My Notes from the SAP FAQ Meeting on Saturday
From my count there were maybe 25 different people who came to the meeting. Most seemed concerned about the sibling issue.
I tried to be somewhat aggressive in asking questions but I had to defer to other people and their questions so I didn't get to cover everything.
Issues and Questions
I tried to be somewhat aggressive in asking questions but I had to defer to other people and their questions so I didn't get to cover everything.
Issues and Questions
- I asked about why the distance tie-breaker was dropped. Tracy said they did that to leave open the opportunity for people to access schools (elementary and middle) out of their region to keep school choice. However, you wouldn't get transportation (I had to smile at one mom who shrugged at this - driving your kid to school is not an option for everyone so it's not a shrug issue).
- Terminology - reference school = attendance area school and middle school attendance area = middle school region. For all intents, there are no more clusters.
- I went right to the heart of the sibling issue and asked Tracy about a compromise. If, as directors have said, we need a transition period, could siblings of currently enrolled students be allowed into their older sib's school? Would the district support that? Tracy had neither a yay or nay but did say that the Board and staff had heard a lot about this and it was under serious consideration. She said that this isn't a "want but can we do it with our software?" I would say that the Board is likely to see the writing on the wall - grandfather only current students with no sib grandfathering and face the wrath of parents. Allowing grandfathering of sibs for a LIMITED transition period gives parents time to adjust and plan while the district is not obligated to cover every sib of a current student. It's a compromise for both sides.
- About sibs, there will be some sort of check off box on the enrollment form for linkage - meaning, if you can't get both kids into the school you want, you check the box to make sure they are enrolled together somewhere. However, they may make it so that you can only have either family or sibling linkage for option schools so as to not give families already in an option school more leverage.
- High school. There is still this issue of no number/percentage for the Open Choice seats. (I find it disturbing that the Board would vote for the rules/regs without a real number. It can always be adjusted but pick something.) Tracy said it was part of boundary drawing so maybe that's why it's pushed to that part of the plan. One mom said she was upset because there are no orchestras in any high schools south of Garfield. I think this issue of equity will haunt the district (is it enough to say there is music in every school?). There was also a call (big surprise) for the district to ask parents why they choose the high school they do and what are the most important factors. (But has the district ever done a survey to figure out why parents choose as they do? No.) The district may draw the boundaries around high schools to be smaller to accomodate the Open Choice seats. Also if you have 20 overenrolled kids and 10 seats available, with the same 1st choice, no sibs, same grade, then the 20 kids would be ranked according to a lottery.
- Tracy made it clear, a couple of times, that historical data will be useless under this plan and that they are starting from scratch. (I don't think she meant capacity issues.)
- This one is almost as big as the sibling grandfathering so pay attention (but you may know this already). If you are enrolled at a one school but move during any part of the grade range of the school, you have to reapply to stay. I hadn't realized this and this is one thing that I think will catch many people off guard. You might not be able to stay with the school you start with if you move. This is totally different from the current plan.
- Why did the plan change from 3/18 to 3/25? Because it was not intended for incoming students. It was a convoluted way to solve a processing problem. They did listen at meetings and realized it wasn't going to work and so they figured out a different way to solve the problem. (Do I understand this reasoning? No but this is what I wrote down.)
- Boundaries. They already go across a small body of water in West Seattle so there is precedent for this in drawing boundaries. It may show up in the boundary drawing. June 24th is the Board Work Session on Boundaries. There are layers of data that they will use but per previous work sessions, they are NOT ranking data like walk zones, least transfers, etc. However, with this new SAP, the walk zones will be updated especially since many crossing guard positions are not going to be filled. (We should ask the City for help on this one.) Also, the boundaries are not going to be rectangles or squares with a school in the middle because of the geographic anomalies of this city and school locations. So if there are two students, one with an elementary 2 blocks away and one 6 blocks away and another student with just one closest elementary, they will err on the side of the neighborhood with one closest elementary. Grab a map and suss out what this might mean.
- What about special needs kids and sibs? Tracy said that they are trying to put special ed into more schools so those kids don't have to leave their neighborhoods but that they will also try to provide linkage for sibs through service areas.
- About geographic zones for option schools, all seats are open at the entry level with tiebreakers kicking in if overenrolled. With the use of the geographic zone, there will no longer be be set-aside seats at TOPS for kids in Eastlake who have no reference school.
- Jane Addams continues to be an issue and this will be solved Wednesday night, I believe, with a vote. There was a mom who was very upset that K-5 kids could be mandatorally assigned to JA for middle school and yet K-8 kids would have the option to rise up OR go to a comprehensive. There seems to be confusion over this issue.
- Montessori/International. As I said elsewhere, it seems that they want to keep them as attendance area schools on the premise that if funds become available it would be easily to change them if they are attendance rather than options ( you wouldn't need to redraw boundaries). They will be drawn with smaller boundaries to build in some choice seats. However, Tracy pointed out that Beacon Hill had a distance of .35 miles and JSIS had a distance of .45 miles. Tracy also said that making them option schools hurts native speakers enrolled who may not be in the attendance area. Again, this seems very unclear and I have worries about how this will all work out.
- About capacity in the NE/N and opening a new school, Tracy said if the decision is made , they would draw the boundaries with that in mind NOW and then make short-term assignments and say that the student would then be moved to the boundary for the new school.
- Thorton Creek will NOT have a link to Salmon Bay any longer. This is also pretty big and I assume it is to push them to JA.
- Computers. We have had many posts here about how this shouldn't be an issue. The issue is not the new software or hardware but that the VAX is so delicate that it could crash and burn at any time. Tracy said they had done things on it that should take 4 hours and it takes 12. She said luckily nothing serious had happened but if it should crash 3 days before school opens, it could be a disaster.
- Each service area will be linked with an option school or will have an option school in it. But transportation won't be provided.
- Slowing down this process. Tracy said that if a transition time is asked for by the Board that lengthens the timeline, it may mean fewer district "experts" available to help given their workloads.
- Tracy seemed sure that entry level sibs and their transferring elder sibs could be guaranteed entry to the entry sib's attendance school. It can't work in the other direction because of the numbers that enter at kindergarten. With an elder sib transferring to the attendance area school, they are likely spread across grade levels making it easier.
- If your child is in an alternative/option school, you can change to an attendance area school at an entry level, otherwise you take your chances in trying at a non-entry level. Under NCLB, you get offered specific schools that you may apply to.
Comments
Thorton Creek will NOT have a link to Salmon Bay any longer. This is also pretty big and I assume it is to push them to JA.
...
Huh? Could you clarify why you think this means TC -> JA ? Last I heard the JA folks were really clear that they didn't want any freaky alternative types who would let their children call teachers by first name, nor teachers who would wear shorts to school. Under those circumstances, very few Thornton Creek parents are going to go there willingly.
Second: This statement scares me:
"About capacity in the NE/N and opening a new school, Tracy said if the decision is made , they would draw the boundaries with that in mind NOW and then make short-term assignments and say that the student would then be moved to the boundary for the new school."
What??? Short term assignments? Meaning more transfers and transition for the students?
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1700759739148195651&postID=4030960222540535419&page=1
Harium's been talking about JA being an option school. I've been asking why its not being treated the same as Broadview Thomson, Blaine and Madrona - all K-8s with assignment. I've also pointed out that 103 of the inaugural students have been assigned to JA, so that makes it a non-option school, and I have asked what will happen to those kids when the Board votes to return JA to option status...
Harium says that the Board needs to vote to return JA to option school status... it was supposed to be an all cluster draw, but apparently got named an attendance area school by mistake which was not the Board's intent, he says, hence the need for the vote...
I've also pointed out that making JA an option school will not help in solving the N/NE capacity crisis and if they cant fill the building except by assigning kids there, what was the point of kicking out Summit?
I mentioned to Tracy Libros, my concern about SPED students being placed in the same classroom, when they had different needs, but the same level.
( one child with severe physical needs & another with behavioral, for example)
My daughter who had worked at BF Day a few years ago, was part of a community support network for the population of homeless students. ( BF Day was essentially, the school where students without addresses were assigned and there were extra supports in place for them)
However- this is now seemingly against state law, so students are dispersed through the district- perhaps where their shelter is, or where they are bused from?
Anyway, as you can guess, no longer are targeted supports available in one, or even a few places, making it difficult if not impossible for those students to make it out of the cracks.
Another example I have, is a middle school girl at Meany who lives with her mother, because her father has an illness that makes it difficult to care for her. ( he is agrophobic & lives in another city) His girlfriend is a classmate and I have been encouraging her to encourage her boyfriend to get custody, because it sounds like the child is more than her mother can handle ( if she attempted to, which she apparently does not)
For instance, this 13 year old girl, recently " broke up" with an 18 year old man, who was not even in school & is now " dating" a 28 yr old man.
Her mother, is not concerned.
The girlfriend is going to call CPS, I suggested the police- but it is just one girl out of the Seattle school district, whose family is not particulary concerned about her health and well being, let alone what math textbooks she will be using.
I am starting to feel like Hans Brinker.
Heaven knows how the teachers keep going.
I am making the inference that by ending the Thorton Creek link to Salmon Bay that they want those students to feed to JA. Tracy didn't say that but yes, the linkage is ending.
...
I get that the linkage is ending, but...
...why on earth would you or the SPS think that a sizable fraction of the TC families would choose to go to a school whose administration have all but said that they "don't like our kind"? I certainly won't do that to my kid.
I'm encouraged that they are looking at (re)opening schools in the north to address capacity.
But the big problem is disparity across the district. Does anyone have any idea how to address this? Maybe the new SAP with student assignment (vs 'choice') will lay bare the differences across schools and bring staff changes and additional resources where they are needed.
Does this mean the district is moving forward with the idea that, hey, one weirdo school per cluster is all we can support (the idea was to guarantee one "option" school per cluster, as I understand it)? After all, once they're thinned out, depensation takes over. (Come on: look it up!)
While I'm on record as suggesting that NE cluster transport to Salmon Bay is inequitable, I think to spring this on parents is unfair. I hope they will grandfather in at least a couple of years of TC -> SB preference to give current TC parents a chance to research their options.
After all, according to WV, systr's are doing it for themselves.
I am a concerned about how many board members seem to be naming the antiquated VAX system as a reason they might not be able to do the right thing and grandfather siblings for a short period of time.
Tracy Libros gave me the same explanation about the computer VAX system being on the verge of imploding every time they make big programming changes at the hearing last Wednesday. But I am having a hard time understanding why the sysytem might do this do this if the program were written to grandfather in siblings for a few years, but not if they were programming all the sweeping assignment changes in the SAP. The group of parents that heard about this as we stayed late talking to board members Wednesday really thought this was an outrageous excuse - especially in Seattle!
Also, I think many parents with siblings are just now realizing how the plan as written will affect them. I got calls from two panicked parents over the weekend who happened to talk to a friend hw 2010 would affect their youngest kids. Our principal only realized how it would affect her families about a week ago.
While it's true that the board has been talking about the SAP for several years, this change that puts sibling after assignment areas for already enrolled families is just a month old, DeBell said. That is a really important point to be making with board members.
So I wrote it up separately.
Obsessive compulsives and algorithm geeks can go here for it (The algorithm-y stuff is at the end):
http://www.teriyakidonut.com/SAP_gbu.pdf
The short version is: the new plan has some aspects that are more egalitarian and inclusive regarding choice and priority and others which increase inequity.
So what that the VAX could/would/will crash? Rewrite the program! This is NOT a challenging undertaking. Don't "port" the current, crappy program to a new computer. That's a dumb idea. Porting always takes years, results in something no better as a goal, and is doomed from the get-go. Start over.
She can't figure out how to manage that? Outsource it to India... but stop making "the computer" the excuse. Sibling preference is NOT a technical issue it's a political issue. Face it. Not facing the actual issue is incompetence.
I heard her and she was pathetic. "Other districts do this somehow. So it must be possible, I just can't figure it out. It must be the computer." Geez. Let's put 2 and 2 together. Other districts don't have choice, so the local school assignment policy works. Other districts provide 1 or 2 options for those who can't hack their local school. Simple and obvious. Instead of putting in all sorts of weird rules, eg. younger sibs but not older sibs, (all to get rid of choice), this program but not that one, set asides for choice, reduced boundaries for high school, etc. etc. etc. Why not just be straightforward? You must have clear priorities, and have the small amount of courage and smarts to move forward in a timely manner.
Thanks for the explanation. One error or question, you refer in several places to the "bad" of getting assigned to a "failing" attendance area school. If the "failing" school is Title 1, the district has to offer you another option. So, being assigned temporarily to your attendance area school which is failing and Title 1 can be "good". How does the assignment plan handle that situation? And when does it happen?
I've often thought that one could "game" the system by choosing a failing, Title 1 school (like Madrona)... then, use the failing school escape hatch to get yourself to a good school like TOPS. In this new scheme, people could select "failing, Title 1" schools... then the district would be required to assign them to a school meeting AYP... even if their attendence area school is failing and NOT Title 1. AND, they'd have to provide transportation too boot.
Tracy addressed this on Saturday. If you are assigned a failing title 1 school, you can opt out. But the district tells you which schools you can "opt in" to, you don't get to decide.
Lurker,
you are entitled to your opinion about Tracy but you won't find much sympathy here. As far as SPS staff goes, she is willing to listen, incorporate feedback, share what is set in stone and what isn't, sometime give
"politically incorrect" but honest answers, and she knows the details of the assignment plan (current and proposed) better than anyone in the district. The computer system issue is NOT her primary responsibility - you are placing blame in the wrong place. And if Tracy goes, as you would wish for, this whole thing blows up in a way none of us want.
I also do not understand the unconcern about changing the Barhardt-Waldman choice ranking system. Remember the stress of trying to figure out your chance of getting each choice & then strategizing about how to rank them. Changing back to that is a disadvantage for parents who are not savy about the system.
i think when tracy is talking about the software being able to handle this or that logic in the policy, it's whether it can be written into the new system, at this stage in the game.
which i get - it would be like writing a novel and getting to chapter 12 where you've killed someone off, and your editor says the character needs to be back in and stay there till the end. there are some things you've gone too far to reinstate or accommodate without re-writing (which takes resources, testing, and time).
ps melissa - thanks for the reporting - so valuable.
I live in Greenwood in the north end...first choice offered was Broadview Thomson, my reference school, second was Olympic Hills (Lake City) - further away than AS#1...
I put 10 preferences on my enrolment list, starting with Bagley's Montessori - 20 blocks away, TC... cant remember the rest.... AS#1 was about my fifth or sixth choice... and here we are!
You of course get to opt out, but on what time frame? After the start of the school year? I wonder if you get to opt out even after you selected the school. My guess is yes, since the onus is on the district to inform you that your school is failing. SPS can put you anywhere they want... but the school they select has to be making AYP, and there's not so many of those any more. Instead of putting people in a school making AYP (which could be quite costly with transportation), SPS has elected to allow students to pick other failing schools that they like... such as Orcas.
Anonymous (and just to say, give yourself a name or moniker when you post), Tracy said under a Title One failing school, the district will give you specific choices. You don't get to choose which school you want from any non-failing school.
Also, it is hard for me to judge the computer issue. All I can say is once AGAIN we are hurrying to get something done. Always in a crisis mode. It gets suspicious after awhile.
Good point Old Salt. There are people who move around a lot for economic reasons and forcing the child to change schools at the end of the year seems hard for them. I wonder if there might be a f/rl amendment for those kids.
This is great. Thanks so much. I hope your site can handle a bit of traffic ;)
Shannon
By the way, the way these geographic regions are described may is misleading. A region sounds BIIIG, like reference area. At first I thought the region would be like an old cluster. Reading the details it seems the 'regions' they are talking about are more like "zones" to me... or even "neighborhoods" or "local areas".
I think I am being dense, but I don't understand this... I thought sibling was the first tiebreaker in option schools? Or does this refer to a family with two kids not in the option school who is trying to get the kids into it?
I don't think it's a question of JA not "wanting" TC families. I think it's more about the fact that TC families that invested 6 years in an alt school want to be able to continue in an alt school of similar philosophy, and they will not have access to one any longer if their Salmon Bay preference is lost. AS1 is a k-8, but TC and AS1 do not share the same philosophies, and AS1 is not a mushroom model middle school, so they could not accomodate all of the TC kids anyway.
Same for HS. Now that Summit is gone, the alt kids from AS1, TC, SB, will have no alt high school option north of the ship canal.
This is risky business because you won't know if a school makes AYP and is Title I until the district gets back the WASL scores, which happens at the end of July, long after your child has been assigned to a school. If the school makes AYP or is no longer a Title I school, then you are stuck with your assignment. And if the school doesn't make AYP, and they are title I and you are offered a transfer out of the school, it can be any passing school in the district. You don't get to choose.
I don't think it's a question of JA not "wanting" TC families. I think it's more about the fact that TC families that invested 6 years in an alt school want to be able to continue in an alt school of similar philosophy, and they will not have access to one any longer if their Salmon Bay preference is lost.
I do not speak for the other TC parents, but your characterization is dead wrong for me.
I have no problem moving my children to a traditional middle school for sixth grade, and it has been my plan all along to move my children to a comprehensive middle school at that time. I feel by that age they will be mature enough to handle the change gracefully.
I would have strong objections to sending my child to a place that has made a pointed, stereotype-filled public rejection of what has been a very healthy environment for my child.
Now some of that lack of knowledge is purposeful -- they just don't want to invest energy in understanding complicated plans if they're happy with their children's school assignment. But, some of it is going to result in big surprises for some people.
Of course, Elizabeth, I was not speaking for the entire TC community. Every family has to make decisions based on what they think is best for their child and their circumstance. Historically, about 50% of TC graduated do go to Salmon Bay. So just be open minded, and remember that just because you don't want to continue on an alt path for your child, doesn't mean that others don't either. Many families (mine included) worked hard and fought for that Salmon Bay preference.
Also, I may be very wrong on this one, but I'm going to throw it out there. I think it was Chris Carter who was very attached to a super traditional structured program at JA, and I think it was he who wrote that dismissive letter to Summit staff about no shorts, teens lining up to change classes, walking silently through the halls etc. And, as we know, he is no longer at the helm of JA (he's been moved to Hamilton). Debbie Nelson will be the sole principal at JA now, and she came from Sacajewea. While Sac was not an alt school, it was very similar to Tc in a lot of ways. A very small, inclusive, accepting community. Not at all anti alternative, or super structured.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion.... I just wanted to add another perspective.
You would only this failing selections if all of the following applied:
1) you didn't like your attendance area school AND
2) it IS failing AND
3) it is NOT title 1
Imagine someone who didn't like Sacajawea (as an example) and lives in the NE.
Then, you could list all your true choices, followed by your last choice: Madrona K-8. If you end up at any of your real choices: cool. If you end up at Madrona: well, at least you'll be sent to a passing school with transportation provided. And no, you could avoid going to a school you didn't want. I can imagine this working in many situations, esp in the south end and in the NE.
My child is starting K at Lowell next year. If, as Charlie and many others propose, APP moves out of Lowell in a year or two, the school we be very different. We may want to move her at that time. (or it might be fine, but I can't say that right now)
It's unlikely that Lowell will be our reference school, as we're closer to Madrona, McGivlra and Stevens by a few blocks.
So, only child, grandfathered in a school that is not her attendance area. Applies for choice at a non-entry grade, and doesn't get the school she asks for. Does she get to stay where she is? Or does she get assigned to the attendance area school? Does it make a difference if the school where she's grandfathered is an attendance area school or an option school? I could see the Lowell ALO going either way. This piece of grandfathering doesn't seem to be clearly defined.
This is a big change from how Seattle currently does things, but it is exactly how most school districts with geographically determined assignment plans do things. How controversial will this be?
If the district allowed kids to stay in their "attendance area" school after their family moves to a different neighborhood, could you imagine the gaming of the system that would go on?
A family could get an apartment on a short term (6 month) lease and use that address to get their kid into the school that they want to send them too. Voila, they are in. Then they advise the district that "they moved". But the kid gets to stay in that school for up to 6 years.
If, when a family moves, their child gets reassigned to the school in their new neighborhood, it would be much more difficult to "game" the system. A family would have to maintain an address, rent an apt, etc, for 6 years, or as long as they want their kid to remain in the school.
-capacity management and the SAP don't seem like they're going to integrate well. I'm not against boundaries being redrawn, given how long it's been (Tracy said 30 years, I think). Jane Addams made a good case in point, but I think this is an issue that goes beyond the NE, even if the NE is likely to be first affected. So. Boundaries will be redrawn for the SAP. But then, if a school closes or re-opens (Sand Point is under active consideration for being re-opened within 3-6 years; we've all heard the rumors swirling around Jane Addams), obviously boundaries need to be changed again. For families affected by the change it could mean, literally, that their first kid is in one attendance area (now), their second is in a different one (with the upcoming redraw), and a third is in a third attendance zone (with a re-opening and smaller scale boundary re-draw). I think Tracy thought I was only concerned about the NE, since I used it as an example, but I am trying to get at a larger issue that will regularly affect small segments of the district. Even if the exact scenario I use as an example doesn't happen (and this example could reasonably be called an exception affecting very few families), it still seems as if maximum turmoil might be created for families in the system. Redraws don't just affect the few families who are suddenly in different boundaries; they affect the community as a whole. And in boundary redraws, families won't be able to use the sibling tie-breaker as the #1 tiebreaker to create their own stability. Did that make sense? The upshot is that it still seems like the way capacity management will intersect with the SAP will create enormous turmoil and uncertainty for families. Or maybe I'm just not catching on.
Still, it brings me to question #2 (one I didn't think of asking at the Q&A): why doesn't the district have sibling priority be the first tiebreaker for entry grades only? It seems as if the issue that understandably inflames many people is when a family manages to gain entry for, say, their out-of-area kindergartner, and games the system to hoist their older children into a highly subscribed school. So, what if sibling priority was for entry grades (yes, it would open a whole can of worms for families new to SPS with non-entry grade kids)? So if you have a 3rd grader at View Ridge, your rising K child gets priority, but you don't get priority for your 5th grader that you've decided to pull back (or rather, you revert to #1 tiebreaker as attendance area, #2 as sibling)? Please, tear this apart for me. It seems like it makes sense from here, thinking to myself, but it might not.
Why do students have to re-apply to their current school if they move? It seems like the group that this will punish most are renters, who are sometimes forced to move by circumstances they can't control. Certainly, this raises sticky questions about transportation. But it seems like a case in which the district might be able to provide a child with a point of continuity.
Why would option schools continue to have sibling priority? I get the idea, but frankly, it just doesn't seem fair. Unless it works in roughly the same way that I suggested for everyone else: entry grades get sibling priority.
I keep harping about sibling priority but should mention that I don't benefit from it. It just seems to me that siblings being the #1 tie-breaker can be a tool for families to create and maintain continuity and predictibility when the district is in flux.
Not at all. Impossible to enforce. As I said above, they would need a system to check COAs against assignment. So let's say they get that together and then they find a familywith three kids at Whittier who moved across the street from Bryant. Kids are going into 1, 3, and 5th. School is full, what do they do? Boot three kids out who live at the edge of the attendence area to make room for this family, who has no interest in pulling their kids anyway.
Just one of the things in the SAP that has not been vetted.
The large school districts in Seattle's suburbs seem to have mostly figured out how to create stability. I used to buy the argument that Seattle's unique instability was the result of its unique challenges, but the more I get familiar with the circumstances of school districts such as Edmonds, Federal Way, Kent, and Everett, the less I buy that argument. Many of the suburbs have poverty, population density, diversity, gangs, drugs, old school buildings, demographic flux, etc. to the same extent (or more, in some cases) as Seattle, but they also have stable (although chronically underfunded, just like SPS) school districts that people are generally willing to entrust their children to. What can Seattle do to reduce the chaos?
In your example (which apparently presumes that Whittier is not full), why would SPS deny the application to remain in their original school?
I'm confused by the assumption that a school doesn't need to know where the kid lives (and thus, has that information already).
I think the questions being asked here show what a very big change this is going to be from our current system. It really is a wholesale change in the way school assignment works in Seattle, a bigger deal, really, than the school closures. It's the change I've been wanting, but I would really like people to understand it, too.
I dont know anything really about the ins and outs, and yes on the surface it looks ridiculous, but I think those schools were offered because while they might not have met AYP, they were not at a certain Step of NCLB...
the teachers regularly report assignments, tests, and performance thereon in the source; math is from the current middle school curriculum; there is a literacy block with readers' and writers' workshop (1 hour each); pretty conventional science, electives, etc.
maybe the 6-week "winter enrichment" program on fridays?
beats me.
and note - i don't consider the k-8 structure alternative by itself.
Is that an argument against any geographic preferences at all for option schools?
If a child is grandfathered in at their current non-attendance school, will their middle school pathway be to the middle school for their current residential address or for the elementary school in which they are grandfathered?
Can they choose?
What do you mean about transportation? In the current Draft SAP it says:
School bus transportation is provided for elementary and middle school students to an option school in a linked service area if their service area does not have an option school. (p 21)
I'm not sure which service areas won't have an Option school (QA/Mag won't, and South WS, but not sure if Orca and New School both go with Aki or one goes with Mercer. And does SB go with Whitman or Hamilton?...). I'm assuming that the Option school has to be inside the service area of the MS it is associated with. I wonder, will some service areas have more than one Option school?
Roy I would argue that. At least, the assignment should not follow you if you leave the Geographic Zone.
Gaming by address. This is going to be another thread by request so stay tuned.
Now, my kids got to stay in the school they were in (hardly ever their neighbourhood school because I learned very early on that proximity didnt necessarily make for a good 'fit' for my kids) for the entire time we were in that city, even though we moved address once or twice, sometimes right across town... it was never an issue and giving them that stability offset the difficulty of the larger geographical moves... still, my elder daughter (almost 29) even now has a chip on her shoulder about the instability of her school life - she lost lots of ground academically because her primary need each time we moved was to grieve the lost relationships and then put her energy into creating new ones...
Just imagine what it is like for kids in this situation, or where they have to move because their families have lost their homes for whatever reason...
But in New Zealand and Australia there is no school busing... you are responsible for getting your kids to their school - walking, public transportation, car pooling, driving, whatever...
Just going by past performance in terms of implementation.
"In your example (which apparently presumes that Whittier is not full), why would SPS deny the application to remain in their original school?"
Whittier is full and any application from a incoming family who moved in to the attendence area has to be honored before the family with the three kids. Right, this family with three kids in the school has no priority.
Best case scenerio, 2 of the 3 get to keep their seats.
A family could get an apartment on a short term (6 month) lease and use that address to get their kid into the school that they want to send them too. Voila, they are in. Then they advise the district that "they moved". But the kid gets to stay in that school for up to 6 years.
Guess what? People already do that. It's pretty standard for many living inthe southend/
I've had both experiences in my life... solid middle class life with money left over for all the extras - bought and renovated and sold properties plus both of us had well-paying jobs/small businesses, owned two homes simultaneously for a while, rented one out to the Australian High Commission for $500/week, which in 1994 was a huge sum of money...
My life changed direction and by the grace of whatever you want to call the Divine, my son and I not so long ago were narrowly spared the experience of having to live on the street...
But... how many on the Staff and the Board and here on the blogs take the time to put themselves into the shoes of the kids whose interests we say we have at heart, and then use that insight to make some of these decisions?
As SolvayGirl says... staying in one place for six months only is the norm for many disadvantaged kids here and in other cities...
What about kids who are in the foster system and being moved around? Should they have to leave the school they are at - possibly the only stable place in their life with the chance to connect with people and access services - just because they've been shunted from one temporary placing to another?
I say if one or two cheaters get through the system and take a couple of slots at schools, let them... Dont create and enforce a rule that targets and closes out disadvantaged populations.
My sense is that SPS is looking for a streamlined, one size fits all plan, and such exceptions don't fit with that.
We could all write to the Directors and the Super and the Staff, plus letters to the editors of the Times and PI and talk to the KUOW people etc...
A secondary pay-off might be that it might also shed a ray of light on the other issues we are all concerned about...
So who's going to take the time and make the effort to speak up?
But it's hard to advocate w/o direct experience. I am still intrigued by the idea of sister schools that could link communities and build advocacy for families. But would this work and how might it be perceived/recieved?
BUT
neither do I think that kids in the many many other families who move should automatically remain in the same school.
I think the emphasis is on neighborhood kids in a neighborhood school. It is stressful to move so an occasional move of home into a new neighborhood could reasonably be expected to affect the whole family, kids included.
Many of my friends have moved once from a rental to another or from a rental to a first home. I assume people also move to a different home or area if they can afford it later on. Occasional moving is common - is it more common than homelessness and social instability? I don't know.
I can't see that one size fits all policy here or that there is any easy way to identify youth who most need stability, without stigma.
My family will be negatively impacted by the sibling policy, but this the policy that has bothered me the most. If you have ever worked with low-income kids and families you know why.
The McKinney-Vento Act protects homeless students from moving schools, but they need to be officially registered as homeless. Most students are not officially registered and SPS has failed most of those who are because of the lack of services in the schools.
I have written the school board members and a couple of legislators about this policy which is not only unfair to low income kids, but will increase the achievement gap and disproportionality let alone open the district up to law suits.
I have heard little or nothing back.
They really need to delay this vote. There are too any issues.
I first saw the forms (only the green copy) on the table in the doorway of the Board meeting room, at the June 3 Board meeting...
I thought it would be very effective if several dozen, hundreds, thousands even SPS parents filed the complaints, seeing we've all emailed or spoken at Board meetings or rallied or attended community meetings and Director's cafe mornings etc...
It seems to me that these formats allow the District and Board to disregard the seriousness of our complaints - there is rarely anything put in writing and no requirement to follow-up or through with a response...
However, bags and bags of complaint forms, each of which has to be dealt with, each of which establishes a paper trail for follow up as to action taken/not taken...
Now, that's something else.... hard to ignore, minimise, spin...
And a complaints campaign... if we could get enough momentum, would spark media interest.... even harder to ignore, minimise, spin...
Here's a link to the PDF version of the form...
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/complaintform.pdf
I havent been able to find any rules regarding what topics should be covered and about filling it out and submitting it.... so I guess anything goes...
My printer isnt working, but tomorrow I'm going elsewhere to print off a dozen or so copies, fill them out each with a separate complaint on a different topic and post them all in...
Who will join me?
old choice algorithm with enormous and terrible implications. It makes it all-but-impossible for most families to get a reasonable shot at a popular school. The implications are subtle, but absolutely disastrous. I strongly recommend (as a parent and as a professional software engineer) that we simply substitute the corresponding bit of the old algorithm, as in "For each application, consider the first choice; if no seat is available, then consider the second choice as if it had been listed first."
Elizabeth, thank you for your analysis. I agree with most of your conclusions, though I focused on the new choice algorithm and the implications of it. I think we need to emphasize just how incredibly disastrous this proposed change in the choice algorithm would be. It essentially makes the whole choice process nearly worthless for most families. But I disagree with your assertion that more parents will be able to understand it, and with the suggestion that the new system punishes only naive players. I think the implications of the old system are not difficult to explain; the school district just didn't do a good job of it. They explained how it worked, but didn't sufficiently emphasize the fundamental conclusion that listing a long shot doesn't hurt you. The fundamental thing to understand was that you should just go ahead and list the schools in order of decreasing preference - put the one you most want at the top of the list, and then your next choice, etc. The primary point of confusion was that in the distant past (1999? 2000?) the system was different, and listing a long shot could hurt you, and many people still thought (and said) that. All you really had to know in recent years was that listing a long shot school (that you wanted) could NOT hurt you. If anything, I think it's harder to explain the implications of the proposed new system (don't list a school first or even second unless you really think you have a good shot at it), never mind explaining how to maximize your child's chances of getting into a desired school. This is crazy.
The biggest problem is the with the proposed algorithm, you effectively have at most one chance to get into a popular school, and that ONLY if you list it first. And doing so significantly hurts your chances for your second and subsequent choices, unless they are very unpopular. So first off, you either have to be very fortunate in where you live (if you happen to want your attendance area school), or you have to do a lot of research and guesswork to figure out what school to list first. But even if you do that, you effectively only have ONE shot. No matter how much research you do or how accurately you can analyze and guess what enrollment patterns will be, there is no effective way to list an acceptable backup choice if it is also popular.
For example, for my son, we chose to list Thornton Creek first, followed by Salmon Bay, followed by various other schools. We knew our chances for Thornton Creek were not very good (we lived outside the cluster), and Salmon Bay was not likely either. But we could take a shot at them, knowing that they were the best choices for our son. With the proposed new choice algorithm, we probably could not have listed either (or would have been extremely unwise to do so). Why? Because with long odds against either of our first two choices, by the time the system got around to processing its way through everyone's THIRD choices, only unpopular and/or distant schools are likely to be left.
(ran out of space - read the rest at http://www.cybermato.com/projects/school-assignments/new-sap-problem.html )
Chris, your point about the algorithms is truly disturbing. Without having read so much here, I would never have figured out the implications of the change between the old system and the new. Perhaps I am paranoid, bu I can't help but think that the District really does want to get rid of choice. I've thought that for several years now. I'm not opposed to neighborhood schools, assuming that the neighborhood school is a good fit for most kids in the area. But the District should not maintain the appearance of choice, when in reality there will be very, very little.
I still have a nagging question about the boundary areas and demographics (perhaps this is one of those extreme hypotheticals, but I'm still wondering. . .)
Under the new system, you are guaranteed a spot at your attendance school. Period. And we are told that boundaries could be fluid and changing as they relate to capacity management. So what happens with a popular school, like Bryant, if more families continue to move closer to the school. What happens to the families toward the outer edges of the boundary? Are they told they have to leave and go to another school? Could there be huge bubbles in classroom size if there were an influx of children who live close to the school that were new to the school? Is this what Tracy Libros meant by living within sight of a school and not being able to attend?
All of this just brings me back to the question of what will it take to bring the schools that are less popular up to a level where we have equity across the District?
Elizabeth discussed this in her summary, and pointed out the particular inequity: the change allows people whose second choice school is their attendance school to use the 1st choice option freely (i.e. according to their real preference), but doesn't offer the same opportunity to people whose attendance school is not their 2nd choice.
With this change, it would be more clear to allow everyone only one first choice school. It wouldn't be any fairer, but at least it wouldn't give anyone false hopes. Since they'd only have a shot at their 2nd choice if it wasn't already full, people who didn't like their options could try for choices that were remaining after the application process: there could be a week-long period after assignments were made where people could look for open spots and try to sign up for them.
Again, I hope those of you who feel strongly are planning on contacting your board representatives and raising these issues in the form of an amendment. I like the majority of the plan, and have no strong desire to see any of it changed, though I do see that some changes are better than others, and that some will have unintended consequences. But, writing opinions here won't have an effect tomorrow.
It's different, though, then our current reference areas, because the reference areas were not necessarily even drawn "right sized" in the first place, and haven't been changed for many many years, over which there have been major changes in the schools.
I would expect that attendance area boundaries, once drawn, would only be changed on time scales of 10 years. But, I'm making that up based on experience in other school systems (which usually change them less frequently than that).
How do homeless students participate in it?
Can you send me a link to (or copy of) your post? Thanks,
Chris MacGregor
P.S. To zb and all: I posted comments much the same as on the web page to the SPS site, and also emailed them to all of the school board members. I strongly encourage anyone who is concerned about any of these issues to do the same, and quickly!
It is true that the new system makes listing multiple choices less appealing. On the other hand, it makes it more likely that families who REALLY want a certain school are more likely to be assigned there.
Under the current system, people can cherry pick their way through the list of desirable schools and someone who chose a school 3rd or 4th can bump someone who chose it 1st if they have a better lottery number.
Having a good attendance area school to fall back on will make it easier to go shopping for something better but that is true now. And, as I understand it, under the new plan when you leave your attendance school, you open a spot at that good school for someone else who is shopping (and not just for the kid who lived one block further away from that school).
Many parents I talk to on the tours are convinced that this is the way the system works NOW (and the less informed they are, the more they believe it), so the current system is probably benefitting people like us disproportionately.
The 1999 version was really unfair, because if you used your first choice on what you really wanted, your kid could end up bused all the way across a cluster to a school that no one wanted. This version makes sure that you still have a spot at a school close to home. I think it is a huge improvement over the 1999 version from the perspective of families AND school communities which want to attract families who really want to be there.
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/index.dxml
from which you can get these email addresses:
sherry.carr@seattleschools.org, harium.martin-morris@seattleschools.org, peter.maier@seattleschools.org, cheryl.chow@seattleschools.org, steve.sundquist@seattleschools.org, mary.bass@seattleschools.org, michael.debell@seattleschools.org
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/index.html#comment
Is this still the case?
Also, I'm with ZB - I don't think the attendance area boundaries will be changed very often at all.
Specifically, does combining the attendance area + old choice algorithm result in unresolvable solutions? i.e. infinite loops? I once came up with what seemed like a reasonable alteration in the system that turned out to be unworkable because it could result in situations where some children would never settle into a particular slot in a school.
Algorithm folks? what do you think? Is it possible to combine attendance area with the old choice algorithm, and if so, how would it be implemented?
Maureen: I don't think you're right about this, because of the problem of combining up and downside risk, when you have a shot at just one choice. Say you love TOPS and hate your attendance area school, and you have a third option you kind of like, say Pathfinder, which has a shorter waiting list right now (though I think that will change). You have to balance your love of TOPS w/ your hate of your attendance area school.
I think you'd end up seeing a skewing of choices to really popular schools from families that already had good attendance area choices, and thus, could take a chance on the lottery. I think the school district might be happy with that alteration in behavior, because it would drive people to find "hidden gems" (i.e. schools that they like that are not over-subscribed). But, I don't think it would result in the over-subscribed schools being picked by the people who loved them most.
Algorithm folks? what do you think? Is it possible to combine attendance area with the old choice algorithm, and if so, how would it be implemented?
...
If by "old" you mean the "re-processing" algorithm (sometimes called Barnhardt-Waldman, but more correctly Gale-Shapley), then YES! It's very easy.
You use the existing algorithm with the following modifications:
(*) Folks who want their default attendance area school are placed in the choice algorithm with their attendance area school as their first and only choice. They will be guaranteed to get that choice, so you can go ahead and give them their assignment ahead of time, but you do need to put these "dummy" choices in to get the capacities right.
(*) Folks who have opted to use choice have their attendance area school added to the end of their choice list.
(*) The tie breakers are as listed in the SAP plan except that there is a first tie breaker for attendance area school and it sorts people into two classes "in the area" and "not in the area".
(*) At the start of processing, the number of seats available in each attendance area is set to the ideal capacity for that school.
(*) If, during processing it looks like you need to "bump" someone from their own attendance area, you increase the number of slots to accomodate them. This can only happen when everyone already on the list is in the given attendance area, since that is the highest priority.
(*) BONUS: you can simultaneously solve the "twins problem" by treating twins as a single person (one lottery number) who takes up two seats.
I disagree with your assertion that more parents will be able to understand it, and with the suggestion that the new system punishes only naive players.
...
I certainly did not mean to imply that only naive players will be hurt, just that they would be most negatively impacted. I'll take a note to look at the wording when I update the document.
I've covered the assignment algorithm at informal workshops for members of my children's cooperative daycare for the past few years. In my experience only the mathematical and software folks are willing to believe that you should list schools in your exact order of preference.
During the meeting and in emails afterwards there is a constant stream of folks asking, "If I don't think I can get into a school, then I shouldn't list it, right?" I've spent a lot of time repeating the advice to list schools in order of true preference.
Most people intuitively feel that the world doesn't work that way. They're generally correct. The fact that an algorithm can be crafted to allow listing in true order is hard to believe.
I think the implications of the old system are not difficult to explain; the school district just didn't do a good job of it.
...
I'm in absolute agreement with you here.
I think we should consider the possibility that the proposed assignment algorithm has changed in part because it can be more easily implemented by hand. Should the coding of the choice algorithm not be ready in time for the next assignment period, this new version can be done by dividing up the applications by school and hand ranking each set separately.
You can do the Gale-Shapley algorithm by hand but it takes longer (because each placement of a student can cause a domino effect) and the assignments interact among the different schools.
But Elizabeth, you're saying that after personalized workshops & trusted authority, many people in your (presumably reasonably educated) milieu still don't believe that the preference algorithm can work that the way it actually does. That's not a failure of the school system to explain it -- it's an example of "irrational" human behavior that results from algorithms that produce cognitive dissonance from the way the rest of the world works.
It's disturbing that folks are still having so much trouble believing that they can "trust" the system to treat them fairly if they're honest and list choices according to true preferences. However, I think this should be resolved by better educating the parents (ALL the parents - the district needs to be involved here), NOT by essentially breaking the system and making it unfair and nearly unusable for most people.
As for wanting something that could be implemented by hand: you may be right. But as you note, the proper (and current) algorithm can be implemented by hand as well, and it's not even terribly difficult. Much more importantly, it's about a day's work (if that) to implement it in software. Another few days for testing, and you're done. Hence my offer to do it for free... This, too would be a terrible reason to break the system for the next who-knows-how-many years.
zb: I disagree. I think that if SPS made the implications (particularly that there is NO RISK in listing your real preferences) more clear, and for those who were interested provided a visual demo of how the assignments work (not hard to do on a web site, and it'd be kinda fun, too), parents WOULD be able to understand. I think that part of the problem is that this information is not clearly available through the school district, and people may be less trusting of it from other sources, particularly when the misinformation is still being spread by school district employees. (I heard a vice-principal tell parents that they shouldn't "throw away their first choice" just a couple of years ago.)
I'm deducing that the key difference in accounting for mandatory attendance areas while continuing to use the Gale-Shapley algorithm is that one would need to increase/decrease the number of spots in a school (but only for attendance area folks) as folks got bumped or left from attendance area schools. I'll have to take your word for it that this doesn't significantly change the Gale-Shapley algorithm (which seems to be for stable matching of equally sized sets). (Isn't the internet wonderful!)
I do think, however, that the complexity of the algorithms and their conflict with people's intuition and perception can't be ignored simply because the people are wrong (Chris's "heuristic" scared me, personally, even though I do believe, cognitively, that it can be implemented fairly). I really like the idea that people should be able to list their choices in order of their true preference. But, if people don't understand or believe that the system actually works that way, even if its explained carefully, we should think about whether that's really the fairer system.
I suspect that programming simplicity might be driving part of the SPS decision making, but that might be related to a belief in actually simplifying the explanation to their whole population, aligning it better with how people actually make decisions.
Let's say School A can take 100 Kindergartners. Seventy families opt out of choice and elect into School A because it's their attendance area school, leaving 30 "choice" seats.
Meanwhile, 30 kids outside the area "choose" School A as choice #1, and 10 kids inside its area list School B as choice #1. Those 10 kids are still guaranteed a slot at School A if they cannot get into School B. Yet, if they process the choices by doing all #1 choices first, School A will be filled with the 30 outside area kids who chose it as #1, leaving no room for the inside area kids who may not get into School B. So, when one of the attendance area kids does not get into School B, does he bump out one of the 30 kids who did get in via choice? Then what happens to that kid, whose own attendance area slot has been given away through the choice system?
Any ideas how this can work in an over-subscribed area?
Some folks have argued that Choice works, because a high percent of people get their first choice. And the same people argue that people actually *do* put their first choice first because of the algorithm. I have always wondered what the truth really is. How many people did end up with their first or second choice, true choice, not necessarily what they wrote on the form -- if they didn't believe the enrollment guide?
I know that's neither here nor there at this point. I also wonder about the whole VAX thing. Why the department didn't ask for funds to upgrade/update the system years ago. And now it is fragile and runs slow. Well, there are lots of reasons a program might run slow, but I don't know the hardware well enough to know what reasons apply to a VAX. Does anyone know more, or have a better conjecture, as to what exactly is meant by fragile and why it would slow down noticeably now but not in the last 30 years? Why they didn't seem to be worried about imminent crash 10 years ago but they are now?
One of the goals is supposed to be that families don't have to participate in choice at all, right? Do they still have to register during open enrollment?
If they do, then families who currently miss the deadline will still miss it and still get assigned... where?
If they don't, then there's a pretty good chance that a lot of entry-grade kids will show up a week before school starts, or even on the first day, expecting a seat based on their address. What happens to the kids who think they have a choice seat in that school then? Even if there's room in the building, how can you possibly plan for class configuration in a situation like that?
Some folks have argued that Choice works, because a high percent of people get their first choice. And the same people argue that people actually *do* put their first choice first because of the algorithm"
And, this nagging worry doesn't even take into account another pervasive human behavioral characteristic, which is that people do not like to feel like they've lost something. This psychological motivation (however illogical) provides an incentive for not putting your first choice first, and then loosing out on it. Others will be influenced by the fact that there are only 10 slots on the form (the put your schools in order of your preference only applies if you rank all the schools, though for most people many might have no differentiable rank). Finally, the waitlist school has been a one choice only algorithm, and did need to be chosen carefully. All these factors influence the way Gale-Shapley played out in practice, even if one believes that it's theoretically sound (and I do, and did, actually).
Assuming that happens, is there an effective way to tweak the system to mitigate the problem? How does one adjust an algorithm to account for the fact that human decision making is not always entirely rational?
In their attendance area school, right? For an entry grade, they don't exist until then, and there's no obligation to be living in your attendance area during the free choice period. Now, that leaves open the question of how many attendance area "choice" spots there'll be, since they need to hold back spots. I'm guessing that schools that they expect to be filled won't have any choice spots, which, in turn, means that people really shouldn't be expecting to have choice assignments to schools in south NE, and north Central.
What I should have said is that I think the net effect will be to have more people assigned to a school who really want to be there.
I guess I feel like if you think it's worth giving up a small chance at TOPS to get a better chance at Pathfinder then you are more likely to belong at Pathfinder than someone who would rather go with the small chance at TOPS. (and vice versa) Now some people list Montlake McGilvra Bryant Salmon Bay TOPS then Pathfinder and bump someone who listed TOPS and Pathfinder. That won't happen anymore. If you land in the seat, it is more likely that you thought about it and wanted it.
I'm looking at it from the perspective of who is sitting in the seats in Sept. not who wanted to sit in the seats but didn't risk asking.
So, while it will be true that many people who really want an Option school won't apply and won't get it, the people who do get it really wanted it.
Helen Schinske
Has anyone asked Tracy about this? I'm guessing that they know which reference areas end up with a lot of last minute kids and they will hold seats for (an estimated number of) them. But-- as has been pointed out--historical data will be useless for awhile so this will be a mess at first.
Helen, I'm not sure they do have a separate mailing list setup--I make the mailing list for our school based on our (parent created) school directory because it is so difficult to get up to date mailing info in a usable form from the District computer. (E.g., I have been told that there is no easy way to send one letter per household--the only mailing list available is per child. So I don't think the info is treated like DATA anywhere--just as text.)
School A has 50 kindergarten seats. Under the new SAP, 70 students are assigned from within the attendance area. They're all guaranteed seats, so the district starts making plans for 35 kids in a class, or bringing in portables, or having class in the hall or whatever. Through the new choice process, 30 students are put on a waitlist. As the summer progresses, 5 of the originally assigned students drop out (opting for private school or some other reason). Will the district then fill those 5 seats from the waitlist, or will they just go with 65 seats?
I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
If I were enrolling a kindergartner next fall when this goes into effect, I would think very carefully about what schools I request, and I would think even more carefully about whether or not I wanted to ask for a school where this seems like a plausible scenario, based on what we know about where the demographic surges are happening.
The district prints address labels to send things to families all the time. I do not for a moment buy the idea that the information is not in a format that could be ported. In any case, the enrollment office *needs* the information to be by child, not by family. It's the other way around, with multiple people in the name field, that would be a problem.
I suspect the difficulty getting address labels from the district is unrelated to computer issues, and everything to do with general foot-dragging. Maybe they're paranoid about having their database stolen?
Helen Schinske
Ouch. I know you Maureen and I know you aren't really heartless or anything, but this statement reads kinda offputting, given the discussion of the consequences of the new algorithm.
Someone really thinks TOPS is a perfect fit for their child but would settle for Pathfinder and their attendance school would be a horrid place for their child. Say they have a 1% chance at TOPS and a 10% chance at Pathfinder. You think that a true TOPS spirited family would still put TOPS first in the new algorithm knowing it means it reduces their chance to anywhere but attendance school to Zero, otherwise they really don't belong at TOPS? Am I misunderstanding here?
Only having one kid, I don't have any evidence one way or another. How many calendars do people with two or more kids get? I've never heard of them getting multiple ones.
I can't actually find anything in the SAP that supports this notion. Am I just missing it? If so, what page is it on?
Data can be shared already. If not, code can be written to share data.
Well, if they only have it on the VAX, then here's the algorithm for moving it to a PC.
This "code" runs on the VAX:
Foreach record on the VAX DO
Write record to networked binary file
End (foreach)
This "code" runs on the PC.
Foreach record in networked binary file DO
Write the record to pc file
End (foreach)
Voila, now we have it on the PC.
Now... that should take 2 days to implement. Includes lots of time for coffee breaks and meetings with Dr. GJ.
Surely someone has done this already. This is a no-brainer.
I can't actually find anything in the SAP that supports [not loosing your attendance area seat by participating in choice]. Am I just missing it? If so, what page is it on?
...
It is in the third paragraph on page 18. I also got direct confirmation of this from Tracy Libros at the question and answer session on Saturday. I suggested that this be stated much more clearly in the final document.
David, if the school has 50 available and becomes oversubscribed by 15, they will not move people off the waiting list. This already happens at some schools. EG. My kid's school has 4 reduced size (22 kids) kindergartens, but only 3 first grades. The school counts on attrition. But if there is no attrition, the first grade class size is 29 and 30 (over union contract). Nowadays, since the cluster is overloaded, the reduced kindergartens aren't so reduced they are 25 or 26. This means there are 100 kindergarteners graduating into 3 first grades. So, people on the waiting list for first grade have to wait for lots and lots of people to leave to get their crack at a seat. EG. The wait list doesn't move. Sort of unfair also, since they might think they have a good shot at getting in, but don't.
I got that you don't loose your attendance area slot by participating in choice, but you do if you succeed, right? then, you can't return to your attendance area school, 'cause you won't be entering an entry grade. (i.e you pick and get TOPS but then decide it's not a good fit).
The old algorithm can be thought of as ranking everyone in one big lottery (whether it was done this way, I'm not sure). Lucky student #1 gets their first choice, for now. As, likely, do lucky students number 2-99. But eventually, student number 100 (or whatever) says they want some school that's already full (let's call it John Stanford). You look at the list of students already on the John Stanford list (which you've been keeping ranked by the other tie-breakers, such as distance). If #101 beats one of these students, put #101 in the John Stanford list and bump the student at the bottom of the list, say, #75. #75 now starts wending their way down their list of preferences, potentially bumping someone else.
The new algorithm can work the same way. The tiebreakers change, and you add the rules (as Elizabeth said) that everyone gets their attendance area school as their final choice, make attendance area the #1 tiebreaker, and never bump someone in the attendance area from their school (increase the capacity of the school if this is about to happen). Other tiebreaker changes are also incorporated (for instance, there is an implicit tiebreaker based on how you ranked your choice schools; if child A and child B aren't in the attendance area for school X, and child A ranked school X as a first choice and child B as a second choice, child A has the tiebreaker over child B on the list for school X).
Completion can be guaranteed by seeing that every bump moves someone further down their list of choices. Since everyone's last choice (their attendance school) is guaranteed to accept them, everyone gets a school and the algorithm terminates because the maximum number of bumps is no more than the total number of choices listed on all applications.
At least, that's how I'd implement it.
Dorothy I am not making myself clear in my Option school posts (and I wish I had said school A and B!). The main point I want to make is that the people who get assigned first will have made the decision to choose that school first and will not be displaced by someone who chose it 2nd or 10th. (Then I wrote 3 more paragraphs explaining my point that I'm not going to post!)
Similarly, I liked Orca a lot, maybe even a little more than TOPS, but the 8am start and hour bus ride pushed it down to #6. I still think we would have fit in just fine there, and been happy with the assignment.
If Tracy says that it will work the way people are describing (i.e., you always will get your attendance area school if you don't get any of the ones you request in the choice process), I'm somewhat inclined to believe it, but it does need to be stated much more clearly.
But in an option school without a distance tiebreaker why would it occur before? Because, I think Chris's explanation said that everyone got a separate lottery number for each school. So Two kids, one ranked TOPS-Pathfinder and the other vice versa. But First got good lottery number for Pathfinder, the second a good number for TOPS. so they each get into their second choice. Is that how it worked?
Does that then agree with the folks who understand the algorithms and conclude that the new one really does limit choice in an unexpected way? That folks really only have one realistic shot to rank a school higher than their attendance one?
I like some more than others, and have better chances of getting into some over others.
In the current system, I know what I need to do. Rank them in the order of my true preference. In the new system, I have to guess which one I have the best chance of getting into, and put it first. This will be extra special difficult for the next several years until there's some historical data about what schools fill up.
If my primary goal is to avoid my attendance area school, the new system is very, very bad for me. Perhaps that is by design.
call me paranoid but I think that truly is the design... force people back to their attendance
school...
limit the 'option' and 'alternative' schools to one in each corner of the District - north, south, east, west...
in a couple of years transportation will be withdrawn...
Why else all this capacity management, transportation/bell time changes and now the SAP which, along with messing with the algorithms and tie-breakers, doesnt allow younger siblings into older siblings schools, but will assign both of them to their attendance school?
People complained that capacity management/closures shouldnt happen until the SAP was done...
I dont think the SAP should be done until the demographics of this city are known and understood and new boundary lines are drawn, based on a 10-year future forecast - which is not hard to do - go to the birth register and where-ever building permit and real estate title deeds transfers are recorded....
Find out where kids are now and where they are likely to be in the future;
figure out what and where your capacity is - the resources currently in place and what the need will be;
then draw the boundary lines that best manages that capacity, deciding if you do actually need to close or open schools...
then work out the assignment plan...
Actually reference area WILL equal attendance area. I asked Tracy about this on Saturday (see my post under Terminology).
I guess understand the reliability of the plan - "Back to your neighborhood schools with you all!" says the district.
- but I don't like it without boundaries set, and without capacity added in areas that need it. I don't like that schools are so overcrowded in parts of this city the attendance areas may be drawn artificially small to keep open choice seats available, and that those open choice seats have not even been decided yet!
So I like the idea that we know what school we will have - I just don't like the order they are doing it in.
And I am still doing the CYA private school application.
Yes, I think it is by design. I think we're moving to a neighborhood school + option school system. The lack of sibling preference in the new plan for out of attendance area schools is a big sign, I believe. I also think that a lot of our concern about the details of the new choice plan is going to largely be irrelevant, because the choice option will be used by far fewer families.
Actually, anyone want to take bets on the numbers? Isn't there a stat out there that says that something like 30% of families already don't participate in the open enrollment? I'm guessing it will be 80% under the new plan. And if we exclude people who participate in the option schools for choice, I think the number of popular schools who have any open choice seats at all is going to be very small.
(BTW, I don't think this is a bad thing, but, I think that's 'cause I'm not a "optimizer").
You can move. Which, in talking to parents hanging out at the park by Madrona, is what they plan to do if they can't access other options and the district doesn't remove the principal there.
But, unfortunately, I'm a middle class home owner who can't afford to move.
Oh well.....there's always Shoreline.......
I don't favor school choice. It's not what I would sit down and design, and I certainly don't think it fixes problems with schools. But neither does a neighborhood school system, as the many urban districts that do guarantee neighborhood school assignments illustrate.
Now wait a minute, dj. Assume you get into TOPS or some other highly sought after school. Turns out, you don't like it, you made a mistake. The next year, a non-entry grade, does the plan now say you can't get back to your attendance area school? ???!!! Are you ONLY guaranteed you attendance area school spot at an entry grade? If so, that really sucks and provides nothing for people moving in.
as I said earlier - do the 'haves' know how the 'have nots' live and what they have to cope with...
renters cant just move into the area with the best schools... the suburbs where the best schools are generally are the most expensive places to rent.. you just go check the rental prices for apartments and small houses in the U-district, in Greenwood, in Wedgewood etc compared to south Seattle...
The district has to offer you an assignment to another school that isn't under NCLB sanctions. So there's your backdoor out if you don't get out via choice.
Probably some of the other really unpopular attendance area schools will also have to offer transfers out.
How does the new SAP account for that?
Another option would be everyone in Madrona's area take the assignment to Madrona. Wouldn't that force out the out-of-district students that are there now? Would that give the school community more traction to change the program to fit the school's new demographic?
Parents tried what you suggested a few years ago (many of them had been involved with the school for years in anticipation of their kids attending, too). What they discovered -- and you can google stories about it (Danny Westneat had some, for example) -- is that if the principal will not adjust the program, there is nothing you can do. You can't force them to alter curriculum. You can't make them add recess. You can't force them to accept parental volunteerism or donations.
The thing is, I have sat down to talk with Kaaren Andrews and I really like her. I think she is passionate about what she does and that she is probably right that if your only choices are to help kids who have noone else to help them or to serve kids who have stable lives and access to resources, the kids who have noone else to help them are the kids who need to be helped. I see that as a false choice, however.
During the transition period you are only guaranteed a spot at your attendance area school in entry- level grades.
The implication is that that will change once the transition period is over.
The Madrona PTA and principal asked the board to become an option school two weeks ago. I think that is the best outcome for all involved. I e-mailed school board members about this and was told that they will need a board resolution to do this. I think the current Madrona K-8 community and the neighborhood would support that.
How do we make that happen? I really believe that Leschi and McGilvra have the capacity to hold the Madrona neighborhood students if the reference area is split. The majority of Leschi did not even live in Seattle last year and it is a huge building.
We are at McGilvra and will probably get redistricted to Madrona. I would never send my children to Madrona. The culture does not work for my family, but I would rally around Leschi. No problem. (Probably exactly what the district wants.)
How do you make that happen? Melissa? Charlie? Experts? Do you know? It would be great if it could happen before lines are drawn.
One thing that is encouraging about Leschi is that after knocking that Montessori program around the central cluster, the district has just installed at Leschi the Bagley principal, who is Montessori trained. That to me anyhow signals that the district is willing to support the Montessori program.
Kids are going to be stuffed into many schools in the return to neighborhoods. Madrona isn't attracting a full building now. If the program is needed, keep it intact, keep its principal, and move it to a school better-sized to its demand.
Maybe if it Madrona were an option school and could advertise itself as what it is – they could fill the building. If not, move it. But where? Making it a neighborhood school with its current program is not going to fill it with neighborhood kids. The truth is that it is an affluent enough neighborhood that many folks will move or go private. I think the district has a few choices. 1) continue to ignore it 2) make it an option schools so the current population attending (78% don't live in the reference area) can continue to get the education they want or 3) completely reinvent it.
I think making it an option school in the current building or elsewhere is the best option. The question is how do you get the district to pay attention and start problem solving?
However Madrona certainly is a special case. They have a very different structure from almost every other school in the district. Attempts by parents to expand the structure in any way have been thwarted (and the district provided little support to those parents for any enhancement). They do not fill their building and most of the children in the building are from outside their current reference area.
So we are moving towards a neighborhood schools model and yet we have a school that the majority of parents of neighborhood children reject. So the school's population is largely out of reference area which probably costs more in transportation. Will that transportation continue under the new plan? Would a drop in numbers because of lack of transportation spur a change?
New School has the same argument that Madrona has. Something like, "We are very different because it is the only way to reach a hard-to-reach population." Is that true? Are both schools successful? What does the district hear from parents actually at the schools?
When you form the argument for Madrona being an option school, there's the discussion. But I think unless Madrona can fill its building with kids who don't cost a lot in transportation, then it flies in the face of what the district is telling the rest of us that they are trying to do with this new SAP.
What staff tells the Board about this issue and what the Board believes will determine the fate of Madrona as an option school. However, I would submit that if Madrona is an option school, then so are all the international schools. There can't be cherry-picking on this new plan. The Board did choose to make JA a K-8 instead of a 6-8 so there's you're proof they don't always go along with what staff says.
I'd suggest moving the Madrona option to McGilvra, which seems to have a 250 capacity, which seems appropriately sized for the Madrona program (and then, move McGilvra whole, physically to the Madrona building and expand its attendance area). I know that people in McGilvra wouldn't be happy about the purposing of their neighborhood school, and that there would be issues with bringing the Madrona K-8 population into the heart of
Madison Park. But, I also think that neighborhood/attendance area schools of 250 are untenable in the long run, because of the impossibility of managing variable capacity requirements that must occur with attendance area guarantees.
I also think that Madrona as a reference school won't fill. A large portion of the neighborhood students already go to private school. I have some friends who grew up in Madrona, and say it's been that way for generations, long before open choice.
As to the core of the CD... Is Gazert full? Wouldn't that be the reference school for the area west of Madrona, Leschi for the area to the south, and McGilvra for the area to the north?
So, how can the neighborhood work with the Madrona PTA to advance the idea of an option school? I plan to write the board today about this, but I wonder if there's some sort of offical effort I could join?
The one thing I don't think would work would be co-housing that program with another program. The non-curricular things that are objectionable to many neighborhood parents (no morning recess, silence in the hallways, library restrictions, uniforms) couldn't realistically be imposed on some students and not on others.
I'm sure that transportation costs are important, but really, the main problem in my view with making Madrona an option school in its current location is that even with transportation, they can't attract enough families to fill the building (and I don't think that's just a marketing issue). I'd prefer making it an option school to pretending that it is a neighborhood school, but agree that isn't an ideal solution.
Moving McGilvra would not be a good move. It is truly a neighborhood school (the neighborhood just currently includes a lot of Madrona) and there is so much property that it could be expanded.
I also wonder if the middle school portion of Madrona is successful. I know it is woefully under enrolled. I don't think it is as successful as the K-5 so who is to say that it would have to stay a k-8. However, the school would have to assess that for themselves.
TechyMom - I agree that a lot of Madrona students go to private schools, but a lot fewer would go if they had not been mandatorily assigned to Madrona.
Yes, that was exactly my point. If neighborhood kids were assigned to McGilvra and Leschi, many of them would go there rather than private school. The district seems to think that more mandatory assignments to Madrona would mean more neighborhood kids in the building. I don't. I think it would mean more neighborhood kids in private school, or more families moving out of the neighborhood.
If you feel strongly about this, please write or call the board today.
But...is there data to back up the idea? The building is currently 127kids under (functional) capacity. This is the highest, though not by much, of any K-8 in the District. That's not a ringing parental endorsement of the school, even if it is doing good stuff with its current population. And if Madrona goes Option, it can't have mandi-assignments. I wonder how many of the current cohort were mandi-assigned there.
Option School bussing means that the school's K-5 draw, already mainly in the Central Cluster, would still be available. But drawing families from outside the area to fill the school would be questionable. If they wanted in, they'd be there now. No changes are being proposed to the program and I think the school is in AYP Stage 3.
McGilvra is already over capacity. TT Minor is gone. Thurgood Marshall's AP will fill up that school. That leaves 102 spaces at Leschi and 120 at Bailey Gatzert. BG is nowhere near the neighborhood. Will BG and Leschi be enough to handle the Central Cluster? If not, where are kids going to go? Even more portables at McGilvra?
Again, it's not that Madrona as an Option school doesn't make sense...it's the question as to who on the board or on staff is taking a holistic view at enrollment and program issues in this part of town.
He responded to my email from his blackberry about 10 minutes after I sent it. I like Harium. Maybe some of the others will read mail before the vote?
Again i would hold that one until all the facts are in... said after nothing happened except MB voting no respectfully and not...
PS to PS... Hum?
Here is a story from the PI, which focuses on how this will "inconvenience" families with sibs.