Disqus

Thursday, October 11, 2012

BEX IV Work Session

Anybody go?  Thoughts, reactions?

22 comments:

Mark Ahlness said...

WS Blog was there with this report.

Charlie Mas said...

AAARGGGH!!!

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?!?

Po3 said...

DeBell is such a drag on the board.

And no mention of NE APP? Odd.

Anonymous said...

DeBell has no credibility in this process. His highest priority is the downtown school. He has made this clear. The reality is that a downtown school is far down the list of must haves.

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

mirmac1 said...

If they spent less time saying what a great job they're doing, perhaps there would've been more time to actually have a discussion.

mirmac1 said...

DeBell is the micromanaging shadow superintendent. Banda must grow some cajones and remind him who he delegated to run things. Oh yeah, I forgot, DeBell wanted the lady from Oregon, you know MGJ's doppelganger.

Confused said...

Can somebody explain page 22 of the slide deck to me? Is the goal to build enough NE middle school capacity to exceed the high range projection by some 500 seats?

Or am I just reading that wrong?

Melissa Westbrook said...

I note that the WS Blog noticed the time spend on thanking each other. It does run on at times.

mirmac1 said...

frankly, I see the self-congratulation so often, in so many contexts, that i truly believe it feeds into the whole insular mindset. "Wow, everyone (at HQ) thinks we doing a bang-up job so we must be. I don't need to answer those pesky parent or teacher emails!" That was why MGJ got those glowing reviews and pay raises; because she had an office and a pulse.

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.

Someone said...

That is fascinating about DeBell and his "repositioning" comments - that guy just doesn't get that there are more people in Seattle than the ones with money. Just based on what I've read, (having never been to Arbor Heights) - that's a school that desparately needs help, everyone BUT DeBell can see that - and yet he seems to be in control of it's fate? I just don't get it - not at all.

Anonymous said...

Just wanting until he is not President anymore, when he is voted out at the first board meeting in December.

impatient

ArchStanton said...

Quick and dirty South Lake Union School House photoshop here

mirmac1 said...

ArchStanton,

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.)

Unknown said...

Impatient, yes, I can hardly wait for that.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Stanton,

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

ArchStanton said...

The only thing missing is Burgess, DeBell, and McGinn prostrating themselves before Bezos

I almost went there.

Anonymous said...

@Confused
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

wsmama3 said...

and for the love of all things...

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.

JADad said...

@Eckstein Bound

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.)

Chris S. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charlie Mas said...

@confused,

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.

Jan said...

Ah! Bingo, Charlie! That was the conclusion I was coming to -- reading the analyses of Kellie, you, and others on how the high/middle/low numbers were generated. If they are not afraid to "overbuild" because they think their numbers lack meaning -- why don't they come out with different numbers? We all understand these are forecasts. We know that they can be wrong for a variety of resons (demographic, economic, etc.). But it really means that the analysis is being done on "secret" numbers -- assumptions and estimates that aren't written and disseminated -- which means we can't really have a rational discussion, because they won't share their thought process.