STEM at Cleveland
What is the District hoping to accomplish with this change?
Are they hoping to draw more students to the building or meet some unmet demand? I am troubled by the decision to move forward with the STEM program at Cleveland without an assessment for the demand for a STEM program at Cleveland. Who wants this? Who will enroll in this school? Will the enrollment be greater or less than the current enrollment (706)?
Are they hoping to improve the quality of education for the students at Cleveland? If there isn't any significant overlap between the students in the proposed STEM program and the students now enrolled at the school, then how does the introduction of this program help the current Cleveland students?
Are they trying to balance capacity management? I'm concerned about how the new student assignment plan will work in southeast Seattle if Cleveland is an option school. There are 1,812 high school students (Fall 2006 data) who live closer to Rainier Beach than any other high school. There are 1,105 students who live closer to Cleveland than any other high school. There's another 1,023 who live closest to Franklin and 1,640 who live closest to Garfield (all south of the Ship Canal). That's a total of 5,580 south-end high school students. Under the new Student Assignment Plan every one of them will get an initial assignment to an attendance area high school.
The functional capacity of the buildings are: Rainier Beach - 1,016; Cleveland - 928; Franklin - 1,447; and Garfield - 1,508. That's a total of 4,899. On top of that, there are about 200 north-end APP students who have seats at Garfield. So there are 4,699 seats available in attendance area south-end high schools. This means, of course, that the District will have to overbook South Seattle high schools by 881 seats and then hope that those south-end students will find a seat somewhere else, or the schools will have to exceed their functional capacity, or some combination of the two.
Of course, a number of these students will be enrolled at a Service school, such as South Lake, Middle College or Interagency. About 12% of our high school students are in Service schools such as these. Some of them - about 300 or so - will choose The Center School or NOVA, but there will not be any slack in the system. Let's remember that there won't be any space available at north-end high schools. Since we can reckon that Ballard and Roosevelt will be full, that will force the balance of north-end students into Ingraham and Hale. The north end students won't be able to get into Garfield (also full) so they will have to accept their Ingraham and Hale assignments, taking up all of the available space in those schools.
In the new Student Assignment Plan every student must get an initial assignment to an attendance area high school. But where will the District make those default assignments when Cleveland is an Option school? They will have to overbook Rainier Beach, Franklin, and Garfield by 1,809 students, an average of 600 students per school. What if these kids actually showed up? It simply would not be workable.
It can be done. The solution is easy. The District should re-open Lincoln as a comprehensive high school and place high school APP there. Lincoln could then be the high school for Queen Anne and Magnolia, so Ballard could be the high school for Ballard. It would also serve students in Wallingford, Fremont, and on both sides of the Montlake Cut. That would take some enrollment pressure off Roosevelt which would take pressure off Hale to become something that it doesn't want to be. By placing high school APP at Lincoln, the district would give the program a location that is easier to reach - right between I-5 and Highway 99 - from all parts of the city (have you ever tried to get to the CD from northwest Seattle?). It would also free up 400 seats at Garfield for south-end students. Finally, it would give the new high school instant drawing power for families in its attendance area.
None of these machinations would be necessary, of course, if the District first confirmed that there is sufficient demand for a STEM school at Cleveland before they moved forward with the idea. Are there 900 students who want to enroll at a STEM school at Cleveland?
Are they hoping to draw more students to the building or meet some unmet demand? I am troubled by the decision to move forward with the STEM program at Cleveland without an assessment for the demand for a STEM program at Cleveland. Who wants this? Who will enroll in this school? Will the enrollment be greater or less than the current enrollment (706)?
Are they hoping to improve the quality of education for the students at Cleveland? If there isn't any significant overlap between the students in the proposed STEM program and the students now enrolled at the school, then how does the introduction of this program help the current Cleveland students?
Are they trying to balance capacity management? I'm concerned about how the new student assignment plan will work in southeast Seattle if Cleveland is an option school. There are 1,812 high school students (Fall 2006 data) who live closer to Rainier Beach than any other high school. There are 1,105 students who live closer to Cleveland than any other high school. There's another 1,023 who live closest to Franklin and 1,640 who live closest to Garfield (all south of the Ship Canal). That's a total of 5,580 south-end high school students. Under the new Student Assignment Plan every one of them will get an initial assignment to an attendance area high school.
The functional capacity of the buildings are: Rainier Beach - 1,016; Cleveland - 928; Franklin - 1,447; and Garfield - 1,508. That's a total of 4,899. On top of that, there are about 200 north-end APP students who have seats at Garfield. So there are 4,699 seats available in attendance area south-end high schools. This means, of course, that the District will have to overbook South Seattle high schools by 881 seats and then hope that those south-end students will find a seat somewhere else, or the schools will have to exceed their functional capacity, or some combination of the two.
Of course, a number of these students will be enrolled at a Service school, such as South Lake, Middle College or Interagency. About 12% of our high school students are in Service schools such as these. Some of them - about 300 or so - will choose The Center School or NOVA, but there will not be any slack in the system. Let's remember that there won't be any space available at north-end high schools. Since we can reckon that Ballard and Roosevelt will be full, that will force the balance of north-end students into Ingraham and Hale. The north end students won't be able to get into Garfield (also full) so they will have to accept their Ingraham and Hale assignments, taking up all of the available space in those schools.
In the new Student Assignment Plan every student must get an initial assignment to an attendance area high school. But where will the District make those default assignments when Cleveland is an Option school? They will have to overbook Rainier Beach, Franklin, and Garfield by 1,809 students, an average of 600 students per school. What if these kids actually showed up? It simply would not be workable.
It can be done. The solution is easy. The District should re-open Lincoln as a comprehensive high school and place high school APP there. Lincoln could then be the high school for Queen Anne and Magnolia, so Ballard could be the high school for Ballard. It would also serve students in Wallingford, Fremont, and on both sides of the Montlake Cut. That would take some enrollment pressure off Roosevelt which would take pressure off Hale to become something that it doesn't want to be. By placing high school APP at Lincoln, the district would give the program a location that is easier to reach - right between I-5 and Highway 99 - from all parts of the city (have you ever tried to get to the CD from northwest Seattle?). It would also free up 400 seats at Garfield for south-end students. Finally, it would give the new high school instant drawing power for families in its attendance area.
None of these machinations would be necessary, of course, if the District first confirmed that there is sufficient demand for a STEM school at Cleveland before they moved forward with the idea. Are there 900 students who want to enroll at a STEM school at Cleveland?
Comments
I don't know if it would entice others from the area; I have not heard anyone cheering about the prospect. I'd like to hear from other southend parents on this blog as it seems heavily weighted toward the northend.
Dear Director, 6-19-2007
Given Charlie Mas's point about the Capacity problem that Cleveland as an option school will present, please view the following carefully and think about Cleveland's current population. The likelihood for most current Cleveland students to be successful at STEM option magnet Cleveland seems very remote. Why are the strengths of this comprehensive high school not used to continue improvement in this comprehensive high school?
On this page:
HERE.
I found the following.
[Opinions inserted]
The Washington STEM Center is focused on transforming the educational environment to support effective STEM teaching and dramatically improve student learning.
[this could be a new way to intercept and combine private and public money without having to do anything we're not already pretending to do]
To achieve unprecedented results requires partnerships that are networked together in unprecedented ways.
[Am I to believe the unprecedented results can take place in mathematics given the extremely poor SPS k-8 math materials used and the lack of mathematical skill present in the current Cleveland student population?]
The network serves to capture and disseminate the knowledge, ideas, resources, programs, and services needed to generate solutions that will allow STEM education to grow and flourish in the 21st century.
[What about increasing the mathematical skill levels from the dismal levels they are currently at? This seems to be neglected in favor of PR blitz. It seems the object is to have the program flourish. I would rather see the students flourish but thus far can find no evidence of a program capable of making that happen.]
Inspiration for these solutions comes from existing research and lessons learned from prior work.
[Odd statement if Math is a focus. NMAP is the definitive research for Math Education USA at this time and I see little in this presentation that leads me to believe this program seriously considers NMAP reseach and recommendations.
continued below....
Was a lesson learned from 2006-2009 IMP at Cleveland? If so what was learned?
What I learned is that a program that fails to intervene, when students demonstrate extremely low skill levels, with "Explicit Instruction" will be a failure.... ]
This knowledge base spawns new ideas that can be adapted to local environments and conditions in innovative and thoughtful ways to achieve the desired results.
[If math competence in students is a desired result, I question the need for a spawning of new ideas. If there is a belief that "Inquiry" will supplant the need for "Explicit Instruction" in mathematics, this STEM proposal is seriously flawed.]
------------ --------- --------- ----
Once again where is the common sense in this proposal?
Greater Capacity problems will result.
Based on the current beyond pathetic math skill levels of most Cleveland students ( A UW PD^3 IMP NSF sponsored 2006-2009 production) the STEM option is unadvisable for most of Cleveland's current student population.
Check the data Cleveland WASL 2008
about 60% at level 1 and about 15% with no score
precisely 26.9% scored above level 1 (the clueless level) {12.2% passed}
Check the data Cleveland WASL 2007
about 55% at level 1 and about 12% with no score
precisely 33.1% scored above level 1 (the clueless level){17.9% passed}
------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
Are there any reasons for the STEM option at Cleveland beyond the obvious:
We don't know what we are doing in Math & Science at Cleveland so let's try something new. ... Not surprising that a decade's use of discriminatory math materials might create a problem ... yet the board and administration refuse to deal with that problem preferring to grasp at straws instead.
The point is that Cleveland has made significant strides in Reading and Writing. Instead of bulding on the strengths of students and faculty the Central administration plans to Blow this Comprehensive high school apart. Hardly a demonstration of data based rational decision making in action.
So where is the data and what is the rationale behind this proposal?
Perhaps the rationale is that kids should drift off and drop out after we take their high school away from them.
If there is insufficient rationale please vote NO.
The Closure of Summit k-12 makes it appear that Capacity Management appears to be a ruse for Top Down defective decision making.
If Cleveland becomes an option school it will further indicate that the SPS has a capacity mis-management plan.
I have yet to receive a response from Ms. Libros as to why STEM is a good idea, but it is only 24 hours since I asked the question.
Sincerely,
Dan Dempsey
What is the District hoping to accomplish with this change?
Likely they will need to take some time and get back to you on that if they can ever figure out an answer.
... or is Lincoln needed for a Nathan Hale escape in case the remodel reveals vast problems and moldy students need evacuation to a safer environment.
I plan to go on-line and do some historical research on what they did to attract families and make them succeed. That might help us know how the district might proceed.
At yesterday's BTA III planning Work Session they discussed money for this plan at about $1.6M. Cleveland has a new building and has had SE Initiative money as well. There needs to be a real plan so that all this money is not wasted. The $1.6M goes to 6 high tech classrooms. What happens if students don't show up and we have this showcase high school that is underattended?
Garfield is an incredible place, not just because of the high number of National Merit Scholars or great basketball teams, but because the socioeconomic diversity allows fundraising to happen that helps everyone, not just the rich folks. It is real, and while not perfect, Garfied's efforts to support the traditionally underserved are more than a drop in the bucket. Please do not advocate turning Garfield into the next underperforming south end high school. There is so much focus on schools in the north end. In Garfield, we have a successful school in the ever struggling central district. Creating more schools with this kind of academic and socioeconomic diversity would seem to be a model to replicate, rather than create another affluent high school north of the ship canal in Wallingford made up of kids from APP, Queen Anne, Magnolia and Montlake!
My question remains... what happens to existing Cleveland kids?
What provisions are there for
non-STEM-ites?
AP and IB have preparation beginning in early primary grades with knowledge and skill accumulation. Unless kids get private tutoring forget STEM for SE kids in math .... look at the numbers and the tragic record of Math achievement gaps, we have an irresponsible district that still refuses to use the needed instructional materials. But wait $1.6 million is available. Fundamental change is needed.
Cleveland STEM seems like another walk through "Fairy-tale Land", unless the idea is to populate it with non-Area kids due to convenient freeway access.
Message to the community will then be clear ... we gave you a nice remodeled school but don't come here this program is not for you.
As Charlie hinted at ... If there was to be an option, why was the option not designed around the interests, skills, current strengths and wants of the Cleveland community? (Ricky Malone sees the board as incapable of looking beyond their small individual niches) Right now it looks like the removal of a comprehsive high school from the community.
Are we training students to be transients?
Summit get out, Cleveland get out.
said: "What happens if students don't show up and we have this showcase high school that is underattended?"
What happens if the kids do show up but have few of the prerequisite skills?
The desireable schools you mention in NYC have competitive entrance.
Do you think that the district can make Cleveland STEM into something similar to Garfield?
The current admin can not even do the Strategic Plan but is the STEM plan in anyway achieveable and if so over what time span?
I think Cleveland STEM is a pretty lame thought that lacks sufficient planning and community involvement. The recent assessments of current students' Math and Science skills finds them extremely poor. Are qualified students not required in the MG-J land of differentiated instruction and socially promoted students?
Keep in mind that district wide the 10th grade WASL pass rate for Black students was 16.0% (Spring 2008) In 2007 the rate was 19.6%
It is very difficult to make significant improvments in the math skills of high school students. The key to long term improvment is improved math education k-8, which the district resists.
Here are scores by High School for Black students WASL grade 10 pass rates in 2008:
Hale 34.5%
Roosevelt 31.0%
Sealth 28.8%
Ballard 25%
Garfield 22.5%
Rainier B 21.6%
Franklin 17.4%
West Seattle 17.3%
Ingraham 13.0%
Cleveland 6.3%
In 2007 it looked like this:
Rainier Beach 36.2%
Ballard 34.2%
West Seattle 30.8%
Garfield 30.1%
Roosevelt 27.8%
Hale 13.8%
Ingraham 12.2%
Franklin 12.2%
Cleveland 11.1%
Sealth 10.6%
This looks like the district planners have attention deficit disorder as they continually bounce about with seemingly random ideas. Nothing quite tops the Denny/Sealth 6 - 12 school with over 1500 students ... absolutely no urban district would ever build that configuation on purpose. {except of course Seattle}
I find that model a bit too paternalistic (not to mention classist and racist) for my taste.
I really resent the contention that south-end students, or low-income students or African-American students couldn't foster academic ambitions without affluent north-end students to show them the way.
Or am I not understanding the case that G is making?
Following G's thinking, couldn't we have two more schools like Garfield if we just assigned all Magnolia high school students to Cleveland and all Queen Anne high school students to Rainier Beach? Well, then, why don't we do that?
We don't do that because these students and families are not resources for the District to distribute and reallocate to address their political ambitions. We don't do that because it's wrong.
The Central District has a high school, Garfield. Why shouldn't Queen Anne, Magnolia, Fremont and Wallingford have a high school, too?
What is it that I'm not seeing here?
The reality, that schools need affluent populations in their mix in order to foster achievement, that it is not paternalistic to acknowledge that success breeds success and opportunity for others.
At the same time, I agree that students cannot be utilitarian resources that get moved around at the districts whim. But, it does justify (along with other justifications) putting popular resources in under served and underpopulated areas.
The reality is that the misguided choice plan of the last decade, minus the racial tiebreaker has served to exacerbate the racial segregation in this city (I have some analysis of this -- I'm willing to forward it to an email, though I haven't fully analyzed it, and don't have access to all the right data to do it properly).
Everyone talks about a "TOPS 2" as though it could just be created elsewhere, but the fact is that the majority of students at TOPS come from reference areas which are poorer (and have fewer white kids) than TOPS does. This is the reality, and its more paternalistic to suggest that Southend schools simply pull themselves up with their bootstraps than to admit the basic tenet of Brown, that separate will be inherently unequal.
Correct me if my memory is amiss, but wasnt there an argument put forward - I am remember Charlie involved in that discussion - that the District split and moved APP into a poorer performing school to increase the 'success' rate of that school and make it more appealing?
If that is part of the District's reasoning/justification for the split, if it can do it to APP, why cant it do it for other schools and programmes?
I'm not saying it should, but if its found a reason to do it once, logically it could apply the same thinking to do it again...
And yes, I think poorer schools do need an influx of resources (not necessarily children from affluent, successful school) to help them move up in the performance rankings... stands to reason... if they're starting way beyond the 8-ball as a community compared to their fellow citizens in the wealthy north, if you're committed to equity and fairness and access to a good outcome, then you make up that gap with extra resources...
I agree with G that moving APP out of Garfield up north would likely have deleterious affects on the school -- at least at first. But I agree with Charlie that if enough southeast families invested in the school it could remain strong.
I think a new north-end high school serving Magnolia/Queen Anne and the north would probably have enough kids in it without bringing APP up there. Unless of course you split APP again, creating a north AND south HS location. That would only make sense in my book if the APP HS enrollment increased and District resources ensured a strong and well-served cohort at both locations.
But right now, for example, it is not clear that that will be the case at Lowell and Thurgood Marshall, the split elementary locations for APP in 2009-10.
Where I differ with G is, I've also heard that though the programs at Garfield are for all the kids, the school remains essentially segregated. Is it true that APP is on one floor and gen ed on other floors, and that kids self-segregate in the cafeteria?
If true, then to some degree it sounds like Garfield resembles Madrona when APP was at the latter (up until 1997). And I've heard the former principal there said that the main reason that former Supt. John Stanford took APP out of Madrona is because it looked bad. The gen ed kids were doing okay, the APP kids were doing okay, and PTA resources were shared, but the school appeared to be divided between "haves and have nots" (I think that's how Stanford worded it in his book).
Though I think your sentiments are noble, Charlie, and I absolutely agree that the District should not use children or groups of kids as commodities to infuse an under-performing or underserved school, I'm afraid that's exactly what the District is doing with APP -- and has done for many years.
In fact, in Supt. Goodloe-Johnson's very first Preliminary Proposal for her Capacity Management Plan, released back in Nov 2008, which aimed to close Lowell outright and move half of APP to Thurgood Marshall (an under-enrolled school in the central/south end of town primarily comprised of kids of color) and the other half to Hawthorne (an under-enrolled school even further south comprised primarily of kids of color) the proposal says quite openly: "We anticipate that the strong interest of APP students and parents in music and fine arts will likely extend that opportunity to everyone at Hawthorne and Thurgood Marshall, as will the tradition of an active, resource-enhancing PTSA." (p. 35, http://www.seattleschools.org/area/capacity/preliminary_report_and_appendices.pdf)
In other words, APP parents were expected to bring and pay for enrichment to two school communities that couldn't otherwise afford it -- and to which the District itself for whatever reason failed to offer resources.
APP spokespeople even told the group of Lowell families at the first school-wide meeting after the first proposal came out, that APP families were indeed expected to "float all the boats" at Hawthorne and Thurgood Marshall.
It seemed a pretty blatant demand to 'share the wealth.'
(continued)
As I've mentioned before, history shows that the District has repeatedly placed APP in south/central end schools. Until the new proposal to move half of middle school APP to Hamilton next year, APP has ALWAYS been located south of the ship canal, to the best of my knowledge.
According to an online history book, Building for Learning, APP was brought to Garfield at a time when enrollment and performance was slipping, in part as a result of racial tensions. Once APP was put there, the school turned around. (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/historybook/garfield.pdf)
This use of a group of kids and their parents may be understandable on the most clinical, pragmatic -- or even socialist -- level, but on another it is offensive, and really, outrageous. Is the District threatening to split Montlake, Laurelhurst, John Hay or any other fairly well-off, well-performing school with the intention of moving half their kids and their PTSA enrichment funds into under-served schools?
No, of course not, right? And yet, somehow it's okay to do that with APP.
One could almost question the legality of the District's use of APP kids.
Meanwhile, and equally as important, it is not clear that importing APP to under-served or under-performing schools does in fact entirely help the gen ed kids there. Yes, they have greater access to enrichment and PTSA funding. But how are they doing, otherwise? Are they getting everything they need to succeed, or is the APP influx just masking their experience?
I honestly don't know the answers to these questions.
How do West Seattle kids get there after the viaduct comes down? This city will be a gridlocked nightmare after that with the option of crawling along I-5 and the WS Freeway everyday, or switching buses in mid-town twice a day.
Dream on Greens. With 10k people arriving each year, traffic will not magically get better. DOA.
You have traffic analyzed correctly at least according to the Washington Policy Center. I luv the viaduct.
In all this talk about the achievment of the poor etc. I still find it absolutely amazing that Project Follow Through recommendations are ignored. There seems to be an undeserved devotion to UW nonsense about how to educate the children. Wake up and check the data ... stop with the snake oil purchases.
If you wish to fill up a k-8 school make it a core-knowledge school (E.D. Hirsch).... academics could be quite an alternative draw.
I believe major restructuring Oki style would be a tremendous step forward. I am looking forward to the move from words to action.
Hope it happens. It will take us to make it happen.
Let's hope the District's choice to co-house elementary APP with gen ed again (in two locations) works out better this time.
I also hope the APP/SPED relationship is allowed to continue. It has been one of the most valuable aspects of Lowell, in my opinion.
Why would it make sense to send all APP students north for high school? I can at least see the argument for putting the north-end kids in a program up there, but why move the southern and central kids?
Dan, you're right, what about Cleveland for Cleveland kids? The Board Work Session on BTA III did mention this issue of neighborhood kids who either didn't want to be in a STEM program or weren't ready. Why can't STEM just be part of Cleveland like biotech is at Ballard?
"The reality, that schools need affluent populations in their mix in order to foster achievement, that it is not paternalistic to acknowledge that success breeds success and opportunity for others."
I have never heard anyone from the District say this. Have you? I have never heard anyone from the District even come close to saying this. If this were true, then wouldn't it make sense for the District to make an effort to attract those populations into the schools? Has the District ever made any effort along those lines? Has the District ever even said that it would be beneficial to do anything of the sort?
Despite a total lack of acknowledgement from the District, let's accept that idea for the purposes of the discussion.
Now, let's remember that there ARE affluent populations in the south-end. The Garfield attendance area will include Montlake, North Capitol Hill, Denny-Blaine, Madrona, Broadmoor, and Madison Park. The Franklin attendance area includes Mount Baker, Leschi, and Lakewood. The Rainier Beach attendance area includes Seward Park. All three of these schools have affluent neighborhoods in their attendance area. Cleveland has Beacon Hill and Georgetown which each have their solidly middle class sections. So let's not pretend that these neighborhoods don't have bootstraps. They do. My family lives in South Seattle (on Beacon Hill, about equally close to Franklin and Cleveland) - and most of my daughters' APP friends live in South Seattle as well.
The problem, and I think we all know it, is that these schools have not been particularly successful about attracting the affluent members of their local community into the school.
The reason, and I think we all know it, is because these schools have never really tried to attract the affluent members of their local community into the school. In fact, they - and the District - seem adamantly opposed to courting these families.
So it's okay to push the students into the schools, but it's not okay to pull them in. It's okay to compel them to enroll there, but it's not okay to make the school a place where they will choose to enroll.
The Southeast Education Initiative could have done this, but instead it followed a different path. The Southeast Initiative, like this STEM idea, took off without ever asking the community for directions. The people in charge of it somehow got the idea that everyone was leaving Rainier Beach for high school because Rainier Beach didn't have a performing arts focus. I can't imagine where that idea came from. Is that what students were going north for? Performing arts? Yes, they added AP classes to Cleveland and Rainier Beach, and that's wonderful, but I don't know if people making high school choices today should be confident that those AP classes will still be there in three years. The District's record on commitment and follow-through isn't very good. Their commitment to budget-cutting is more proven, and these classes are expensive.
Look at Maple. Look at Van Asselt. Look at Dearborn Park. Look at just about every elementary school in the South cluster except Hawthorne. These schools are showing some real signs of genuine academic success. And their success is growing. They are doing it without Spectrum and certainly without APP. Dearborn Park is the only one that even claims to have an ALO. These schools aren't having any trouble attracting students and families.
I don't know when that success will transfer to middle schools, but I have friends who are very pleased with the education their children are getting at Mercer. They were anxious about it, but a combination of faith, effort, and a lack of options helped them make the jump.
Will this elementary success get parlayed into high school success at Franklin and Cleveland? I think it has to. And it will happen with or without the Southeast Initiative, and it will happen with or without the STEM school at Cleveland, and it will happen with or without APP at Garfield.
"having a generously sufficient and typically increasing supply of material possessions"
Look, do I think overall many parents in the north end are better off then parents in the south end? Yes. Do I think the parents at Ballard, Hale, Ingraham and Roosevelt to be mostly affluent? I do not. I know far too many middle-class parents who are struggling now. So to put this tag on the north end as if it were true is not fair.
What I think the difference might be is that there may be more north end parents who understand the system, who are college-educated and who have seen the value of education in their lives and want that for their children. Those are the parents who know they need to support their children AND their children's school in order for both the student and the school to be successful. And that's what makes for stronger school communities.
It's not so much that the northend families are all rubbing shoulders with Bill Gates...it's more about the higher percentage of families who are not living in poverty. There is a big difference between middle-class struggling and low-income subsistence.
As I have noted before in this blog: The southend is MUCH more diverse than the northend in both racial/ethinic make-up and income. The Central area is somewhere in-between, depending on where you stand. Many low-income southend and Central families value education, but they just don't have the skills and/or time to make it happen for their kids.
So, the southend needs help in keeping its schools truly diverse and not skewed one way or the other. The only way the District can do that is to acknowledge that the schools themselves will need to be more diverse and offer classes and services that meet the needs of some very dissimilar populations—equally well.
And, as I've said before, this is a VERY tough job and implementation won't come cheap.
Could a comprehensive high school survive without fields and the sports programs that go with them?
Are there other high schools with no fields? Center School -- but any others that aren't "alternative"?
Shorecrest HS in Shoreline is also a large (1500 kid) comprehensive HS without a football field. They use Shoreline Stadium and I have not heard any complaints.
I'm not saying this is ideal, it's not, but I don't think it's a big enough issue to hinder opening a HS.
I don't have a problem with opening lincoln, but I do have a problem with breaking up Garfield to fill it. Could you fill it with QA, Magnolia, Eastlake, Wallingford, and all the downtown and lake union condos? Wouldn't that take pressure off both Roosevelt and Garfield?
Another idea... Marshall is walking distance from Roosevelt. What about opening Marshall as an annex to Roosevelt? You could put the 9th graders there or the AP classes or some other configuation that would minimize the number of times any student had to walk between. Yes, you'd have to add an elevator.
Does the APP martyrdom never end? But to answer your questions: Yes, Montlake has been threatened closure and splits almost every round. Sooner or later it WILL be closed, no doubt whatsoever. Yes, John Hay was threatened with a split-up this time. The school will offer up its Spanish classroom to the district to stave off having the 4th and 5th grade split to the SBOC building a half mile away. No gym, no playgrounds... the district didn't care about that. You don't hear endless moaning about either of those. No Laurelhurst wasn't threatened... uh... because that would be absurd even for the district. Pay attention gavroche, and stop the whining. It doesn't further your cause.
If we have about as many high-school students as we have seats, how is it that Rainer Beach High is so empty?
Are all the RBHS kids in the north end now? If they're forced back into South End schools, wouldn't that make more space in the N end?
Am I just missing something?
I don't buy into the trope that speaking up for APP amounts to 'whining' any more than speaking up for any school or program or group of kids does so. Sorry, but it is a fact that APP took two hits in this latest Capacity Management Plan for reasons that remain specious.
Whether you like it or not, Lowell and Washington APP are school communities that are no less deserving of advocacy, or legitimate explanations for their bisection, than any other school or program.
The fact remains that Montlake was spared yet again, and a good thing too -- the District should invest money in that facility and ensure it has a solid future free of constant threat.
As for John Hay, it is dealing with the same Queen Anne/Magnolia overcrowding issue that Coe is -- not a threat of a split down the middle for questionable political rationales, which is the case for Lowell APP.
Hay is faced with making room for more classes because of the baby boom in that cluster. Hay may indeed lose its Spanish classroom, and Coe will lose its art or music classroom to make room for another K. Contrary to your pompous assumption, I am well aware of these situations.
Do you really think that any major and/or unreasonable changes to John Hay would not be met with resistance by that community? They recently lost a teacher or two to the RIFs and wrote letters and started a petition to bring them back.
By the way, if Hay really needs to make more room, it should look to the large, airy space dedicated to the Kids Co. before and after school program -- they could carve about 3 classrooms out of it.
I wouldn't support moving Hay's 4th and 5th grade to Old Hay (no longer the SBOC building) either, but even if that happened, at least it would be in the same neighborhood (only 6 blocks or so away) as Hay -- unlike the APP splits which are 3 miles or a ship canal away.
But you missed my point: I am saying that splitting ANY school just to inject the resources of the parents or kids into other schools is ethically questionable. I was merely trying to illustrate that, which you apparently misunderstood.
And no, I will not quit pointing out and questioning destructive or questionable moves and decisions made by the District and this Superintendent that are harmful to the District's school kids, be they APP, SPED, alternative schools, gen ed, or any group of kids.
Don't worry -- I'm paying attention all right.
"What is the District hoping to accomplish with this change?"
Is the STEM school idea an effort to bring more academically-minded students into the building? If that's the case, then it will it create any more academically focused students or just re-arrange them? Will it help the students now at Cleveland or just replace them? How is this different than what happened to Cooper?
Is there some unmet demand for science, technology, engineering and math classes? Why aren't the other high schools meeting this demand?
What math classes would STEM Cleveland offer that would be more or different than what other high schools offer? Won't it be the standard Algebra, Geometry, Advanced Algebra, Pre-Calculus, AP Calculus AB, and AP Calculus BC? Won't it use the same textbooks and the be held to the same Standards and expected to meet the same "fidelity of implementation" as these same math classes at every other high school?
Is this a capacity management move - an attempt to make fuller use of the Cleveland building? Will it attract more than the 706 students now at Cleveland? If not, then how will STEM be a positive step for Capacity Management? Summit purportedly was booted from Jane Addams because they weren't filling the building with only about 500 students. The new Jane Addams has only about 300. Makes me want to ask the Dr. Phil question: "How's that working out for you?"
By the way, isn't it funny how the District sometimes says that it's okay for them to overbook a school because there is enrollment attrition over the summer and how they sometimes express confidence that enrollment will grow over the summer? Don Kennedy says that he can't recall RIF'ed teachers based on enrollment numbers because there will be attrition, but we're not to worry that Rainier Beach and Cleveland will have freshman classes of just 31 because enrollment will grow - by 300% or more - by October.
One, what was the final decision about "Choice seats" at N.E. highschools? Will there still be some available for students to try to lottery into? That is an important number to figure into the math.
Second, I think students will select Cleveland by the dozens once their only option becomes RBHS, I think it's a "backdoor" approach to merging the schools.
So, with Cleveland full and "choice" seats available up north, does the math work? And does it work with RBHS open or closed?
It's not and we are in for another year of chaos in this area.
And Cap Management is not the only area that is not working.
Consider MJG's score for Curriculum and Instruction: 2.0, that would appear on a report card as a C-. A 2.0 doesn't get you into any college I know of...yet the board just threw away nearly $1million so she can continue to fail our students.
So, it's not working!
Charlie you asked "Is the STEM school idea an effort to bring more academically-minded students into the building?"
Perhaps. But why wouldn't it be attractive to a wide range of students? Sure, A school with a strong program will attract more academically-minded students, but that's OK isn't it? Right now "academically minded" south end students are not being served anywhere in the south end. Right now they choose to travel to the north end, go private, go to Mercer Island, or home school. Why shouldn't they be served in their own neighborhood? However, I don't think the school will only serve "academically-minded" students, I think it will attract a wide range of students. Surely it will attract some kids that just live in the neighborhood and Cleveland is their closest school, and it may also attract some students that are just like science. It will attract kids for whom RBHS just doesn't work. And I also think some parents of "non academically minded" kids will perceive this as an opportunity for their kids and sign them up. There are many reasons south end folks might choose Cleveland now. I think about the New School, and how this strong school became so popular and successful in the south end, and I think it attracts a wide range of students.
Then Charlie asks" Is there some unmet demand for science, technology, engineering and math classes"
I think the answer to this question is yes. Ballard's bio-tech program is in hot demand. It's one of the most desirable programs in the city right now. Families have asked for more access to bio tech programs. Isn't it a good thing that the south end will now have access to a science focused school too?
And lastly Charlie asked "What math classes would STEM Cleveland offer that would be more or different than what other high schools offer?"
This is a great question. JA has been created as an environmental science and math school, however, they are using EDM and CMP for math just like every other school, and they are using NSF science kits just like every other school. They plan on weaving environmental science into their teaching, and will offer an "environmental science elective" to 6th graders, but core class materials will be the same as every other school in the district. However, the IB program at Ingraham is not required to use the district adopted math materials. They use traditional math materials. So, which one will it be for the STEM school? District materials, or their own choice of materials? That is an important question, because more of the same will not work.
That is IF it turns out to be a reputable program (by that I mean it has a good reputation with PARENTS) and offers the opportunity to study traditional math. I would also have to see lock tight support for it at the district level (no Adams-style wishy-washyness).
I live in Wallingford. My oldest just finished 6th grade. So we have some time, not much but some, to see if the district is really serious.
If we would consider Cleveland STEM, then probably other families -- from all over the city -- would as well.
I can't speak for everyone, but of the many families I know in the neighborhood here's where their kids are/went:
• Garfield—some were lucky to get in when Garfield was at Lincoln and many of the Central kids opted for Franklin rather than bus to Lincoln. Some use other addresses. Others, of course, are APP.
• Sealth—has become the new fall-back school (it had been Ingram's IB).
• Franklin—the OK choice with plans to finish up with Running Start.
• The Center School and NOVA—alternative options for some.
• Mercer Island—out of district transfers for parents who can drive their kids to school.
• Roosevelt—the "lucky" kids who have divorced parents with one living near RHS.
• Private Schools*—including, but not limited to: Holy Names, O'Dea, Kennedy, Seattle Prep, Lakeside, The Northwest School, The Bush School, Blanchette, etc. There is also a large group of Orthodox Jewish kids who attend the Yeshiva.
*A portion of these kids are on scholarship as many had been Rainier Scholars.
I have lived in the SE for 16 years. Our family had 8 years in our neighborhood elementary, so I know lots of families with kids. I don't know anyone who sent their child(ren) to RBHS (including two staff members at the school). This group includes people from a variety of incomes and race/ethnic backgrounds, so it is not just white or middle-class flight.
Under the old plan, most people I know put their "pie-in-the-sky" choices in their true order of preference, so the District should have had a very accurate idea of what types of schools people are looking for. This year I had friends whose children were 150+ and 200+ on the wait-list for Garfield. The first is going to Franklin; the second is going to The Center School.
That's the problem - the chicken or the egg. Or perhaps the better analogy is penguins jumping into the water. First, a couple of penguins are pushed into the water by the crowd. If they are not eaten alive by predators, then the others will jump in.
How do we start? Whose kid is pushed in to see if they are eaten alive so that the other children can jump in with no fear?
My SE eldest child is going to Garfield (APP). It sounds like my other two children may be selected to "test the water."
Personally I think a magnet program sounds like a viable option. In order to get people to choose this option, I think you have to start over - which is a bummer for current students. I think you need new leadership, new teachers (experienced teachers with track records from other schools), new classes.
I do think Rainier Beach is a better choice for this simply because so few children opt in there currently. A current (and 20 year veteran) of the SE, I would prefer a math and science focus - with perhaps scientists teaching some of the classes. They do have the performance hall investment arguing for an arts focus; we would need lots of artists in residence for that. Can we have both - two small schools in one building?
In addition, I would need a commitment from the district (and the city). I would like to see a ten year commitment of funds and attention to start. That way we avoid the JA fiasco. I think this would need dedicated staffing from proven fundraisers - someone who can talk millions in every year for the district, and more staff from the city.
By the way Rainier Beach needs a building upgrade. It is dingy, cramped building that is depressing just to walk through. I do think it makes a difference. Also, while I am at it, I think the city should make a development investment to make the area appealing. With more going on there, and more people about, the area would be less appealing to kids getting into trouble. More eyes, less trouble.
OK I have a few minutes, so I will continue...
I am concerned about sending children to Cleveland. The building is new. However, it is hidden away behind the freeway, right behind the freeway. So, not only is it not part of a vibrant center, there are air quality issues. In some states, schools are not legally allowed to be that close to a freeway. I know we are all jacked up about quality curricula, but environmental and health issues are important as well.
I was wondering about this too. RBHS is so unpopular, and so under enrolled it would seem logical to put the STEM school there instead of at Cleveland where 700+ students are enrolled.
I wonder why the district chose Cleveland for the STEM?
The district needs to lure the penguins into the water, not push them!
My kids spent six years each at John Stanford, which is probably closer to the freeway than Cleveland. So we're already used to pollution...
Also, Cleveland has a brand-new building as opposed to RBHS. That's a huge invest of money to not have a great school there.
Some Board members did say that they worried that Cleveland kids who did not want to be in the STEM program would have nowhere to go. Could they have a general ed and STEM program? Does the whole school have to have this focus?
I'll call tomorrow but as far as I know there wasn't a vote or discussion about the open choice seats for the high schools.
You will also see that I also wrote that other schools were not being threatened by the District "with the intention of moving half their kids and their PTSA enrichment funds into under-served schools" -- that was a key part of my point, which you misunderstood or misstated. Yet this point was quite blatantly stated by the District in its Preliminary Capacity Management Proposal as one of the District's and Superintendent's objectives in splitting elementary APP. ((p. 35, http://www.seattleschools.org/area/capacity/preliminary_report_and_appendices.pdf)
The fact is, Hay and Montlake have not been threatened by the District's current Capacity Management Plan with closure or splits in order to inject them into under-served or under-performing schools three miles away. Any 'threat' to change them has been due to overcrowding in the cluster (Hay) or a poor or crowded facility (Montlake).
And your claim that these schools have been treated just like APP is hollow in light of the fact that Montlake and Hay, at least for now, remain intact, while Lowell has been cut in half.
(And for reasons that remain highly questionable.)
Okay, let's get back to Cleveland and STEM discussions.
But again you err. Hay was indeed threatened with split up into underperforming, minority school. It was threatened to have the 4th and 5th grades sent to the SBOC... poor and undreperforming almost by definition. So what? Montlake is constant threatened with split up into poor underperforming schools. It was "threatened" with MLK merger, it was "threatened" with TT Minor merger at Lowell. So what? Those were ideas at "capacity management". It's all capacity management by the way. The case for keeping those schools together was stronger than keeping APP together. So what? If the program for 1% of the kids, stayed at 1%... then splitting up wouldn't need to happen. I don't happen to agree that keeping Montlake makes a whole lot of sense given the constraints of the district. You can choose to look at it as "using" kids, or you can choose to look at it as needed capacity management.
I don't really have a gripe so much as I have questions.
1) When was it determined that the academies thing at Cleveland wasn't working? Cleveland, with its academies was practically an alternative school already. What were the criteria and benchmarks used to determine that the academies model needed to be replaced?
2) How was it determined that STEM was the way to go at Cleveland? Where is the evidence of the pent-up demand for a STEM program. Yes, the bio-tech academy at Ballard is popular. Okay, so that's one small element of the STEM, but it doesn't necessitate STEM at Cleveland any more than it requires Ballard to be a STEM school.
3) Can Seattle Public Schools really present a STEM school? With the narrow focus on curricular alignment, how will the math at a STEM school be any different? How will the science at the STEM school be any different? For that matter, how will the Language Arts, Social Studies, World Languages, or Fine Arts be any different at a STEM school than anywhere else? If the only difference will be a few engineering classes (such as?) or bio-tech classes or technology classes, then do these few classes actually define the school? Particularly when you consider that these classes are probably already available at other schools without making those schools into STEM schools?
I'm concerned that this "STEM" school won't have any science or math classes than we couldn't find at Garfield, Roosevelt, or Ballard. That really only leaves the engineering and technology elements. But if half of the students are there for the science and math instead of the engineering and technology, will they really have any reason to be there instead of Garfield, Roosevelt, or Ballard. Okay, any reason other than their opportunity to actually enroll?
Is that was this is about? A chance for students who can't get into Ballard, Roosevelt or Garfield to take the full string of math or science classes?
This would be my guess. Families in SE Seattle don't have a shot at getting into Roosevelt, Ballard or Garfield with the current assignment plan. Next year they may have a small shot at getting in with the set aside seats, but it will be slim. But they will have full access to Cleveland.
I am curious to see if the STEM school will be required to use the district materials, or if they will have some leeway like the IB program does (they use traditional math).
I really appreciate this kind of initiative from the district.
That seems like a perfectly valid reason to me. That and fill up a brand new building.
What other options do we have?
Can the district continue to just turn the other cheek, and allow Cleveland and RBHS to limp along for another 5 or 10 years?
How does that serve their students?
If not STEM, what then?
"Consider MJG's score for Curriculum and Instruction: 2.0, that would appear on a report card as a C-. A 2.0 doesn't get you into any college I know of...yet the board just threw away nearly $1million so she can continue to fail our students."
but 2.0 is a C-, only when the possible scores run from 0 to 4
This situation is far worse because the lowest possible permitted score was 1 not 0.
2.0 is a good solid D in this instance. WOW!!! read article IX of the state constitution perhaps the Board and MG-J need a reminder:
It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex. .......... 1, 2, 3, 4 ....what are we here for? Duh!!!
Would someone explain the Option benefit to me. Is it only a marketing tool?
It might attract immigrant kids who have strong tech skills but struggle in more language-based work. (And support in LA/SS could exist for them to access that some of the rest of Cleveland's population needs as well.)
If the STEM program is popular and the gen ed program doesn't up its numbers then they could reduce the boundaries for the attendance area and let in more STEM applicants and expand the program.
That said, I live way north (Greenwood) and my girl would need to leave home at 6am and transfer twice (2nd and James!), so I doubt I would sign her up (even tho she is way into science and (probably)won't be able to go to Garfield, Roosevelt or Ballard).
"Given the district's track record, I have concerns over the amount of money that will have to go to this effort. "
What other options do we have?
Can the district continue to just turn the other cheek, and allow Cleveland and RBHS to limp along for another 5 or 10 years?
-------------------
Why can't they that is exactly what has been done with SE elementary and middle schools ... why should high schools be any different?