts at communicating and outreach.
She then went on a meandering route. She said that
- the audit for alternative schools is coming (great but a little after the fact for school closures)
- the audits were consistent about the district not having policies about aligned curriculum which better districts have
- parents should be involved with their buildings but as well have an understanding of the Strategic Plan
And for her final say, she talked about Jane Addams. I have no idea why she would have brought it up but she did.
She said, "No decision on Jane Addams have been made." (I presume that to mean about any changes to what is already set up for Fall.) She said that it was the truth.
Naturally, I could stand it no longer so I put up my hand. She called on me and I pointed out that the JA building is mentioned, in specific, in the latest draft of the SAP for a possible change. I also said if there was no change planned, why did the principal at Summit tell staff there might be and they might want to go and check out a job fair? She ignored the latter.
Okay, here's the preview part for tonight's meeting. She said, "We can't make promises about capacity management." And on and on about demographics and needs and assessing buildings.
I rarely use language like this here but this time it's warranted. Bullshit.
She is clearly laying the groundwork for a couple of things. One, to say "oh it's all hazy crazy and enrollment needs could change at any time and we need to be flexible." Two, to say "Capacity management, capacity management, capacity management." Remember that phrase because I believe you will be hearing it quite a lot as the district spins this story.
Does this engender faith? Anyone can use capacity management to excuse anything they do in this district. Is it right?
Then came the final cherry on top. She asked the audience and frighteningly, it was not a rhetorical question, "Do you believe me?" And there was a few yesses, a low murmur and a few noes and a little nervous laughter. She said she had never lied and had no reason to start now.
I'm not calling her a liar. I'm saying, at this point, she is misleading parents for her own hubris. It is just shocking to hear her continue to try to wave this off as though it was all rumor. And we all know the capacity issues in the NE/N; nothing has changed so something likely will change at JA and it'll be in the next couple of years. They can open another elementary at Sand Point but it will not change the middle school issue.
She is cutting a swath through this district that I feel will mostly be for the worse. And I truly believe she will leave us in, say 16 months to 2 years. (She's an ambitious person and nothing wrong with that but she's not going to make this a long-term stop.)
After she spoke there were workshops on various topics. I went to two great ones - one, security and how to handle it ( as you can guess it was high school and middle school leaders) and one called "Communicating in controversial times" (yes, I know, the irony).
In the latter we had a roundtable discussion of how to discuss tough topics in our schools. We had a president from McGilvra who was lamenting the loss of 30% (!) of their staff, both 1st grade and kindergarten teachers plus a change of principal. He was very good in his thinking, saying they had gotten a great 5th grade teacher from a previous RIF but he was troubled by the impact on the school. He said that Dr. Goodloe-Johnson was having a meeting with their Board. Several people said she could be very responsive and that is good news to hear. And he said they would go in with a positive attitude.
I think that's great. But I truly hope they don't go in hat in hand. They do have a right to question how this will affect their school. Good schools don't run on fumes and vapors. Anything that undermines the foundation can really hurt. And when morale goes, the whole thing starts to slid (see Whittier). There can't be an expectation that good schools will always be good through some magic because it isn't magic. It's hard work.
Comments
Is the Sand Point building better in some way? Every time I hear about the Jane Adams situation, I fear for my kid's school.
Yes, this is your predicatable assigned K-12 pathway, but we cannot predict whether your assigned schools will be intact once you get there.
It would be neat for AS1 to be near the lake since they have the boat building program. It would also put it super close to Thornton Creek for bus sharing (they draw from the same clusters.)
Opening up Sand Point, on the other hand, would add over 300 seats directly to the capacity bottom line.
The District needs to do more.
They need to re-open McDonald and place north-end elementary APP and a general education program there. It could be the English language program partnered with JSIS or the attendance area school that would allow JSIS to become an option school.
They need to fix up some buildings that are in very poor condition.
They need to expand some buildings.
More than anything thing else they have to stop letting the facilities tail wag the academic dog.
I feel a little better now.
MG-J said:
"the audits were consistent about the district not having policies about aligned curriculum which better districts have"Consider that the math curriculum is to be the state standards.
a. The Strategic Plan said alignment work would be done by September 2008 aligning the instructional materials and pacing with the Standards.
---- This was totally ignored.
b. The EDM nonsense continues on.
Ms. Santorno stated in May 2007 that EDM could easily be aligned to new standards if the standards changed. What a crock. EDM focuses on non-standard algorithms and the state standards require the traditional standard algoritms for multiplication and division etc.
c. Why doesn't she bring up the fact this district refuses to follow the promotion / non-promootion policies that require effective interventions. Instead in Spring 2008, about 30% of eighth graders were unable to score above WASL math level 1, but essentially all were promoted to high school.
d. She recommended the district adopt an experimnetal math program rated mathematically unsound for math. Why? because the kids can not do the basic math required to do algebra. Thus she recommends "Pretend" Algebra. It takes more than alignment. It takes actual skill development. For struggling students that means examples and effort and practice.
The belief that Differentiated Instruction will work for masses of unskilled students taking Algebra is without a rational basis.
e. Notice how the Phi Delta Kappa audit just disappeared. It was about 400 pages focusing on how screwed up the seattle schools are. Just like the promotion policy, MD-J is not going to touch it with a ten foot pole. Because that would require real work... not just marketing spin and Edu-cratic nonsense proclamations.
--------------
I will not go on, except to say ...
MG-J's replacement in Charleston was rated by teachers as better than MG-J in every category surveyed. It is pretty easy to see why.
Just had a late lunch with a friend, who is childless and so has no interest in SPS.... but, this friend watches the Seattle Channel on cable (which I dont have) and last week, she thinks, she saw a piece on Seattle schools going to 4 days a week as a cost-cutting measure and she says there were directors on the programme and that it was said the vote on this measure had passed but there was no indication as to when this would be announced and implemented...
Now, my friend might have got school districts wrong and she had no further specific information, but she was pretty adamant it was Seattle when I asked her was she sure?
Does anyone have any information on this - true, false, unknown, my friend totally off track - wrong city, wrong state?
Such stimulus-enriched sugar daddy's don't come around very often. OOPS! So we'll witness yet another decade of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing of Board members earnestly asking "why can't our kids do math?"
Maybe because we aren't teaching Math anymore. Instead we choose to "make numbers fun and interesting."
How about juggling numbers, floating numbers in fish tanks, or growing them in a garden? Better yet, immerse kids in a pool of floating numbers! Then they'll get it for sure!
No matter. When it fails, we'll blame those rotten, lazy union math teachers for all of it.
So much for "everyone accountable." Just watch.
Hopeless. Utterly hopeless.
I remember a while back hearing on KUOW about some rural districts going to a 4-day week, so my guess is that's what your friend saw. I can't remember the Districts...but know they were NOT Seattle.
The simple facts are these: programs for north-end students should be in the north-end. That's not only simple and obvious, it is best practice in program placement, it is the District's Program Placement Policy C56.00, it is the District's Policy on Highly Capable Students D12.00, and it is the "better access for all students" that was promised when the program was split.
The District should have placed the north-end program in the north-end when they split it, but they had a failure of courage. They should do it at the next opportunity, with the introduction of the new Student Assignment Plan.
If Lowell had not historically been the site of the all-city program, the decision to site the north-end there would be obviously bizarre. What next? Will they place a Montessori program for West Seattle at Hawthorne?
Don't you have to have something before it can fail?
They had an absence of courage once again.
Next year Lummi may go to six periods of 63 minutes each, four days a week. Friday will be a day for make-up from absences etc. Perhaps it will be penalty box day.
Seattle has no such plans.
First of all MGJ was 20 minutes late! Ruth Medsker fumbled around, apologized, and finally started the meeting without her.
Sherry Carr, Harium, Peter Maier, Michael DeBell, Tracy Libros, Ruth Medsker, Debbie Nelson and MGJ attended.
MGJ gave a short incoherent speech that was hard to follow about how capacity and the new SAP work together, and how capacity can be unpredictable.
She said that JA will open as a K-8 THIS YEAR, and that is the one and only firm thing that she said all night long.
She did admit that the board would be reviewing whether or not to make JA a MS, and though asked repeatedly for a time line she wouldn't say. She also addressed the letter to Summit teachers who were told to go to the job fair by saying that letter was in reference to the RIF, not changes in the structure of JA.
After MGJ's incoherent speech they went to Q&A in a large group setting. They did this for the majority of the meeting (Thank you SPS!). Parents were outraged with the uncertainty of the future of the school. Many k-5 families were outraged with their mandatory assignment to Addams. Many were outraged about the lack of capacity in the cluster. Many spoke about sib's being separated (this year!) and about coming from the south end of the cluster all the way up to JA. Many people spoke about how angry they were with the lack of transparency on the part of the district.
One of the parents asked the audience to raise their hand if JA was their first choice school and about 1/3 of the audience raised their hands. Then she asked how many named it as 2 or 3rd choice and about 1/3 of the room raised their hand. Then she asked how many had not listed it at all (received mandatory assignment) and another 1/3 raised their hand.
My concern is that 2/3 of the parents in the room did not choose to be at JA. And now that they know the future of JA is unstable they are furious and want out. This is not a great way to start a brand new school.
Debbie Nelson was great though. She held her ground and thankfully was able to answer a lot of questions afterward about the school.
So to sum up JA will be a K-8 for this year. That's the only thing guaranteed. From this year on there are no promises as to whether JA will remain a k-8 or become a 6-8. If it becomes a 6-8, there are no plans or guarantee as to where your child would be moved to.
Oh dear.
Is that really a good use of everyone's time?
During all of the time that people were asking the District staff why the hell they weren't ready for the capacity, did any of them seem the least bit contrite?
Is anyone else detecting a pattern of shifting blame to the board and away from SPS staff on this stuff. A day or two ago, staff wrote about "when the board determined to make JA a K8" - as though the board made that determination on its own. That's quite different than acknowledging that the Board only votes up or down on MGJ and Staff recommendations.
Things are getting downright Orwellian as responsibility is shirked and the buck is passed.
"the board made that determination"
These were two of the most often used sentences of the night. After the meeting I told Ruth Medskar to stop passing the buck, and that staff should take responsibility for this mess.
I agree with you on many things, but not this one. I will start by saying that, as of Monday, Lowell is my daughter's school, so I feel a little protective of it. However, I've made many of the arguments below before, and I think I'm being reasonably objective.
First, the game of musical chairs has to stop. There have been enough closures and program movements. The SAP will be another huge upheaval. People need some time to adjust to the changes. Lowell may not have been the ideal placement for APP-North (though I will argue below that it isn't a bad one) but it's done. Let's not change our minds again like seems to be happening with JA. I didn't think it was possible to further errode trust, but that sure seems to be doing it.
Second, I think the Lowell and TM families are having similar levels of chaos. TM moved to a new building, but kept its principal. Lowell stayed put but got a new one. Both are merging with new, unknown school populations. Both will have smaller co-horts, and will no longer be in class with some friends. Is a new building a bigger change than a new principal? I suspect different people would have different answers to that question.
Third, the plan seems to be working as designed. Both Lowell and TM general ed/ALO programs had a lot of kids assigned to them. Lowell had 39 K students assigned, and Mr. King said that about half the general ed students in higher grades were not from TT Minor. The assignement letter thread shows a couple people, including me, who listed Lowell as their second choice behing TOPS. I personally know a few families (again, including mine) who chose one of these general ed programs over private schools to which they had already been accepted. So, even if you think that the APP kids were used (and there's certainly some merit to that arguement) it's done, and it seems to be working.
Three, I've heard quite a few people say they don't want to leave Lowell. That they like the school, the neighborhood, the interaction with the special ed kids. I don't think you'd have universal support for moving APP-North into the North End.
Four, I think getting 300+ kids on busses out of the overcrowded north end is a pretty good idea for utilzation of resources.
And Five, this is the one I've made before, I think the Montlake Cut is largely a psychological barrier, one left over from historical redlining, and one that the north end just needs to get over. I've lived on both sides of the cut, within a couple miles of it for most of the time I've been in Seattle. Broadway and the U district are very similar places. I can get from my house to University Villlage (where I used to shop before the safeway on 23rd went in) on a bike or bus in 15 minutes. I can drive it in 5. Yes, there's sometimes traffic, but I've never had it take more than about 20 minutes. I had friends who walked to UW from Montlake when I was a student. My daughter was born at UWMC, and I drove across the Montlake Bridge when I was in labor (3 times!). The University Bridge usually has less traffic, and might be a decent bus route.
And so, if I were drawing service areas, I'd draw one with the Montlake Cut in the middle and Meany as its middle school. (leave Nova at Mann, either co-house SBOC with Meany, place it Franklin this year before they move, or leave it where it is for awhile) I'd draw attendance areas for TT Minor (re-opened), Lowell, Montlake, Stevens, and McGilvra (maybe, geography might not work) with those schools at their southern borders, pulling kids from north of them, and from the southern parts of the current Laurelhurst and JSIS reference areas. I might put Laurelhurst and Bryant (and Unversity Heights if it's possible to re-open it) in the Meany service area too. This would take a pressure off the southern part of what is now the NE Cluster, and help a with the NE middle school situation. It would create vibrant, diverse schools. It would help erase a historical red-line.
The number of people who received a mandatory assignment to JA surprised me. (How about the woman whose child with special needs was assigned there after she did extensive research and picked 4 schools that would work for her? So far she has received no information about her JA's special needs situation. She needs a lawyer.)
Pretty much every answer started with talk about capacity planning, projected demographics, etc. etc. Yeah, we get that. When will we know the fate of the school? When?
About the only new thing I came away with is the real possibility that the district actually has no idea what the hell they're going to do. But I'm betting that the board will vote to "repurpose" JA at June 17th's meeting. Then it'll just be a matter of when.
When?
Sorry, but I'd have to say more like never more than 45 minutes. That's to get from UVillage to just past the 520 exit - less than a mile. Maybe it's better coming north, but going south the backups are often and awful. I'd agree that it's a psychological barrier, but a physical one as well.
Perhaps moving some of the southern edges of north of the cut to a school right on the northern edge of the south of the cut makes sense. After all, that would be about what my son did going to Lowell and his commute was on the order of 35 minutes each way. However, for families farther north than I am and farther west, Lowell means an hour to an hour and a half ride each way. Shifting the start times a bit later will make that worse unless a whole lot more commuters get laid off.
I've done a quick look through the Board meeting agenda archives, and I can't find that data, though I remember seeing the slides presenting middle school capacity data, presented in different ways, during at least two Board meetings. I remember thinking the first set of "data" was ridiculous, because it lumped all the north end comprehensive middle schools together, and said there was enough room for everyone in the north end (without taking into consideration where students actually lived). I rememember Harium objecting to how that data was presented. At a subsequent meeting, a more detailed analysis was presented, and I remember thinking that it relied heavily on the K-8s for middle school capacity, and that we were going to run out of space very soon. It seemed like they were trying to show that there was enough space for APP at Hamilton.
What I'm getting at is that they can play the blame game as much as they want, but the Board was making a decision with the data they were presented at the time, and there was a great deal of hand-waving being done about middle school capacity being "OK" in the north end.
Actually the board won't be voting to repurpose JA at the June 17th board meeting. They will only be voting on a motion that would allow them to consider it. If the motion passes then they will begin to look at enrollment data and demographics, and begin public engagement. When that whole process is complete then they will have a second motion on whether to repurpose JA, or not.
My guess is that the capacity situation is so dire in the NE that it is inevitable that JA will be repurposed as a comprehensive MS. In my opinion it's just a matter of time.
Sand Point is not necessarily better than the Pinehurst building, but it is located closer to where the crux of the over-crowding is happening in the NE (lots of overcrowding in the south end schools, such as Laurelhurst and Bryant).
Also, if the District took the Pinehurst building from AS-1, what would happen to the 200 or so AS-1 kids? They would have to go somewhere, and that would not help the overall capacity situation. This is what happened when they didn't find a home for Summit. Let's hope they learned from that one. They reduced your transportation in order to cut your schools overall cost to the District and so that you could help with the NE capacity issue (and not bring kids from outside clusters into that area, which compounds the capacity issue), so I think you are safe for now, as long as your program builds and shows progress.
Same for Addams. It was the wrong decision to make Addams a k-8. The north end needs a new comprehensive MS, and a new K-5. But it's done now. Kids are enrolled, staff has been hired. Let's look forward and make it work.
As for this statement "I think getting 300+ kids on busses out of the overcrowded north end is a pretty good idea for utilzation of resources."
I disagree. Kids that live in the NORTH end should be able to go to schools in the NORTH end. If there is not enough space for them in the north, then it's time to make some. Open buildings (Mcdonald, Lincoln, etc). Not to mention they could have temporarily housed the APP program at JA which only has 300 kids enrolled in a building that holds 800 kids. We can and should make space to accomodate all kids in their own neighborhoods. Many, and I mean many, north end families turn down their spots at Lowell because they don't want to send their kids across town, and have them spend 2 hours a day on a bus.
This slide shows that the north-end has ample middle school capacity for the next nine years even if ALL of APP moved to Hamilton.
When did the staff get new data? Where has that data been reported?
And North End Mom said "Sand Point is not necessarily better than the Pinehurst building, but it is located closer to where the crux of the over-crowding is happening in the NE (lots of overcrowding in the south end schools, such as Laurelhurst and Bryant)."
Actually, the currently drawn reference areas for Laurelhurst and View Ridge (the two closest to Sandpoint) are not having issues enrolling people who live in their reference areas. Students from outside both reference areas got into these schools this year and have in recent years as well. Look at the attendance patterns for last year (available at http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/maps/08-09/attend0809.html), which shows that 51% of the VR students are from inside the VR reference area and 54% of the Laurelhurst students are from inside that reference area. In contrast, Bryant is at 73% for last year, and that will certainly increase this fall.
I believe VR & Laurelhurst are crowded for two main reasons (1) people outside the reference area choose them and (2) people put them as a lower choice but can't get into their first choice (e.g., Bryant or Wedgwood). But if part of the goal is to create neighborhood and walkable schools, the District needs a building closer to the Bryant, Wedgwood, and potentially Northgate areas. (I heard Northgate had significantly higher enrollment this year and there is new housing there now that could increase this new capacity issue). Bryant (and Wedgwood this year) is the area with so many "dead areas" where people end up being bussed to schools far away--the current Bryant reference area simply has too many school age children for the school.
And FYI that Tracey Libros said that the enrollment statistics (with numbers assigned to schools, wait lists, and distances) will be presented to the board tonight & should be available on the website on Thursday.
Helen Schinske
So whose fault is it that JA is a K-8 instead of a 6-8? Staff or the board? Hmmm... staff provided incorrect data to the board and the board made a decision based on that incorrect data? I would say that would be, duh, STAFF's fault. They need to stop passing the buck, and blaming the board. It's time to suck it up and say "we goofed, sorry".
The superintendent acknowledged in her opening statement that the new SAP draft, released Friday, included a statement that the board would put forth a motion to reconsider their decision to make JA a k-8.
And, yes, it was separate from the conversation about looking at enrollment and data in Oct/Nov, which was in answer to a question posed by a parent in regards to a time line.
In addition, if you look at the new SAP draft document you will see on page 12, in the footnotes the following:
"Based on continued enrollment growth in the Northeast area, the School Board may reconsider its November 2008 determination that the Jane Addams building should house a K-8 rather than comprehensive 6-8 middle school, and if additional elementary capacity must be created to accommodate the present and anticipated K-5 population. This issue would be addressed by separate School Board Action, considering capacity management and capital levy planning activities."
It is difficult to interpret those maps because they include all grades and do not account for special programs, such as the dyspraxia and OT/PT programs at View Ridge that draw city-wide.
Keep in mind that these maps reflect the current sibling priority as well. We can't say that the percent of Bryant-area families will go up this fall because it depends on how many out-of-reference-area siblings are entering Kindergarten. The percent could go DOWN because reference area families are currently second on the list to enroll after siblings.
I don't look at these data and necessarily see that the Bryant reference areas needs to be made smaller. Rather, if the goal is neighborhood schools, you could argue that the SAP "fixes" the problem by making siblings the first tiebreaker rather than a guarantee. Make sure all reference area families get in, then open it up to others. The reference area may already be the "right" size!
(of course, I'm ignoring the difficult transition issues and how to accomodate families so that they don't have children in multiple schools. My point is just that these maps, like any data, are open to multiple interpretations and must be viewed with extreme caution).
This all feeds back to the fact that the data from last fall showed there was enough capacity. I agree with other posters--where is the evidence that things have changed since then?
Lak367: I agree the maps must be viewed with skepticism. But Bryant is definitely not the right size. I actually think Bryant's reference area enrollment percentage is skewed lower than it really is because there is a bilingual program there, the blended K, etc. There are only about 30 kindergarten siblings this year (based on pre-enrollment), and I have heard people had to be within .5 to get into Bryant. There is also the ongoing issue with the people in the southwest of the reference area who historically do not get into Bryant because they are just too far away (which problem was apparently created when University Heights stopped covering part of the current Bryant reference area).
The data crunching necessary to get the new attendance areas drawn correctly seems daunting--I hope the District is up to the task.
And exactly how relevant is this anecdote to the issue of transporting students from the north end across the Montlake Bridge (or University Bridge or I5) during typical commute hours?
Charlie-
Thank you for finding that table. There was another bar graph from January, I believe, that was more detailed.
I suspect the new "data" was the enrollment numbers for elementary and middle school, but these won't be firm until Oct 1. The superintendent repeatedly referred to October 1st last night, which further frustrated a crowd looking for answers. All the comprehensive middle schools have wait lists. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out and how much room there really is at the three north end middle schools in 2009-10, especially since 1/2 of the current APP population was moved to Hamilton.
She also mentioned needing 500+ additional elementary seats (NE?) by 2013. That should be about the time the first elementary school "bubble" moves up to middle school (just a teaser for what is to follow). I certainly hope the Board holds off on plans to move any more programs into north or NE buildings, including APP, until there is a well thought out, long-range, true capacity management plan in place.
The elimination of busing for SE students to McClure and Hamilton will also help (if the District can make drastic improvements in Aki and minor improvements in Mercer).
Don't you love how we all have to piece together all these teeny bits of quotes and footnotes to figure this out? The preponderance of the evidence is leading me to conclude that the district will convert JA to a middle school ASAP, which means 2-3 years, I think.
There were two issues with opening Sandpoint.
1) NSCC had a lease on the property that could not be broken by SPS
2) the amount of money it would take to bring the building up to code in order to get a permit from the City.
NSCC has abandoned the lease due to their own budget cuts so that leaves the permit and that is an open question. If the City would grant a waiver, the building could be open in Sept (so not going to happen :)
Seems to me you are arguing two things, two distinct things.
First, that the Cut should not be considered a de facto boundary when creating attendance areas. OK, that's a proposition worth looking into. It might make a lot of sense with managing capacity and all that. Worth exploring. A logical (to me at least) way to explore this is find out how much of an actual barrier it is for kids traveling North to South during commute times. Because that's what you are saying right? That North of the Cut kids could be part of a South of the Cut attendance area. So is the Cut just a psychological barrier or enough of a geographic barrier to maintain it when drawing attendance areas? Good question.
My anecdote of a child who did exactly this commute for five years and it was not onerous offers some support. Limited support being anecdotal, but support. What I do not see is how your anecdote of traveling (during unstated hours, I don't believe you stated that these were commuting hours?) from South to the North of the Cut in a reasonable time adds any information.
The other thing you posit is a whole 'nuther ball of wax. You posit (generalizing from the above proposition?) that it is fine to have the North of the Cut APP attendance school at a building that is not in the North of the Cut. That it doesn't make "much difference" with commuting issues. Well, placing a school whose reference area encompasses the entire city north of the Cut in a school south of the cut is an entirely different thing to argue. One would have to determine what is "much difference" for both the average length commute and the maximum length commute. There is a lot more argument against this than there is for this. And again, your anecdote about traveling from South of the Cut to a destination just mile or so North of the Cut doesn't seem relevant to me. I suspect actually that it would make a great deal of difference. That moving North end APP kids to McDonald would significantly shorten both average commute and maximum commute. Significantly. But in order to determine if your "not much difference" or my "significant difference" hypothesis were true, we would need to collect data.