BEX IV Work Session
Anybody go? Thoughts, reactions?
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.)
Comments
When will someone on the Board call people on their lies and logical inconsistencies?
For some radical changes to the BEX IV plan, Director DeBell doesn't bat an eye. Want to suddenly add the move of Jane Addams (enrollment 581) into the Pinehurst building (capacity 265)? No problem! Want to suddenly include additions to Bagley and Loyal Heights? Sure, go ahead! Want to delete the additions for North Beach and Mercer? No trouble at all! Want to do the planned work at Arbor Heights a little sooner? Sorry, we would love to but we can't because this is a very complicated model that can't be quickly repositioned.
WTF?!?
And no mention of NE APP? Odd.
If the rest of the board goes around him to address Arbor Heights and northeast enrollment, then that is the cohesiveness on the board that many of us have been waiting for.
SavvyVoter
Or am I just reading that wrong?
I don't say not to give credit where credit is due but, I dunno, when was the last time your private sector employer and coworders said "Thanks for doing your job and cashing your check!" Uh, you're welcome I guess.
impatient
You've outdone yourself this time. The only thing missing is Burgess, DeBell, and McGinn prostrating themselves before Bezos (w/ Paull Allen in the back in his Star Wars stormtrooper garb.)
Well if I have to revisit the last 4 years of SPS, I prefer your "quick and dirty" photoshop montage.
Don't know if I should laugh or cry though.
-reader
I almost went there.
You should double-check this, but I think the middle school capacity shown on that slide includes all the portables at Eckstein and Whitman.
The 5% portable goal is district-wide, not per region.
I'm hoping that at least the older portables will be removed. Once the new middle schools are opened.
-Eckstein Bound
Where is K-5 STEM going?! Are we a "school"?!
Why isn't Arbor Heights being moved up (thanks PAC MAC for seeing that need!)?
What about the capacity issues in West Seattle even with Fairmount Park, SP@G and the AH rebuild?
ugh... just wait for the boundary redraws. I.can't.wait.
Thanks, that makes sense. Does anybody know how we find out what that graph would look like with the 5% portables target?
(And why did they present it this way? This graph makes it look like they're planning to keep all portables and overbuild 500-1000 seats. I'd accuse them of obfuscating, but this doesn't really help sell the curent proposal.)
It does appear that the intention is to far overbuild in the north. It looks that way because the District believes that even their "high" numbers are too low. They are probably right about that.
Now the question becomes, if you don't think those numbers are right, why are you using them?
Same for the downtown school.