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.

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!
2/24/12, 4:16 PM
dw said…
At least some of Charlie's proposals got meaningful comments. That's far better than the previous administration.
2/24/12, 7:15 PM
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.
2/25/12, 8:21 AM
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).
2/25/12, 5:01 PM
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?
2/25/12, 5:08 PM
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?
2/25/12, 5:14 PM
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.
2/28/12, 7:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, gr...
Read more

Education News Roundup

From the ever-amusing Washington Policy Center : Vouchers are Pell Grants for students under 18.  Vouchers are no different than Pell Grants or GI benefits, except the money goes to the families of students younger than age 18.  Except they are. Pell Grants were created to help needy students and that's not really the goal of the voucher program.  The Pell grant website does have a couple of great studies on why low-income students drop out before finishing their higher ed and what makes a difference.
Read more