Queen Anne Elementary?
"But several of Sharples' grandchildren, although happy the school district was finally attempting to uphold its commitment, felt it had set an unreasonable deadline.
Gloria Sharples, a granddaughter who lives in Oakland, Calif., said she and her siblings only learned about the proposal in October and that she hasn't had a chance to visit the Old Hay site.
The family, she said, is willing to consider an elementary school to honor her grandfather, but had a number of conditions. One was that Sharples' name would not be overshadowed by any program at the school. Another was that the name Hay be removed from the two buildings on the site, which the district couldn't guarantee."
Holly Ferguson, a district staff person, said that the Sharples name could be used if another building becomes available.
This is a pretty sad story. They had named a building for Sharples in 1949 and then changed it in 1999 for Aki Kurose, a long time teacher and peace activist. A wonderful person I'm sure but the building was already named. They should have waited for a building for Ms. Kurose. There is another building I can think of with a pretty dull name, South Shore. It's a beautiful new building that houses an Option school. I'm a little surprised they didn't go there except maybe New School might have objected.
Michael De Bell called it a placeholder because he had heard from some people about the issue of it being a site for both Queen Anne and Magnolia children, not just Queen Anne as the name implies (although that is also where it is located). He said he was saying that for the record.
This is the second kind of incident that I can recall offhand where a strong-willed Board member got their way and it has caused problems. The other one is Center School.
Comments
Given the program history associated with Sharples, it might be best to house the name in a community that doesn't associate it with a failed program.
Following your rule -- a new school before an old one can be renamed -- would mean that the naming of schools would forever lock in the power structures of the past.
Aki Kurose seems like she was indeed someone in the SPS to truly honor, and the naming of the school seems to honor not just her, but also other teachers who taught in our schools (and who were the instigators of the naming of Aki Kurose).
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/aki02.shtml
I wouldn't be particularly disturbed if we renamed John Hay, either.
Both outcomes? More problems. Both were bad decisions and it has caused embarrassment to the district as cost them money.
It often sounds like most on this board would prefer that every high school be massive and fit a specific comprehensive mold with the exception that people on this board like and advocate for Nova and any other special program that their students want. But for some reason there seems to be a very negative vibe towards Center school. Its very sad.
It has been galling to a lot of people, however, for the District to be paying rent for TCS while maintaining empty buildings that could, theoretically, house it. I know people say that the location is an integral feature of TCS, but not everyone buys that.
In addition, the construction of TCS ran WAY over budget and the District doesn't have any equity to show for it. At the time, the District claimed that the lease-holder improvements were cheaper than building a new school or renovating an old one. It didn't quite work out that way. There remains some bad feelings about that.
Disclosure: Although I have talked mostly about my 8th grade daughter considering STEM, she has also said that she wants to tour TCS.
I understand that people hate that money was spent over budget. I get that. But at this point does it make any financial sense to move a school now that the money has been spent and incur additional costs? I have also heard that people feel like the location is not important (this was heard loudly during the closure process). I may have skewed perspective but I think several of the things that make the school work is due to its location.
If you move the school to an existing building you increase the serviceable size. One main factors for us was the small school size. Please note that does not necessarily translate into small class sizes so if that’s important TCS might not be a good fit.
The school is part of a larger community. The students are housed in the Center House, there lunchroom is the food court. They have partnerships with other organizations on the Seattle Center grounds. Students have been able to attend and in many cases volunteer for a variety of events held on the grounds. The Dali Lama, Barack Obama, opera performances, Vera Project etc… They use professional spaces for their productions and work with professionals in the arts. Students are expected to attend school and live in the larger community. One thing that struck us greatly is that most comprehensive HS’s feel very insular, TCS is not. It feels more open and I believe as a direct result of that the students that go there are very adept at maneuvering in the real world.
And one more thing about the location. Seattle Center is ideal for students to travel to from all over the City. Metro is geared towards moving people in and out of downtown. While my student would typically take two buses to get to school she could have easily taken one with a few minutes additional walking (and our house is very poorly served by Metro). Moving the school to Beacon hill or Rainier Beach would have killed the program. You would never get the all city draw there as commuting there is difficult for large portions of the city. That being said I know the District does not want all-city draws so maybe that is the plan anyways.
We need more "small boutique high schools" that don't cost over 100 million to renovate.
I think the State Auditor's report on BEX over the last 5 years will address this issue.
I was also thinking, with all the QA and Magnolia students that DO choose the school, didn't that take some pressure of Ballard, when they had to draw the boundry line? If Center School had been closed, I would think that line would have been even further south to accomodate all those students.
So, personally I an very glad for the school and would love to see more of them in Seattle. Sad thing is, I think we will, they will have the name "Charter" attached.
I don't agree that new "boutique schools" have to be charters. If enough people actively lobby for these schools, and support the existing ones, SPS could build some wonderful new programs without having to go charter.
There are lots of reasons you can list in support of The Center School - and did an admirable job of it - but this isn't one of them.
We could debate the creation of the school or the location of the school, but those decisions are made. I prefer to face forward.
Now, after the District gets the Mercer garage in the Memorial Stadium deal, could a new building on that site be the permanent location of The Center School?
But who knows? I never understand the thinking in Facilities anyway.