Seattle Schools Work Session on Growth Boundaries
From North End Mom:
Here is a link to the presentation from yesterday's Growth Boundaries work session.
There is a new staff proposal to "implement full grade assignment in year one." (see slide 24 and 25).
Basically, it is assigning JAMS and JAMS/Eckstein APP, grades 6, 7, and 8, to JAMS, in the JA building, beginning next fall. The APP kids living in the Eckstein SA would have the choice of going to Eckstein as GenEd or going to APP at JAMS.
JA K-8 is relocated to John Marshall, so no co-location with JAMS for the K-8.
Wilson Pacific would start up (grades 6, 7, and 8) in John Marshall 2016-17.
They give enrollment numbers for all the north middle schools, and it looks like the building utilization would be pretty good, if everyone does what they want them to do.
End of NE Mom post. (Thanks!)
Here's what the agenda looked like:
Work Session: Growth Boundaries–Presentation
Discussion of major issues:
•T. T. Minor
•Washington Middle SchoolBoundary
•Accelerated Progress Program (APP)
•North End High School
•Pinehurst
•Cascade
•Capacity Management/Phase-In
If you attended, please weigh in on the discussion as I would love to hear what the directors had to say (and what questions they asked).
Here is a link to the presentation from yesterday's Growth Boundaries work session.
There is a new staff proposal to "implement full grade assignment in year one." (see slide 24 and 25).
Basically, it is assigning JAMS and JAMS/Eckstein APP, grades 6, 7, and 8, to JAMS, in the JA building, beginning next fall. The APP kids living in the Eckstein SA would have the choice of going to Eckstein as GenEd or going to APP at JAMS.
JA K-8 is relocated to John Marshall, so no co-location with JAMS for the K-8.
Wilson Pacific would start up (grades 6, 7, and 8) in John Marshall 2016-17.
They give enrollment numbers for all the north middle schools, and it looks like the building utilization would be pretty good, if everyone does what they want them to do.
End of NE Mom post. (Thanks!)
Here's what the agenda looked like:
Work Session: Growth Boundaries–Presentation
Discussion of major issues:
•T. T. Minor
•Washington Middle SchoolBoundary
•Accelerated Progress Program (APP)
•North End High School
•Pinehurst
•Cascade
•Capacity Management/Phase-In
If you attended, please weigh in on the discussion as I would love to hear what the directors had to say (and what questions they asked).
Comments
between stand-alone and self-contained models." I'm not an expert, but based on what people have referenced on this blog, I don't believe this is true, or at least not so clear-cut.
I don't know what to say about TT Minor other than that I hope they undue the damage that has been done to kids in this neighborhood. Some stability is in order.
- Slide Reader
I hate to say it, but we can probably find $50M to pay for it by cutting back on fancy construction elsewhere.
On another topic entirely, if TT Minor is held for an attendance area elementary, one of the impacts is that Madrona is underenrolled. Is there enough capacity at Madrona to put World School there? This is just a wild hare, so please tell me if it's a terrible idea!
Fine Print
Attachment B in the BAR from Wednesday's board meeting reports that the Central District has 800 excess elementary seats and that without TT Minor in 2017-18 there will be 170 excess seats. Madrona's capacity is 226 K-5 students plus 150 6-8 students. 2012 World School enrollment was only 217 so they could easily fit in Madrona. I think that would leave the space underutilized though.
The same attachment reports high school capacity numbers:
Ballard 1,585
Ingraham 1,189
Hale 1,140
Roosevelt 1,707
Lincoln 1,600
Total capacity 7,221
Capitol Hiller
And for any APP MS student from the Eckstein/JAMS areas the same? They would be pulled out of Hamilton?
Thanks.
-StepJ
Its unclear to me from the description, where they were soliciting for board input were votes taken last night or are they going to happen in a future board meeting?
Ben
HIMSmom
That's what it says. It makes sense to me - except that we would be busing 267 Eckstein kids north when we could instead bus 87 JAMS kids south. Flipping that would both reduce transportation costs and provide services closer to where the students live.
Why not assign Sacajawea and/or Wedgwood to JAMS and move Eckstein and JAMS APP to Eckstein?
answer
New question: Why is JA K-8 getting moved out of the building at the same time that JAMS is moving in? Are they building a new school at the same time that JAMS will be operating in the old building?
Signed,
NEMom (Northeast Mom)
Jane Addams K-8 would spend 2 years at John Marshall while their new building is built at Pinehurst.
analyzing
The Jane Addams K-8 would go to interim housing at John Marshall until their new building is completed at the Pinehurst site. It is supposed to be ready by Fall 2016.
JAMS is to be started next year, 2014-15, so as to provide relief for Eckstein (and Hamilton, if APP goes into JAMS).
- North-end Mom
Has anyone heard anything about the Indian Heritage Program/School placement?
Makes no sense to me either. When Meany reopens, there will be an extra 500 middle school seats in the central region. The south east will have only 170 extra middle schools seats. What they really should do is keep Muir at Washington and reassign Kimball to Washington when Meany reopens.
You can't simply look at total number of students being bused. You need to look at the number of bus routes required for each scenario.
Please maintain walkability for as many neighborhood students as possible - it's one of the stated objectives.
My bigger question is how many JAK8 middle school students will opt to stay at JAMS (to preserve their walkability and improve their MS options) rather than relocate to an interim site. Would JAMS be full with portables under that scenario?
It's nice to hear from a kindred spirit who values compassion in our elected officials.
Thanks for posting.
It looks to me like all 7th and 9th graders in the Wilpac middle school assignment area will be moved to John Marshall in 2016-17. While this is not ideal, it is something people can plan for (e.g., looking forward to teachers that will and will not move, creating a PTA, planned social events across schools). Not great. Our family is affected by this and I think this is a fair compromise.
@Carol Simmons
There has been little or no mention of the Indian Heritage Program or School. As these capacity issues start to form up, we need to start thinking about how to tie these issues into the Wilson Pacific move. Can you say more about the program (grade levels, number of students...) Is there an interim site planned yet? How could WP tie into the Heritage sites and the significance of Licton Springs. How about getting a more meaningful name than Wilson Pacific?
-uncertain
Kay Smith-Blum strongly supported TT Minor's reopening and presented an idea for the World School to be build on the Gatzert grounds, and going to the State or BTA funds to add to what has already been set aside. Debell and Martin-Morris were opposed to the idea, citing the promise to the World school. Currently there are around 500 students who could walk to TT Minor and it is projected to grow to 600 by 2017. DeBell thought that there were overlapping walk zones. (I know that is not true. These students will be forever bused if TT Minor is not reopened.) Marty expressed doubt about any over lapping walk zones there. If there is any small corner of overlap it would be minute. I don't think there is.
Betty Patu wants Kimball back for Mercer, and Kay advocated that Muir go to Washington and not to Meany. They kept that and the TT Minor discussion fairly short given some of the complexities.
Sharon Peaslee was a strong advocate for Pinehurst and thinking about it sharing space with Thorton Creek. There is still confusion over whether Thorton Creek will get transportation in the future to Salmon Bay. Betty and Marty expressed support for finding a home for Pinehurst. Harium expressed strong doubt about the idea of Pinehurst sharing space with Thorton Creek.
APP--the discussion centered on the delivery model--one vs two vs three. And I don't have time to write more at the moment. Stand alone or not for elementary is a question, and only Sharon voiced strong opposition to an elementary stand alone. General agreement that stand alone was not good for secondary. General agreement that the District needs a plan for APP before determining locations
Middle School Roll Ups-- all seemed to agree that ensuring enough students for Jane Adams MS is important. At least there was no opposition. APP roll middle school roll up with a 6th grade academy seem to be getting squashed. Even from testimony on Wednesday and from sitting in on other meetings, I am not surprised. Generally the staff seems to support the idea of just moving all students in the corresponding assignment area to a new middle school when it is ready. That is all the students assigned to that attendance area would simple move as a group to the new school--no grandfathering; thus assuring all middle school students a full middle school experience.
General agreement that Wilson Pacific will have not high school on it. It is costly when the District owns Lincoln if it is needed. Kay mentioned that when opening Lincoln, do not open with the idea that you will assign students south of the ship canal to it.
I am sure I left a few things out. These are the things that stick in my mind.
I'm eagerly awaiting yours or anyone's take on discussion about APP middle at 2 vs. 3 locations. I'm sure you have nothing to do but update on blogs! ;)
Also, regarding, "Middle School Roll Ups-- all seemed to agree that ensuring enough students for Jane Adams MS is important." Did they mention that is an issue for Wilpac, too, at all?! Read the latter with frustration. I understand that JAMS is next year, but I fear that Wilpac is getting forgotten.
yup
Lynne, you only called out the excess capacity for central when all areas have some noted. The numbers shown for the 2012-2013 numbers are for current boundaries in all areas. Yes, in the new boundaries where Lowell moves further west (really most students who live in Lowell walk zone are also in the Steven walk zone.) Remember too, that McGivra has huge boundaries with a lot of portables. They could get some relief and have an art room and some other room that they are lacking if TT Minor opened. Those just north of Madrona boundary then could go to Madrona. Portable are suppose to be to just solve temporary problems. Reopening TT Minor will stabilize the entire area and seriously decrease the need for transportation.
I realize that there would be excess capacity in the area if TT Minor opened, but really it would not be any greater than that noted for some other areas. I don't really want to call out any one area, but all areas have some noted in elementary or middle school.
In regard to you comments:
Attachment B in the BAR from Wednesday's board meeting reports that the Central District has 800 excess elementary seats and that without TT Minor in 2017-18 there will be 170 excess seats. Madrona's capacity is 226 K-5 students plus 150 6-8 students. 2012 World School enrollment was only 217 so they could easily fit in Madrona. I think that would leave the space underutilized though.
Yep, it looks like they're planning to start Wilson-Pacific MS with a full 6-7-8 as well. One interim year at Marshall (2016/17), then on to the new building.
HIMSmom
- soon to be Whitman parent
I was responding to Eric B's comment on TT Minor, Madrona and World School. There are several areas where it looks like we're building unnecessary seats.
You make a good point about the portables. I don't think the district's 2017-18 calculations remove those from capacity.
Is there room at Gatzert for another building?
Thank you for your interest in the Indian Heritage Program/School. We are requesting that the School be revitalized (as Superintendent Banda promised) and restored to its home at Licton Springs. This is a sacred site for our Native community. Regarding a name change for Wilson-Pacific, an application has been filed with the District to name the Buildings at Licton Springs after Robert Eaglestaff (Native educator in the SPS). The Robert Eaglestaff School would be either K-8 or K-12 and serve all students with an emphasis on Native culture. Members of the Native community have met with the Licton Springs community council which supports these efforts. The Indian Heritage School/Program and administrative offices are currently housed at Lincoln High School after the District closed the Indian Heritage School/Program. The Native community coalition has been meeting with Superintendent Banda to discuss Indian education. There is some progress being made in saving the Murals in their original state at Licton Springs, but the efforts will continue to save the school and restore it to its original site.
CCA
That's in direct violation of the program placement policy.
Yep. Amazing, isn't it?
- North-end Mom
What about THAT?
Granted, JA K-8 is an option school, but why have FOUR alternative schools been pushed out?
Pinehurst should retain its program and get guarantees against closure for, say, ten years (so it can rebuild the numbers it lost under yearly threat of closure), either in its existing building or elsewhere (in John Marshall after the other two programs are moved into their locations?)
And Indian Heritage should be restored at its sacred place at Wilson Pacific, by Licton Springs, as part of the rebuild on that property.
To do otherwise is to sound the death knell of alternative schools, generally, which is counter to Board Policy C54.00, enacted a mere five years ago in support of alternative schools.
"Charlie, JAMS is still close to where APP students live if you are talking about NE APP students. If APP were placed in Eckstein, the resulting boundaries for JAMS would be practically at Eckstein's back door. Think about it."
I agree. Does program placement guarantee the CLOSEST school, or just close to where students live? Many neighborhood assignments are not even to one's CLOSEST school, because in some areas there are several schools in proximity to eachother. I know this is program placement, not reference area, but I don't think CLOSE to where students live has to mean the closest possible building.
--Cal
If the district decides to provide most AL services at a student's neighborhood school - or Eckstein APP students choose not to go to JAMS, Eckstein's boundaries will have to change.
The building and location are worthless if they screw the kids by denying them access to any services.
-SW Skin
Kris
(By some accounts, Licton Springs, a mineral spring, has some pre-contact significance...)
If you divided the space 50/50, the boundary would be 85th, right where the boundary between Roosevelt and Hale is currently.
As for the folks that are upset at walking 25 blocks instead of 5. That happens all over the district. There are dozens of schools where the boundary is just blocks aways. A large chunk of Ballard does not go to Ballard. Folks in West Seattle that are even closer to Denny, don't go to Denny.
Just because you are close to Eckstein, doesn't mean anything because the feeder patterns distort everything.
It makes sense to me that those historical lines would still work.
NEP
Transportation Service Standards
parent
There were also different grade configurations at one time, so junior highs started at 7th grade.
Jane Addams building history here:
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/history%20book/addams.pdf
inNE
Some of the early ones were Summit, Alt. School One (now Pinehurst), People's School One (John Marshall Alternative), Pathfinder, NOVA, Pathfinder...later (1980s) we saw New Options Middle School, Salmon Bay Elem (since merged), TOPS, Orca, Indian Heritage,..Some later schools (nineties) were the African American Academy and others. Separate from these but sometimes merged with them were/are some programs that might be considered remedial, alternative in the sense if drawing back in students who are struggling. Interagency (various sites), Middle College, a teen mother program, South Lake HS...
In about 2004, alternatives were being closed and new "option" schools were springing up, mainly internatiinsl or STEM schools.
Many communities are very fond of their alt schools: they offer various diffetent approaches to education that vary from the main stream. Unfortunately, we have seen increased stsndardization and centraluzation - many of the newer option schools are more district driven than community driven.
All of the older alt schools are worth a look - dedicated and passionate communites of students, parents snd educators.
Unfortunately many are gone or going: Summit, John Marshall, AAA, As#1/Pathfinder, Indian Heritage...others are moved around snd suffer because of that, such as NOVA snd Pathfinder. Lack of stability doesn't help.
The newer option schools are fine snd popular, but they're not the same, philosophically, as the older alternative schools.
I am very confused by the definition of incorrect you are applying here.
Google maps has the distance between Jane Addams at Eckstein as 2.1 miles door to door and the 2.0 mile radius for transportation is as the crow flies.
IMHO, that means exactly what I said, almost the entire area in BETWEEN Jane Addams and Eckstein is walk zone. It would be very very easy to draw boundary for all of Wedgwood to be in the JAMS walk zone and therefore sending Wedgwood to JAMS would not add any transportation costs as those students live in the walk zone for two schools.
Sending Wedgwood to JAMS would actually balance the NE. Eckstein would actually get relief. JAMS would be socio-economically diverse.
And because of the distance tie breaker those Wedgwood students would be the first to get choice seats if they actually do a geo split and Eckstein is finally right sized.
Read the data. The overwhelming majority of the APP students live south of Eckstein. They would have to go past Eckstein on their way to Jane Addams. And you think they should go all that way so your child doesn't have to go half that distance? Nice.
But pushing for Wedgwood going to JAMS is a tough sell for me without changing the actual boundaries. The south edge of Wedgwood's boundary is literally across the street from Eckstein. Not 5 blocks away or even 2 blocks away, but homes in WW AA literally face the front of the school. I can't help but think those families would feel taunted every school day for 3 years!
Especially, as you were one of the key pot stirrers to kick all of the JAMS kids out of Eckstein last year. You don’t want the APP kids there either. Better to just take on one false pretense at a time?
You live seven blocks south of Eckstein, but advocate for kids that live across the street from Eckstein to attend JAMS. BTW - Eckstein is in Wedgwood not Bryant! I fell for it. I used to trust you. I hope no one else falls for the false ingénue.
Daylight
I'm with dw here. I live in Lake City and I have always said that. I have no idea what you are talking about. Lake City is not 7 blocks south of Eckstein.
HP
If the goal is to create an option program that draws from several areas, then every kid can not go to their closest school. Then site the program at the best place for the program.
I think that APP will be a better program if the community is in on the planning stage of the school & staff apply who want to work with a self-contained advanced learning program.
I am the parent of 2 APP qualified kids who stayed in their neighborhood schools mostly but traveled to the APP program for some part of their SPS years, I am glad to have the choice.
-done
parent
But the simple fact is that with attendance areas there are lot of students all over the district that do not go to their closest school. There are even students that could walk to a school that are bused to another school.
There is a lot of space in between JAMS and Eckstein that is dual walk zone. That is a fact. Period. Dual walk zone means that those kids can go to either school and there are no transportation costs.
So go ahead and keep trying to make the argument that it is just so awful to have to bus anyone to JAMS and that it adds expense. I would prefer that 85th is used as the boundary as that would make a nice tie in from JAMS to Nathan Hale as well as be in the middle and have the least transportation.
But if they are not going to abandon feeder patterns, then it just not OK to send every single school in the zone in between Eckstein and JAMS under the false idea that transportation will increase. It is just not true and will only lead to one school being over-crowded and one being under-crowded.
West Seattle kept arguing in the last round of this that have 6 feeder school at Denny and 4 at Madison would create an imbalance. Guess what happened. There was a big imbalance. Sending more feeder schools to Eckstein than JAMS will create an imbalance.
And BTW, the area outside of the 2 mile as the crow flies to the East is in View Ridge. IMHO, I think that Sac and Wedgwood should go to JAMS.
observer
Kp
yes, it is amazing how adamant I am about facts. So now I am not getting attacked on my facts, but my attitude about facts. Wow!
I am really clear about these difference
facts - there is a dual walk zone area that those students could go to either school without transportation costs
opinion - IMHO, I would split the boundary at 85th so that students were going to a school that was closer, rather than taking students from 95th and sending to Eckstein OR from 75th and sending them to JAMS.
Policy - they are seeming to be stuck on feeder patterns. if they are going to be stuck on feeder patterns, then they need to have an equal number of feeder schools to each middle school so that enrollment is actually balanced.
Why do I care about this?? Because failing to make a balance between the two schools will only repeat a problem that they had last time because of sheer pig-headedness. They drew the boundaries in West Seattle so that six school went to more popular Denny and four schools went to less popular Madison. And then inevitable happened. Denny is over-crowded and Madison is under-resourced.
What do I want? I want the district to learn from their mistakes and I want parents to know that "not everyone is going to get Eckstein." How much more can Eckstein take? So that means that someone in the Eckstein walk zone is NOT going to Eckstein. Because just the number of students in the walk zone is more than the school can handle in 2-3 years.
of course, people want to go to their closest school and I do see it from that point of view. But that is not happening.
There are students everywhere not going to their closest school and not because they choose a program like APP but because the schools are evenly distributed.
What I object to, is the continuous stream of postings that "we are in the walk zone don't send us to JAMS, it will cost more money in transportation" that includes no acknowledgement that many of these kids are in two walk zones. With two new middle schools coming on line, there are going to be lots and lots of families in two walk zones so this problem is going to continue and moreover, the families in two walk zone are going to most likely be swung back and forth between those schools over time.
FWIW, of all the folks with opinions about Eckstein, I think Charlie is the most off-base. APP at Eckstein. Insane.
The walk zone alone can fill the school, let alone the students for whom Eckstein is the closest school (Laurelhurst? - they got drawn out the last time). Even with JAMS coming on line just because of geography, Eckstein is the closest school for far more students than could ever go there.
The idea that you would then import students on top of that belies a logic that defies gravity. The simplest fact here is that some areas need to import students and some need to export students. Eckstein needs to export students.
Does that stink? Yup. Is that fair? No. But it is geography and the choices to balance Eckstein's enrollment is
- take the South part of Eckstein and bus them to Hamilton (been there, done that, didn't work) or
- take the east part of Eckstein and bus them to JAMS (that adds transportation costs) or
- take the dual walk zone and send them to another walk zone school.
I didn't invent this set of options. I am just willing to talk about them.
Students will be impacted by whatever plan comes to be - whether it be splitting from friends, having to move schools, losing walkability, or whatever. What I can't get behind is the attitude of, tough, suck it up. This is the district's doing (by closing schools, neglecting AL, take your pick of reasons) and it's difficult to watch parents throwing out plans that they know will create change for other families.
observer
Is it for certain that Wegdwood (or part of WW) and/or Sacajawea (haven't heard anything from parents there) would have to feed into JAMS in order for the capacity numbers to work out? Is this also assuming a 6/7/8 split with no grandfathering?
Personally, I've noticed how small NE Seattle really is...my kids run into somebody they know whether they go to school with them or not wherever we go. Friendships are not just based on who you go to school with.
kp
Personally, I've noticed how small NE Seattle really is...my kids run into somebody they know whether they go to school with them or not wherever we go. Friendships are not just based on who you go to school with.
You are spot on. One of my daughter's best friends went to a totally different grade school and middle school. Now they have met up again at Nathan Hale and they are glad to be in the same school again together. Kids maintain friendships if there is a connection.
HP
Folks, I know that continuity and community - once started -are important to both students and parents. But life doesn't always work out that way. People move (both to other parts of town or even out of town), boundaries change, things happen.
My son left his elementary school and we moved and yup, he made new friends AND kept some of his old. Do you have ALL the friends you had in your K-12 years?
It's one thing to worry that the school might not be as good at meeting your child's needs as a current one. I can understand that. But give your child some credit for resilency. It's probably the number ONE trait you want to build for your child.
Modeling that resilency is a good idea and yes, you can maintain friendships even if the kdis aren't all at the same school.