APP Growth Boundaries Open Thread
Let's hear your thoughts (I haven't read them yet.)
Please note; be useful/polite or be deleted.
Please note; be useful/polite or be deleted.
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
Not surprised - but annoyed. Anyone want to guess how long it'll take to get 25 to 30 8th grade students to sign up for this?
-Balk
That's what not mentioned any where, additional HS APP pathways.
It's guaranteed to APP kids to go to three High schools for now, Garfield, Rainier Beach and Ingraham as well as their reference school, if different. With so many north end kids coming down the pipe, where's the new capacity going to be? They can't all go to Ingraham.
2014-15 – current APP from Lincoln and newly qualified APP who live in HIMS service area go to APP at HIMS
2014-15 – current APP from Lincoln and newly qualified APP who live in Whitman service area go to HIMS
2014-15 - current APP from Lincoln and newly qualified APP who live in NE (Eckstein and JAMS) go to JAMS
The split to three northend APP middle cohorts comes in 2016-17 when they put the Wilson Pacific Middle (gened and APP) at John Marshall.
I don't see that they've said anything about moving any current APP at HIMS out of HIMS.
Right?
Reader
I think you're correct. The first change for APP would be 6th graders in JAMS and Eckstein attendance areas going to JAMS next fall.
However... if the IB and IBX classes are very small, as they might well be, that could tip the scales. It wouldn't be hard to imagine class size of 15 or so. That has a lot of appeal. It's not uncommon for an IB student to have IB classes for four - or even five - of six periods. Math, science, language arts, social studies, and world language could all be IB.
But wouldn't this create even a worse "apartheid" situation than the one that generates such complaints at Garfield? Especially since the IBX classes are self-contained. How is that consistent with the District's goals?
For the northeast, Eckstein should have been chosen as the APP middle school site instead of Jane Addams. Nearly all of the students live in the Eckstein walk zone. Almost none live in the Jane Addams walk zone.
I don't think they expect anyone to choose the program at RBHS. It's their answer to the requirement to provide services to students new to APP in the 9th grade. Now they can say they've offered something. I wonder how they'll get around the 'variety of services' requirement?
Once again you show your true colors of being an antagonist when you suggest Eckstein bc most of the kids currently live nearby. I do not know what the right answer is but I do now solving todays issue is not the goal. The goal is to set up a long term solution for the district. You will need to come up with another reason for Eckstein. Your usefulness as a true problem solver for the district is long gone as proven in this Eckstein comment.
-Ted
If in fact the district wants to put APP closer to where kids live, JAMS isn't much of an improvement for a lot of us over HIMS. I am exactly equidistant between the two schools; one is 3 miles west, the other is 3 miles north. It's a really easy walk to Eckstein though! For Lincoln families who live south of me, HIMS is actually closer to them than JAMS.
This decision isn't about proximity and walkability. Nothing wrong with calling that out.
-Ted
I don't know enough about geography in th north to comment about the specific district plan, but north APP grew quite a bit when it got specific north-end campuses, which suggests to me that parents are sensitive to geography when enrolling their kids.
RR
Not everyone who starts with IB classes continues on the IB diploma path, former APP included.
I think for the 9th grade year, APP students end up having a lot of classes with their middle school cohort, but not all.
Not a parent of APP/IBX, so this could be wrong, but it's what I've observed at Ingraham.
- Sounder
"You will need to come up with another reason for Eckstein."
The reason for Eckstein is because it is the placement that is compliant with the governing policy, 2200. Jane Addams would not be compliant with the policy. The policy says to place the programs close to where the students live. The vast majority of middle school APP students in the northeast live south of Eckstein. That makes Eckstein the correct placement for the program for those students instead of Jane Addams.
Sounder, you are correct that I'm proposing that more elementary schools feed to Jane Addams instead of Eckstein if Eckstein were named as the APP site. The schools that would be re-directed to Jane Addams would be Sacajawea and Wedgwood, which are both within the walk zone for Jane Addams. There would be no reduction in walkability. Remember that nearly all of the APP students would get a walkable school instead of needing transportation.
Greywatch, thanks for the information on IBX.
I think IBX at both Sealth and RBHS would make sense as more students would be able to attend school closer to home.
-Another Reader
I wonder if it will be possible for students zoned for T. Marshall to get a seat at Lincoln and the WP elementary though open enrollment. What is the APP capacity at Lincoln?
The Wing Luke/Aki pathway makes no more sense than a West Seattle pathway.
-Balk
I'm all in favor of the north-end kids staying together and finally getting a real, permanent school building after getting shuffled around for years -- god bless -- but how can we at the same time ague for this and that south-end kids should be in cohorts so small, it's not even clear they'll be able to maintain self-contained classrooms? If we want to build an APP program that looks like it favors the wealthy and white, this is the way to do it.
And are there really enough middle schoolers in the north or south to provide sufficient cohorts for three middle schools in EACH region? 550 in the north, 350 in the south: clearly not anytime soon.
- Doesn't Add Up
You are saying that APP kids should have to choose between their attendance area school and the services the district is required by law to provide? And this is because they live near a popular school? If the APP students near Eckstein choose to enroll there, the district would then have to redirect Wedgwood and Sacajawea students to JAMS. Why bus APP kids north to JAMS when they could walk to Eckstein and Sacajawea and Wedgwood students could walk to JAMS? Isn't there something else we could do with that money?
Way to arrange everything for the benefit of families who want to attend Eckstein and don't live quite close enough.
They do pay - it's called taxes.
I agree. South-end APP could fill a school on it's own if we stay together.
I think when it's time to split north end APP middle school there will only be enough students for two sites. Their projections give too much weight to the 7% of north end 6th grade students who were newly enrolled in APP this year.
- Sounder
Ingraham Family
To make room for 360 APP students at Eckstein, you'd have to move 720 attendance area elementary students out of the middle school assignment area. Wedgwood's capacity is 425 and Sacajawea's is 300. You wouldn't have to move View Ridge.
Terrible to hear what is going on with south APP. South Seattle also needs a cohesive program with a critical mass of kids. Is there some geography issues w/connectedness of West Seattle?
version 3 please
No, Charlie has never said anything like that. He is arguing for the policy the Board set forth for boundaries. He has always arguing for following policies because otherwise, why have them?
As for the North cohort being together versus the south cohort, well, there's again that lack of consistency. I don't believe this makes sense at all and will weaken APP in the south. Or maybe, with it being at more schools, parents will be okay with perhaps a closer neighborhood choice.
If Sacajawea, Wedgwood, and View Ridge were routed to JAMS, there would be no reason to artificially "enhance" the JAMS FRL percentage by busing in APP kids.
-North-end Mom
HIMSmom
Why are APP students less deserving of an assignment within walking distance to their homes than other students?
There just isn't going to be room at Hamilton or Eckstein any other way.
- north seattle mom
Do you mean all of APP plus the JAMS 6th graders? Otherwise, how does moving all of APP to JAMS help Eckstein?
- North-end Mom
I don't agree with Another Reader's tone (or content), but it seems pretty clear to me that APP students have a choice. It makes more sense for them to be bused than kids who HAVE to attend their neighborhood school (just like families who choose Option schools). I think it just makes sense to locate APP and Option schools in buildings that it's difficult to walk to or have a small number of kids in the area .
SE Parent
Why doesn't it make sense to assign students who attend the elementary schools closest to JAMS to that school? Why bus kids north past Eckstein to JAMS so that Wedgwood and Sacajawea families can avoid being drawn into JAMS's attendance area? Elementary schools have to be reassigned when new middle schools open - even if people really like the old middle school.
My guess is that not enough families will register for the SE and SW optional pathways and they'll never get off the ground. I'll be a distraction and a waste of time and energy - but nothing will actually change.
Thanks! NEMom
To me (and I have an APP kid still at Bryant) the reverse of your question makes more sense. Significant portions of the Wedgwood and Sac reference areas are in very close proximity to Eckstein. Why bus them to JAMS so that APP, which comes from a larger geographic region than either WW or Sac, can go to Eckstein?
H
I hope that's not the case for WS APP and we can create a strong optional path for those of us with kids who do not want or need self-contained APP
What you're talking about is NOT APP. If you do not feel that your child/ren have the need for a self-contained program, no problem, that's your call for your kids, but that means you do not want or need APP, it's as simple as that. Don't wreck it for others by further diluting what little is left of APP at this point. That is what certain SPS administrators want, to dilute the program down until it's merely nothing more than differentiation in every building around the city, and from firsthand experience over many years, APP parents will tell you that for (the vast majority of) APP kids, THAT DOES NOT WORK!
If you really, truly do not want self-contained for your own kids, what you should be pushing hard for is real (supported and enforced) ALO programs, rather than the mish-mosh of unsupported, unsustainable, undefinable crap that occurs in many buildings, if at all.
I understand your mindset, I was once there myself. But it's wrong, and it helps those who are working hard to destroy the program. Sorry, but someone's got to say it.
Of the 360 APP middle school students living in that part of the city, over 300 of them live south of Eckstein. The Sacajawea and Wedgwood attendance areas are within the walk zone for Jane Addams Middle School. Those students will not be bussed there. The APP students do not live in the Jane Addams walk zone and would have to be bussed there.
Students living in the Sacajawea and Wedgwood attendance areas would not have to pass Eckstein on their way to Jane Addams as the APP students would.
I caught that too. We've got some strong parent leaders from the NE, and on balance I think they've served the whole community well. But I'm worried that most of the leadership energy and focus would be diverted to the NE pathway, rather than maintaining a commitment to ensuring all kids leaving 5th grade APP in the north end (or opting in for 6th grade) have a strong program to enter. I'm guessing many families assigned to Hamilton may keep their head down, and that leaves the northwest with not only a very rocky pathway but likely without a viable cohort even once the program is "established".
NW mom
WS Mother
-uncertain
I have no doubt that our many thoughtful parents, both those volunteering on the PTA and those who aren't, will consider all the permutations and ramifications as we all get our heads around the latest version of the proposal. Let's not jump the gun hear and distort what is being said.
I completely agree 100%, those of us who live in the proposed Whitman or Wilson Pacific AA's with children in APP at Lincoln are on the bad end of the stick. We will be placed in a school where from the forefront, we will be the afterthought among a heavy non-AL community. Now I have children on both sides of this debate, and for neither would the outcome be positive. I would rather have my child stay at Wilson Pacific Elementary than try to survive in the small dilution that is Wilson Pacific Middle School. Besides the SNAPP PTA, the JAMS neighborhoods have not been very positive about having APP at their school. Plus our children will, every 5th grade year, be spilt 3 or maybe 2 ways to middle school. There is no reason why APP should not all be at Wilson Pacific Middle School. We should began reaching out to HIMS neighborhoods and JAMS neighborhoods to support an outcome that leaves space for their students in their neighborhood schools and allows APP to thrive for all students at WP.
APP in Limbo
Really, they have divided us. Unfortunately for the minority, our PTA is not made-up of folks in all North APP areas leading to non-representation for some of us. The only way to fix this is to split north app into NE and NW. NW needs Queen Anne and Magnolia included in NW to have a voice that will be heard equally to the voice of the NE.
Furthering that thought, elementary APP should be split into two - right down I-5. NE APP could go to Wilson Pacific due to capacity crunch on that side of town, and NW APP could go to the new Loyal Heights seats that SPS is creating strange boundaries to fill. We should have two APP middle schools, as well. NE could go to Wilson Pacific, again to help capacity over there, and NW APP could go to Hamilton by removing a few schools and adding them to WP.
ALL APP kids should stay at Hamilton (or in a Lincoln annex) until ALL APP kids can be placed in their new homes.
Until I hear the PTA president say we are united against ANY roll-up, she does not speak for the entire population. Currently, all she has said is (paraphrasing) "we must fight for all kids to go to Wilson Pacific to help keep NE kids out of JAMS. If that doesn't work, we need to work to make JAMS the best we can". There was NO MENTION of concern for kids in the Whitman service area.
You can say it's not official communication, but it's official in my mind once she posts on Facebook. Make it the official school facebook page or get the PTA to stop posting there. It is PLAIN WRONG to have it "both ways" (when it comes to that page).
kp
I'd love some advice on how to fight for our kids in the Whitman APP service area since we clearly are not being represented by the PTA (and we are such a small number). I wish I could have made my argument as eloquently as a few people who posted right after me, but they may have gone unaddressed.
Unlike our leadership, morally I could never fight for anything that would leave part of our population dealing with a 2 class roll-up at John Marshall!
Sorry, Lori, I hope you are right for my kid's sake, but I am incredibly doubtful given what I've seen from this NE group over the several years I've had kids in APP.
The situations BOTH STINK, but the Whitman APP kids have it much, much worse than any other group.
Kp
NEparent
I still find an app middle school split more damaging than an elementary one, and think the district app growth projection numbers at the middle school level ate insane, and i don't believe them. It's not going to be big enough for two, let alone 3.
-sleeper
backwards
How do we get there?
-uncertain
I think you might be referencing my FB post on the SNAPP FB group page, and I think you might have misunderstood the various statements everyone was putting out there in fast succession yesterday. There are 66 comments on that post notifying everyone that the new plan was out.
I also personally posted a comment about the concern for the WPMS roll up at JM in 2016.
And what I read from all of the posts was that we should continue to challenge this, but if the JAMS splits is inevitable it would make sense to start working collaboratively now to try to make sure that a decent offering existed next year.
I'm personally very sorry if you feel like your interests aren't being represented in all of this.
I care and I believe that many others that are working on this do as well. More in a minute.
Eden
I went through the APP program in the 80's, when we wereIPP, and we were co-housed at Madrona and Washington with neighborhood programs, and there was plenty of tension. I believe co-housing is a bad idea. The whole point of APP is that it's self-contained, so what is the benfit in co-housing it besides a shorter bus ride for some kids, and maybe the benfits for families with one sibling in APP and one not? Neither of those are about academic outcomes, they're about convenience and cost. And I think we should build programs based on academics.
APP Alum
I had a quick e-mail exchange with Tracy Libros yesterday and asked her specifically what is meant to happen to the APP kids that live in the WPMS feeder zone (i.e. Whitman/Ballard) before the 2016 roll up.
And she said (I don't know that she would mind me quoting her):
"This board action (Growth Boundaries for Student Assignment) addresses the boundaries, feeder patterns, and option school geozones.
A separate action (Intermediate Capacity Management Plan to Support Implementation of Growth Boundaries and BEX IV) will address implementation in conjunction with capacity management. The Board agenda (October 16, 2013) notes that this will be posted no later than Monday, October 14."
They have not release the Interim plan yet. It is not yet defined in specific. No ONE knows if they really are planning for a 6th grade roll up of at JM for the WPMS kids (both AA and APP).
the details in the Attachment B refer to some possibilities, but there are a ton of holes and the district isn't sharing the details with us until tomorrow.
And, I do think that this plan that came out was a big surprise change for all. I know I was surprised.
All of this process (or lack of it) is really taxing on people feeling like they understand the issue and can respond. I spent untold hours pouring over the plan to understand it, to model it, to talk with lots of people that have been working on this stuff for every, and to meet with district staff and board members with information for discussion and data to back up the arguments.
Please, please, Please, can we stop the finger pointing and in fighting. Maybe I am naive, but no one is out to get anyone, and we all want the best for our kids. And we can do that if we work together.
I'd rather spend energy on figuring out what we all do want and how to work toward our common goals.
More in a minute about the analysis I did this morning.
Eden
You asked what are they going to do with the new space at Loyal Heights and proposed APP?
Have you noticed that they have portables at LH, packed to the gills? And that they're on the list to get 4 Self-contained SpEd classrooms (which is about a 100 seat capacity loss)? Did you know that before you started posing Loyal Heights as a "solution" for APP placement?
So between losing the portables and the 100 seats to SpEd, guess what -- Loyal Heights will be full. Did you ask LH about their school's ability to absorb 200 kids? Bet you'd be shocked - they won't want APP any more than Olympic Hills did.
I'll be brutally frank since the timing is short: don't weigh in on where kids should "go" b/c YOU think "there are seats" if you don't fully understand SpEd calculations and placement, how seats/capacity at schools are calculated, how many portables are at a current school and will be removed by an addition and thus have to replicated as classrooms, and whether the building capacity numbers you used to make your calculation are the district's "with portables" number or "without portables" number.
EXAMPLE: if the district is using the building capacity w/o portables as the "before" construction number, but the school is already using 2 or 4 portables, for instance, and those are lost in the addition - guess what ... 60 to 100 of the "new" seats already have existing kids in them who will be coming from the portables and are not "new" capacity, merely seats that are now being counted inside the building and weren't previously counted.
Yeah, that's how messed up SPS is. I understand that FACMAC worked over a year to try to daylight those numbers but they still pull their hair out over how numbers are used for schools willy-nilly.
Just guessing that there are going to be "a lot of seats" somewhere is bull. And wrong. And EXACTLY the piss-poor planning and counting that got SPS into this mess.
Ditto Bagley - getting 4 SpEd rooms, so losing about 100 seats from its projected final after construction. And they have portables going away.
As a basic starting point, look at the list of SpEd locations for 4 class pullouts before posing solutions, and maybe ask that neighborhood school if they want APP, okay?
Signed: Math Counts
I've shared previously on this blog that my husband (long time analyst for capacity related problems at Amazon) and I were running an analysis to show the impact of the proposed plan on enrollment and capacity.
we did that. and we consulted many people on the assumptions and data and so forth. and we met with district staff and others and validated the model and shared our findings.
If you are on the SNAPP FB group, you can find the post where I shared this with our whole community. I also shared my letter to the district and the recommendations that I came to based on modeling the data and trying all of the different possibilities. If you find it, PLEASE keep in mind all of the background and assumptions of the model and ask me if you have any questions. My e-mail and phone are there. Additionally, we modeled ONE alternative, and there are others that could work too. I'm happy to explain the rational behind this scenario, so PLEASE call or e-mail before drawing conclusions about the rational.
the goal is to create less churn for ALL kids in the North end, and keep APP going strong.
(Oh, to back up a second, what we've done is build a data model that shows exactly what happens when elementary schools feed into middle schools in the North end. Because of the way we built the model, we have the flexibility to run the model using basically any scenario that can be presented.)
So, this morning I went through the new plan and modeled north end middles school enrollment and capacity at all of the buildings based on what is currently described.
I'm happy to share that picture with anyone that is interested.
Using our model, the plan that came out late on Friday will result in:
• Wilson Pacific MS is ALREADY full with only the AA kids starting in 2017 and over capacity in 2018 if the building is built to 1000 kids capacity. APP doesn't fit there in this plan. The AA kids fill it up. If the building capacity is built to 1250 as it was originally speced it could work, though, maybe. Maybe.
• Eckstein is still overloaded (by hundreds of kids. Someone's statement about Sacagawea and Wedgwood needing to feed to JAMS are in fact correct, from a number stand point. (I'm not familiar with the geography/demographics or walkability)
--JAMS is not utilized fully even with the NE APP kids being assigned to JAMS next year. there aren't enough schools feeding to it, and NE APP doesn't make up the 500 kid difference.
• Hamilton is still going to be overloaded, just a little bit in the interim and longer term even with pulling out the Whitman area APP kids to WPMS/JM in 2016 or 2017.
the bottom line is that the North end middle school building capacity is simply not enough now, and BEX4 is not going to bring the buildings on line fast enough to manage.
IMHO, this plan is better in some regards than the draft, but it still is problematic.
Splitting out the Boundaries decision from the interim plan decision, which is interesting from a process stand point.
I personally believe we need to keep APP together and strong. In the north end that means keeping the elementary school self contained. It is a night mare to managed the pyramid that is APP elementary capacity (6 5th grades, 3 1st) with AA schools. It is better for everyone to let APP elementary live in a location NOT shared with AA.
On the middle school side of things, APP has always shared with AA. One, two or three sites for APP from a capacity perspective isn't terrible. In fact, I think that it actually reduces the possibility that APP would get kicked out again if it is in 3 of the 5 North end MS.
HOWEVER, the equity of program delivery, maintenance of the right size cohorts and so forth are still a major factor in this discussion, as well as how the transition is managed.
Please let me know if you have any questions, and lets continue to talk about how to ensure that APP and all kids in North Seattle are provided a great education, in spite of the capacity crunch.
Eden
Second, write to me at
sss.westbrook@gmail.com. Clearly explain the situation - Whitman's makeup, the attitude of the principal, teachers, PTA, your numbers and maybe I can think of things to do.
I have to tell you - Whitman is that faraway outlier middle school. It has been overlooked for a long, long time. Do I think that will get better? No. But there may be some ways to get Whitman on someone's radar.
Thank you APP alum because yes, Madrona (back in the day) WAS a mess. John Stanford himself said APP should not be co-housed.
Eden said:
"Maybe I am naive, but no one is out to get anyone, and we all want the best for our kids. And we can do that if we work together.
I'd rather spend energy on figuring out what we all do want and how to work toward our common goals."
Okay, I'll agree - no one is out to get anyone. That's not really the issue.
The issues are two-fold (and right in your remarks):
- the district isn't particularly interested in working with parents. They have been dragged to this point and it sure took a long time.
- "We all want what's best for the kids" is kind of like the old line that the district staff used to use "it's for the kids!" to excuse anything.
So what is best for the kids? Your kid, or someone's kid in the south end or Magnolia? Because if we are at such a point where the district cannot make distinctions, then we are going to have a very narrow and aligned district.
And don't get me wrong. I actually wouldn't mind that (for awhile) if it meant they could actually get a grip on running our district.
Understand that facilities is the tailing wagging this district's dog and has been for long time. And, for where we are, looks like that'll continue to be the case.
Again, what are those common goals? Are we all in step with the Strategic Plan? Can any of us name 3 points from the Strategic Plan? Could you stop 3 staff members going into any school or JSCEE and could they tell you 3 of them?
I'm not challenging this idea that we will get this boat moving, in a good direction and quickly, if we all dip oars together. But which way is that and who knows if that's the best thing for the most children?
I don't.
I'm with you on the facilities wagging the dog aspect and many other great points you bring up.
Just a quick response to the questions about whose kids and which goals.
Personally, my goal is that all of SPS kids would receive a great education. and when it comes to the capacity/facilities questions, all kids need access to great schools and programs.
The goals stated in the growth boundary work by way of the guiding principles are all laudable.
What they leave out, though, is Perhaps the goal of reducing the disruption to the greatest number of schools and kids by way of minimizing moves and splits is also very important. Moving schools either for a whole program, half of a program, or for just a portion of the kids is disruptive to the stability of the educational environment.
the analysis that my husband and I have been working on is simply a look into how to spread the enrollment across the facilities in the most "smooth" manner. The alternative that we identified in our model that appears to do this in the least disruptive way to the most kids is similar to this new plan, but there are a few key differences.
This plan on the table now leave APP MS split in 3 with arguably not enough of a cohort in each school, AND I believe it leaves Eckstein severely over crowded and JAMS not fully utilized.
I think there is a way to meet basically all of the goals and guiding principles, though we have to look at the system holistically.
And I personally am thinking of this not only from an APP perspective, but from a more holistic perspective. I might not be accounting for every single variable and factor, but I'm also not just focusing on only one group or another.
Eden
The District is assuming that because north-end middle school APP grew by 7% in both 2012 and 2013, it will continue this same 7% growth rate for each of the next 9 years (leading to an 80% increase by 2022). Rather than looking at it as a one-time increase as Hamilton became an attractive option (and Spectrum was gutted) that will then level out. I continue to be concerned that the District is significantly over-projecting the number of north-end APP middle-school APP. A 7% annual growth rate in APP middle schools for 9 years just doesn't seem realistic to me.
Just as bad is the District's plan to do a Wilson-Pacific roll-up of 6th grade only at John Marshall in 2016. That's 50 APP kids (based on District data that shows APP kids by middle school service area). There will be some Gen Ed W-P kids too - but I don't think there will be that many. I don't see how the District will provide band, orchestra, after school sports and programs for only 50+ kids.
Catherine
Reassess capacity in 2017 when W-P opens as an AA MS. Then, if numbers support it, divide the North end APP cohort into its 3rd site at Wilson Pacific in 2018...
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/school%20board/13-14%20agendas/101613agenda/20131016_InterCapMgmt_Attachment1.pdf
Thinking about the north end APP middle school situation:
Looks like JAMS and WP at John Marshall turn out to be a similar boat of around 250 students to start. I doubt they'll have a lot of takers for the 7th and 8th grades at JAMS, but if they do that will be an advantage of JAMS in the beginning over WP at John Marshall (as having 7th and 8th graders would help make it a little more of comprehensive middle school and means the district would have to commit more resources).
Does anyone know how many of the 250-ish students at JAMS next year and WP at John Marshall in 3 years will be APP? I’m guessing a lower # of APP kids at WP.
What strikes me about both of the new north end middles is that they are lower income (Eckstein and Whitman is having lower income elementary feeder schools peeled off). APP adds a higher income group to the new middles.
I have a child in APP and one in gened, BTW.
Analyzing
Your child probably is well-prepared for school. She's also smarter than (or has better problem solving skills than) 98% of the children her age. Did anyone explain to you what the testing was all about? It sounds though like you're assuming previous posters believe that makes her a better or more valuable person. I think you're misreading that.
Do you have any concerns about changes to APP placement arising from the Growth Boundaries project?
Welcome to the discussion.
Seriously, Melissa started an open thread regarding every single area of the district, and also SpEd.
Are we not even allowed to talk and problem solve APP issues in a thread about APP issues? You people with an axe to grind about APP really confuse me, and ruin the conversation from actually being constructive and informative. I come to the blog for information, and everytime APP or AL comes up, it turns into a fight and endless justifications about how my kid's very existence is damaging your kid, and that my student has no right to an appropriate education. Please just leave us alone and let us talk among ourselves in our own thread and take all your vitriol to your own district's thread.
Sheesh.
Gen Ed Mom
Gen Ed Mom
It may have been better if we had gotten an older building that nobody wants. Heck, I would have been very happy with a Lincoln wing.
As for APP middle school being split three ways, that seems unfortunate but I think I understand why it was done.
What I still find missing in the new BEX is the high school planning. When are they planning to address this?
I am sorry that your area thread was hijacked by APP parents. They should have been sent here.
So I now have to go back and eliminate every comment that is off-topic because some came here to argue about the program?
If you are not here to talk about APP Boundaries and their effect on students, transportation, etc. , then do NOT comment. Geez
That's also why the NW Boundaries thread involves discussion of APP. Those kids are part of each region, and there are regional issues as well as cross-regional issues when you talk about splitting/moving APP. It's not always easy to talk about them outside the context of the region involved. (And if you go back and look closely at the NW thread, you'll see the APP comments are often in the context of something like "Wilson-Pacific attendance area and Whitman APP kids"--which is how the group rolling up at John Marshall was defined by the plan. That's hardly an example of APP taking over the NW thread.)
HIMSmom
Maybe we need a set phrase to use--kind of like a "safe" word--for whenever the APP program merits are called into question? Something to the effect of "This thread is not about the merits of the district's APP program. Please save your thoughts as to its pros and cons and whether or not we need it until there is a thread explicitly devoted to that issue." If everyone just repeats something like that each time APP is mentioned, perhaps there won't be such a need for folks to get defensive. :)
HIMSmom
Well Mr. smarty pants, I'm surprised this comment lasted as long as it did, because apparently YOU CAN'T READ THE RULES! Pick a name or nickname, else your comments will be deleted. Sheesh.