Capacity Management (SPS Version ?.? )
I previous attached the documents from this Work Session to another thread. I'll put forth what was said but right up front - it is so frustrating but I believe I understand the method to their madness.
Kathy Johnson of Facilities went through the presentation at a fairly rapid clip. They did have the "current" definition of Functional Capacity on page 4, slide 8 and the explanation for fluctuations on page 5, slide 9. Those reasons are:
2010-2011 Capacity and Enrollment (slide 11) shows K-5 at 104% of "capacity utilized." I do not know the difference between "available capacity" and "functional capacity." If someone heard this at the meeting (or knows), please tell us but they seem to be two different things. For 6-8, it's at 85%. For 9-12, it's at 95%. Overall for the district, it's at 97%.
They then say by next year K-5 will be down to 102%. The other grade levels will stay about the same. But this projection for 2011-12 notes at the bottom "Includes Rainier View, Viewlands and 400 seats in portables added in 2011". I know that many parents out there do not like portables being counted as that then solidifies them in the school landscape. (But hey, Green Lake has had theirs since the '70s and Eckstein probably just as long.)
We get to the 2012-16 Capacity and Projections (slide 13) and boy, what to do? Elementary, 120%; 6-8, 95%; 9-12, 100%; with district-wide being at 108%.
Keep in mind BEX IV will be voted on in Feb. 2013. If they go for a levy, they don't get the money until 2014. The earliest you might get a new building would be mid-late 2015. (If they did a bond election, they would get the money all at once. Problem is they need 60% for a bond and it makes it a harder bar to jump over). So don't look for BEX IV to bring any real relief (if passed) until maybe 2016.
The Directors had some comments:
Where's Garfield? View Ridge? Lafayette? Schmitz Park? Staff says the principals got to decide how to count the space and so some of these don't count as "surge capacity." For example, Lafayette kept a PE room as PCP space and so worked out their own surge capacity. There is not a mandate for principals to use space as district thinks they might. If they want to run larger class sizes "that's the prerogative of the principals." Garfield isn't there because Kathy said they use "different techniques for class size" and that Garfield had options and didn't really use surge capacity methods. Oh.
What I want to ask you for is input. If you are at a school that is overenrolled (and you know if you are) and you aren't on the district's "surge capacity" list, please let us know. I want to compile a list and give it to the Board. Here's why. There has got to be some record that in 2010-2011 this is a list of schools that were overenrolled. It doesn't matter what the district's "measure" is. In 10 years you could have people look at the district's list and they would say, "Well, it wasn't that many schools." when yes, it was.
The range of "utilization" goes from Gatewood at 116% to Bagley at 103%. They had a category of "method to cope with overcrowding" and those range from "used the stage as classroom" to "used conference rooms for small classes" to "used RVs to accommodate staff" (my personal favorite with apologies to Bagley who had to use this method - they now have portables).
More Director comments:
There will be another Work Session on April 6th to discuss all of those issues. Another Work Session is also scheduled for May 18th. The Board will introduce and then vote on the various aspects of capacity management in June 2011. If you have any thoughts, do bring them up now because, well, tick tock.
I'll be blunt - I think the district is growing and will continue to grow. We have a new student assignment plan that added another layer of complexity to that growth. What that means to some schools is that they are going to have to man up and buck up. Portables, using your school's stage, whatever can get you through the next 3-5 years. I believe the district has sympathy for these schools but really, they've got bigger problems. Somebody once said that "change is hard" and my friends, that means you get to be the ones to suffer through this change.
- NSAP transitional plan changes (which means in about year 5 this one should not matter)
- Academic Assurances and Five-year Plan roll out (program delivery model changes) - again, this should not be changing a lot at some point. (I pause here to say that with rotating superintendents, you get new plans. Dr. G-J promptly dropped the Five-Year Plan set up by the previous Board and created the Strategic Planning. This continuing changing of programming really impacts both the actual architectural planning of schools and then, how they end up being used after they are built.)
- Main difference between the 2015 FC and 2010 FC: 2015 was based on the anticipated programs and services in 2015 and 2010 represented the current ones.
2010-2011 Capacity and Enrollment (slide 11) shows K-5 at 104% of "capacity utilized." I do not know the difference between "available capacity" and "functional capacity." If someone heard this at the meeting (or knows), please tell us but they seem to be two different things. For 6-8, it's at 85%. For 9-12, it's at 95%. Overall for the district, it's at 97%.
They then say by next year K-5 will be down to 102%. The other grade levels will stay about the same. But this projection for 2011-12 notes at the bottom "Includes Rainier View, Viewlands and 400 seats in portables added in 2011". I know that many parents out there do not like portables being counted as that then solidifies them in the school landscape. (But hey, Green Lake has had theirs since the '70s and Eckstein probably just as long.)
We get to the 2012-16 Capacity and Projections (slide 13) and boy, what to do? Elementary, 120%; 6-8, 95%; 9-12, 100%; with district-wide being at 108%.
Keep in mind BEX IV will be voted on in Feb. 2013. If they go for a levy, they don't get the money until 2014. The earliest you might get a new building would be mid-late 2015. (If they did a bond election, they would get the money all at once. Problem is they need 60% for a bond and it makes it a harder bar to jump over). So don't look for BEX IV to bring any real relief (if passed) until maybe 2016.
The Directors had some comments:
- Michael and Kay both commented on the BEX IV planning. Michael confirmed that this year's enrollment numbers will be the ones used for BEX IV planning. The schedule they handed out indicates that Oct. 2011 will be the time for community input. Kay thought that was too late and believes outreach should start sooner. Kathy agreed and said a calendar would get set up for that to happen.
- Steve pointed out that there are real issues in West Seattle.
- Sherry suggested repurposing some BTA dollars. (My take is: NO. That maintenance has got to get done. It will only hurt us to postpone work that has already been postponed.)
- Michael asked about computer labs being used for PCP time but Kathy Johnson said there was an issue around MAP so they are being set aside from functional capacity. (Dorothy, can you help me out here with this explanation?)
Where's Garfield? View Ridge? Lafayette? Schmitz Park? Staff says the principals got to decide how to count the space and so some of these don't count as "surge capacity." For example, Lafayette kept a PE room as PCP space and so worked out their own surge capacity. There is not a mandate for principals to use space as district thinks they might. If they want to run larger class sizes "that's the prerogative of the principals." Garfield isn't there because Kathy said they use "different techniques for class size" and that Garfield had options and didn't really use surge capacity methods. Oh.
What I want to ask you for is input. If you are at a school that is overenrolled (and you know if you are) and you aren't on the district's "surge capacity" list, please let us know. I want to compile a list and give it to the Board. Here's why. There has got to be some record that in 2010-2011 this is a list of schools that were overenrolled. It doesn't matter what the district's "measure" is. In 10 years you could have people look at the district's list and they would say, "Well, it wasn't that many schools." when yes, it was.
The range of "utilization" goes from Gatewood at 116% to Bagley at 103%. They had a category of "method to cope with overcrowding" and those range from "used the stage as classroom" to "used conference rooms for small classes" to "used RVs to accommodate staff" (my personal favorite with apologies to Bagley who had to use this method - they now have portables).
More Director comments:
- Michael asked a great question for which he never got an answer. He simply wanted to know what percentage of students leave during the year. Tracy went on some circular story. DeBell said thanks but that wasn't my question. It got complicated because technically under the NSAP, you can't change schools after Sept. 30th.
- Sherry asked for the metrics as spreadsheets and Tracy said this could be done.
- Kay asked quite an all-star question, "What is the most fiscally efficient thing we could do for capacity management?" Kathy said they had done the analysis here but had done it for school closures. She said it was hard because you really had to do it on a case-by-case basis. Then, there was the astonishing statement that they assume "Option Schools are full and adjust the geozone to guarantee that." What? Why? (Sadly, no follow-up.)
There will be another Work Session on April 6th to discuss all of those issues. Another Work Session is also scheduled for May 18th. The Board will introduce and then vote on the various aspects of capacity management in June 2011. If you have any thoughts, do bring them up now because, well, tick tock.
Comments
And two, does Michael DeBell ever get any questions answered? And by "answered" I don't mean "I'll get back to you" or receive some circuitous explanation that leads everyone back to the original question.
And three, if DeBell doesn't get a straight answer, does he ever ask the question again in that same session or in another meeting?
I have noted that DeBell does ask the right questions but I have never seen him get what I would consider a reasonable answer and yet I don't ever see him ask the question another way or continue in the same vein. He just seems to let it go...
Trust me, I am not picking on only him, there is plenty to go around but it seems sometimes that DeBell starts to go down the right road but then seems to think that well, it's just not that important, and just let's it go.
Unfortunately, his lack of follow up seems to bite him in the end.
Can you please start another blog on:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014529349_collegereadiness18m.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/03/17/2014528670.pdf
A friend to Seattle
A friend in Seattle
Is the number of families in Seattle growing or will we have the the same number of families, just more of them choosing public?
Are numbers growing all across the district, or is it more of an issue in certain parts of the city?
Also, reading the statements from district employees like Kathy Johnson and Rachel Cassidy, it amazes me that the district seems to see increased enrollment as a problem, not a success. Attracting people to our public schools should be celebrated. We should enthusiastically welcome new parents and children. Instead, the district employees complain about the additional work and then cram new parents and kids in wherever they can stuff them in. What a broken system, completely broken. The Board and new Superintendent need to fix this right away, making it clear that upper management sees increased enrollment is a good thing and something everyone should be excited about.
Why aren't we working toward that? Why aren't we pushing for a culture where our school district staff celebrates new parents and students, works to attract parents and students currently not using public schools, and welcomes new parents and students with excitement and open arms?
What I meant by saying they are nervous is that
- they can't forecast well (and therefore don't know what might come next)
- they already see the impacts from crowding and have limited resources to deal with those issues
- they worry about keeping up
If this happened in better economic times, I'm sure they would be thrilled.
Michael does try to follow-up but sometimes it doesn't work out. I know it's frustrating for him.
Loyal Heights has them beat by decades. We've had our portables since the late forties or early fifties. As in, my kids are going to school in portables that were installed when their grandfather was a student at the school. They are pretty nice, if a bit small.
" Staff says the principals got to decide how to count the space..." I get this if it is on a year by year basis, principals need some flexibility about how to use individual classrooms. But for overall planning, isn't some formula used re: number of kids in building = this many PCP times = this much space needed for that activity. Also, how do the Sped needs get factored?
True, the district is growing but overcrowding may cause some to rethink SPS. There is a tipping point for people.
Jane
Jane
Jane
That document,to me, is a joke. It is not a "planning" document; it is an assortment of facts. I was asked to be on a committee to rework it and I was happy to do so. I read the whole thing, made suggestions (and typo corrections of which there were many) and handed it in.
What happened was that they wanted a committee to say they had a committee. They were not interested in anything anyone had to say (and that was evidenced that for any given meeting, only half the members showed up). I gave up and quit in the middle when I realized it was window-dressing. I asked that my name be taken off but it never was.
District will have the capacity for students. Is it located well with good choices for all families? That is the question that is not being addressed. During the work session when Peter was addressing schools that are chronically under enrolled. Shouldn't the first investigation be around the population in the assignment area. If that is good then the next step would be to find out why students are not attending the school and correcting the situation. Have they thought through this piece? This seems key.
In order for this new plan to work they have to really work with communities of parents and ensure that the boundaries give good choices for all and are a sensitive to ensuring that all neighborhoods have good schools. Are they committed to a neighborhood plan that works or not? Have they ever really worked with communities to make sure the capacity is placed correctly and with includes great schools for everyone.
I guess we will see whether any change comes under the tenure of Dr. Enfield or her successor (if she is only interim).
And second, which schools will those kids choose to land at -- because the choice is now all the family's.
rates.