Growth Boundaries Information

Readers keep asking about information and I'll try to put up as much as I can find. 

Growth Boundaries website.  This page contains links to:
  • Presentation to the Board Work Session on September 17
  • Handout from the Board Work Session on September 17
  • Maps from presentation
(Note:  I have also searched but cannot find a map that I am told exists of current boundaries and proposed boundaries on one page.)

Questions and answers from Community Meetings will be added to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page as quickly as possible. 
See the complete planning Timeline.

Email comments to:
(Please put your school or topic in the subject line.)

Growth Boundaries Maps page.

Facilities Master Plan 2012

And I know some readers have asked for the very latest capacity numbers for each building.  Frankly, I searched in several ways and could not find easily find them.  If the district makes it this hard to find, I'm thinking they don't want you to see them.  If someone has a link, great.


Eric B said…
A map exists of the current boundaries and proposed boundaries, with each from/to change listed. I've seen it as part of the Board handout, but it's not in the PDF on the website. It should be available from Tracy Libros.
joanna said…
Yes, the projections were presented in handouts on and only for elementary schools at Mercer, but in WS projections for the middle schools was also in the handouts. I agree those should be in the pdfs.
joanna said…
And then how APP figured into Washington and T. Marshall since they are expanding the boundaries around T Marshall. The plan for APP north end, while controversial for some is pretty clearly defined. And the projections that I have seen for Washington in the past have always included APP, but something did not seem to add up.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
reposting what anon at 5:27 said since it helpful but wasn't signed and might get deleted:
For the current/proposed boundaries, I opened the "Handout" link you've posted and it's on page 27 of 29. It's like one of those optional illusions using neg/pos, it's not very detailed with roads, but it has the areas switching and listed by # on an index.

(wish the above referenced maps had actual streets on them. anyone knwo if that exists?)
not anon
Jon said…
Thanks, Lynn, those are useful links. Looks like I was wrong and all the high schools are full, including Rainier Beach. So new capacity will entirely be portables and the new Lincoln HS, I guess.
Anonymous said…

I looked at this awhile ago and I think by 2020, we'll need Lincoln High School plus another 2,000 seats. Half of those seats would be in Chief Sealth's area and the other half between Ballard and Roosevelt. (That does make Wilson Pacific High School an interesting idea.)

Anonymous said…
page 23 of BEX IV Work Session shows what they were expecting with High School when they were finishing the BEX planning.

Does anyone have the current enrollment information? It looks like we might really be full at high school already.

It would stand to reason that if we are adding three middle schools that maybe we need three high schools.

- north seattle mom
Jon said…
Thanks again, Lynn. And, those 2,000 seats in addition to Lincoln HS by 2020, is the District's current plan that all of those seats will come from portables (especially in the time period before Lincoln HS is finished and available)?

Any idea how many portables that would be? Probably 50-60? Is there room at the high schools (space outside and facilities inside) for that number of portables?
And so all of you doing this homework can see that my thread from another reader about the coming high school surge is timely (and correct).

Something to keep in mind.
A-mom said…
Choices of linked schools seem a wee limited for people in the uppermost NW catchment area,only 1 elementary,and 1 K-8.
No Option elementary.
Eric B said…
Revised numbers for all schools should be out soon. The "official" counts are made October 1, and then take a few days to assemble and release.
kellie said…
Here is the latest wait list numbers.

Chief Sealth
Nathan Hale

all have wait lists as of yesterday. That is a big sign that they are all full.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
kellie said…
Which plan are you referencing? I know page 9 of this handout has the current capacity numbers and they look about right to me.

I know Roosevelt was designed for 1600 during the rebuild and the capacity here is listed as 1707 so it at least feels like it is in the ballpark, if a bit high.

I haven't seen any current enrollment info but I suspect the enrollment is higher than these numbers.
kellie said…
To be clear, I was referencing the high school numbers. They look about right. Some of the elementary numbers are just weird.
mirmac1 said…
"Listed" capacity does NOT account for spaces required for special education, as all comprehensive secondary schools must provide. Students with intensive needs require classroom space for as few as 8 students. So three self-contained classrooms take close to those 100 seats out of circulation. Any unused HS capacity is illusory.
mirmac1 said…
What is stopping the district from exercising eminent domain and repossessing the MLK building?
Anonymous said…
kellie - I was using the 2012 Draft Facilities Master Plan (link in Melissa's post above.) I agree the current numbers should be used instead.

Kellie, thanks for those numbers. They are quite telling. For anyone who has doubts about alternative education, nearly every single option school has a waitlist (South Shore and K-5 STEM have long lists.)

Mirmac is right; anyone who says there is space at the majority of high schools is wrong. At Roosevelt alone - a new building - they took one room (I think it was either a teachers lounge or prep room) and converted it to a science room because they needed more labs.

Mirmac, it would be an interesting exercise to see the district try that (and they probably would need all their ducks lined up). But it may come to that especially since MLK, Jr. building is not maxed out for its use.
Charlie Mas said…
Missing from the Growth Boundaries information is any information on the rationale for the many program placement decisions included in the plan.

Board policy requires the release of this information and requires community engagement.
Anonymous said…
Note: The district owns Oak Tree shopping mall/cinema parcel along Aurora. Not ideal location, but there certainly is transit, rapid ride is coming soon, and landscaping can accomplish a lot. So when jokes about "Wilson Pacific High School" aren't far off. "Oak Tree High School" is not impossible. No lengthy eminent domain law suits required. (Because, really, don't you think that would so long the proposed high schoolers would have children in SPS by the time it was settled?)

Signed: Seriously
mirmac1 said…
The irony is that a government agency must pay "fair market value" so SPS would pay more than it got for MLK. Given a willing seller, the process could be complete in less than two years. I don't think FAME would resist this, given the stresses many families in the community are suffering. The district could even get a possession order and occupy quite quickly, while the studies, appraisal, relocation assistance and negotiations are underway.

Frankly, this would take away the antipathy many have against the district because of Pottergate and FAME.
Anonymous said…
The next blog entry is screwed up. It shows up incomplete and without comments available. The "district calendar" part of the website is in the wrong place and the rest of the blog is cut off.

Anonymous said…
Ooops. It's the "High Schools and Growth" post that is screwed up.

JvA said…
I created a table of all the neighborhood grade schools, with links to the City of Seattle walk routes, the current attendance zone, and the proposed boundary map. I found that Title 1 schools are being disproportionately being shut out of walk zones with the new plan.

Hope you find it useful, it sure took me a while to put together!
Maureen said…
Melissa says: South Shore and K-5 STEM have long lists.
Wait, this doc implies that South Shore is way under capacity. Why hasn't the
wait list been moved?
Maureen, I have found this quite odd about South Shore. While there is a waitlist - at almost every grade - I'm fairly certain the building isn't full (even accounting for their specialty program).

Also, I was talking to a reporter (who is more in the know than most) but even she had no idea that (1) LEV has taken over fiduciary duties for the extra money South Shore gets and (2) that this had been money going in the school for more than a decade.

It's funny because the district constantly talks about public/private partnerships but rarely hauls this out as an example. I haven't check SS's test scores versus other typical schools. I think they are likely better than average but probably not as stellar as the money going into the school might imply.

I also think South Shore will - at some point - be a conversion charter. If it's for next school year,we'll know by Oct. 22 when applicants have to file their letters of intent (which include if they are trying a conversion).

All our discussion about capacity could be complete thrown off if even one building is gone.
Meg said…
The New School Foundation (now operated by/with LEV) has an MOU with the district to keep South Shore class sizes around 21. In return, they put about $1M of additional operating funds into South Shore every year.

I have suggested multiple times that the MOU be dropped, or at least negotiated slightly upwards, since South Shore is in a brand spanking new building and has the lowest class sizes in the entire district.
Ah, I hadn't read the new MOU. Now I really want to check their scores.

I wonder if LEV (or someone else) takes over South Shore via a conversion charter - will the district feel betrayed?

I also wonder - that since we can know in advance that someone is planning a conversion (although maybe not exactly what school) - how schools might fight back?
Anonymous said…
I don't get it. Are Ed reformers for more technology and larger class size or smaller class size, like they are buying at SS?

Josh Hayes said…
Seriously: the suggestion that the district put a high school on the Oak Tree lot seems a little crazy to me (I live a couple of blocks from there), mostly because it just seems too small for that. There'd be no room for any adjunct facilities: gym, playing field, auditorium, and so forth.

I have been told that it used to be an elementary school, and that seems to me to be quite plausible, but I think people would worry about having their little ones RIGHT THERE on Aurora (of course, Bagley is in a similar situation). I think it could work, and I don't think we'd miss the movie theater or the grocery store - but the Starbucks! Can we live without the Starbucks over there??? (I'm kidding, just in case you wondered.)

So I dunno: do we need another elementary school in that location? Would that free up space at Wilson-Pacific?
NW mom said…
Josh, we need the ihop more than the Starbucks. :) and the HT is pretty awesome. Doesn't the district still own the school building that Wallingford center is in as well?
Patrick said…
It seems like SPS should be getting more in rentals from Oak Tree than they'd get for a comparable size bit of real estate that wasn't intensive retail. Isn't there some other single owner of a large parcel of real estate that's worth less by being not right on Aurora that SPS could buy out?
No, NW Mom, the district also sold that off to the city. Gone.

Patrick, I always thought that as well but I have never had a lot of faith in the way the district has managed rentals/leases, etc.
Anonymous said…
So Lincoln HS will be a 4A school at 1600!


Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools