Early Enrollment Counts and Other PTA News.
Enrollment counts up to September 22.
Other News:
Best Practices for Inclusive Schools
Conference hosted by Seattle Special Ed PTSA. Saturday, Oct. 17 in the John Stanford Center Auditorium. Info on Seattle Spec Ed PTSA: http://www.seattlespecialedptsa.org/
Key Ingredients for Successful Students
September’s Child Advocate magazine is now online. Please share the link:
http://www.wastatepta.org/resources/child_advocate/index.html
The state PTSA has a Legislative Assembly in early October. Here are the topics up for discussion.
So what are the next steps are for basic ed funding? Teacher compensation? Get background info, learn how to advocate, and help determine state PTA priorities. Up for vote: Fund education first; increase funding for highly capable; allow weighted GPA.
Proposed issues:
http://www.wastatepta.org/advocacy/headlines/Issues_2009_Leg_Assembly_proposed_platform.pdf
Also of interest from our discussion about the NCTQ:
Community forum: Student learning and great teaching
Wednesday, Oct. 14
Doors open at 5:30; pizza at 6; program 6:30-8 p.m.
Campion Tower Ballroom, Seattle University Campus, 914 E. Jefferson St.
The Alliance for Education invites you to participate in a community forum to explore a report by the National Council on Teaching Quality, titled Human Capital in Seattle Public Schools.
The forum will include a presentation of the report by Kate Walsh, Executive Director of NCTQ, followed by roundtable discussions about what this report means for our community and students.
To register, request information, contact Rachel Hug at 206-205-2322 or Rachel@alliance4ed.org
Comments
I mean I get that Eckstein is large, and that the district should make an efforts to reduce it's capacity, but not now, not before there is a viable option for kids who don't get in, or before the new SAP.
We just heard today from the Registrar at Ecsktein - they will not be moving even one kid off of the 6th grade waitlist for the regular program. I guess the district thinks that all of those kids will just go to Addams, although it looks like Addams lost alot of their enrollment (I think their predicted assignment was up over 500 near the beginning of the year, but is now down to 400). That's over a 20% loss.
All I can say is thank god for Shoreline. Having a strong school in the neighborhood, albeit out of district, was a life saver for our older son, and now it is for our younger son too.
I emailed Tracy Libros to let her know that our son is in Shoreline this year, and she apologized that Eckstein didn't work out for us, and wished our son well in his new school.......
The primary purpose of the Southeast Initiative was to make Rainier Beach, Cleveland and Aki Kurose into schools of choice within three years. This is the third year.
Rainier Beach High School total enrollment:
October 2, 2006: 457
October 1, 2007: 361
October 1, 2008: 453
September 22, 2009: 448
The Southeast Initiative has utterly failed in its primary purpose at Rainier Beach High School. So now what happens?
There has been more success at Cleveland, where the enrollment has grown from 600 in 2006 to 676 in 2007, 706 in 2008, to 778 in 2009. I don't know if that growth rate meets the benchmarks, but it doesn't much matter now that Cleveland has been re-characterized as an Option school.
The story at Aki Kurose is mixed where the enrollment went from 585 in 2006 down to 465 in 2007, further down to 434 in 2008, and now up to 576 in 2009. It is still less than it was in 2006, but much improved over 2008. This increase could all be attributable to the fact that southeast students can no longer go to Meany and fewer of them can get into Hamilton.
I can't say for certain if these enrollment numbers meet the benchmarks that were set for accountability for the Southeast Initiative because those benchmarks were never made public.
At the same time, we lost a half-time art teacher and a full time elementary-range teacher because our enrollments were too low.
So on the one hand they're turning kids away, and on the other hand they're saying we don't have enough kids. I'd be outraged if I were surprised, but this is SOP for the district: they've been deliberately, intentionally, driving families away from AS1 for years. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The forum will include a presentation of the report by Kate Walsh, Executive Director of NCTQ, followed by roundtable discussions about what this report means for our community and students.
Who asked the NCTQ -- an outside enterprise whose motives and affiliations are in question (see: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28765366&postID=8819921031060975589) -- to write a report on Seattle schools and why?
Who funded this "report"?
I'm guessing the answer to two of these questions is the Alliance for Education.
But that still leaves "Why?"
And did the Alliance pay for this "report" with the money SPS funneled to them from the Supreme Court lawsuit the District lost? (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2009279744_settlement30m.html: "On Wednesday, the Seattle School Board will be asked to authorize an $800,000 settlement with Davis Wright Tremaine, the law firm that represented parents who successfully challenged a district policy that assigned some students to popular high schools based on their race.
The school district says $150,000 of that amount would be donated to the Alliance for Education, the nonprofit that raises funds for Seattle schools.)
Did the hiring of NCTQ or the commissioning of this "report" ever come before the School Board or the public for public discussion or a vote?
If not, why not?
What exactly is the Alliance's function and power in SPS?
I've read that it is merely a public relations and fundraising organization serving SPS. But it sounds to me like it gets involved in far more than just photo ops and bake sales.
If this "report" in any way leads to some kind of policy decision by the Superintendent and Board, we the parents and stakeholders of SPS have every right to know everything about the genesis of this "report" and the integrity of the enterprise that generated it.
Something doesn't smell right, here.
The staff at the Enrollment Center are consistently portrayed as either incompentent or evil.
At the same time, all of these stories have that "it happened to a friend of a friend", urban legend quality to them.
Let me begin by saying that there is an assignment appeals process. If anyone thinks that they didn't get an assignment they should have or got an assignment they should not have, they can appeal it. All institutions, including those staffed with highly competent and true-hearted people, make mistakes. Given the opportunity, Enrollment may fix the mistake.
That said, I think we need make a better record of these "mistakes" so they can be addressed. I don't know what's going on in these Enrollment enters, but I hear enough stories to make me think there's a real problem. District staff should provide accurate information only and should NOT be offering judgements about schools. I don't know who supervises these things, but that person needs to be told these stories - complete with names and dates.
I am puzzled as to how this could happen. JA currently has about 400 kids enrolled, but the building holds close to 800 kids. How could the district turn anyone away from JA, at any grade, when only 400 kids are enrolled in a building that is capable of holding 800??
Is it a teacher/staffing issue? I mean seriously, what would prevent the district from enrolling every single student at JA that requested it? The school has 400 empty seats to fill.
In fact the school now serves fewer kids than Summit did, and it has a waitlist.
Arghhhh
Boy, will muck hit the fan when the SAP comes out. It's going to be an interesting ride.
My kids' school is in a completely overbooked cluster. People are shipped out of cluster who live in the cluster. People, new to town, were in the front office asking why they couldn't go to our school... only to learn, you'll never get in here, and furthermore you won't get into any other schools in the cluster either. Don't worry, you'll get the bus. But turn around, kindergarteners from the central district WERE assigned here. Huh? Why? How did that possibly happen? And now, they've transfered out... to Montlake. So, I guess there are spots after all.
I think we adults deserve that... I dont think our innocent, defenceless kids do... its our jobs to defend and advocate for them and boy, are we adults doing a p**s-poor job of that...
In a business (which is what our beloved leader things the District and individual schools are), shareholders would have sacked the board and senior management by now... they would have achieved that through a recall action, mounting lawsuit after lawsuit, rallying, occupying buildings...
But what do we do? We bleat and whine piteously amongst ourselves, because we want to be civil and nice....
As its written on the Seattle Education 2010 blogsite:
“Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.”
Frederick Douglass
http://seattle-ed.blogspot.com/
Dear Board Directors... I am writing to inform you that yet again, Enrolment Centre staff are turning away families interested in alternative education for their children, in this case telling a prospective student's parent that AS#1 was at capacity and there was no room for this child.
AS#1's enrolment stands at 198, far below its functional capacity of 305 and there is room at the grade level required by this child. As you know, AS#1 is threatened with closure after this year, if it does not meet District-imposed enrolment targets.
Please see below a letter submitted by an AS#1 parent to Ms Libros about this issue, as well as the initial information posted to the AS#1 community by teacher Carmen DiDomenico.
Dear Ms. Libros,
I am a former Summit parent who chose to send two of my children to AS#1. Repeatedly, throughout my 9 years at Summit, we heard of parents being "talked out of" or uninformed about the option of our school by Enrollment Services. At one point, I remember discussing this with you, and you (as well as Board members) were adamant that "this should not be happening" and to "let us know when it does." Now, three weeks into the school year, AS#1 is struggling with low enrollment issues, and we are hearing of such situations again. I probably don't need to tell you how unjust this feels to me and my community! I ask that you take a firm and active stand on this issue. While we can expect that the district policy is to try to fill the Jane Addams building, you must allow families to gather accurate information and make an informed decision. Alternative education MUST be presented as a viable option. Please take action immediately and keep us posted on your steps to remedy this.
Andrea Liddane
"...one of my alumni students from the 1980s and 90s, just left the placement center this morning. She was there to place her son, a 4th grader in AS#1. She was told by a blond woman with only one leg, 'AS#1 is At Capacity, your son can be wait-listed.' [The mother] replied 'okay wait list him because it's the only school that I want for him.' the woman replied 'ok but if someone does not move out by next Wednesday he will not get in until next year.'"
In addition, there is confirmation from another SPS community member that this practice has been going on at the Enrolment Centre for some time. Her comment was posted this morning on the Save Seattle Schools blog, on the Enrolment Thread:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28765366&postID=2138146770755696123
Jamie wrote: last year I was told AS1 was full and not an option for my incoming kindergartener. I happened to know people at the school and talked to the k teacher. They could have accommodated him. Is that first hand enough?
With Enrolment Centre actions such as this coming to light repeatedly (and the recent disbandment of Summit K-12), the community would be forgiven for thinking that there is in place an undeclared agenda to close the more alternative schools, specifically AS#1.
I expect the Board - in its duty to the community, parents and students within SPS, and in accordance with its statement of support of alternative education, contained within Policy C54.00 which was formerly adopted by the District, to investigate and correct this practice, and to make a public statement of apology and support of AS#1 and all other alternative programmes/schools.
And on top of it all their customer service stinks. With few exceptions, the enrollment staff is impatient, snippy, and often downright rude.
"Ms. ChangeBringer: thank you for bringing this concern to our attention. I have forwarded it on to the appropriate Enrollment and Supervisory staff, and I look forward to their response, and if appropriate, to any corrective action. I feel confident in stating on behalf of my board colleagues that if there was an incorrect enrollment referral made in this case it does not reflect board policy. I will refrain from further comment until the staff has an opportunity to review this case.
Thanks again for making us aware of this issue.
Best wishes,
Steve Sundquist
Seattle School Board, District 6"
In School year 2006-2007 Cleveland was being remodeled and some students chose West Seattle instead of the relocation campus.
When Cleveland moved into the new Cleveland that was an enrollment draw.
The fact that RBHS did not have a similar enrollment improvement can not validly be compared to the Cleveland situation.
Clearly as Charlie points out RBHS has not grown so the unreleased benchmark numbers are likely not met. Likely the board and administration will neglect the entire situation.
SE Initiative is only words I suppose.
Now, I have no doubt that the changes made at Rainier Beach have been good for the students there, but the primary purpose for the effort was to make RBHS a school of choice, and that did not happen.
The failure of the effort is directly attributable to the District refusal or failure to ask the people what they wanted. They never did it. They never asked people "What will Rainier Beach have to offer for you to choose it?"
Instead, they decided that they knew what the Southeast community were leaving the neighborhood for: a performing arts focus. It was all so completely misguided from the first that it was instantly doomed.
The "orchestra" did not have an experienced director (like WA-MS, Ekstein, Garfield and RHS have) when I last looked.
I don't see any real dance program (I think Tap Central might give classes).
So it has an attempt at a performing arts program, but not anything like the quality at the aforementioned schools.
And the main reason they are stressing PA is because the District spent big bucks putting in a very nice and professional performing arts center. Doesn't it make sense that the school should have some real reason to use it? They didn't for a long time.
NOW...as a SE parent of a high schooler, what I would need to see at RBHS is a complete turn-around in culture, which may not be a good thing for the kids that are there.
I want the same kind of course offerings and rigor available at Garfield, RHS and Ballard.
I want teachers who can focus equally on kids at and above grade level and not get bogged down being social workers to the kids at risk.
I want a majority of the student body to be academically oriented. Sports can take a back seat as far as I am concerned.
How could all this happen?
Move AP HS (or at least the south of I-90 kids) AND some of their teachers to RBHS. There's space. Let AP do for RBHS what it did for Garfield which is in a similar socio-economic area. Neighborhood families who are sending their kids ANYWHERE else they can would be enticed back—especially once the new SAP kicks in.
I've previously posted my tale of being in the middle of what JSIS said, what an enrollment person promised, the JSIS principal taking everything back, "forgetting" what she said, followed by an appeal, which was granted by the director of enrollment planning, then shot down by Karen Kodama. This was a back and forth of epic proportions that hurt my kid. Was this an epic fail, were we lied to, or both?
Enrollment and the school office disavowed one another. Enrollment said they had current head count, but the school office said no, they don't share online data with enrollment. Schools numbers and enrollment numbers aren't shared in one system. (This was stated in 2004. Have things changed?)
When I enrolled my daughter in JSIS as a mid-year transfer, the head count for her 2nd grade class matched the head count at the enrollment office. She got the last seat. The school then promised she'd be in for the following year, no need to reapply, and her sister would be given a spot, based on the sibling rule. Then they changed their minds.
Who was calling the shots? A principal or teacher who decided they didn't want a student? They had the power to override the director of enrollment planning. Based on what? Non-sharing of data, or personal preferences on which students they wanted in their immersion program? Isn't this what separates public and private schools? Is JSIS allowed to act like a private school while existing on the books as a public, non-alternative, cluster school? Their deep waiting list was a point of pride for Karen Kodama. Keeping kids out was a sign of her success.
Why weren't school and enrollment on the same page? Is their antique IT system to blame, or is there a culture of incompetence that allowed families to be lied to or directed away from politically unpopular schools, coupled with school politics? That's quite a cluster storm.
With my older child, I was warned away from Summit in the 90s, when their wait list was legendary. I was taken aback at how enrollment staff were allowed to give opinions and diss schools. Weren't they tasked with using head counts and maps?
It took a phone call from my son's Vice Principal at Hamilton to make the wait list disappear. I think word like death threats and a case number for physical assault might have made the difference.
And as much as I give Tracy Libros credit for her institutional knowledge, she called my lease a fraud when I tried to meet the deadline for on-time enrollment. We were moving back to Seattle. She insisted we'd need a notarized lease; our lease looked fake. I provided all supporting documents required, but this wasn't good enough for her. This was at 1 pm on the final day for on-time enrollment. Were hordes of east siders trying to break down the doors of SPS with fake rental agreements? Maybe it was the Laurelhurst address that set her off. Did I not look like Laurelhurst material? Does Tracy profile prospective families? (Aha, it must be more than maps and head count.)
Essentially, she called me a liar and refused our enrollment, which set off a nightmare that hurt my kids. Meanwhile, the families who rented extra apartments to get into JSIS made it past her radar, so Tracy and her staff definitely use something more than maps and head count when advising families, and that's something IT just can't buy.
IT, not people, is the solution.
Doe he know about this? Does enrollment rely on him for their numbers? Is he going to do something about this discrepancy?
An AS#1 teacher had my contributions to the community and staff lists and to the Board, Directors, Roy Merca etc blocked by claiming to the District IT department that I was a business spamming the community.
She didnt like that, as a BLT member who had run for election on a platform of keeping AS#1 as alternative as possible, I was questioning/challenging major changes that were being instituted by Roy and teachers without parent/community input.
My access to seattleschools.org email addresses was finally restored, but not before many blunt words were spoken and the AS#1 community and equity list moderators have continued to block my input - so much for free speech and honouring diversity of race, gender, beliefs etc.
This was the straw that broke the camel's back and confirmed my decision to take my son to Room 9 in Shoreline. I didnt want him to be on the receiving end of the resentment/toxicity this process stirred up (being punished for his 'difficult' mother's views and actions) and we could not get into another SPS alternative programme.
So, I watch what goes on from afar, continue to advocate for AS#1 and other alt programmes, and where I can, work with others focusing on what's happening at the higher level in the District.
I've said for years that it was folly to build RBHS a jewel of a performing arts building with no performing arts. I was told that, early on, many arts groups were interesting in working with the school but the district never got it together.
I looked at RBHS' website. I thought they had gotten more going for performing arts but it doesn't seem like it. I don't understand.
Here's their goals which in their simplicity seem a little wistful:
# Academic program developed for the next 3-5 yers.
# Professional Development Plan.
# Creating learn-centered environment.
The district hasn't helped them do these things? Really? Maybe I just don't get it.
What's also interesting is they have a resource page that lists no less than 25 community/school resources for students. It's not like the help isn't out there so why isn't RBHS more successful? Again, echoing Charlie, I think if there were some community meetings, with a good facilitator who would not let it get bogged down in past issues, the district could find out what would work for this community.
Lastly, it's APP at Garfield; AP is a different thing. Maybe they could divide up the APP kids but I would not support moving the whole group. Frankly, just as I felt for Lowell, the APP students and their parents aren't a movable feast for this district. The move should have as much in it for APP students as it would for those who would gain from their presence. And again, the community would need to be consulted. I'm sure Garfield would have something to say as well.
I deliberated about whether to stick it out and see the year through (as AS#1's future is still uncertain, particularly since enrolment hasnt improved at all - the school has only made up the families it lost due to the loss of all city draw and transportation), but it was too hard and I thought it better for my son to move at Grade 1 than at Grade 2...
Besides, all of his friends had also moved on... of his kindergarten class of 17, I think only 9 children were left going into grade 1...
I wasn't really serious about moving half the APP to Garfield. I was only trying to make the point that THAT is what it would take to really change the school and make it a school of choice for the families who are looking for a comprehensive, college prep high school. There would need to be an infusion of high-achieving students AND their respective teachers all at once. Plus a change in administration, or at least academic climate, at the school.
I'm not sure what the District's plans for Garfield are, but I can't really see how they can "right size" an assignment area considering they have no clue from year to year how many APP students will matriculate into Garfield—especially now that more than half of the middle schoolers are at Hamilton. North-end parents will get used to having their kids and school functions closer to home. I would believe that many will go to RHS and Ballard if they are in those area.
RBHS could become a school on par with Garfield since the neighborhood is as diverse as the Central District, but ONLY if families looking for college prep can believe their children will be served well there. I know so many families (of all races and socio-economic persuasions) who choose anywhere else (and MANY Rainier scholars snap up prime seats in the top private schools—so it's NOT just a white-flight thing).
I'm not sure a semi-enforced SAP will do it, as I know many parents of 8th graders who are scrambling to get their kids anywhere else next year. There are going to be a lot of people from the southend trying for those coveted "choice" lottery spots.
Are you ready for this......
I was told (by 2 different people) that they could not un-enroll him. Yup. They could not take him off of the schools roster or out of their capacity count. I could fill out a form online which they would send to the principal just for her information, but that's it. Only after he "no showed" for 3 days could they un-enroll him.
Another example of sheer incompetence, old computers, whatever. It's just unacceptable.
"Sahila-
Thanks for your message. I was at state School Board Directors conference this weekend and am only now getting to my email.
I see that Steve Sundquist has already forwarded this issue to the staff for review and response. I am concerned about AS #1 and the enrollment at that school and will be interested to see the response.
Peter Maier
http://susanohanian.org/outrage_fetch.php?id=594 ...
Kinda, weirdly ironic really, wanting to nurture free and critical thinkers on the one hand, but stifling expression of parental and school governance concern on the other... think its called "double standards"...
My son was on the Eckstein waitlist and I was told by the Eckstein registrar that if they did move their waitlist it wouldn't be before school started because as they have to wait and see who "no shows". She said they have never moved the waitlist before school started.
Speaking of the Eckstein waitlist, they did not move even one child off of the 6th grade waitlist this year. The registrar told me that this has never happened at Eckstein before (except for last year which was a first - the district surprised them at the last minute with a large group of NCLB transfer students who jumped the waitlist). She said that in previous years they always moved between 25-60 students off of the 6th grade waitlist.
I have to wonder if this was a political move on the districts part. Did enrollment or staff tell Eckstein not to move the waitlist? After all a good many kids on the Eckstein waitlist were assigned to Addams. If the waitlist moved then Addams would lose kids from their already tiny and under enrolled middle school. I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, but the Eckstein principal actually eluded to this when a friend of mine went to speak with her about the waitlist.
Did the waitlist not move because not enough kids gave up their spots, or was it a deliberate enrollment decision not to move the list, that was not shared with the public???