Possible Outcome for Garfield
::::UPDATE - I have changed the proposed APP cap at Garfield from 90 to 110.:::::
Let's not kid ourselves. The District is going to do something about Garfield and what they are going to do is limit APP access to the school. The full weight of reducing the overcrowding at Garfield will fall on APP. Even though the growth of APP has had almost nothing to do with the enrollment explosion at Garfield.
This was their intent from the start and it is the reason that they drew the Garfield attendance area as they did. They want to break up APP because the District improves school test scores by re-arranging the distribution of high performing students - not by actually improving outcomes for students.
So what do I think they will do? In the constrained universe that begins with the presumption of capped APP enrollment at Garfield, here's what I think would be the best possible outcome:
The District staff will recommend that high school APP be split and the Board will concur. They will claim - absurdly - that it will improve access and choice in the program. Seriously. The only question remaining will be the number of target schools, which target schools, and how they will mandate the split.
First, APP enrollment at Garfield will be capped, probably around 110 students per class (440 total). Historically, APP freshman enrollment at Garfield has exceeded 110 only during the past three years.
Since there are slightly more than 440 high school APP students (455 currently) and for the past three years there has been more than 110 freshmen APP students at Garfield, the District will have to identify additional "APP Pathways" through high school. We have already heard of one, accelerated IB at Ingraham. Of course, if there can be accelerated IB at Ingraham they can offer it at Sealth as well. They could also identify STEM as an "APP Pathway" - with or without acceleration. They don't need to do this, but it might help draw a few more APP students to STEM and boost the test scores there, which would further burnish the claim of a "turnaround" at Cleveland. Further, it would cost nothing and be easy to identify The NOVA Project as a liberal arts "APP Pathway" to balance the one at STEM. So there could be anywhere from two to five "APP Pathways".
APP students coming out of Washington will get a default assignment to an "APP Pathway" based on their home address. They will get a default assignment to Ingraham accelerated IB if they live in the Ingraham or Hale attendance areas - possibly if they live in the Ballard attendance area as well. If STEM is part of the deal, students will get a default assignment to STEM if they live in the Franklin or Rainier Beach attendance areas. If accelerated IB at Sealth is part of the deal it will be the default assignment for APP students living in West Seattle. Garfield will continue to be the default assignment for the remaining APP students.
Families will, of course, be free to choose any school during Open Enrollment, but once Garfield APP is full, it is full and they will have to accept assignment to another "APP Pathway" high school or another school altogether.
That's how I would do it if I were they. There are some elements of this scheme that, frankly, just make too much sense for the District to ever actually adopt it, so I expect that the real final decision will be some sub-optimal version of this.
Certain elements are sure to be present, however. The APP enrollment at Garfield will definitely be capped - hopefully at no less than 110 per class. Other schools will be identified - at least by designation - as "APP Pathways". Students will get default assignments to a pathway based on their home address but will, of course, be free to choose another pathway (on a space available basis). Whether there will be anything distinctive at these schools for the APP students or not is unclear. They will probably only get usual advanced placement that they already get in math, science, and world language because they already took the 9th (and possibly 10th) grade level classes in middle school.
Note to avert an inevitable comment - The District could justify putting another West Seattle attendance area elementary into the Madison/West Seattle zone if they make Sealth an APP pathway school. That way they will be doing it in response to an action they were taking instead of doing it in response to community demand.
Let's not kid ourselves. The District is going to do something about Garfield and what they are going to do is limit APP access to the school. The full weight of reducing the overcrowding at Garfield will fall on APP. Even though the growth of APP has had almost nothing to do with the enrollment explosion at Garfield.
This was their intent from the start and it is the reason that they drew the Garfield attendance area as they did. They want to break up APP because the District improves school test scores by re-arranging the distribution of high performing students - not by actually improving outcomes for students.
So what do I think they will do? In the constrained universe that begins with the presumption of capped APP enrollment at Garfield, here's what I think would be the best possible outcome:
The District staff will recommend that high school APP be split and the Board will concur. They will claim - absurdly - that it will improve access and choice in the program. Seriously. The only question remaining will be the number of target schools, which target schools, and how they will mandate the split.
First, APP enrollment at Garfield will be capped, probably around 110 students per class (440 total). Historically, APP freshman enrollment at Garfield has exceeded 110 only during the past three years.
Since there are slightly more than 440 high school APP students (455 currently) and for the past three years there has been more than 110 freshmen APP students at Garfield, the District will have to identify additional "APP Pathways" through high school. We have already heard of one, accelerated IB at Ingraham. Of course, if there can be accelerated IB at Ingraham they can offer it at Sealth as well. They could also identify STEM as an "APP Pathway" - with or without acceleration. They don't need to do this, but it might help draw a few more APP students to STEM and boost the test scores there, which would further burnish the claim of a "turnaround" at Cleveland. Further, it would cost nothing and be easy to identify The NOVA Project as a liberal arts "APP Pathway" to balance the one at STEM. So there could be anywhere from two to five "APP Pathways".
APP students coming out of Washington will get a default assignment to an "APP Pathway" based on their home address. They will get a default assignment to Ingraham accelerated IB if they live in the Ingraham or Hale attendance areas - possibly if they live in the Ballard attendance area as well. If STEM is part of the deal, students will get a default assignment to STEM if they live in the Franklin or Rainier Beach attendance areas. If accelerated IB at Sealth is part of the deal it will be the default assignment for APP students living in West Seattle. Garfield will continue to be the default assignment for the remaining APP students.
Families will, of course, be free to choose any school during Open Enrollment, but once Garfield APP is full, it is full and they will have to accept assignment to another "APP Pathway" high school or another school altogether.
That's how I would do it if I were they. There are some elements of this scheme that, frankly, just make too much sense for the District to ever actually adopt it, so I expect that the real final decision will be some sub-optimal version of this.
Certain elements are sure to be present, however. The APP enrollment at Garfield will definitely be capped - hopefully at no less than 110 per class. Other schools will be identified - at least by designation - as "APP Pathways". Students will get default assignments to a pathway based on their home address but will, of course, be free to choose another pathway (on a space available basis). Whether there will be anything distinctive at these schools for the APP students or not is unclear. They will probably only get usual advanced placement that they already get in math, science, and world language because they already took the 9th (and possibly 10th) grade level classes in middle school.
Note to avert an inevitable comment - The District could justify putting another West Seattle attendance area elementary into the Madison/West Seattle zone if they make Sealth an APP pathway school. That way they will be doing it in response to an action they were taking instead of doing it in response to community demand.
Comments
This will affect more students than APP.
Yep. By shuffling students around, Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson can point to higher test scores at struggling schools and feign success. She is manipulating the metrics.
Of course, it does nothing to improve outcomes for students. If anything, it reduces them, by hurting high test score performers (or driving them out of the district) and reducing the pressure to take real actions that might actually help struggling students.
If the enrollment were, however, to be capped at 240, I think the change would be noticable.
Even if the enrollment WERE capped at 360, it is possible that the other pathways would prove enticing enough that Garfield would not have to turn any APP students away. That would be best. That would mean that students were pulled into the other programs, not pushed into them.
Signed, $ where my mouth is
So what if those options, at least at the 9-12 level, become indistinguishable from general ed? Does the district lose all of the money, or just the 9-12 money?
http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2009/co0911p.asp
It's the link for ESHB 1244. Go to page 151-152, Sec 511. There it says that $9.4M was allocated for highly capable students with a maximum of $401 in additional funds per student. Not sure how little the district can do before they lose those additional funds.
Yup, you are right. To the general pubic a school may look like it is doing better, but not to the feds. They look at the data, and break it down into categories. AYP is broken down by minority students, low income, and special education, to name a few. A school can't escape NCLB sanctions by simply adding a high performing population.But higher overall test scores could pull the wool over some families eyes and make MGJ's resume look good if an employer wasn't savvy enough to figure out what she had done.
Maureen, when I write "cap enrollment" I mean to strictly limit the enrollment of out-of-area APP students at Garfield to 360. The 361st APP student is not enrolled there. Not by restricting the draw area but by restricting the number of APP students - from anywhere outside the Garfield attendance area - who can enroll. Access to Garfield APP, which has and will continue to have, its own enrollment designation, will be limited to 90 students per class.
Even in the most distributed model I could envision with the greatest number of pathways, APP students from the Garfield and Roosevelt attendance areas would still get a default assignment to Garfield. The reason for Garfield is obvious, the District can't keep them out. The reason for Roosevelt is because the District doesn't want them to choose Roosevelt (already full) and because it is close to Garfield. Same for Ballard.
If the District creates enough acceptable and legitimate pathways, they won't have to push people into Ingraham, Sealth, and STEM, the people will just choose them. Of course, the District needs to pour a little sugar on these schools by promising "accelerated" IB and STEM. The acceleration, of course, won't be anything more than the students would have anyway after taking high school level classes in middle school, but it's all about marketing.
I think the District's goals would be better served by a split other than a WMS/HIMS cohort split. First, because they don't really believe in cohort - not for APP. Second because they want to claim to offer choice. That was a critical element of Dr. Vaughan's pitch to the APP AC. In that proposal, families all over the city could choose between Ingraham accelerated IB and Garfield's AP classes.
Yes, Sherry Carr has to go. She doesn't represent her community to the District, she represents the District to her community.
Chris, while it is true that APP scores can be reported separately, almost no one examines the disaggregated scores. The lie will work. It has worked in the past and it works all the time now. Consider the example of the Hamilton CSIP in which they congratulate themselves for their increased pass rate without any acknowledgement of the replacement of 225 south-end students with 225 APP students.
Meg, the District will continue to report to the State that the students are in APP so long as they are in one of the many APP pathways. Either way, the state does not enforce any requirement that the District actually provide a program. If they did, there would surely have been years in the past when the state would have withheld funding for the absence of a high school program.
Actually, the funding from the state is based on a formula that is independent of the actual number of students in the program. It's just a dollar amount multiplied by a percentage of the District's AAFTE. The funding would be the same if there were 1,500 students in the program or 15,000 or 150.
I don't know if that's only the $3500 per APP bus rider (which I think but am not certain they may get for the HS kids, even though they just issue them a metro pass), or if there's some additional cash on top of that.
The district gets the $3500 only for students who *actually* ride those yellow buses -- if your student is getting driven to school, and therefore isn't counted during the October week when they take a bus census, then even if they're in elementary or middle school, that money does not reach us. In any case, that's money that is almost sure to get cut from the state's budget in the current economic climate.
It's only quite recently that a transportation employee noticed that any high school students qualified for that funding at all (can't remember if we were already getting it for elementary/middle school or not) -- I think it started a few years ago, when there was still yellow-bus service to Garfield for APP students, and they made a point of allowing the piggybacking on WMS buses later because of that funding.
Helen Schinske
If I had a gifted child in APP and were a parent having to deal with this Garfield APP debacle, I would immediately have my child apply to half a dozen need-blind admissions prep schools, like Phillips Andover, Phillips Exeter, Choate Rosemary Hall, Deerfied, etc. Then I would pray like hell they were accepted. I cannot even imagine having to roll THIS boulder up hill.
Support the recall. I am in it for the long haul.
Another Parent
I really mangled the answer to Maureen. In the scenario that I'm projecting, APP at Garfield will have only 90 seats per class. Those seats will go first to APP students living in the Garfield attendance area. Then siblings of Garfield APP students. Then out-of-area APP students chosen through a lottery. Review the Board work session on enrollment and capacity management and you will see it written there. There never used to be anything like that for APP because every eligible student was enrolled. There were no caps before. The enrollment plan for APP shown to the Board two weeks ago pre-supposes caps on APP enrollment.
CD folks: Is Franklin that horrid? What's the deal? Seems like drawing the boundary along I-90 may not solve all the overcrowding, but would go a long way towards fixing it with the least amount of pain and controversy.
Folks: What am I missing here? Why, for example, is the North End of Beacon Hill assigned to Garfield and not Franklin, with the Interstate, bridges, major cross-town traffic routes, and congestion between that area and Garfield, including the SU/Providence/upper Int'l District traffic congestion, etc., when anyone from N. Beacon could practically roll down the hill to Franklin HS in 5 minutes or less? Why is I-90 not the natural south boundary for Garfield. Help me out here.
They all say stuff like that. Then they go right on their merry way and blindly follow the superintendent with their votes. Harium sounds great in person as well, but he hasn't represented his constituents for a long time as well.
Words aren't worth squat if the votes don't follow.
Sherry is bright, hard-working and knows the district. She can sometimes say the right things but I have never heard her really stick up for parents nor follow-up on any disagreement with staff. She'll challenge them at committee meetings, take their stock answer and back off. That has to stop.
I wish she would do better. I wish she was the person that I walked her district with, doorbelling with her. But I haven't found that to be the case.
Let's face it, the District has not done enough to make southend schools desirable for a big chunk of the people who live there (my family is one of those).
There's a number of reasons for this (based on talking to others who have chosen any other option—both public and private) that include (but are not limited to) lower expectations (this should be changing at STEM/Cleveland—but that's only good if you have a math/science kid), adequate college prep academics, safety concerns (in RBHS case the surrounding neighborhood is also a concern), lack of rigor, emphasis on sports over academics, fewer choice in course offerings (chicken and egg, I know), lack of quality arts offerings (orchestra, etc.), emphasis on under-achievers as opposed to at-standard or over-achievers, etc.
I realize that some of these reasons are opinions, and may not even be based on fact, but they are the perceptions people have and those perceptions are often reinforced when people tour the schools—especially true in the case of RBHS.
1) APP families living in the Hale and Ingraham attendance areas:
What would it take for you to choose an accelerated IB program at Ingraham as a high school APP pathway for your child?
2) APP families living in the Franklin and Rainier Beach attendance areas:
What would it take for you to choose an accelerated STEM program at Cleveland as a high school APP pathway for your child?
3) APP families living in the West Seattle and Chief Sealth attendance areas:
What would it take for you to choose an accelerated IB program at Sealth as a high school APP pathway for your child?
4) APP families living in the Ballard, Roosevelt, and Garfield attendance areas:
What would it take for you to choose an accelerated IB or accelerated STEM program at Ingraham, Sealth, or Cleveland as a high school APP pathway for your child?
5) APP families living anywhere in the city:
Would you consider The NOVA Project as a liberal arts high school APP pathway for your child?
I ask these questions as the parent of two APP students who each chose a different path than Garfield APP - one to NOVA and one to Chief Sealth. I didn't have any trouble with either of these choices, so I know that I'm the wrong person to ask about these things.
Do these other programs have no appeal at all? What could be done to make them as appealing as Garfield APP?
The district is full of bright, motivated kids who deserve access to advanced coursework in high school. The majority of these kids are not in the APP middle school programs (and thus eligible for APP at Garfield). Some are APP-qualified but not enrolled in Hamilton or Washington, some are in Spectrum middle school classes (which are often a joke…this should be discussed another time), some never tested but are exceptionally bright, and some did not pass the test but are nonetheless ready for more challenge than what is available in regular high school classes. Because these kids and families do not have a common voice and tool for organizing like APP parents do, we really need your help in fighting this fight. Parents of APP kids should by all means stand up for their kids’ needs, but please do not lose sight of the fact that kids outside of APP have an equal right to access advanced coursework in high school as the APP kids do.
If kids are going to be assigned to high schools based on an address, then ALL kids should have access to a full complement of honors/AP/IB courses (17 of them) in all subjects for all grades:
Language Arts: honors in 9th and 10th grades, AP/IB (or UW in the high school) in 11th & 12th grades
Math: honors geometry (with a full treatment of proofs!) and AP statistics and calculus (most schools also offer honors in Algebra 2 and Pre Calc, but I don’t see this as absolutely necessary)
Science: honors physical science (or possibly just the option for kids advanced in math and science to opt out of this course and replace it with chemistry and physics); honors, AP, or IB biology (this is currently offered at 7 of 9 comprehensive high schools); honors, AP, or IB chemistry (already offered at 6 of 9 high schools); honors, AP, IB, or UW-credit course in a fourth science
Social Studies: honors and/or AP history in 9th and 10th grades, AP/IB US history and American government in 11th & 12th grades
World Languages: at least 2 languages that culminate in a AP course
I reviewed high school catalogs (some of which are a year old so may not be up-to-date) and here is what is currently missing from each high school (from highest to lowest):
Nathan Hale: Hale offers a number of honors or AP contract courses (where students do extra projects, reading, or other work outside of the class time in order to earn honors credit). This does not provide kids with the same resources (namely, instruction) that are being provided to other kids in the district, so I do not count these courses as true honors or AP courses (some may disagree, but please ask yourself if you would settle for this for your child if the more robust courses were being offered at all other high schools in the district…Hale adheres to an alternative educational philosophy, which is absolutely fantastic for some, but should not be pushed upon everyone living in its boundaries). With this consideration, Hale is missing a total of 10 courses from the above list (honors 9th & 10th grade LA and history; AP US History and American Government; honors physical science, biology, and chemistry; honors geometry).
Franklin: Franklin is missing 9 courses (honors 9th and 10th grade language arts and history, AP US History and American government, honors physical science, a 4th honors or AP science course, and a 2nd AP world language course). Franklin does offer an honors-by-contract 9th grade language arts course, but again, this is not equivalent to a stand-alone course with instruction. Franklin also offers two AP art courses. Although I’m sure Franklin has some great things to offer, I can’t blame families currently in the Garfield area who might be redrawn into Franklin for being concerned and possibly even resentful toward APP families. With a strengthened program at Franklin, this concern might be mitigated.
Rainier Beach: A number of courses have been added in recent years, but RB still appears to be missing 8 courses (honors 9th & 10th grade LA, AP LA in 12th grade, honors physical science, a 4th honors or AP science course, both AP world languages). The course offerings at RB are a bit unclear but, compared to the out-of-date course listings provided on their website last year, there is now much more information (kudos to them for getting that posted).
Roosevelt: This is a bit surprising to see, but Roosevelt is missing 6 of the courses (honors 9th & 10th grade LA; honors 9th grade history; and honors/AP in physical science, biology, and chemistry). Roosevelt does offer honors-by-contract for its 10th grade LA course. It also offers a 3rd and 4th world language, AP comparative government, AP Spanish literature, and the more advanced AP Calculus course (Calc BC).
cont...
Ballard: Ballard is missing 3 of the courses (honors 9th & 10th grade LA, honors physical science). Ballard also offers a 3rd AP world language course and two AP history options for 10th grade.
Sealth: Sealth is missing 3 courses, all sciences (honors physical science, IB Chemistry, and a 4th honors/IB science). It does, however, offer IB art and theory of knowledge.
West Seattle: West Seattle does not offer a 2nd AP foreign language, but that appears to be the only missing course from the above list.
Ingraham: Ingraham does not offer an honors 9th grade history course. It does, however, offer quite a few additional IB courses (physics, world history, art, music, economics, psychology, theory of knowledge, a 3rd world language course).
Garfield: Garfield does not appear to offer an honors section of physical science, but I think some kids are coming into Garfield with credit for that course under their belts. Garfield offers both honors and AP chemistry and physics (the honors option is nice because kids must commit 2 years to a particular science if they want to go the AP route…one year of the same science is a prerequisite for AP courses). It also offers a 3rd AP world languages, AP art, and the more advanced AP calculus course (calc BC).
Making these additions would mean adding an average of about 1 AP/IB course per school and 3.5 honors courses per school. I don’t know what kinds of costs would be involved here (e.g., certification for AP courses; extra teachers because advanced classes are not filled at some schools), but I think that these changes are necessary to make the NSAP equitable and to make it possible for APP to remain together. Of course, there’s a lot more work that needs to be done than this (e.g., increased support to struggling students) …increasing honors/AP/IB is just one piece of the puzzle that happens to be timely in that it relates to the Garfield issue.
Please, let’s fight this fight together. I think APP families will gain respect from the community if they advocate for all kids having access to a full range of advanced coursework in high school, not just those enrolled in the APP program.
Where can we get a copy of the APP enrollment plan? Where can we find the justification for the current Garfield boundaries?
The APP AC is supporting a "choice based" Ingraham IB option as a way of trying to head off a geographic split because Martin-Morris said the School Board would not redraw the boundaries to accomodate the "ever growing APP" numbers. According to Morris, to accommodate the numbers of incoming APP students over the next years would require a dramatic narrowing of the current Garfield boundaries and the Bd's first and upmost priority is maintaining the neighborhood school model. Dr. Vaughn has received the thumbs up from GLJ to pursue "accelerated" IB at Ingraham, whatever that means.
Let's go further. All students should have access to more advanced work and courses in middle school as well.
And further still. All students should have access to as much challenge as they can handle in elementary school, too.
So how are we going to get there? Only when Education Directors are putting pressure on principals by asking them "It appears from the assessment that you have 16 second grade students working beyond grade level in math. What are you doing to provide them with additional rigor?"
And where does TFA fit into all this? Putting TFA into a school like RBHS MAY be beneficial to the kids who are below-standard, at-risk, but what will it do to attract or benefit the kids who are at/above standard?
Question becomes - how much does it cost to run each section if they are not full?
What I have heard through the years is that Garfield's course selection is available ONLY because they have the numbers (# of students signing up for AP classes) to justify all of the sections/choices.
If you remove those numbers and spread it around - choice may increase in some high schools but it will most certainly decrease at Garfield.
Maybe that's ok when you look at it from a "fairness" point of view - personally we aren't sure that having our kids take several AP classes in high school is absolutely necessary anyway as we certainly are not angling for a shorter college experience for them.
However - is it ok to say this list is "good enough" in the name of fairness when there are kids that have been in an accelerated program for many years and they will basically run out of options at the high school level if the course options are reduced?
I really don't know the answer.
That translates, hopefully, to the idea that the class will move at a somewhat accelerated pace, the coursework will be challenging, and the student will be better prepared to handle college-level classes when they're on their own and away from parental guidance, etc.
You'll note that many of the private high schools do not offer AP classes. That's because their level of rigor is already accelerated and they want the ability to allow their teachers to tailor their curriculum and materials to their students and, often, the school's philosophy. The majority of graduates from these schools seem to have few problems getting accepted at the colleges they apply to—everything from the state colleges to the big deal private universities.
I was looking at OSPI's highly capable numbers, and while OSPI doesn't provide numbers for 2009-10 and 2010-11, high school APP enrollment has grown, but not at any kind of remarkable clip.
2005-06: 387 APP/1,595 total at Garfield
2006-07: 398 APP/1,607 total at Garfield
2007-08: 406 APP/1648 total at Garfield
2008-09: 415 APP/1684 at Garfield
APP grew by 28 kids from 2005-06 to 2008-09, while Garfield as a whole grew by 89 kids.
Every one of those years, APP lost kids in the transition from 8th to 9th.
So, long way of wondering out loud - how'd Martin-Morris get the idea that APP is "ever-growing?"
Please, let’s fight this fight together. I think APP families will gain respect from the community if they advocate for all kids having access to a full range of advanced coursework in high school, not just those enrolled in the APP program.
Ds -- that is as great a call to action as any I have ever heard (with a nod to Charlie here, whose logical, no nonsense approaches also have huge appeal, at least for me).
I will confess, I doubt that "APP families will gain respect from the community" because I have watched with dismay for too many years while meanspirited, cranky aspersions are cast at the APP community from all sorts of folks with no regard for the well being of the students in (or who aspire to be in) the program. But regardless of whether it garners respect -- there is really only ONE "right" thing to do -- and that is to battle, together, for ALL Seattle's kids, APP, APP-eligible but not in the program, Spectrum, Spectrum eligible but not in the program, special ed kids who would be APP eligible but for their disabilities, "regular" kids who are behind, ELL, special ed, -- you name it. And you are absolutely correct that we should be expanding options for accelerated or higher level learning at all high schools.
Like all of the rest of the Board members, Director Martin-Morris does not doubt or verify anything the staff tells him. Even after he has discovered a number of deliberate attempts to mislead him, he still does not question or them, double-check their statements, or ask them to provide data to support their assertions.
The district has a horrible track record with creating programs, especally when they split a program.
As a Ballard APP parent, my APP student will go to Ballard, if not allowed to go to Garfield.
Go Beavers!
Director Martin Morris has an astonishing ability to just wave his hands and say whatever suits his current negotiating posture (see his comments last spring when challenged not to extend MGJ's contract, on how great a job MJG is doing), and his comments on the STEM contract.
WV says kill "thewabid" -- and I say, run, Bugs, run!!
But it is interesting to note -- ONE of the proposals on the table would be to just simply "move" part of the program (incoming freshmen AND upper classes) to another location -- and since there is no automatic "right" to a neighborhood school for the upper class kids -- I am not sure that any oversubscribed school (Ballard, RHS, etc.) would even be an option. Given the arbitrary and dictatorial style that MGJ has adopted with respect to her decisionmaking, here is hoping the District doesn't just decide to take the choice away from the IHS APP middle school kids to select out of APP and go neighborhood at the 9th grade level. While this might seem extreme, it does seem likely to me that many Ballard/RHS kids will stay in their neighborhood schools rather than slog all the way to Ingraham. If MGJ wants to avoid further crowding of THOSE schools, who knows what she could do --and since a majority of the Board declines to supervise her, her power here seems pretty unfettered.
Why can't the District solve this problem by "reopening" Horace Mann -- possibly as a "9th grade academy" and using that facility to relieve crowding of Garfield. My recollection is that NOVA kids -- when they were at Mann -- used to have some ability to take a class or 2 at Garfield, so it is not like kids don't know how to navigate the one block between the two schools. So, 9th graders taking classes at the main Garfield building could get back and forth, etc. Then, potentially ALL of the current Garfield programs could stay at Garfield (which is NOT to say, as DS points, out, that we should not be working to add accelerated, honors, and AP classes elsewhere -- we certainly should). But why can't the District work to solve the problem they (and ONLY they) created last year in a way that is less painful for everybody.
I know - it's amazing, isn't it?
This building that was too decrepit for occupancy by students but apparently it isn't too decrepit for tenants.
Of course the District will have to spend some money to fix it up for those tenants - money that they wouldn't pay to fix up the building for students.
Thanks for the listing of the HS courses, but keep in mind if the information comes out of the course catalogue (and not the current Master Schedule) that it is not the same as what is actually being offered at school this year.
The course catalogues usually are online in early spring before school tours for prospective 9th graders, with the "best case" scenario of offerings (plus the ones that the District told the schools they "had" to offer, especially for the honors and AP). These classes are a first step towards equitable offerings in the schools, but equitable quality of instruction is the bottom line and is more difficult to compare (especially when some teachers and administration equate Honors with "tracking = discrimination" (i.e. like MGJ at the last Board meeting).
The budget comes out after the course catalogues are released, and suddenly the offerings are narrowed down- drastically in many cases, especially if their enrollment was cut.
Okay. Rant over.
Mann would fulfill the need for "temporary" surge capacity - although it wouldn't be able to hold, say, the current 9th grade class - it's only got capacity for between 340-380 students. That could be a problem. But what if it was used as a math/science building, electives building or language arts (and 9th grade cafeteria)?
In total numbers, whether it was for the bulk of a single grade, or as a math/science building (and 9th grade cafeteria?), Mann could potentially relieve Garfield's capacity woes while the district actually does something wacky like plan pro-actively instead of reactively. And I can't help but snark: THAT's why it'll never happen.
The Mann building doesn't have a cafeteria or a kitchen.
Besides, like I wrote, it's leased.
The QA/Mag families sued the district a lifetime ago at this point bc they didn't have a high school and rather than just put QA High School on the BEX, they sold it. So now, we are all dealing with the issue that those families need to go somewhere and the only geographically close schools are Ballard and Garfield.
So pretty much everyone associated with Ballard and Garfield has to deal with the damage of no QA/Mag school. Garfield is overcrowded and looking to push out families. Ballard has crazy borders and will be beyond full soon enough.
Since QA/Mag is now so full of kids that an additional elementary needed to be opened, how long is is going to be before there is no possible way that Ballard and even Garfield without APP can sustain the sheer number of kids.
There is some other Magnolia property in the district inventory. They can put a Magnolia high school on the next BEX and a new school could be open in 4-5 years.
If there isn't a solution to the QA/Mag high school problem, there never will be a solution to the APP high school issue. One of the fall outs from the NSAP is that only geographically isolated schools are going to be able to support special programming. I am just waiting for WSHS to be the new APP school.
The problems you outline are why so many parents in Seattle scrimp and save to be able to send their kids to private school?. I too wanted my child in a school that offered what she loved: music (not orchestral and not band), drama, visual art and challenging academics with a whole-child approach. I too wanted a school where my child could be her true self. We would not have had any of it if she had ended up in her SPS assignment MS or HS.
Welcome to Public Education in Seattle.
All of these problems are rooted in the absence of a high school for Queen Anne and Magnolia.
Lincoln could fill the bill. The District could use Wilson-Pacific as the north-end interim site.
The District could also build a new high school - either in the parking garage space they will get in the swap for the Memorial Stadium or they could easily get some land in Interbay in exchange for the Magnolia School property.
The District could - and should - address this problem at the roots.
I just don't think they will.
No fuss, no muss, two paths: a single elementary, together with a single middle school and a single high school for APP at each end of the city.
The beauty in this plan is it solves the cohort concern, takes all the mystery out of assignments and is consistent with what already is in place.
This would also save us the risk of splintering APP students to all corners of the city.
Yes, we were all promised that there would not be a split at high school, but it did always seem to be coming, right?
When the district split the APP elementary and middle schools, the schools were supposed to be equal (we see how well that has worked out). I don't believe that they will split the high school north/south because district can't pretend that a new IB program is equivalent/same as Garfield.
-annoyed
Frankly, I don't think the district has a handle on enrollment numbers. Every year, there will be a different issue.
Children need stability. Children don't transition well. Yet, the district closes schools, opens schools- while moving our children throughout the district. This isn't good for learning or well being.
Neighborhood schools were sold on predicability. There isn't any. Let's face it- choice is nearly gone.
Now, the district is destroying a flagship school.
Maybe, just maybe MGJ will take all that crap off her desk and clean up NSAP. Don't see that happening. MGJ will go on destroying our district.
We need another school.
We need another superintendent.
Someone asked me if it's evil or just incompetence and I wasn't quite sure how to answer.
Everyone's ideas here are great--they would all work and be better than what's currently on the table.
Other than that I predict nothing so complicated as Charlie suggests.
Nothing involving any sort of enrollment cap at any particular school.
Likely, it will be the same approach for APP used with Elementary and MS. If you live in area X you receive an auto assignment to your X Attendance Area school for Elementary/MS/HS. Then, if you want to apply for the APP alternative you apply during Open Enrollment for the designated Elementary/MS/HS for area X.
Same thing for area Y.
They won't alter the rules to make assignments to Option Schools. This would muck with the 'Board' approved enrollment plan, and would also be a medium to large amount of scope creep to transition from the VAX to the new enrollment system platform.
Just a prediction.
I also predict that most folks in the Lowell/Hamilton/HS X track will not opt for Ingraham (unless they live moderately close by) and will attend their Attendance Area HS instead.
Same for the Thurgood Marshall/Washington/HS Y track.
I don't presume the HS listed on this track will be Garfield. It might be another HS entirely (one with room - RBHS, WS?) And as with track X - if the locaction (horrible commute) and track Y school is less desirable than the gtd. local HS - families will abandon the APP track for their Attendance Area school.
I don't understand the District's opposition to APP (perhaps the unpredictabililty of how many smart kids will test in?)
Either through lack of understanding at the District level or outright intent -- this might mean the dismantling of the APP program from the HS level downward.
I can read the PowerPoint now -- based on enrollment numbers the APP community has no desire to attend HS as a cohort. (Nevermind, the options for them were dismal.) We therefore conclude it must be the same for MS and Elementary.
If the APP community does wish to live beyond the tenure of MGJ - you will need to respond to this current displacement in a manner no one downtown could predict.
No one at the District level, so far as I can recall, has clearly stated "Boy! We really messed up with the attendance area boundary for Garfield. Sorry! Our bad."
So far as I can recall, no one on the Board has said "Hey, superintendent, you really messed up with the Garfield attendance area boundary. That's going to count against you in your performance review. Moreover, we expect you to fix your mistake by re-drawing the boundary lines correctly, not by re-arranging programs that you were supposed to work around."
Will other board members back her? Now THAT is a question for which I simply don't have a prediction. And it's a real pity that the answer can't simply be "yes" they'll back the one board member who has sunk her teeth into the nitty gritty details of the issue. Speaks volumes about the makeup of the current board.
Would you consider The NOVA Project as a liberal arts high school APP pathway for your child?
No. This may seem odd, as I have an APP-qualified child at Nova, but those educational needs are not the reason she's there, and I don't see them being especially well fulfilled there for a variety of reasons. Also, while Nova's structure allows for informal acceleration, and thus may be a reasonable fit for a certain type of gifted student, I think it goes against the Nova philosophy and mission to have it be any sort of official pathway.
Helen Schinske
I'm glad you asked about STEM, because I have a question for you-you seem to be following it closely. Last year you posted multiple times that you were certain it would become successful because it would displace the low-performing students of color. I remember mentioning here that I'd spoken to several families of color (both already at the school and incoming) that were thrilled with the idea of a rigorous program and who planned to partake of the program.
Now, I'm no expert, so it's possible that I looked in the wrong place, but I was cruising the district's website yesterday and THIS year's Cleveland numbers look like your prediction was completely off the mark-that the population at Cleveland is STILL heavily minority-I saw 36% Asian, 44% black and 11% Hispanic.
So given that, and a plan in place for a rigorous science program that's a reasonable bus trip from my house, I'd certainly consider it for my daughter. She's biracial, is a science nut and in
6th grade, so she'd fit the demographics, have a program in her area of interest that wouldn't involve a long commute, and in three years we'll know how it's doing.
But I AM curious if I was looking at the correct numbers. The page I found was in a 50+ page report on enrollment, broken down as of October of this year. And in this case, I'd have to say I'm glad you were wrong.
You seemed so sure none of them would want a STEM program. But see, I actually TALKED to some of those folks and that's not the answer I was hearing.
Looking forward to your answer.
Well, they don't have to feel that way about the boundaries, if they don't see the preference to attend Garfield given to students enrolled in APP at the middle-school level as a given. As folks have pointed out here to the confused, there is no "APP" program at Garfield. There's an option for a certain group of students (and not all of those identified as APP-eligible within SPS, and not those who may not currently be in SPS) to attend Garfield. No other group of students has access to a continued cohort in high school.
I wouldn't be at all disappointed to see the Washington/Hamilton APP preference for Garfield disappear. I even there's a potential that might benefit other neighborhood high schools, and, furthermore, that arguments against it really mean a shift of challenging classes away from other schools into Garfield, which I see little justification for.
There's been some suggestion that there are certain tracks (math & science?) where children at Wash/Ham APP might not have available classes at other high schools. If so, I think this should be resolved by having those classes at those high schools. But, someone fill me in on the specific problem.
It would also relieve over-crowding at Garfield.
But having an application for academic challenge would be more reasonable than having a special track for students who are enrolled in a particular program. I simply don't believe that those students are the only ones (or even the most needy ones) who need access to the challenge.
One of the concerns was that a low-income, minority student is likely to start STEM with academic deficiencies compared to a middle class non-minority student. And that at first, the STEM materials proposed significant support for those students, but over time, the budgets and reality has meant the commitment to those funds seems tenuous.
The report breaks out racial status, but not income status. And it's the first year. We will see. I would love it if STEM serves all well, that it does provide the adequate supports such that any student, no matter their background, if they want to enroll can be successful. I think Charlie's suspicious of this district's ability to follow through. Dan's suspicions along those lines come from looking at the NTN data vs their hype.
If my son were younger and CHS were convenient, we would definitely have looked into STEM there. So it looks like you are in a good position to have that as a great option for your daughter. I hope it does prove to be a success. But, be clear. Your daughter, regardless of her race, is in APP and therefore someone who is guaranteed to bring in high test scores. Your daughter's high test score, (if she does attend STEM) would be considered by the district to show the program is successful, when a lot of the success as measured by test score would really be attributable to her education before CHS. Will STEM be successful with students who are not so advantaged?
Back on topic for this thread, will STEM be attractive to a higher number of APP kids? How many of the CHS freshman class were in APP? Would it be enough of a draw over the next few years to mitigate the need to cap APP at GHS or some other solution?
Yeah, well, some of us think we're not the ones who are confused, eh? As I've posted a couple-three times now (and others have said similar things), "The de facto policy at Garfield has always been to try to starve the APP students out by not providing any formal program, and then turning around and saying why do you need to be here, when there isn't any formal program? A lot of families have clung to the cohort at Garfield because it's all they've been allowed, not because they wouldn't rather have some more palpable accommodations."
WV: trashin.
Helen Schinske
2009, CHS was 46% Af Am (41% of 9th graders)
2010 CHS is 44% Af Am (39% of 9th graders)
Is that a trend?
Many, many AA families have moved south-to Renton, Federal Way and Kent. Of course, that's what certain south Seattle blog commenters keep hoping will happen to ALL of them, but that's a whole other topic on a whole other blog.
And Dorothy, Charlie was pretty clear that he didn't expect the previous population to remain, so no, while he didn't say ALL AA students would be replaced, the blanket replacement of the population theory, for now, seems to have not held up.
And do I think APP parents (or any other predominantly white parent group) will choose STEM at Cleveland in large numbers? Nope, I do not. They won't as long as the population is the way it is right now. White parents stay away from south Seattle schools in droves, no matter what they have to offer-without ever setting foot in them. I don't expect Cleveland to be any different.
I LOVE the idea of a staggered schedule at the high school level. That is the kind of innovation that I'm looking for, not just as a solution to overcrowding, but as a step towards rethinking schools. Of course there are additional costs, but they may balance w/ the ability to serve more students at a single facility. Plus, it could address the biological sleep patterns of teens, allow more options for core academics AND electives, create scheduling flexibility for athletics and work... Done right
(with support staff and community involvement), this is my favorite "magic bullet" for improving high school outcomes.
There should also be more course flexibility with online classes available and various classes to catch up or work ahead. There should be evening classes.
If we want more kids to graduate, we need to offer more options and more chances. Same thing for kids working ahead.
Rose M
Helen Schinske
I think it really worked well - and I participated in after school sports everyday so it wasn't a problem.
It could work - if the district is truly interested in solving the problem without heaving out APP.
I get what you are saying and I think it is great that our district has made a place for NOVA and Center School. However, opening a double-shift mega Garfield – a comprehensive high school - does not fall under the same category. Double-shifting Garfield, or Ballard, or Roosevelt means that we will continue to run some buildings into the ground at a double-time pace (and we all know how great SPS is on facilities management!), while others are being heated, staffed, insured, equipped and secured at only 1/3 or ½ capacity. It does not make fiscal sense.
It also does not make sense from a standpoint of looking at the district as a whole unless SPS decides to double-shift all popular high schools. Go ahead and try to justify double-shifting Garfield to the folks in the Ballard areas who are now assigned to Ingraham. Why should those Ballard kids be shipped off to Ingraham when we can just double-shift that school too? Is that what you are advocating?
Some of this may stem from the question I have about this statement: “why does that seem absurd, if in fact it gives the maximum kids the best (as determined by them) choice for a school? The goal here is not simply to get X bodies into X seats into brick building A or B. The goal is to maximize the learning of all the kids in the city”. Can you clarify, because what I don’t understand is how you would draw the boundaries for such a school? What would be the “maximum” number of kids? If I am in the Franklin area and think that Garfield would maximize my learning, why can’t I become a Bulldog? If I live in Lake City, but want access to a “nationally known high school orchestra” can I go to mega –Garfield too? Unless I misunderstand you (entirely possible) what is described above appears to me to be our previous assignment plan – one in which people were free to TRY for a school that they felt would maximize their learning. The results though, were far from perfect.
Moose
Another thought...
If Garfield, Franklin and Roosevelt all did double shifts, would that free up enough capacity to close Rainier Beach? That actualy could save some real money, and give many families what they keep asking for: Access to Franklin and Garfield. With STEM in the mix, that would give every kid in the south east the option a good assignment school and a good nearby option school.
Roosevelt could then take part of the Ballard attendance area, and the Ballard boundary could move north a bit. Maybe Ballard could do double shift as well, but that might make too much capacity. I don't think either Ingraham or Hale is in bad enough shape to close, and some kids seem to really prefer these schools to the "big 3."
I would also beef up the liberal arts program at Franklin (it used to have a very well-regarded classics program, could that be resurected?) or add IB at Franklin, to make that a good choice for kids with a liberal arts bent. Franklin is a really good location for public transit, so it makes sense to have some sort of a draw there.
7-4 day at Ballard, Roosevelt, Garfield, Franklin
Move IB from Ingraham to Franklin
Close Beach and Ingraham.
Now that would save some money, including the Ingraham remodel.
Probably too radical, but an interesting thought exercise...
Seattle Parent
As someone above pointed out, maybe we leave Ingraham and Hale because the "mega high school" option does not work well for everyone, and it is nice to have a smaller school option, especially if you put in some sort of program or draw that gives it its own personality/identity -- sort of like Hale with the radio program, the fewer class hours with more built in collaboration time for teachers (and more study time for students), etc. I don't know what the right program for that school might be.
But I know how much people identify with their schools, and I would sure want to think this one through with RBHS families and alumni, before making a decision. Given the performing arts center down there, maybe it should be turned into a smaller option high school with an arts and arts technology draw (everything from theater to dance, to music, to video game development, choreography, performance production, film and video, light and sound design, etc.). I know Ballard does some of this as well (at least video), but that is not an accessible school for a lot of kids.
And, with a little thought and planning, you could even have those kids take some of their classes (maybe core stuff, or more specialized AP classes that might not be available in a "small school" at Franklin -- using metro or shuttle bus service -- because it is a straight shot down Rainier Avenue from one school to the other. This would have three benefits:
1. It would keep the school and its resources (the performing arts center, etc.) "alive"
2. It would allow RBHS community kids who want to go there to continue to "choose" the school, while at the same time going to classes (like math, science, AP language arts, etc.) in a building that has more choices and (maybe) a better learning/discipline dynamic.
3. It even maybe does that "presto chango" test score thing that SSD likes so well where higher performing kids replace, or dilute lower scoring kids -- and the school test scores magically "improve" (sounds of applause). In other words -- we still need to keep track of the struggling kids, be they from RBHS, GHS, or Franklin, and provide intervention to help them learn. Except to the extent that going to classes with higher achieving kids might have a good effect (and the risk of getting lost in a bigger school might have a bad effect), I think the plan is neutral on that -- which of course is the most important thing. But with this administration, neutral is actually good, since so much of what they do is make good, working schools and programs bad or worse.
It WAS put into Ingraham to help "draw" kids there -- but if they had tried to put it into a crowded school (like Ballard or RHS), people would have complained then that the "haves" were getting even more, while the "have nots" starved.
If people like and use the program -- and it seems they do, both at Ingraham and at Sealth, I think we should keep it. There is a lot wrong with some AP classes as well (many are a mile wide and an inch deep, offering very little time for in depth thinking or writing). And IB is not a "test in" program -- it is available to any student who can, and will, carry the workload.
I have a relative who did IB in France years ago, and who was offered Junior standing at middle-of-the-road American universities (Foo State U, rather than U of Foo or name-brand private).
IB in Seattle starts in 11th grade, though the program is specified all the way down to pre-school. I'm guessing that 2 years is the minimum to earn the diploma. Seattle IB schools allow anyone who wants to take an IB class to take one. Some do have pre-requisites. To get the diploma you also have to do a senior paper (or project? not sure). It's more integrated than AP, and some think the classes offer more depth.
So, I don't think it's really about finding a cohort so much as about opt-in rigor -- which would be a good thing for Franklin, and might fit well with the humanties track they already have there.
So, what's wrong with "opt in" AP classes? Opt in anywhere and any way you like, not a school within a school concept. Much better than some hoaky diploma. What's wrong wrong with electives across a broad spectrum without the IB or AP or other prefab coursework? And, they only put IB at Sealth and Ingraham, 2 of the least popular schools around. That should give everybody a pause... because otherwise nobody would go to these schools.
Seattle Parent
As for program placement, yes -- I agree it was drawn to try to make those two schools more attractive. It appears it may have worked at Sealth, but the jury is out (or worse) at Ingraham. Does that seem right?
Seattle Parent
It's hard to know where to start on that statement. First, IB is a rigorous and recognized program throughout the world. Any student within the school can access an IB classes so that rigor is available to all (and some may want the whole program). Ingraham's program is doing quite well from reports I hear from friends at Ingraham.
Second, well, Ingraham and Chief Sealth may not be the most popular schools but their students like them. Both are at least 2/3rd to 3/4ths full and probably will be full when both have finished their building.
Third, I think it unkind to call any student a "loser".
Seattle Parent
And your data about otherwise uninterested is? You have the stats for Ingraham and Sealth before and after IB?
They are not segregated programs; anyone can take any of the IB classes. Ditto on AP. Sorry, this one doesn't hold water.