Program Placement Proposals

Please submit your program placement proposals soon. The form is available here as a .pdf download from the District web site.

Use this form to propose the development of new programs, the replication of an existing program, relocating an existing program, or closing an existing program.

I used this process last year to propose the relocation of the West Seattle-South elementary Spectrum program from West Seattle Elementary to Arbor Heights Elementary. In clear violation of District Policy and published practice, the Program Placement Committee ignored the proposal and deliberately chose not to consider it at all. They rejected it without any rationale given - even when asked by the Board to provide a rationale. Although it was not done so publicly, I have been told that this was an issue (one of several) on the Superintendent's performance review. I expect fairer treatment this year when I submit the proposal again. I expect any proposal you make this year will get fairer treatment as well.

Now is the time to prepare and submit your program placement proposals. If you have an idea for one, I strongly encourage you to submit it.

This is the method, time and place to submit a proposal for

* a TOPS II outside the Cental Cluster - perhaps at Wilson-Pacific, Fairmount Park or Van Asselt

* a north-end location for north-end elementary APP - perhaps at McDonald or John Marshall

* a Montessori program for West Seattle - perhaps at Roxhill or Gatewood

* additional language immersion programs - Kay Smith-Blum may have some locations in mind

* the relocation of the elementary Spectrum program for the Washington Middle School service area from Leschi to anywhere else - how about Madrona!

* the re-classification of Madrona K-8 as an option school

* a new and exciting program for the T T Minor building

* a plan for immediate additional elementary and middle school capacity in a leased space in the Northeast - why isn't the district looking into leasing space to meet the demand until long-term solutions can be found?

* new schools for Belltown and South Lake Union families - possibly in leased spaces

* the re-opening of Lincoln to meet high school demand in underserved neighborhoods

* the introduction of a new program at Rainier Beach High School that will attract students and families back to the school - I don't know what kind of program it will take, but maybe you have an idea

* the duplication of a successful high school CTE program at an additional location

* the relocation of a Special Education program - or the expansion of one or the creation of one - so students can be served closer to home

* or some idea of your own that I haven't suggested

Good Luck!

Comments

All-

I would be willing to support the movement of an APP program to a more 'centralized' northern location, but don't have the time or knowledge to prepare the document. I however, would be proud to review and sign the document as a supporter.

Can we use this forum to exchange emails and get in contact with people willing to lead like-minded projects? Anyone?
Stu said…
I like what's been proposed before, and was brought up on another thread; turn Jane Addams into the North end APP program AND the North end Spectrum elementary/middle school. As has been stated, getting all the Spectrum kids out of the various schools in the cluster will open up lots of seats.

stu
dj said…
Could I suggest getting in touch with the PTA at Lowell before proposing a north-site APP? I do not know what they or the Lowell parents generally would feel about a move, but 100% anecdotally the parents I've talked to who still are there aren't exactly eager to have their program put through upheaval a second time in two years.
Thanks, DJ and Stu for your experience and insight.

I knew that Lowell split southwards, but that doesn't help our situation. My kid would start at Lowell, if only he didn't have to take the bus for an hour or more each way.
Charlie Mas said…
The Program Placement Policy C56.00 clearly states that programs should be placed where the students reside. The program for the north-end students should be in the north-end. It should not even be open to discussion.

The policy also states that the programs should be placed equitably across the district, not both in the same service area.

The Highly Capable Student Programs policy, D12.00 states that "program sites shall be distributed geographically and among clusters to provide equitable opportunities for program access". The District has done this for the middle school sites but not for the elementary sites.

Let's not make this another APP-hijacked thread. I'll make another one to discuss relocating north-end elementary APP and let's take it off of here. Okay?
Stu said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Karrie said…
Charlie -
Thank you for the link and starting the topic. I printed out the form to review. I am very interested in at least one or more additional language immersion programs. My hope is that one of the schools they are looking to re-open can open as an immersion school. Any ideas on who to ask for some of the details on transportation, cost, etc?
Stu said…
methyl,

Keep in mind that, even with the split, even with the bus ride, at least at the elementary level, APP is an excellent educational path. Dedicated teachers and parents and classmates who want to learn.

stu
dj said…
Sorry, didn't know where to post this or where to find the confirming information, but this piece was on the CD News:

http://centraldistrictnews.com/2009/09/30/two-competing-proposals-for-mlk-school

Is the district indeed selling, as opposed to retaining, the MLK building?
TechyMom said…
Dj, yes the district has made an official decision to sell the mlk site. It's for the best really. There have been crime problems, and neighborhood kids no longer have access to the playground. I'm hoping for the community center.
dj said…
Thanks, Techymom. Last I'd heard, Bush wanted the property but only if they could buy it, so I didn't realize it actually was for sale.

I agree it seems like a good idea. Certainly there is no shortage of empty school buildings in this general area, and I'd like to see it put to use rather than boarded up. I just thought that the district's general policy at this point was not to sell school properties, so I was surprised.
G said…
If Madrona is made an Option program for the current student population, from which the majority of the students come from outside the neighborhood, where are the neighborhood kids supposed to go? The closest school to the north (MLK) is closed and being sold, the closest school to the west (TT Minor) is closed. That would leave Leschi (closest school to the south), with the newly transplanted Montessori from TT Minor and new principal, hoping to be transformed, Leschi. If the transformation is successful, I would hope there would be no room for Madrona kids because Leschi neighbors would be attending. Instead of taking Madrona offline by making it an Option program, how about TOPS II or JSIS II - something both the neighborhood and the families currently at Madrona would embrace?
Charlie Mas said…
Karrie asks: "Any ideas on who to ask for some of the details on transportation, cost, etc?"

Don't worry about being able to provide detailed information about costs. General statements are sufficient. For example, it is sufficient for you to say that transportation costs will go down because a language immersion program would make the school more popular within its attendance area, so fewer students would request transportation out of the attendance area. You should acknowledge that there will be costs associated with establishing the program - hiring bilingual teachers, professional development, acquisition of materials in the non-English language (check with the publisher of the adopted materials to see if they have a version in the other language), but you don't need to come up with a price tag.

You could do that work, but they wouldn't use your numbers anyway. They would go and get their own.
Charlie Mas said…
Making Madrona an Option program would require a re-drawing of the attendance areas in the Washington Middle School service area.

I can't say how they would be re-drawn and neither could anyone else outside of Enrollment Planning. Don't worry about that task.

What you SHOULD do, however, is determine the number of students in the service area (that data is available) and compare it to the total functional capacity of the remaining schools in the area.

Get the total student count. Get the total functional capacity. Make sure that the student count does not exceed the total functional capacity. Remember to deduct from the student count the kids who can be expected to choose TOPS, APP, Madrona, or a school outside the service area. Remember to deduct from the functional capacity the APP enrollment at Lowell and Thurgood Marshall (if Thurgood Marshall ends up in the WMS service area).

All you need to do is figure out if there is space enough, not how the attendance areas will be drawn.

You should mention, however, how the change will bring affluent Madrona families back to Seattle Public Schools, add to the district's revenues, and make a more diverse mix of students at their attendance area school.
adhoc said…
"Instead of taking Madrona offline by making it an Option program, how about TOPS II or JSIS II - something both the neighborhood and the families currently at Madrona would embrace?"

Wouldn't TOPSII and JSISII also be option schools? More popular option schools, maybe, but still option schools.
TechyMom said…
As much as I've complained about Leschi's Spectrum program, I think the district has taken a positive step to improve it by placing a new principal there. I'd suggest leaving it be for a couple years and giving her a chance to turn it around.
wseadawg said…
TechyMom: I'm totally with you on Spectrum at Leschi. Great building and location for Spectrum, just never had the support it needed. I think it could be a real surprise and provide great options for that part of the CD. Think about it: Montessori and Spectrum at Leschi, plus APP and ALO right up the road at TM. That would be awesome for that neighborhood if they pull it off.

Somewhat off topic: Charlie, or whomever, do we know where the STEM Idea originated? I suspect it came about after the Board Members sponsored retreat in San Diego. I'd like to know where they god the idea, and whether they were sold on it by some group with an agenda of selling curricula, or what. Or did it come from the grass roots of SPS?

If it's yet another top-down idea, I will be infuriated at yet another example of the Board borrowing ideas from elsewhere instead of investigating what the community wants or needs.

If anyone could enlighten me, I'd apprecaite it.
Wseadawg, I'm working on a thread about how I think STEM came about. Look for it this weekend. Long story short, I think it came from Dr. Goodloe-Johnson and not the Board.
Charlie Mas said…
I can tell you for certain that the idea of a S.T.E.M. program at Cleveland did NOT come from the community. There is absolutely no evidence of demand for a S.T.E.M. program at Cleveland.

So much for data-based decisions.
Karrie said…
Charlie - thank you for your insight on the level of detail required for the form.

I live on Queen Anne and have a mostly bilingual 3 year old (Spanish)that we are sending to immersion preschool in Ballard. He has virtually no chance of getting into John Stanford without moving so when kindergarten hits, we are out of luck.

With all the talk of opening Old John Hay, there are a lot of parents in the neighborhood saying "great, but not my child, I want Coe or New Hay". I think the tune would change and lines would be long if Old Hay opened as a language immersion program school.

I respect your insight greatly - any thoughts or advice beyond this form as to how to advocate for that goal?

Thank you!
wseadawg said…
Sounds like STEM is yet another "magnet" idea. All carrots, and no stick, except the one that goes "whoosh" through the air. What we generally call a "strike." Brilliant.
wseadawg said…
Then again, I hate to be so negative. Maybe the STEM concept will take root. I have a hard time envisioning it at that location, however. Downtown at JSCEE might be a different story. Techymom might be on to something there. And heck, if it's in fact MGJ's idea, what better way to support it than to share a building with it!
Charlie Mas said…
There is no formal mechanism for advocating for your idea after submitting the form. You will not be invited to the Program Placement Committee meeting and allowed to speak on its behalf. I don't know for sure if district staff are allowed to speak on behalf of their proposals, but I believe they are.

Unofficially, you can solicit the support of Board members - starting with the one representing that part of the district, but including all of them. You can also solicit the support of central staff who are responsibility for these programs - Karen Kodama for international programs such as language immersion.

Finally, and this would be a whole other step, you could survey the neighborhood for support for the idea. That would mean a lot of legwork, and frankly I wouldn't recommend it. In the end, community support doesn't matter to program placement - as we have seen.
ParentofThree said…
In regards to STEM, what was the enrollment this year for 9th grade compared to other years, up or down? If up, couldn't it be that STEM did attract families to the school?

What I don't get is why STEM and not Bio-Tech that is so widely popular at Ballard and easy to understand versus figuring out what STEM stands for?
adhoc said…
Cleveland had a total enrollment of 710 this year.

Last year (2008/09) the enrollment was 706

Not much of a change, huh.
STEM isn't in place yet at Cleveland. There's work yet to be done before it can. I'm thinking not until at least next fall.
adhoc said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
adhoc said…
Oh, I didn't realize STEM won't be up and running for awhile.

Interesting though, when I was digging through the enrollment numbers I noticed a steady enrollment increase at Cleveland over the past 4 years (I didn't have time to go back any further)

2009/10 enrollment 710
2008/09 enrollment 706
2007/08 enrollment 676
2006/07 enrollment 600

It seems that Cleveland has been steadily increasing their enrollment without STEM. In fact over the past four years they have increased their enrollment by almost 19%. That is pretty significant. I wonder what the contributing factors were??
Charlie Mas said…
During the same period the enrollment at Rainier Beach did not increase.

Perhaps it is Rainier Beach that should have become the Option school.
Charlie Mas said…
I have just written three proposals:

One for the relocation of the elementary Spectrum program for West Seattle-South (now Denny Middle School Service Area) from West Seattle Elementary to Arbor Heights.

One for the relocation of north-end elementary APP to McDonald.

One for the creation of a Montessori program at Roxhill.

Let's go, folks! Send 'em in!

By the way, you can send in proposals that recommend the same moves that I have proposed. It can't hurt for them to get multiple versions of the same general idea.
SolvayGirl said…
Charlie...when is the actual deadline?
I have a couple of ideas for RBHS.
nacmom said…
to Stu at 3:11

I get why this proposal is circulating. I've been advocating for capacity solutions for years. This one, although it seems nice an tidy on the surface as some holes. For one, are APP and spectrum students then not able attend a comprehensive middle school?

2nd, 'getting all of the spectrum kids out of the various schoools will open up lots of seats". That's true, but many of the kids LIVE near those schools. Moving them to JA will require all of them to then be bussed. In my view, just a trade of who buses. Also, if the program is picked up a moved, lots of those seats open up at the upper grades. These likely won't backfill, so schools will be losing 1/2 of their current upper grade students?

Phasing programs in at new location and out at old makes more sense, but again, these should be close to where the kids live.

The new plan states availability of programs close to where you live. Considering the NE is likely to be broken into 2 middle school service areas, both would have to offer spectrum. Regardless, spectrum is offered at 3 schools now (two full)and I don't see that population declining, rather growing as the general population goes. 4 schools is likely the longer term outcome.

Put the services (and buildings!)where the kids are. It is the worthy goal of the new plan. One parents will like and support.
Charlie Mas said…
The deadline is unclear.

I see, in fact, that the form has been removed from the web site.

I can send it to you via email if you want it.
SolvayGirl said…
Charlie
Please do send me the form. My work load frees up in a few days and I may have some time to get these ideas down.
SPS mom said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
TechyMom said…
The mission statement for Charleston Charter School for Math and Science doesn't say anything about Math or Science. Typical.
Dumbfounded said…
I've never even heard of this before, and I am a teacher. I would LOVE to submit a proposal. The link given on the blog takes me to a page that says the page was not found. Please direct me to the correc place. I would love to send in an idea.
TechyMom said…
Oh, and send me the form too. I'm thinking about an International School in the central cluster. I see two options (pun intended) for this.

1) Madrona International K8. Move k-5 portion of existing madrona program, as an option program, to Gazert (or another further south location with extra space, any ideas?). Give the 6-8 kids the option of staying or going to their neighborhood middle school, since most are not local. This would releive pressure on Washington by filling the 6-8 classes at Madrona, and would fill the school with neighborhood kids who currently go to private school or McGilvra/Stevens/Lowell/Montlake.

2) Language Immersion at Gazert. Wasn't the PBOC was moved there from T Marshall last year? That seems like a natural fit. Maybe you could even do dual immersion.
Charlie Mas said…
I cannot send you the form without your email address.

You don't have to disclose it to the whole board if you don't want to.

My email is posted on my profile. Send me a message and I'll send you the form.
Dorothy Neville said…
"The mission statement for Charleston Charter School for Math and Science doesn't say anything about Math or Science. Typical."

Sure, but it does say the environment will be socially equitable. (whatever that means.) so now you know what buzz words to add to your program placement ideas. It's not about the math and science, it's about undefined ideas such as developmentally responsive.
ArchStanton said…
I see, in fact, that the form has been removed from the web site.

It was there when you first posted it. Why would they take it down? Too many people interested?

Its amusing the way things appear and disappear on that site...
ParentofThree said…
You can get to the form here:

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3AdQn58QWou90J%3Awww.seattleschools.org%2Farea%2Fprogplace%2Fprogramplacementprocessforschools.pdf+program+proposals&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNECVVU592F3C9XbmXZTmuapG0g6ZQ&pli=1

Or here: and when you see the link to Program Placement proposal click "View"


http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&domains=www.seattleschools.org&q=program+proposals&sitesearch=www.seattleschools.org
Sahila said…
I've noticed that too, Arch... very funny.... and sort of sad...
SPS Mom, I think I'll need another thread. STEM is not what I thought and now I need to do some more research.
Stu said…
a north-end location for north-end elementary APP - perhaps at McDonald or John Marshall

I think that McDonald would be vey difficult for many families in the Northeast. I don't know specific enrollment numbers by cluster but McDonald is on the other side of I-5 AND Aurora for everyone in the NE and East/West traffic flow is very difficult in this city.

The John Marshall building, however, might be an excellent choice . . . maybe even for a new middle school, if APP isn't going to move. Being right off of 65th and with an I-5 exit nearby, it's more convenient.

What's the condition of John Marshall these days?

stu
Charlie Mas said…
McDonald is west of I-5, but it is east of Aurora. It is about five blocks away from the I-5 onramp/offramp at NE 50th Street in Wallingford.

The address is 114 NE 54th Street, not 114 N 54th Street as published in some locations.
Stu said…
McDonald is west of I-5, but it is east of Aurora. It is about five blocks away from the I-5 onramp/offramp at NE 50th Street in Wallingford.

The address is 114 NE 54th Street, not 114 N 54th Street as published in some locations.


That's entirely different . . . though still not walking distance for much of the cluster. Much better than "N" 54th. (Which is on the information sheet from the SPS site.)

I still think Marshall is a great location, though Wilson Pacific is great too and has sports fields.

stu
Anonymous said…
Rather than repost stuff here, there are a number of posts regarding the McDonald building over on the Move North-end Elementary APP? thread.

The thread is pretty long, if you want to skip ahead, scroll down to the evening of 10/4.

Also, thanks Charlie for submitting McDonald as the north APP elementary site. Did anyone else do this (yet)?
Marshall is not a great building but yes, a terrific location. Awhile back the district was keen to sell it but now the market is not so great. Wilson Pacific has great fields and a horrible building near Aurora. I can't see it working unless W-P was rebuilt.
Charlie Mas said…
Yet another need for a Program Placement Proposal: Select a school to serve as the elementary Spectrum site in the Mercer Service Area. There isn't one there now.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

First Candidates for Seattle School Board Elections 2023