Disqus

Friday, February 24, 2012

Program Placement Decisions for 2012-2013

Here is a link to the program placement decisions for 2012-2013.

All of the proposals from staff were accepted.

All of the proposals from the public were rejected.

In violation of the Program Placement policy there is no publicly available description of the process used to make these decisions.

A number of other program placement proposals were made, but they are not discussed in this document.

7 comments:

SE Mom said...

Well, considering you were the only one to submit a program placement proposal, you'd at least think they'd approve one of 'em!

dw said...

At least some of Charlie's proposals got meaningful comments. That's far better than the previous administration.

Charlie Mas said...

SE Mom, I could not have been the only member of the public to have submitted a program placement proposal.

Did no one else write to the FACMAC with a suggestion?

Didn't the FACMAC members generate any suggestions?

Did no one else write to the capacity@seattleschools.org email address with a suggestion?

I know that I'm not the only one because I saw a report from FACMAC in which they discussed some program placement ideas.

This report is not complete. The process remains more secretive than ever under the administration that made the greatest pledge to transparency. Do you remember how transparency was the watch word for Dr. Enfield and Director Sundquist when she first took over. It was every fifth word she said at their interview with the Seattle Times.

David said...

Charlie, on your proposal to "relocate the elementary Spectrum program for the Washington Service Area from John Muir to Madrona K‐8" because "it would provide additional Spectrum capacity if the Spectrum program at Washington MS were to reach its capacity of 180 students." the district administration staff responded, "There is not a capacity limit of 180; current Spectrum enrollment at Washington is 157. The Board has approved guaranteed Spectrum assignments to attendance area middle schools beginning in 2012‐13, so there are no caps on enrollment of Spectrum‐eligible attendance area students."

Do you have any thoughts on that? I'd be curious to hear what you think of that response to your idea (in part because I also thought adding a big Spectrum to Madrona would make a lot of sense).

David said...

Also, Charlie, could you say what you think about the district administration staff's response to your idea of a middle school in Wilson-Pacific to relieve capacity issues? The staff wrote, "The building is in very poor condition, and the Capital Projects & Planning department has determined that it is not cost effective to renovate the building. The resources and timeline for any new construction at the Wilson‐Pacific site depend on BEX IV planning and voter approval." Your response?

David said...

Actually, I'd be interested in your thoughts on all of the staff responses to your proposals. I liked a lot of your proposals, especially the Spectrum at Madrona and opening schools like Wilson-Pacific in the north as quickly as possible to relieve boiling over capacity issues, but also a lot of the others. Could you expand on what you think of the responses from the district staff? Do you think they make sense or are mostly non-responsive?

Charlie Mas said...

There is no debate or discussion. I am not afforded the opportunity to speak in defense of my proposals or respond to the criticisms against them. That's not how the process works.

Actually, as we now know, none of my proposals ever had a chance. The process is to reject all proposals from members of the public.

Just the same, here is how I would respond to the rationale for rejection:

1. North-end elementary APP at John Marshall. Superintendent says: ALTF will recommend. I think she is right about that. They will use that process instead of this one.

2. Spectrum at Madrona. Superintendent says: ALTF will recommend. She also says "no changes to advanced learning programs or locations are recommended at this time" but they say that IB at Rainier Beach is exactly that. Hmmm.

3. Van Asselt conversion to K-8. Superintendent says: No room for 6-8 students in the AAA building without reducing K-5 enrollment. Gee, I guess they never heard of portables.

4. Middle school at Wilson-Pacific. Superintendent says: The building is no habitable. Yeah, I know. It's a tear-down. Start the process on that NOW. Don't delay further. Get your permits going.

5. Fairmount Park opened as option school with language immersion. Superintendent says: We would have to think about this. Yeah, I know. And you should have done that thinking between the time I sent in the proposal and the time that you decided about it.

6. Language immersion at Sand Point and Wing Luke. Superintendent says: We're just not thinking about this right now. Yeah, I know. Think about it.

7. Make language immersion schools option schools. Superintendent says: It would be hard. No, it wouldn't be hard at all. The Board wants it; the people want it; do it.

8. Use option enrollment for Montessori programs. Superintendent says: It would require changing attendance areas. So change them.

9/10. Duplicate successful option programs. Superintendent says: It would require changing attendance areas. So change them.