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!
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
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
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.
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?
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?
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
http://centraldistrictnews.com/2009/09/30/two-competing-proposals-for-mlk-school
Is the district indeed selling, as opposed to retaining, the MLK building?
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn't TOPSII and JSISII also be option schools? More popular option schools, maybe, but still option schools.
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.
So much for data-based decisions.
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!
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.
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?
Last year (2008/09) the enrollment was 706
Not much of a change, huh.
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??
Perhaps it is Rainier Beach that should have become the Option school.
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.
I have a couple of ideas for RBHS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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
The address is 114 NE 54th Street, not 114 N 54th Street as published in some locations.
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
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)?