Two Big Amendments Proposed for SAP
Two huge amendments to the SAP for tonight's Board meeting, both from Sherry Carr.
First one is about siblings.
On page 6, delete the following text:
- 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.
And insert the following:
The issue of “grandfathering” incoming kindergarten siblings is not part of the Student
Assignment Plan itself, but is an implementation issue. It is the Board’s desire to address
“grandfathering” of incoming kindergarten students as part of the transition plan, provided
that this is feasible without displacing incoming attendance area kindergarten students. The
transition plan will address this issue.
Now when this "transition period" will be announced is anyone's guess but I believe the Board has heard loud and clear that they need one for siblings. I also think they will include a date after which NO more siblings will be grandfathered. For now, this would place a hold (or marker) on the language currently in the SAP until it is addressed later.
Second one is about directing the Superintendent to evaluate elementary and middle school capacity across the district. Here's the language, note the bold (which I inserted here):
"I move that the Superintendent be directed to evaluate elementary and middle school
capacity across the district and to make recommendations to add capacity, including
opening one or more schools (including at least Wilson-Pacific, John Marshall, Sand
Point, McDonald, Viewlands and/or Old Hay) if necessary. The evaluation of elementary
school capacity, including any necessary board action, would be complete in time for
dissemination of information prior to open enrollment for 2010—11 school year. The
evaluation of middle school and K-8 capacity and facilities, including Jane Addams, will be included in the BEX IV capital program planning. Therefore, there would be no change to the Jane Addams K-8 program prior to completion of BEX IV levy planning in 2013."
So Sherry is advocating for JA to remain a K-8 for at least 3+ years. Is that enough?
I am still mystified at this capacity issue. They have a building evaluation, they have a functional capacity evaluation, they have the demographics and they soon will (and already do have and I'll post it later) a preliminary BEX IV list.
First one is about siblings.
On page 6, delete the following text:
- 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.
And insert the following:
The issue of “grandfathering” incoming kindergarten siblings is not part of the Student
Assignment Plan itself, but is an implementation issue. It is the Board’s desire to address
“grandfathering” of incoming kindergarten students as part of the transition plan, provided
that this is feasible without displacing incoming attendance area kindergarten students. The
transition plan will address this issue.
Now when this "transition period" will be announced is anyone's guess but I believe the Board has heard loud and clear that they need one for siblings. I also think they will include a date after which NO more siblings will be grandfathered. For now, this would place a hold (or marker) on the language currently in the SAP until it is addressed later.
Second one is about directing the Superintendent to evaluate elementary and middle school capacity across the district. Here's the language, note the bold (which I inserted here):
"I move that the Superintendent be directed to evaluate elementary and middle school
capacity across the district and to make recommendations to add capacity, including
opening one or more schools (including at least Wilson-Pacific, John Marshall, Sand
Point, McDonald, Viewlands and/or Old Hay) if necessary. The evaluation of elementary
school capacity, including any necessary board action, would be complete in time for
dissemination of information prior to open enrollment for 2010—11 school year. The
evaluation of middle school and K-8 capacity and facilities, including Jane Addams, will be included in the BEX IV capital program planning. Therefore, there would be no change to the Jane Addams K-8 program prior to completion of BEX IV levy planning in 2013."
So Sherry is advocating for JA to remain a K-8 for at least 3+ years. Is that enough?
I am still mystified at this capacity issue. They have a building evaluation, they have a functional capacity evaluation, they have the demographics and they soon will (and already do have and I'll post it later) a preliminary BEX IV list.
Comments
This gives the school time to fully enroll as a K-8. It also lets them see what the true middle school needs are once the SAP is in place and additional seats are opened (and filled) at Hamiliton and McClure.
It just lets everybody catch their breath - and is refreshing!
Thanks, Director Carr!
If this matters to you, email or call the school board today.
Thank you!
Is Mary Bass proposing this amendment because she has thought through the programming and capacity issues? Or is it so that the current Madrona students, most of whom aren't neighborhood kids, don't lose transportation to Madrona? Because if it's the latter, I'm thinking this might be premature.
"Amendment to motion regarding evaluation of buildings" on the agenda for tonight.
Thanks, indeed. At least we can give the school a chance, and maybe it'll get some momentum.
I know I support it because it seems like a reasonable way out of a very ugly impasse, that also allows for a better solution down the road. I see a revolt in Central if a lot of people get mandatory assignments to Madrona. Making it an option school removes one battle in the SAP war. I think that the board and staff ought to be able to get behind that.
And may I ask, where was Peter Maier through all of this? JA is one of HIS schools, after all.
Silent as usual.
He has done absolutely nothing to advocate for families on this issue or any others. I can't wait to vote him out of his seat.
Too bad we don't know the outcome of this vote, to announce to families tonight.
BTW, I think that the 25% from the reference area statistic is true for all the relatively poorer schools -- it's not special to Madrona K-8: Leschi: 19%; Madrona: 24%; T. Marshall: 24%. T. Marshall. Therefore, it can't be seen, by itself, as a special dislike of the program by the neighborhood in Madrona.
And, making the building & program an option program doesn't mean that the program can't be moved later to make more capacity for a neighborhood school.
The District has been tunnel visioned about Madrona since APP was kicked out in 1997 or so. IMHO if Madrona is made into an option school, there will be no long range or better solution to the current situation. And what is going on there now is not new or unique to the current principal. Sure the program could be moved. So why was it not moved during the most recent closures/relocations? That was the opportune time to do it. Sorry, call me a skeptic or a naysayer, but I just don't see how making it an option school will help.
Somewhat relative to this discussion, read Herb Kohl's open letter to Arne Duncan.
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/23_04/good234.shtml
I live in SE Seattle and families in this part of town and through out the City are greatly impacted by the changes in regards to sibling assignments under the new plan. For families of Middle School and High School students in SE Seattle to lose the opportunity to attend schools with their siblings outside their attendance area is a big disappointment. Many families are unaware of the changes as they are assuming their children will be able to stay together.
Dear Board Members:
In your vote tonight, please consider those children from low income and disadvantaged families and the homeless (more than 900 homeless children in the District, I understand), who will be disproportionately affected by the proposed SAP.
If you put in place a regulation that says that if you move you will lose your space in a non-choice school, you will in fact be discriminating against the most heavily burdened people in our community - low income kids who's lives are unstable already, through no fault of their own....
Some people say this rule is necessary to stop people 'gaming the system' - falsifying addresses, moving into a neighbourhood only temporarily to secure access to a desirable school.
Most people who own their own homes stay put there for many years... this 'rule' will affect only a small portion of families in that demographic...
However, many people are not home owners and have to move often, many times not from choice. Their children are being punished for circumstances that are beyond their control. There are also children in the foster system who are moved around the District because of decision making in which they have no input.
Other families are forced to move by circumstances related to the parents' work, by family and relatives' illness or for a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with moving into a region to get access to one of the 'better' schools.
In unstable times and environments, children need stability. For many children school is the only stable influence in their lives and here we go again, making already disadvantaged kids carry the burden for changes that are being dictated by money.
Those people who game the system are in the minority, so why punish all the disadvantaged kids who are forced to move from rental to rental all over town because of circumstances beyond their control, just to make sure a handful of 'blue-ribbon' school spots don't go to a miniscule number of cheaters?
I trust each of you will do the right thing by your minority constituents and ensure that this discriminatory clause is withdrawn from the SAP, or alternatively that an exemption clause is put in for homeless children and FRL-qualifying families.
With respect and thanks
Sahila ChangeBringer
AS#1 parent
tel: 206 297 7511
Transportation will be the same for Option and attendance schools--all kids from inside the 'service area' will be transported.
Most Madrona kids do seem to come from the Central cluster: Madrona K-5 Map and Madrona 6-8 Map.
Essentially it comes down to this: the Student Assignment Plan describes an "end state". In addition to this plan, the District will need a Transition Plan or an Implementation Plan to get us there from where we are now.
Under the current plan, the District clearly made a commitment to families with siblings in out-of-area schools. That commitment is just as clearly absent from the New Student Assignment Plan. The District needs to extract itself from the current commitment as gracefully as possible.
These amendments defer the decision about how to transition from the old to the new plan. The Enrollment staff can move forward with their work on boundaries and attendance areas while working continues on the sibling issue.
Did Mary introduce her motion about Madrona? I heard her mention it in another part of the discussion (I haven't watched the whole thing)?
She, along with Harium and Sherry, voted "nay" on hiring Education First for 750,000...There was an, uh, interesting discussion around that...
The district can not do manatory assignments to JA now, and the school will have no boundaries or feeder patterns. That means that families must CHOOSE to send their children to this school.
I am wondering, who will choose the school? Will families want to send their kids to a school that only has a 3-4 year commitment from the district?
I think that's correct, except that it doesn't change the priorities, only the tone. The schools are being asked to do their best to accommodate the siblings of current students while not displacing attendance area students. As I've mentioned before, I think the only way to do this is to try to allow some capacity slop when drawing the attendance areas. Potentially, this could produce attendance areas at popular schools that are slightly smaller. In the long run, I guess, that might not be a bad thing; it might allow a few extra choice seats at those schools, or it might allow for the growth that's likely to occur in areas when attendance at a school is guaranteed.
That's going to make some people who are at the borders of attendance areas for popular schools annoyed, but they probably won't have a very good political case, since the borders are going to be drawn balancing an awful lot of different factors.
by choice only, why not find a smaller building (and we have a few empty ones right here in the central cluster) that would help Madrona K-8 option succeed rather than struggle with enrollment numbers from the beginning.
The other side of the discussion is the displacement of the majority of Madrona families, which wouldn't really be any different if Madrona K-8 remained a "neghborhood school" (which it technically is, but practically is not) or if it becomes an option school. The upside for Madrona families is that they would have to be given a new attendance area school if Madrona K-8 becomes an option program. The downside is, where would that be? McGilvra is small and full, Leschi is in transition. MLK and TT Minor are closed.
The assignment map Maureen linked to shows 61 kids from the Madrona reference area attending Madrona K-5, out of a total enrollment of 255. Looking at the central cluster schools, there are 148 Madrona reference area kids at TOPS, Montlake, McGilvra, Stevens and Lowell. And there are many more Madrona kids in private schools. If you add these numbers up, 61 + 148 + private, the Madrona reference area could fill a K-5 if there was a neighborhood school that met the needs of the neighborhood. And if a dynamic program like a John Stanford Int'l or TOPS II could be started in the Madrona K-8 building, it would be a guaranteed success right in the middle of the central cluster. Why not fill the Madrona K-8 building to its fullest capacity with an exciting program appealing to a large number of families, and allow Madrona K-8 Option to succeed in a smaller location without the threat of closure due to underenrollment?
Jane Addams become a middle school assignment school by default.
Kathy Johnson gave testimony last night that there was enough middle school capacity in the north end with Hamilton's additional seats to last through 2012-13, but then she also said that portables would probably need to be placed at Jane Addams and maybe at Eckstein and other sites to meet capacity needs.
I was wondering how portables at JA would help with middle school capacity, too, if kids could not be assigned there, but then realized that if the three comprehensive middle schools are full, and folks living north of the ship canal are suddenly receiving assignments to far-away Aki or Mercer, then Jane Addams is looking pretty darn good as an "option."
Does anyone know who would get bumped out the comprehensive middle schools? Is is a random, lottery thing? Would it be geographic, or by elementary school cohort? How, exactly do the tiebreakers for middle school feeder patterns work when the middle school your child's elementary school is supposed to feed into is full? How about when the two closest ones are full? How does the computer chose who "applied" for the seats first if everyone is supposed to be quaranteed a seat, but there is in reality not enough room?
If it is distance-based or geographic, then those living too far from Eckstein and Hamilton (i.e. those of us in Lake City) are once again going to be in a "dead zone" (OK...if you prefer..a "no school zone- did anyone catch that last night...too funny!). Will our kids be essentially assigned by default to the non-comprehensive middle school (Jane Addams)...the "mushroom" K-8 offering Spanish OR music, with the portables in the parking lot...portables that were conveniently acquired from the Nathan Hale remodel next door?
Just wondering....
Madrona: Its supposed to be 'Excellence for All' so not sure why everyone seems willing to excuse the principal and program there which has disenfranchised the local constituents for years. Anyone attending a school should have the same opportunities. Not looking at their test scores, but it almost sounds like its more of a 'cult of personality' thing over actual educational substance. How about 'TOPS Central' with a geographic emphasis to allow more neighborhood kids first seats? (Though, it sounds like Eastlake kids have lost their seats at TOPS, so apparently the district is going a different direction.)
And, Yes NEM, we are hosed in Lake City. We need a MS. We need for Hale to be our High School. Geographically, our current assigment to the North cluster makes zero sense. I can almost see JA from my house, but have no priority there. There is no sense to how it works today.
BTW- this blog is a life-saver as far as deciphering what's going on with SPS. THANK YOU!!
So, I'm not sure. And I recall from two years ago when I was looking at the schools with open slots that Madrona, T.T. Minor, and Leschi were pretty similar on most axes that are measured (WASL scores, number of families choosing the school, percentage of neighborhood families in the school). It's hard for me to know if the Madrona program is sufficiently successful or desirable that for the sake of the kids in the program, it makes sense.
And they really believe they have enough middle school capacity until 2013? I'm not buying it but then I'm not a demographer. All I know is enough parents now seem troubled by this and why they are not just solving the problem now is a mystery. I'm thinking JA is going 6-8 by then. I just can't imagine it won't pan out to be too many kids for Hamilton and Eckstein to handle. (And that's just my opinion which I guess I could keep to myself in order to help JA succeed except my words are not going to make it come true.)
The Madrona issue is, again, one that we are foretelling here (and can I say that there's never any great pleasure is saying, "Gee we were right" because we're right about something that hurts our district). They have closed a couple of elementaries, Lowell will be full, ditto Montlake, McGilvra and Stevens. TOPS II would fill in a New York minute at Madrona. But, look at how long AAA lasted despite its scores and enrollment. We all know that. And they are closing Meany and Washington is full.
How does this make sense?
And they really believe they have enough middle school capacity until 2013? I'm not buying it but then I'm not a demographer. All I know is enough parents now seem troubled by this and why they are not just solving the problem now is a mystery. I'm thinking JA is going 6-8 by then. I just can't imagine it won't pan out to be too many kids for Hamilton and Eckstein to handle. (And that's just my opinion which I guess I could keep to myself in order to help JA succeed except my words are not going to make it come true.)
The Madrona issue is, again, one that we are foretelling here (and can I say that there's never any great pleasure is saying, "Gee we were right" because we're right about something that hurts our district). They have closed a couple of elementaries, Lowell will be full, ditto Montlake, McGilvra and Stevens. TOPS II would fill in a New York minute at Madrona. But, look at how long AAA lasted despite its scores and enrollment. We all know that. And they are closing Meany and Washington is full.
How does this make sense?
Nope. I'm not buying anything Kathy Johnson said either. It was a very good thing that I was watching the meeting from my living room and that I was not present at the Board Meeting. I don't think I could have controlled my outburst. The idea of more portables at Eckstein was hysterical. Where? On the new sports field?
I can appreciate Sherry Carr's and the rest of the Board's and Superindendent's concern for current Jane Addams families and the predicament they are in, and not wanting to make any rapid changes in the programing of the school.
I do hope they do a detailed analysis of the middle school capacity projections, especially now that Meany has been closed and APP is in Hamilton. I have a hard time believing that Hamilton, Eckstein and Whitman won't be over-subscribed by 2013, and that they are relying on this overflow to fill Jane Addams.
They are in essence going to increase the size of the middle school portion of Jane Addams, by adding portables, without making the commitment to increase the course offerings to reflect those of other comprehensive middle schools in the area.
If they truly need middle school capacity in the north end...enough to warrant the placement of portables at Jane Addams, then I feel they should do the conversion sooner rather than later. Otherwise, hundreds of families seeking a comprehensive middle school education for their child will be short-changed.
At the very least, they should commit to a clearly-defined, gradual curriculum enhancement, with the goal of obtaining a true comprehensive middle school status by 2013.
"I move that the Superintendent be directed to evaluate elementary and middle school capacity and to make recommendations to add capacity, including opening one or more schools (including at least Wilson-Pacific, John Marshall, Sand Point, McDonald, Viewlands and/or Old Hay) if necessary. This evaluation would be complete in time for dissemination of information prior to open enrollment for 2010—11 school year, It would include proposed locations for the K-8 program currently housed at Jane Addams in the event that the building is needed for an attendance area middle school if a feasible solution is available."
What "dead zone" are you referring to? Am I missing something? There is no "distance-based" or geographic piece to the new student assignment plan for attendance area school (except for boundaries). Under the new SAP every student will live within the boundaries of a certain school, and they will be guaranteed assignment to that school. The school will be in their neighborhood, although maybe not the closest school to their home. North End Mom where did you get the idea that Lake City families might get assigned to Aki Kurosi or some other far away school?
Won't the new SAP FORCE the district to reconcile capacity shortages in the NE??
That's true, but Leschi has a new principal and a Montessori program. I think the neighborhood could rally around Leschi [as it would around similar improvements at Madrona]
I also agree that the capacity will probably be needed at Madrona. I just see making it an option program as the first step in freeing up that capacity. The district is not going to do what the neighborhood wants (removing the principal and redesigning the program). So, what's the next best thing? No mandatory assignements. After that, if the program doesn't fill the building and the capacity is needed, the program can be moved. The district has proven that it sees option programs as movable capacity chunks.
Also, I'd heard that T.T. Minor was a quite successfully diverse community. I haven't heard the same about Madrona. In fact, I don't understand some earlier comments on the blog about the District 'loving' Madrona, or the principal and/or program being good for the kids who are there. I've heard more than one story of Madrona kids who were not treated well by the program and/or principal there -- and not just white kids.
Anyway, it seems that in fairness to T.T. Minor, Lowell, Meany, Montlake, Nova -- all the Central District/Capital Hill schools that were threatened or tossed about by the Capacity Management Plan, some moved, some split, some axed outright -- Madrona was conspicuously absent from the District's discussion of how to handle capacity in that part of town.
My guess is the District is afraid to do anything about Madrona.
Hi everyone...
I spent the day at AS#1's moving up ceremony... sad, happy, wistful, fun, proud of the kids and feeling good to belong to such a 'tribe'!
I got talking to a couple of other parents who like the formal complaint filing idea I've been putting forward... we talked about using the District's own complaint form for this, or getting thousands of postcards printed and asking families/citizens to sign and submit them to the District...
We decided that we are moving forward on that idea over the summer... meet somewhere (I'm cool for it to be at my house - I live in Greenwood) and work on things together, as a handful of us AS#1 parents did in formulating a response to the last attempt to close us and for our enrolment brochure mailout and flyer delivery campaigns...
It would be wonderful if we had people from many schools/communities becoming involved, either in their own capacity or as representatives of their communities.
Just imagine if we could fill dozens of mailbags with formal complaint forms, each of which requires individual attention, research and response!
as promised to those people I talked to today, here is the link to the District's own formal complaint form:
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/complaintform.pdf
Also some liked the rolling school boycott idea...
Rallies are not far removed from those action steps... do you want to help organise something?... one or more of the above or something else altogether?
One of the commentators on the Seattle Schools Community Blog suggested that we ought to protest outside the building occupied by the Alliance for Education. I dont know if the Alliance is the only place at which we should protest, but it certainly bears some attention...
Then there's the question of whether or not there is enough going on in terms of the Board making ill-advised decisions that go against known data and long standing policies to push for a recall...
One AS#1 parent suggested we form a Parents Union.... the teachers have their own organisation, the District and the Board hide behind their official identity, but we parents/guardians and our children have no specific body to advocate for us... the PTA and some of the other groups around dont seem to be doing an effective job of representing us, let alone lobbying for ALL our children... Sadly, ESP Vision, which has tried to be a unifying voice for teachers, students and parents, hasnt drawn wide support.
Maybe its time we formed a Union or a Co-operative and began to make some demands... its really scary to me how far off track education is going, with the centralisation of power, removal of choice, supersizing, standardisation, increasing class sizes, closing of programmes and schools that dont 'fit' the mould, curricula narrowing, the idea of scripted lesson plans etc, etc...
Does anyone want to help get one or more of these direct action strategies up and running?
Let me know at: metamind_universal@yahoo.com or 206 297 7511...
Namaste
Sahila ChangeBringer
And there is this fear that because the district either through benign neglect or just neglect didn't serve the south end well, that anything they do with minority populations has to be thought of as completely equal. Of course that's ridiculous because no two schools get treated the same way and it's impossible. But when I hear Board members get fearful over the BEX IV list because it skews north, I have to wonder. I think that kind of fear and worry over perception sometimes makes staff freeze up.
The new SAP is supposed to quarantee a spot for every student in a feeder middle school, but it can only do so if there is actually room for every student at the comprehensive middle school level.
According to Kathy Johnson, there will be enough middle school capacity in the north end between now and 2012-13 with Jane Addams remaining a K-8, the new Hamilton building opening, and portables being placed at Eckstein, Jane Addams and maybe other sites. I did not hear her say there would be enough capacity at the THREE COMPREHENSIVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS in the north end, just that there was enough capacity in the north end (including K-8s).
I'm sure they are hoping that families will voluntarily fill the K-8s, but what if they don't? If the comprehensive middle schools fill, and there is nowhere to place portables or cram in more classrooms, what could they do? They could open a new middle school to meet the enrollment needs, but probably the only way they could do that would be to convert Jane Addams before 2012-13. So yes, I suppose they could FORCE the reconcilation of capacity shortages, but then they would be accused of going against a promise they had made to the families of Jane Addams.
Aren't elementary schools linked in the assignment plan, so that if there isn't room in the attendance area school, students are assigned to the next closest school with room? Maybe they will do that, and work their way south (that was where my thinking was going with folks getting assigned to south-end schools).
I would like to get some clarification around the middle school projections, specifically whether or not there is enough capacity at the comprehensive middle schools for the SAP to work effectively. I'd also love to know what happens under the new SAP if all three north end comprehensive middle schools fill before 2013.
Anyway, it seems that in gross unfairness to T.T. Minor, Lowell, Meany, Montlake, Nova -- all the Central District/Capital Hill schools that were threatened or tossed about by the Capacity Management Plan, some moved, some split, some axed outright -- Madrona was conspicuously absent from the District's discussion of how to handle capacity in that part of town.
And I don't know why this was so, other than the refrain I have heard from various Board members and others that the two factors that drive this School District are politics and public perception.
I do find it odd that in all the RIFs no principals were apparently affected. In fact, despite closing 5 or so schools, I don't believe any principals were laid off.
Surely they cost more than the average teacher.
Instead, the Superintendent moved, what, dozens of them around, and without community input. Why?
There's been all this rabid talk of "ineffective teachers" and how to remove them, but where has been the discussion on how to remove ineffective or poor principals?
Would other North End/Lake City/North Cluster area parents be interested in connecting to discuss school issues relevant to our area? NE parents seem to have made progress by organizing - I feel like those of us further north could benefit from a more unified/stronger voice.
Second, during the Capacity Management project, the staff presented data to the Board that claimed that Whitman, Eckstein, and Hamilton had all of the capacity needed for all north-end middle school students for the foreseeable future through 2018 and beyond. It is on slide 32 of the presentation made to the Board on December 9, 2008. The slide shows that these three schools have room for 3,333 students and that the resident enrollment is not expected to exceed 2,766. This doesn't even count the north-end students at any other school for grades 6-8 such as Broadview-Thomson, AS#1, or Salmon Bay.
So where is the new data and where is the admission that this data was incorrect? When was this new data collected? Obviously some time between January 29 and May 29, but when?
"There is sufficient capacity in the north-end comprehensive middle schools to accommodate projected residents and all or half of APP"
http://neschools.blogspot.com/
It sounds like you are interested in organizing families in the NE cluster to explore MS issues. Would you like to be a blog contributor on the NE cluster blog?
If so, just let me know!