Connecting the Dots for the City Council
Below is a letter I dropped off today - in person - to each City Council member. It details what I believe is a pattern for the Mayor - via his Department of Education and Early Learning (Families and Education levy and the City Preschool Program and, more recently, the HALA report on housing, in trying to insinuate the City more and more into the workings of Seattle Public Schools.
As a long-time public education activist and
moderator/writer of the most widely-read public education blog in the state, Seattle Schools Community Forum, I write
to you about what seems to be unfolding between the City and Seattle Schools.
What is troubling about the HALA report is how blithely they speak of putting in more schools near upzones without understanding the stresses and costs to the district. (And, if you hear screams coming from Laurelhurst when the enrollment changes; that’s just residents there realizing that there is so much growth at/around the Roosevelt Light Rail state that Roosevelt High’s boundaries have changed.)
In closing, I urge you to talk to the Mayor about being a real partner with SPS and especially with the Seattle School Board which, like you, is the body that is duly elected by voters to oversee the schools.
As well, I can only tell what a complete folly I think it is for anyone, including the Mayor, to believe that splitting our district and/or taking over some of the School Board seats for the Mayor to appoint is a good (or right) thing to do. This is a road the Mayor takes at his own risk. I would expect any further moves in that direction would have repercussions that neither he nor the Council would like.
If you have any questions or you or a member of your staff would like to sit down and talk, I would be happen to come and do so.
Sincerely,
Melissa Westbrook
Moderator/Writer
Seattle Schools Community Forum Blog
Dear City Council Members,
To be blunt, it appears that the City – via DEEL – is
trying a number of Trojan horses methods to exert control/take control of
Seattle Schools. As someone who knows
Seattle Schools well, I know what I am seeing.
Example 1: Families
and Education Levy.
First, the F&E levy makes grants to Seattle Schools
that are greatly appreciated. The City
wants to make sure that voters get an explanation, with evidence, on how well
the investment taxpayers have made is going.
All this is fine.
What was not
fine was the episode this year of DEEL deciding to insert itself into principal
placement at schools. That is NOT the domain – at any time or place –
of DEEL or the City. That is the domain
of the Superintendent and the School Board.
And yet, DEEL tried to pull entire grants, from both Emerson and Sandpoint Elementaries, simply
because their principals were leaving.
To understand,
-
people move and change jobs
-
people fall ill or even die
-
the Superintendent, for the good of a school, has
to make a principal change.
The district cannot
(and should not) EVER consider any
grant as part of that decision-making.
And, no granter, especially one who claims to be a partner with the
district, should ever put that kind
of pressure on the district.
Of course, DEEL can say that they find that principal
continuity is one factor in best outcomes for any given grant and ask for that
due consideration. But to pull money
after the planning for it has been done and all arrangements are in place with
a new principal who agrees to this planning?
No.
(Also, on the
subject of the F&E levy, no one in the City – not the City Attorney nor
DEEL, will answer a simple question for voters – will Families and Education
levy dollars be given to charter schools?)
Example 2: City
Preschool Program
There are two issues that have arisen.
One is the discovery that there are NOT going to be 2,000 NEW
seats – most of the City’s Preschool seats will come from DEEL flipping current
seats in SPS schools from independent providers to providers coming under the
City’s Preschool umbrella.
(In fact, I’ll bet that if there are 500 NEW seats at the
end of four years, it’ll be a lot.)
The Seattle School Board was NEVER – in any presentation – told this was the likely case and the
plan going forward. Very bad form on the
part of DEEL.
Two is the pressure on the School Board to approve
creating two new classrooms (there is currently one at Bailey Gatzert
Elementary) in SPS schools. The Mayor
saying – in the Seattle Times – for the district to “play ball” on this issue.
The district has done nothing BUT play ball. Sometimes it’s hard to know who
Superintendent Nyland works for on this issue – the Mayor or the Board. (Hint: legally, he works for the Board.)
Surely, you all know there are financial issues in the
district. Special Ed and ELL issues.
Title IX issues. Capacity issues. Backlog maintenance issues. Just to name a few and yet a couple of
preschool classrooms seem to be some kind of major issue.
It’s both troubling and unseemly.
Example 3: the HALA
report
The HALA report says several odd things.
One is on page 20 where, at the top, there is a paragraph
about the City working with regional partners including SPS. But then, it says,
When land is not
suitable for housing development, the unrestricted proceeds from sale should be
dedicated to affordable housing development. The City should also create a mandate for the co-
development of affordable housing in conjunction with new public buildings and investments such as community centers,
libraries, charter schools, etc
My jaw dropped when I read that. Why, if the City and SPS are such great
partners, would the first available space for schools go to charter
schools? It’s puzzling as well because
one committee member, David Wertheimer,
said that
the district wasn’t opening new schools so the “new” schools could be charters.
That is categorically not true. The district is building, from the ground up,
two new schools on the old Wilson-Pacific site, off Aurora at 90th. As well, the district has reopened several
old schools in the last five years with more to come (the Legislature even
allotted them capital dollars to reopen one in West Seattle and one in
Magnolia).
Any new school
space should go to the entity that is responsible for public education in
Seattle – Seattle Public Schools.
That notation
should be changed from “charter schools” to “public schools” with right of
first refusal to the district, not a charter entity.
A second odd thing is that the HALA report mentions
schools about 20 times but almost as a throwaway – lumping them in with
“amenities and services.” While that may
be true about what they are, there is really no such thing as “pop-up” school. You need land and a facility. The district currently has very little spare
land and they need dollars for a facility.
There needs to be a partnership with the district for these schools to
happen and again, true public schools should be your starting place, not
charter schools.
(And that part about land – what about playfields? The district has a joint use agreement with
SPS and those playfields are being used to death. As well, a heads up to you that the district
will be coming to the City about lower Woodland Park playfields because they
will need to use them when they open Lincoln High permanently in a couple of
years. Are charters going to
share?)
Third, HALA says,
There is a strong
connection between this land use action, and other actions described in this
report to encourage the use of surplus public property because many publicly
owned properties that become available are not already zoned to support
housing.
That’s a funny statement when it comes to SPS
because there are no surplus properties for SPS to give over to housing. In fact, they own Oak Tree and a professional
building off Lake City at 125th that they may have to take them back
for schools. There is, as well, Memorial
Stadium, which they may have to develop with a high school sited there
(possibly with the stadium on top as they have done in a couple of NE
states). I’m sure you recall that the
district has owned that property since before Seattle Center was Seattle
Center.What is troubling about the HALA report is how blithely they speak of putting in more schools near upzones without understanding the stresses and costs to the district. (And, if you hear screams coming from Laurelhurst when the enrollment changes; that’s just residents there realizing that there is so much growth at/around the Roosevelt Light Rail state that Roosevelt High’s boundaries have changed.)
In closing, I urge you to talk to the Mayor about being a real partner with SPS and especially with the Seattle School Board which, like you, is the body that is duly elected by voters to oversee the schools.
As well, I can only tell what a complete folly I think it is for anyone, including the Mayor, to believe that splitting our district and/or taking over some of the School Board seats for the Mayor to appoint is a good (or right) thing to do. This is a road the Mayor takes at his own risk. I would expect any further moves in that direction would have repercussions that neither he nor the Council would like.
If you have any questions or you or a member of your staff would like to sit down and talk, I would be happen to come and do so.
Sincerely,
Melissa Westbrook
Moderator/Writer
Seattle Schools Community Forum Blog
Comments
One of the city's private prek providers is Community Day School Association. Community Day School Association claims to have 1200 students located WITHIN Seattle Public Schools.
As we know, Ed Murray announced their private preschool providers and they reside within Seattle Public Schools.
I don't deny those in need of space, but we have private entities, partnering with the city and receiving free space and public funding for prek. In the midst of increasing enrollment, what happens when the district needs space?
Does the board know that the city presently has 1200 prek children in SPS that will eventually partner with the city?
Please everyone - choose your school board and city council candidates carefully.
-- Dan Dempsey
HP
HP
I know at least some of the Board knows. Question is, would the Board as a group care? I'm thinking the next duly elected Board will.
Thank you, HP. That was next on my list.
Clearly, contracts between city, school district and PRIVATE prek providers must be studied. If portables need to be added to existing prek sites, for the purpose of meeting K-5 needs-the city should pay for portable buildings.
In regard to Family and Education dollars and principal departures: South Shore lost their principal and there wasn't a peep about pulling Family and Education Dollars.
TC
Vote Wisely
And now the ridiculous transit levy and housing report? We're pretty much over Seattle.
NE Parent