Seattle Council PTSA Asking for Input on Growth Boundaries Planning Process

From the SCPTSA:

Dear PTA Leaders, Members, and Parents

Seattle Council PTSA is conducting a survey to measure awareness of the Seattle Public School (SPS) Growth Boundary Planning process.  The link to take the survey is below.  The survey takes about 5 minutes to complete, but please complete the entire survey.  At the end of the survey there is an opportunity for you to provide additional feedback.

All PTA leaders, PTA members, parents, and other parent leaders in our community are encouraged to take this survey. So please forward this survey to your parents and PTA membership, and encourage their participation.

We are hoping to get as many responses as we can before the next Seattle School Board meeting on November 6, 2013, so we can present preliminary results. Please encourage your membership and community to respond by this date. 

Complete results of the survey will be provided on our website by November 19, 2013 or sooner. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at president@seattlecouncilptsa.org.



Thank you for your participation. 

Sincerely,
Katherine Schomer
SCPTSA President

Comments

Anonymous said…
Appreciate the effort. However the survey is in English and using phrases and terms that requires some understanding of the issues, I.e. Feeder pattern, options school, ground decisions in data, etc. It's the same problem the district runs into with its engagement. I think when designing surveys and info flyers, the level of language matters along with clear descriptives. You can imagine the confusion regular blog readers have reading all these boundary presentations and constant changes, can you imagine why parents who aren't as familiar, have very little spare time, might be confused and tuned out? I hope SCPTSA will bring this up to SPS. I've already e-mailed my concerns to SPS.

SPS parent
11/3/13, 1:24 PM
Anonymous said…
I just took it, and it felt kind of like a push poll to me, they were clearly pushing the "inadequate engagement" angle. It was long and required fairly in depth understanding of the issues to answer well.

-political
11/3/13, 1:59 PM
Anonymous said…
Take the poll. Give the District a straight-across-the-board "all Fs" report card. That's what I did.

Maybe if they get feedback from 500 parents, delivered by the SCPTSA, that will be enough to stop the crazy train.

Seriously, does it matter if the poll taker lacks the knowledge of the precise verbiage of what may be poorly worded questions? Really, the point is to express your point of view!!

Think of it as a referendum of the basic plan (version 3.0 or whatever will ultimately be presented on Wednesday). If you like it, give the District all As. If you think it has fatal flaws--drive that message home with all f's. Or, not - everyone suit yourself, obviously. But, as long as I'm being asked, I will tell them exactly what I think by giving them straight Fs.

-fail
11/3/13, 8:29 PM
Anonymous said…
first of all, i think one can take the poll as many time as one wants. Second, how can it complain about the language issue in english only?
Third, They got my name from the school directory, im not a PTA member
forth, where is McClure middle school? Do i put "i don't know" for service area or just pick central or northwest?
Finally, push-poll, not even vaguely disguised.

lard boy

11/3/13, 10:34 PM
Anonymous said…
I looked at the poll. It was every bit as slanted in its perspective as the polls bloggers here call out from Strategies 360. It's also coming too late in the process to amount to much. And it isn't in languages other than English - which seems to be a big part of its point.

I'm sure it was posted with the best of intentions but it isn't a great tactic. The board will vote this month whether or not we all like it. (I don't like a lot of it. Certainly NOT the latest NE iteration. APP at Eckstein? Whaaaa???

I read the placement suggestions in the other thread. Yup - put the whole shebang at Lincoln - first through eighth grades. Leave the cohort alone there. Give the comprehensive middle schools some breathing room. Tweak the boundaries, perhaps realign the feeder schools to Jane Addaams and Eckstein.

But next time around please don't send the parents to war with each other figuring out a complex problem that the staff makes a salary to figure out. That's the poll feedback I suggest sending to headquarters.

North Exasperated

11/4/13, 8:36 AM
apparent said…
Before November 6 when proposed amendments to Version 3 are due, and perhaps even later, there is still time to fix the mess that
Superintentent Banda is now recommending. Please consider the following proposed amendment which is posted in full with capacity and enrollment numbers on the preceding thread: "If you were a Director, what would your amendment be?":

Don't split APP south or north, elementary or middle school without any advanced learning task force recommendations. Cohouse all APP (North) MS intact (currently 542 students) at 952ms/852k8-seat John Marshall, with Jane Addams K-8 from 2014 until the new JAK8 building opens at Pinehurst, and then with other option/interim programs from 2016. All APP (North) MS intact, and JA K-8 (interim 2014-16), will fit together in John Marshall because public input suggests that perhaps half of JA K-8 families will exercise school choice and help start JAMS rather than move twice. Also, some APP (North) MS families will exercise school choice and stay at Hamilton MS. If necessary, portables can be used at John Marshall and/or JAMS, which the flawed but superior Version 1, Option 1 has already recommended as the interim co-housing site for JA K-8.

The districtwide benefits of this proposed amendment include not just APP program integrity pending advanced learning task force recommendations, but also reducing overcrowding in SPS attendance area schools and other option programs.

Please let Superintendent Banda and the SPS board directors know if you like this practical solution to Superintendent Banda's last-minute and chaotic Version 3 plan.
11/4/13, 12:21 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more