Part Two of Interim Meeting

Sorry, having some issue live blogging.

Director Peaslee is submitting her amendment.   She stated that her amendment was basically what the staff said a week ago with just a few modification.  She believes that it does include relief for Eckstein and Hamilton (but just as with the staff's rec, who really knows because there is so much churn that it is near impossible to know what or where students will be enrolled).  She also says that Principal Debbie Nelson at JA K-8 supports this plan and Laurelhurst supports being moved to Eckstein.  She says, "This will give parents choice. And I believe they will choose well for their students."

DeBell question:  K-8 capacity in 6th grade except for Pinehurst?  Are we going to change the enrollment caps that we have in place?  Physical space for K-8s for additional 6th graders except at JA K-8 (but that enlarges JA K-8).
Morello - capacity at K-8 is 841 for 608 is about 439 and these numbers are without portables on site.  Looking at enrollment for next year, the enrollment for 6-8 is 220 students so there is room for growth.
DeBell - following up, all the other K-8 are far from JA K-8 except Pinehurst, so if we recruit, the available space is at the building we need.  The 150 students we want for JA MS, if they go to JA K-8, then do we lose those students for that middle school?   No room in JA building to start it?
(He seems to be missing this is NOT assignment but choice.  It could be 150 or it could be 100 at JA K-8.)
Smith-Blum - is this an issue for a larger JA K-8?
Morello - K-5 capacity is 402, that's not the case.
Other capacity guy - add portables in '14-'15 so after next year, we'd need portables no matter what.

DeBell is still hammering this point.  Significant fiscal impacts from this amendment.  Morello says yes but they are unsure what they are.

DeBell - what are fiscal impacts?  (Sounds like he wants to limit JA K-8 growth.)

Other capacity guy - will need to add portables sooner if we recruit more students if it grew to 740-800.

McEvoy also says this would all depend on the boundaries, might be part of Olympic View, for example.

McLaren - DeBell's question about what would happen in '14-'15, does amendment specify that year?
Peaslee - the JA MS would start roll-up then and as well, the boundaries would change.  The planning would be done and boundaries redrawn.
McLaren - no, does amendment preclude JA K-8 moving to John Marshall in '14-'15?
Peaslee - no it does not and is not part of the amendment.

DeBell - Some real misgivings of this notion of recruitment, not part of language or spirit of NSAP.  Intention was for clarity.  (This amendment would NOT change that but it seems he wants to throw this out there for some reason.)  He also said is it our intent to overcrowd Eckstein so people go elsewhere?  (No, Michael, that is not what Sharon is saying but clearly you want people to believe that.  A new middle school will be here quite soon so one year is no NSAP dealbreaker.)  "Sets a precedent here."

Patu asked about what recruitment would look like and why necessary.
Peaslee pointed out that it wasn't more money but letting people know, more clearly, to know about ALL options parents have in their region.  For example, she said many parents might not know that JA K-8 was named a school of achievement last year.  She disagreed with DeBell that it was any kind of plan to overenroll any school.

Smith-Blum asked about mushroom model at Salmon Bay.
DeBell said we have that but Salmon Bay is full.
Smith-Blum pointed out that Thornton Creek adds students to Salmon Bay (but those student might end up at either Eckstein or JA K-8).
Martin-MOrris said the TC tiebreaker wasn't a "preference" fr those students.  What?!


Anonymous said…
Thanks for live blogging it, Melissa. I can't get the livestream to work, so it's very helpful!

-ML Mama
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
The Peaslee amendment returned Sac Olympic and John Rogers back to the Eckstein area for 2013-14. That means they will look at enrollment and I expect boundarying issues again shortly to have a better answer to which schools roll to JAMS in 2014.

I expect a fight bigger than this year's over realignment of addresses to schools. Especially after hearing tonight that Bryant is oversubscribed again. Some of those families are no doubt headed to Sand Point or Laurelhurst. And depending on what happens at Thornton Creek, a whole lot of additional NE families will be redrawn into a new area. After which no doubt one of the northern NE schools like View Ridge or Wedgwood could be headed for JAMS.

And good odds APP will be too big for Hamilton.

Commence new round of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Capacity Wonk
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools