Siblings
So from a previous thread I saw a number of posts I wanted to address so we can suss out this sibling thing.
(Although we do need to have a discussion about charter schools. Suffice to say, charters have no real definable qualities except that someone starts them using a school district's money. Every state has totally different rules on how they run, how they can be closed, how many can be open, etc. So to say you get more autonomy from charters could be true or might be false. We don't have a law here in Washington State so you have to figure it out from the other 42 states that do.)
Siblings. Let's see if we can agree on a few things.
If there is to be an implementation period, maybe make it a real period of time so that people can adjust. Grandfather in siblings for two years. AND THAT'S IT.
Look folks, this could go on forever. Some families have more than one sibling or some people now have a kindergartener and a baby. So that means in 4 years we still are allowing a sibling in? How long can we reasonably expect this to go on given the transportation costs and the almost universal cry for predictability?
We will definitely need a transition period and the district needs it in order to figure out how to accomplish that "we'll put sibs together at whatever your attendance school is" promise if there isn't room in the upper grades. But we cannot drag this out forever. It's a new plan and a final break from the old has to happen sometime.
The priority for students from closed schools was for one year only. It doesn't compare to the sibling situation.
I still think that because option schools are well, optional and a choice (as opposed to an attendance school which is in your neighborhood and therefore costs the district less in transportation), that the sibling preference shouldn't apply. Everyone should get the same choice. Some on the Board were trying to make the sibling preference in option schools sound good but really it is a "push" for families already in the school. Once siblings get in, the "option" for other families to even get in is greatly reduced.
My two cents. Alternatives? Ideas?
(Although we do need to have a discussion about charter schools. Suffice to say, charters have no real definable qualities except that someone starts them using a school district's money. Every state has totally different rules on how they run, how they can be closed, how many can be open, etc. So to say you get more autonomy from charters could be true or might be false. We don't have a law here in Washington State so you have to figure it out from the other 42 states that do.)
Siblings. Let's see if we can agree on a few things.
If there is to be an implementation period, maybe make it a real period of time so that people can adjust. Grandfather in siblings for two years. AND THAT'S IT.
Look folks, this could go on forever. Some families have more than one sibling or some people now have a kindergartener and a baby. So that means in 4 years we still are allowing a sibling in? How long can we reasonably expect this to go on given the transportation costs and the almost universal cry for predictability?
We will definitely need a transition period and the district needs it in order to figure out how to accomplish that "we'll put sibs together at whatever your attendance school is" promise if there isn't room in the upper grades. But we cannot drag this out forever. It's a new plan and a final break from the old has to happen sometime.
The priority for students from closed schools was for one year only. It doesn't compare to the sibling situation.
I still think that because option schools are well, optional and a choice (as opposed to an attendance school which is in your neighborhood and therefore costs the district less in transportation), that the sibling preference shouldn't apply. Everyone should get the same choice. Some on the Board were trying to make the sibling preference in option schools sound good but really it is a "push" for families already in the school. Once siblings get in, the "option" for other families to even get in is greatly reduced.
My two cents. Alternatives? Ideas?
Comments
Aside from the personal disappointment and the extent to which this has made me trust SPS less, I don't actually think I have particularly strong feelings about the sibling preference demotion in and of itself. I can see both sides of this argument.
i didn't read the draft that way - i think they said "we'll put sibs together *somewhere*" and only if parents request it.
re option schools, i think parents who have a child in an option school are just as likely to want their children in the same school if possible, especially if that school is a k-8 (in fact, some people choose a k-8 *just so* their children can be in the same school longer).
though i see your point that siblings make it less an option for other families.
anyone have any data on how much of the last several kindergarten classes at tops and salmon bay have been siblings?
This year the TOPS Kindergarten class has about 26 siblings of older kids and last year about 22.
That is close to half the entire Kindergarten class.
Don't know how many of those kids were part of the set aside seats for the Eastlake neighborhood.
The sibling issue does not personally affect me but if I had more kids, I would definately push for siblings to be a tiebreaker.
Option (Alternative) schools really depend a great deal on parent volunteers. At TOPS, the parent involvement is crucial for the implementation of the school mission statment and without them, many activities both in and outside of class would not happen.
How involved can parents/guardians be if they have kids split among differing schools?
However, the Option Schools really emphasize the issues. Schools are communities - at least when they succeed. And Option Schools are often chosen because they offer a community of parents with a similar vision for education.
I don't think that we should be limiting this kind of program in any way (such as siblings getting in automatically) but neither does it seem fair to force families to have no secure option for a single school ONLY if they choose Option Schools.
Ok, I am not sure if I even agree with my own thoughts on this because till this point I have certainly chosen one cluster school (not alt) over another based on culture and will no longer have this choice BUT it would seem that some of the differentiation among neighborhood schools may shift as this plan is implemented. No? While Option Schools are going to emphasize points of difference.
Ugh. Ultimately, how this works out is going to depend on capacity. If there was capacity at all schools this 'new' system would look like the current one.
However, of the 16 years my children will be in SPS, they can only be in the same school for 4 years, 3 in elementary & 1 in high school. (There was no k-8 available to us.)
Now that I have had them in different schools for several years, by virtue of their ages, it does not seem so important. I do participate in both schools & it is less convenient. But it is not onerous & it was inevitable.
I agree with Melissa, that there should be some transition period. But I think that offering to keep sibs together at some school, is a fair way to address families for whom that is the number 1 priority.
Currently, siblings get priority over neighborhood kids. In the new plan, neighborhood kids get priority, but sibling status is the first tiebreaker. So if there is room after neighborhood kids get into an attendance area school, sibings will be enrolled. Of course, this is problematic for some clusters/areas that are oversubscribed, but that may be resolved when the boundaries are redrawn.
Here's what it says about option schools:
For option schools – schools without an attendance area population – all entry grade seats are open as at present. With the sibling tiebreaker, there will be no change from the current system for entry grade siblings applying to an option school.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like siblings will get into the option schools and the remaining seats are assigned by lottery? I don't know as much about option schools, so I hope someone can clarify correctly.
I'm used to siblings being in different schools when there is a break in the schooling system, as between primary and secondary school, but generally they have all started and ended up in the same school together at some time...
Its not an issue if you have enough schools in the areas where the you need them.... if you dont have enough space, open the buildings you have prematurely closed.... better that cost than shifting the burden to parents who have to juggle the logistics of getting kids to multiple sites each day and figure out how to support more than one school community....
Aurora, you reminded me of another point at the Board meeting. There is to be some sort of possibility for going to an option school if you have no option school in your area. It was unclear where precisely they are talking but it was mentioned.
Lak, the tiebreakers for option schools are: sibling, geographic zone and then lottery. The geographic zone is yet another boundary to be drawn. This likely came about because of TOPS/Eastlake where the old neighborhood school (which had been in the TOPs building before it was renovated) ended and Eastlake students had no neighborhood school. The idea is so that kids whose closest school IS an option school might have a better chance to get in. I do not know if this tiebreaker would end the slight bump Eastlake students currently get to enroll in kindergarten.
Is there some reason they can't make plans in advance? So everyone knows what will happen?
"Momster, you are right; I misstated. The district will find someplace for your kids to be together (and I believe it would be in the attendance area of the middle school), not necessarily your attendance area elementary."
I think (hope!) it DOES include elementary. Because that is what I read in paragraph #3 below. But as many have written on this blog already, there may not be space for the older sib at the attendance area so then what?
From the document link included in the SPS-wide email I got from MGJ last night.
"Siblings:
Entering siblings of current students are not “grandfathered” but are eligible for the sibling tiebreaker, which is the first tiebreaker for available seats after assignment of attendance area students. The sibling tiebreaker is applicable for
assignment to a school, but not for assignment to a specific program within a school.
For option schools – schools without an attendance area population – all entry grade seats are open as at present. With the sibling tiebreaker, there will be no change from the current system for entry grade siblings applying to an option school. The transition plan will include procedures so entry grade siblings and older siblings have the opportunity to be assigned to the same school (which may be
the new attendance area school) if requested. This does not assure assignment of the entry grade sibling to the older sibling’s current school.
If the parent/guardian indicates that the priority is to have the siblings attend the same school and space is not available at the older sibling’s current school (or
for both siblings at any other schools requested), the siblings will be assigned to the new attendance area school."
Does this mean if there is no room for BOTH kids at either the current older sib elementary school NOR the attendence area elementary school that the school district will place them together wherever there happens to be space?? Oh god, I hope not. I need an answer to this before I state that preference as a parent.
The system that have has to "migrate" all its information off of it onto a new system. This is a lot more complicated than it sounds and because the old VAX is so delicate (at the risk of sounding dramatic), something terrible could happen and they would lose data. This would be horrible.
They have been planning this for years and I suspect the money hasn't been there. But, as Mary Bass said, she's been waiting since 2000 for this to happen (both a new assignment plan and a new computer system to support it) and it didn't happen. We always had to use the money for something else. And everything, just everything in this district is about money so that's the driver.
It is not going to be quick or easy or without frustrations or glitches. As Michael De Bell said, "Evolution, not revolution."
The only way this guarantee will possibly work in the NE is if enough families indicate they want siblings together so that enough older kids are moving around and creating space at the crowded schools for other older kids. Otherwise, how can they guarantee spots at the attendance school for the older children when there isn't currently room?
Melissa, do you mean to say that sibling preference shouldn't apply to Option schools because the sibs increase transportation costs? I don't think so because it's clearly not true -- sibs cost less to transport than non sibs because the bus is stopping there anyway.
I completely recognize the problem with sibs during the transition period--at our K-8 we often have families who have been at the school for 20 years. So when you are trying to convert a current neighborhood school, which may only have 40% from the reference area, to an 'attendance area' school that can fit everyone who lives close to it, you have an incentive to cut off the sibs.
I'm not clear on how this applies to option schools: there is not an attendance area proposed for them so you don't have x number of kids who have to fit in. It seems to me that the sibling thing is much LESS of an issue for Option schools than for neighborhood ones.
That said, if the sib rule holds for attendance area schools, it should hold for Option schools. (1) because if it is valuable for attendance area Schools (which clearly it is, in terms of community building and encouraging volunteers) it is doubly so for Option schools which can't count on pure proximity to build these things and (2) Applying it to attendance area schools and not Option schools will make Option schools much less apealing and flat out impractical for most families and will drive people away for reasons that have nothing to do with education or even costs.
There seems to be an idea out there that Option schools are all about pedagogy, so that most people would be happy to send their one (weird) kid there while their other (normal) kids can go to their attendance area schools. In practice, I have found that Option schools are more about a general philosophy of education and community and values that apply to a whole family--not individual kids.
(Word Verification agrees with me--it IS 'better' to keep Option school sibs together!)
I am friends with a single parent in a major U.S. city who supports each of his children attending the magnet school of their choice (versus their neighborhood school). Does it cause scheduling headaches for him? Of course. But the desire to find the right fit for the child was of major importance when the family made each decision.
I cannot support a sibling pull into an option school when that seat might be a better fit for another child, just as a convenience for a parent (or two parents). It should be about the children and their success. And as another posted pointed out, families with multiple children will not have all their children in the same school for their entire school careers.
I think most parents with more than one elementary school-age child will want their kids together. This makes logistical sense for the parents, but also gives us a single community in which we can invest our time (and yes, money).
So, let's make the move, but give us a year or two to make all the life adjustments.
TOPS, for example, is a K-8 with a slightly different approach to education. Orca (now at Whitworth) was a K-5 that was more different in philosophy. Now it is a K-8 as well. JSIS has the language immersion—should it be an option? Or should slots in the LI program be an option? The concept of "being a good fit" for one child in a family but not for another is not really applicable here; a family would either want the philosophy/approach or not.
At the HS level NOVA and The Center School are optional schools and alternative (by the size and scope of offerings). There could definitely be a family where one of those schools would be a good fit for one child, but not the other (I know at least one family for whom this is definitely the case).
But...as noted in my post on another thread—for some families the option choice is more about escaping their attendance area school. So, to that family, the sibling tie-breaker would be essential IF they have multiple children or NOT if they have only one child.
If the District can figure out some way to make desirability more equitable many of the sibling issues will be solved. But, as long as the District has schools that are perceived to be less desirable (or truly are less desirable because of course offerings, atmosphere, philosophy, etc.), tie-breakers will be a hotly contested topic.
There is NO solution that will make EVERYONE happy; I think we just have to accept that and then look for what will really be the best approach for the District to try and right-size schools. I know I don't know the right answer.
So I think that siblings should be guaranteed their attendance area school. The family whose kindergartner was assigned to John Rogers because Bryant was filled should be offered the option to stay at John Rogers, or return to Bryant, dealing with over crowding as necessary. But, I don't think siblings should be guaranteed attendance in non-attendance area schools.
I also still don't get what happens if you are new to the district and not entering in an entry grade. Where will you be assigned?
Of course, it's hard to know on the front end.
I hear that some parents don't want to commit their time to more than one school. That is their choice. But choosing to contribute to overcrowding at a school by admitting several additional years of non-reference area children? Their choice is negatively impacting a lot of other families.
It just feels like there must be a way to change the system in a more thoughtful way, one which will screw the least amount of families up? It may be that there has to be a few more classes added at some schools for some years. Whoever said (maybe in a different thread) that this big a change cannot happen unless there is some extra capacity was right. I can totally see this being a final straw for people in terms of leaving SPS totally.
Keep siblings together at option schools too. Otherwise they are a fake option for some. If you have options schools that fill up with siblings, that tells you a)improve the quality of neighborhood schools or b)create more of the popular programs.
Transportation does not need to be intertwined with the assignment issues. Families can simply pay for what they need, as they are able. Just call it FRT (free/reduced transportation)...or FRB if you don't like the sound of my acronym.
I'm late for something, so I am taking a shortcut... but if you go to the JA meeting thread here and the JA capacity thread on Harium's blog, you'll see that I've posted two ideas about an en masse formal complaint campaign and school boycotts - either one big one or a revolving campaign through the district ...
There are people who have indicated they support some action.... see SolvayGirl and Fed Ups posts there, Charlie and Melissa also have advocated lately for action and I have contacts on other lists (alternative schools coalition, for example) who also want to DO something...
I'm up for helping get some action going...
send me a message to: metamind_universa@yahoo.com
if you want to get involved...
Probably just need schools north of E Denny. Most of South of E Denny schools looks like preferences a nonissue.
"Keep siblings together at option schools too. Otherwise they are a fake option for some. If you have options schools that fill up with siblings, that tells you a)improve the quality of neighborhood schools or b)create more of the popular programs."
The problem is that improving schools and replicating popular programs takes time—usually more time than any one family has in the system.
The new SAP may cause some schools to improve and gain in popularity, but it won't happen overnight, and, in some cases, may not happen at all. For many families, like mine, the changes won't come in time, so we take whatever option we can. For our family it was private MS and will be private HS next year. We don't have time for SPS to create a desirable, attainable option.
What is the "something" we hope to do? Mass action doesn't accomplish anything if the mass doesn't agree on a goal (or, on this particular topic, if the mass has internally contradictory goals and will be working at cross-purposes against itself).
The call to "do something" in this instance looks like it could easily turn into a case of "Ready, Fire, Aim!"
I could accept this pretty easily, IF I knew that younger siblings could still attend their older sibling's elementary school, whichever one that may be.
2) Maureen, well, on my point about sibs and option schools, yes, I think you have a point. You might come out even on transportation dollars sibs or no sibs. My main point was what Dorothy said; it is not a level playing field for option schools that have no mandatory assignments if siblings fill more than half the kindergarten classes. (Chris, TOPS has been popular for more than 20 years and they STILL haven't created a TOPS II. Thinking that a full option school will make neighborhood schools better and/or create more option schools hasn't happened so far.)
3) Lynne, you said "kids don't want their parents around in middle school." I had to smile and sigh. Because here's the reality. People go into elementary gung ho. They want to join the PTA, help out in the classroom, support the activities. The level of support in elementary school (most of them) is great. But then you get to middle and then high school. The really supportive parents? They either get burned out after 6 years or they are the same people doing the same work over and over in middle and high school while the sometimes parents fade away. Many people like to say, "My kid doesn't want me around." Believe me, most of the work that needs to be done in middle and high school would NEVER have you cross paths with your kid. I would gently suggest it's an easy out. Middle and high schools and their PTAs really do need the help but parent participation drops off dramatically. And, a lot of the time parents do give tends to go to programs their child is in.
Please, don't give up on helping your child's school or its PTA when you get to middle and high school. (And by the way, I get wanting to keep your kids together in elementary but someday it is likely that you will indeed have one child in one school and one in another.)
Last, sure you can suggest grandfathering sibs only in elementary... good luck with that. I perceive that most of you have elementary kids. Believe me, high school parents can be mighty ferocious because high school is that stepping stone to life/job/college. You try telling people they can't have a grandfathered sibling preference for high school because I won't. They will howl to the moon and frankly, I don't think it would seem fair to only grandfather elementary sibs. But really, suggest it to the Board (four of which have high school students).
I dont think we need to have one voice, one issue... I dont think that's possible as its all linked and its all a mess... cant fix one part without inflicting more mess on another, so the most rational think to do is to STOP, take it all apart and start again....
I'm sorry, but we just can't go back to January. People have acted in good faith based on what the district did. Regardelss of whether what they did was right, it's done, and people have made decisions based on it. That's why people are so upset about Jane Adams, and now you're asking us to accept doing that to everyone? Can you rewind the clock and get me back the private school spot I gave up last week (or the other one I gave up 2 months ago)? Are you really advocating subjecting every entry-grade family to all the stress of open enrollment A SECOND TIME?
That's part of why I disagree with Charlie about moving APP North out of Lowell too. It's going back on a decision to build a school community... a decision on which people acted in good faith.
If this is the case, then they should guarantee access to sibs into the attendance area school, too. It can't be any bigger of a problem than someone moving into the neighborhood. I feel like there's mixed information on whether older sibs can go back to their attendance area, if their younger sib can't gain access to their current school. If they can, I see little to favor the notion that if you have a sib in the system already you should be guaranteed access to two schools instead of one.
That raises the inequity of that fairness for option schools, too. But, I don't know how I feel about that one, since not guaranteeing sib access those schools would make them different from the attendance area school (where a sib would be guaranteed access, if they came in, even though that's not 'cause they're a sib).
seattleparent, yes, I think this system is crazy, too. And, I think it's created a kind of obsessive uncertainty around school choice. I swear that in the circles I hang around in, it's the *only* topic of conversation when parents gather.
These numbers are all purely for example, by the way, in case it isn't obvious. I have no idea what the real ones might be.
I think the district would dearly love to accomodate everybody, but they recognize that the slack in the system is not there. So, the new SAP is, at its heart, a description of how they are going to prioritize the accomodations.
SPS seems to prioritize it this way for the transition phase:
1) Entry level students go to attendance area schools.
2) Current students have the option to stay put, even if not in their reference area.
3) Non-entry level students new to the neighborhood have a space at the attendance area school. This may result in overcrowding in some areas, but it looks to me like SPS is willing to accept that and figure out a way to make it work.
4) Current students with an entry-level sibling who are not currently in the reference are may stay put, with no guarantee of having the sibling with them, or they may be co-located with the sibling, perhaps at a new school.
5) Current students without an entry level sibling may move to their attendance area school if they desire as space is available.
6) After that, the tiebreakers apply.
They are also, to some degree, prioritizing the concerns of families who are entering the system who want the new rules in place sooner rather than later, vs. those who are already in the system that don't want to bear the burden of the transition.
It is reasonable to argue about the fairness of who is getting priority over who, but regardless of how it shakes out, I think the final SAP needs to spell out clearly who is getting first, second, third, etc. priority. There are going to be winners and losers, and it is better to be honest about that fact and be honest and clear about the priorities so that parents can respond to their particular situations in ways that seem reasonable to them.
The worst thing that could happen is for the SAP or SPS to promise too much and fail to deliver. SPS desperately needs to learn how to under-promise and over-deliver, and that would result in pleasant positive surprises for families; however, up until now, SPS has over-promised and under-delivered, which breeds cynicism and the feeling that people are being lied to and promises aren't being kept.
This means SPS keeping their implicit promise. As stated in their 2007 Student Assignment Plan: " sibling priority supports family engagement, allowing families to be involved with fewer schools; and allows families and schools to build long term relationships".
Families, like ours, made choices under rules that allowed sibling preference. Moving older sibs to keep families together will result in even more disruption and overcrowding in non-entry grades.
After a relatively short time, most of the siblings who get in because of the previous choice plan will work their way through the system.
And keeping sibling preference would provide stability for families when there is the inevitable redrawing of boundaries.
"4) Current students with an entry-level sibling who are not currently in the reference are may stay put, with no guarantee of having the sibling with them, or they may be co-located with the sibling, perhaps at a new school."
Roy - what are you using to come to this conclusion (you are not the first to state it)
From the most current version of the SAP plan from SPS
"If the parent/guardian indicates that the priority is to have the siblings attend the same school and space is not available at the older sibling’s current school (or
for both siblings at any other schools requested), the siblings will be assigned to the new attendance area school."
I REALLY need an answer to this question... If as a parent I indicate that I would like to keep my siblings together and their isn't room at the older sib's current school, then I am expecting them to be placed together at the attendance area school.
IF there is potential they could be sent to a 3rd, different, school then I will NOT flag this as a priority and will let the chips fall where they may. That uncertainty is too much to live with under the current mess.
I will email Tracy Libros and see what she says.
*but* this is the language i see in the June 3 document :
"If the parent/guardian indicates that the priority is to have the siblings attend the same school and space is not available at the older sibling’s current school (or for both siblings at any other schools requested), the siblings will be assigned to the new attendance area school."
i'm really surprised to see that and i wonder how they can assure it.
I think they've decided that guaranteeing attendance area schools means that there is going to have to be some variability in the size of classes/number of classes to deal with fluctuations in the guaranteed student population. It's a change in planning, from the days when a school could say that they would have 2 K classes, or 3, for example
by Nile Thompson & Carolyn Marr'
there is a section for every school building - and many of the 60s-era photographs show multiple portables - and the verbiage describes 800 students enrolled in buildings now stating capacity of 350 - as well as students attending school in shifts!
they really packed them in - it would be fascinating to know whether there was push-back from parents - or if people accepted it as the order of the day...
"In September 1976, Pinehurst was readied to absorb about 140
students from Northgate, which had closed the previous spring. The
two learning-language disability classes were moved to Sacajawea. Six days before school started, Northgate was reopened, leaving Pinehurst with five empty rooms. Enrollment fell to just 196 in 1980–81 and Pinehurst was closed as a regular elementary school."
six days before school started - can you imagine?
and note - closed in 81, pinehurst opened 3 short years later as as#1.
i think it's instructive to note that the district's having to expand and contract and adjust to enrollment is nothing new - and that in fact, life does goes on.
and in particular, that if viewlands opens after closing 3 years ago, it's not some huge indictment of district planning - and actually, since the school was only drawing 200 kids, maybe it's good that it has a chance to reconstitute...(no offense to viewlanders - they loved their school)
this book is really a treasure for the history it preserves, and in doing so, the perspective it provides.
I think that EVENTUALLY, there will be that guarantee at the attendance area school. But for many schools (think crowded NE cluster), that choice will not exist for years.
Per the new SAP: "Implementing the new assignment plan will require a transition period. It will take several years for the plan to be fully implemented.
Current students are not guaranteed immediate assignment to their new attendance area school. The shift to automatic assignment to attendance area schools (other than for entry grade students) will be determined by the transition plan."
(And note that the sentence beginning with "current students" in underlined in the plan.)
So there is no guarantee whatsoever. That makes the refusal to grandfather most troubling to me. (Badgergirl, I'd be interested to hear what Tracey Libros says on this).
And I think two years is not enough--my incoming kindergartener is three years older than her sibling. While I admit there is some personal interest here, if it's a two-year grandfathering instead of three or four or five years, it's not like I can really do anything to alleviate the issue before she enrolls in school. Sure I may have more notice, but all the surrounding reference area schools here in the NE are completely full. So the only thing that notice gives me is more time to worry about the issue. Or I guess I could move. What kinds of options are those?
The attendance area family, with the same configuration & same commitment to keeping siblings together, who gets bumped by the younger sibling would be pushed into a different school for 9 years.
That is a lot of transportation money.
I think the district should guarantee keeping sibs together in the older child's school or the attendance area school. not a 3rd school.
ITA with your last paragraph Melissa.
I think families need to establish priorities for their criteria- either they want siblings to attend the same neighborhood school, or they want to find the best fit option school, for each individually.
Can't have your priority to attend an out of neighborhood school AND have sibling preference.
I attended suburban Seattle schools. I remember an elementary school in Kirkland with portables. A new school opened closer to home for my last few years of grade school- however to save on costs & time , it had neither a gym or a lunchroom. ( needless to say, we didn't have an auditorium either)
We ate at our desks and had PE on the sidewalk- can you imagine a school district saving money in this way today?
I also remember when Kirkland jr high burned down, the students had to double shift at another building.
Im wondering what are our emergency plans if a building became unavailable?
Meaning, in Winter of 2010 if you have a 3rd grader at School X with an incoming kindergartner under the new assignment plan to keep them together, you'd have to move the older to the attendance school Y. But, would there be room in the 4th grade at School Y? No.
What to do?
At the meeting, it was suggested portables be brought in to take in these students as the assignment process takes hold over 4-5 years. Harium says we don't have them and don't have the money for them. (I pointed out that there are portables in use in a couple of BEX locations like Hale and Harium said he was eyeing them but we wouldn't have them available for at least a year.)
Or we open a building - Sandpoint, whatever. I don't know how many parents would like pulling their older child from an established school and then starting both an older child and a kindergartner at a brand-new school.
But again, I gently say to parents who said that they came into the school system under one attendance plan for one child and want it to continue for their other children - government entities change rules all the time. There is never a good time. The assignment plan issue has been discussed for years - it's not something new that just popped up.
I sensed, no well, heard from Harium that the staff did find a way for siblings to be together IF that is what parents truly want. I think the Board recognizes that this has to move forward and I'm not sure they want the sibling issue to change what work has been done.
But go for it - sign the petition, think of other ways to solve the problem that might appeal to the Board (one mom had the meeting said she did so hopefully she'll put them forth on Harium's blog).
I think what got forgotten (or a wrong assumption was made) when parent after parent told Board members year after year that parents want predictability in assignment was that putting it into motion was not as simple as just drawing some lines.
assign ALL kids who are not in option/alternative schools/programmes to their neighbourhood/reference school... perforce, siblings will be with siblings...
Re-open school in areas where demographic growth has caused overcrowding...
Use distance only as the tie-breaker in those schools - siblings (usually) live the same distance away from a school, so they can go together to whatever is determined is their attendance school...
alternative/option schools will be able to absorb siblings because there will be an exodus of older siblings as kindergarteners come in...there will be some ebb and flow in numbers but I cant see it being overwhelming and we have functional capacity numbers in place that determine what a school theoretically can handle...
Since almost everyone will be living close to their school, stop transportation...
For middle and high schoolers and option school kids who have to travel further, issue metro vouchers...
And to stop the howls of protest about the difference in quality of schools, spend the money you save on transportation on making sure ALL schools have the resources and programmes that the so-called 'best' schools are able to provide for their kids....
1) extraordinarily large class size
2) portables
3) opening a brand new attendance area school for the 10-11 school year.
Right now, in the NE cluster there are already upper grade siblings on wait lists.I don't know enough about other clusters to know how this would work in other areas. In clusters that are under capacity, this would have been an easy guarantee. However, after this year's closures, there really isn't a cluster with a ton of excess capacity.
The Apple Family - Has a 3rd grader in a school other than their now-designated attendance school (SCHOOL XYZ). They have an incoming kindergartner who will be guaranteed a slot in their attendance (neighborhood) SCHOOL ABC.
The Orange Family – Has a fourth grader in a school other than THEIR attendance (SCHOOL ABC). They have an incoming kinder who is guaranteed a slot in school XYZ.
To keep these sibs together, the older children will essentially switch places. And yes, that means, they will have the misfortune of having to switch schools midstream so the family can stay together.
BUT...this switch also means that these families will now be (more likely) in their neighborhood school. Which could increase participation by parents in the "new" school; they should already know at least some other the other families in the school.
Isn't it somewhat logical that the moving older sibs will OPEN slots in their existing school that will be filled by their counterparts? It won't be a perfect switch, but I don't see how it means that every school will need to accommodate dozens of new kids in the upper grades. I can't help but believe they will be spread around. Sure, there will probably be a bit of over-crowing for a few years at some schools, but eventually it will work out.
I realize it is difficult for a child to leave their beloved school. But honestly, people do it all the time for a variety of reasons: they move, they become disenchanted with their old school for whatever reason, they test into AP...etc.
I personally know a number of families in the southend who left Graham Hill (a school they truly loved and supported) in 4 or 5th grade to secure a better middle school position (some went to TOPS and some to Mercer Island).
So...it is not the end of the world, and many families have done it and make it work.
Grandfathering sibs for 5 years is just too long; the system will never get fixed—if a predictable, neighborhood school is truly the desired fix here.
The REAL problem is for those families who somehow managed to get away from their undesirable neighborhood school and will now be forced into it. But that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
I completely admit that I have zero working knowledge of other clusters so I really can't comment on how this would work in other places in the city.
However, for the NE, because practically every grade and every class is already over stated enrollment guidelines, your scenario requires that they must switch places in order for things to even out.
However the plan guarantees that currently enrolled students can matriculate at their currently enrolled school. Upper grade classes have the option to switch but not the requirement. Hence the probability of gridlock is nearly guaranteed, because of the configuration of dead zones in the NE.
Most folks are very familiar with the QA/M high school dead zone issue. In this NE cluster there are several dead zones for elementary. In other words, there are multiple places in the NE cluster where you now live too far from any elementary school to have priority and therefore will receive a mandatory assignment.
There were approximately 50 mandatory assignments from families that live dead zone areas in this enrollment cycle. So when these dead zones are swapped for guaranteed attendance area places. There is going to be a large number of families that are suddenly in different areas. The system is not equipped to just handle the very large number of families that are going to be very surprised by their new reference area.
The NE cluster has not had enough seats according to community communication for over a decade, perhaps even longer.
I don't imagine since many families are young that they all moved into the region long before crunch.
Are real estate agents hiding the fact of not enough seats from prospective buyers or how are they able to make the neighborhood sound desirable without neighborhood schools>? ( for more than a few)
I admit that young couples with very young children, may be barely aware of the schools. We moved into a neighborhood with a school two blocks away, but my kids never attended-
As for the real estate agents, if asked they likely say, Sure the schools are great in the NE. And it's the truth but is there space? I don't know if they don't know or don't tell.
In the north end of the NE Cluster, our longest-running capacity issue has been the middle school dead zone. We've been dealing with it for many years. Some folks just got a taste of it this year, when Eckstein reduced their enrollment. Welcome to the club.
At schools like John Rogers, if a graduating 5th-grader can't get into Eckstein and the family desires a comprehensive middle school for their child, the family tends to pull out the younger sibs from John Rogers/SPS, and move all the kids to Shoreline schools. I'm sure the same is true for families who live in the north Sacajawea ref area and in Olympic Hills. Even with Hamilton now being considered "more attractive" with the addition of APP, it is still a very long bus ride from the north end (approx 2 hr round trip), vs a short car ride to Shoreline, if you can provide your own transportation.
This pulling out of younger sibs to Shoreline frees up a few slots in upper grades in some NE & N Cluster schools, but this affect is somewhat localized to the north end schools. I'm guessing that it might be slightly easier to move an older sibling into one of these schools than one of the more southern schools in the NE cluster, but since both John Rogers and Sacajawea are packed way beyond their functional capacities, it would probably be difficult to move in more than just a few upper grade siblings per year without adding portables or greatly increasing class sizes to accomodate sibs.
Bottom line, as far as I can tell, in the NE, this plan of moving the older sib to the younger sibs attendance area school is bogus. It will not work unless already large class sizes are increased or additional classrooms are added to already bursting schools.
Oh, and by the way...if you go to open houses up here in the Lake City/ Meadowbrook/North Matthews Beach area, all the flyers still say that the middle school for the area is Eckstein (!). Perhaps a little community outreach is needed, but maybe it would be best to wait and see what is decided for the north end when the new assignment plan boundaries and feeder patterns are drawn.
I'm not looking to see those numbers in the schools (clearly, that created a stressful situation that should only be entered under duress). But, I do think that the idea that schools are "full", "oversubscribed" at the numbers that we currently see in popular schools is a result of the non-right sized reference areas, and the fact that schools can stop accepting students. Under a neighbor hood model, if someone moves in with octuplets , you have to open a 1/2 K class for them. Under the current model, you get to tell them that they have to go to school across the city. I think people are going to have some trouble grasping the new model, so used are they to the old one.
Our attendance area school has an educational philosophy that is not appropriate for our family so we applied and got into the neighborhood school that is for students living on the other side of our street. (Arbitrary boundary)
We had to make some tough decisions for our family. We would have moved (maybe across the street – maybe out of the district) if we did not get into our current school. We got in, so we stayed and now feel like the district is changing the rules in the middle of the game unfairly.
I have no idea what my attendance area will be in a few months, but I do know that I want my younger son to go to the school where my older son attends because it works for our family and I am an involved and contributing parent there. We made all of these decisions trusting the district’s policies.
Current siblings will not go on forever. It will taper. The district can get a good idea of numbers by asking about current young sibs and plan for it. The district can use sibling bubbles to test what they will do during population bubbles. They will need to add portables and classrooms. They may even need to combine grades in some schools. Over enrollment will happen without sibling preference. Siblings are not the only reason there are bubbles and the district cannot control population changes.
Siblings should be grandfathered. The district needs to win the trust of families and respect the positive school-family relationships that currently exist despite their efforts.
I often wondered this about school closures. I often wondered why more parents didn't sign petitions against school closures. I also wonder about the pain that current students are feeling as they say goodbye to their building, their program and their staff. We shouldn't lose sight of that fact.
This assignment plan is going to affect every student and some more than others. And, as parents, it is about your child (ren). Fine. But as I said previously, this is no surprise that this is happening. We have talked about it for years.
Harium was very firm on saying they have planned a way (and yes there are details to get ironed out) to keep siblings together. No one said it was a way to make everyone happy. If you keep all the siblings together over what, the next 6-8 years, what happens to all the parents who asked for predictability?
Who has talked about this for years? Nobody on any of my kindergarten tours? Not any of my friends or colleagues. Nobody EVER mentioned siblings not being together. Most parents are unaware or blindsided. Maybe a small group of insiders have talked about it for years, but not "we" as a full community. I am sure if you polled families in schools with underrepresented populations they would not know this was talked about for years. They probably do not even know it is proposed. A lot of people would have made different decisions if they knew this was coming.
There is a win-win here. The district can predict the number of siblings for the next 4-5 years by polling families and use that data plan much better than they can predict population fluctuations. It might mean a few portables and a few mixed age classrooms. That means predictability for all.
I think that is a win-win and is much less costly than alienating 2000 families and moving students to a new school which we know is very painful for the students and families currently experiencing it due to school closures.
Alienating families because of school closure, principal changes and teacher RIFs has been costly enough. Why add more when there is a solution?
What happens when kids whose parents would have specifically selected against that school originally are forced into the school? That's when things like sibling preferences at option schools, and neighborhood set-asides for option schools, may start mattering quite a bit.
The reality is that we did not get into any of the option schools and much of the more appropriate schools for our family are overenrolled with other students from our neighborhood. So in my estimation the district needs to either reconstitute our “neighborhood school” to fit the neighborhood culture or make the school an option school.
There has always been predictability in our reference area. Most of the families don't accept the outcome and send their kids to private schools or move. The problem is not the assignment plan. It is the school students will be assigned to. We need choice in our neighborhood and the lucky families like mine who have found peace at another school would like to keep our family there.
FHS85, very few people know and understand the plan including our PTA president and principal who did not read the original plan as a change. It was VERY veiled. This will blindside 100’s of families.
Where can I get statistics on siblings from outside the reference area getting into kindergarten classes? I know Wedgwood had almost 1/2 their kindergarten filled by sibling priority. How many of those siblings were outside the reference area? Anecdotally, to me it seems like a lot. I'm curious in all the over-capacity NE Cluster schools what that statistic is? Anybody know? How many at Bryant?
If my child has lower priority over someone outside my reference area, just because that other student has a sibling in the school already that is just wrong. My kid may end up attending Sac or JR (both great schools) but I'd have to bus them probably +1.5 hours a day for the next 10 years over the elementary duration of my 3 kids. My second kid probably wouldn't get into our reference area, because she didn't have sibling priority. Isn't that ironic? The sibling priority from outside reference areas has royally screwed things up!
Here is a map of where all the Bryant students live.
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/
maps/08-09/attend/Bryant.pdf
The vast majority of the families already live in the reference area. A big chunk of the out of reference area students are bilingual or at the upper grades. Every year the percentage of in reference area students has grown as there have been fewer and fewer.
Currently, siblings of current students do have priority over reference area kids. Also, SPS now does mandatory assignments when school enrollments get too high.
It seems to me that the district could draw the boundaries a bit smaller AND still grandfather siblings. That way, there would still be guaranteed assignment for entering students at their attendance school AND siblings of current students could still be grandfathered for a set period of time.
And that doesn't change my position. I'm still going to advocate against out of reference students to increase my chances. I know that Bryant is over-subscribed. Starting with getting rid of sibling priority is the first thing to help the situation. (Thanks for sending the link.)
After the sibling priority topic, my next concern is boundaries. I hope they do redraw the boundaries. And I do know that I may not be in the Bryant reference area. That is OK with me as I can walk to 2 other area schools if need be, and presumably, I'd be in those reference areas. I just don't understand how they don't have any clue as to how many kindergarteners will be enrolling in the schools. Go to any park during the day, take a walk through Ravenna, Wedgwood, Bryant, Magnusson, and you will see TONS of young kids, and young families that are continuing to grow. To not expect large numbers for enrollment in the coming years is totally reprehensible. This year and last year are not anomalies.