Update on Loyal Heights Construction Dispute
From KIRO-7:
So she and a group of other neighbors filed a preliminary appeal last week to stop the project, at least temporarily.
They plan to finalize it Monday.
Comments
-sleeper
But the playground is ridiculous. Easy compromise to bulldoze it but return it in a different configuation with an investment in child-first equipment and play options at a $$ worth greater than what the neighbors put into it. That's compromise, Seattle schools.
Sounds like neither side of this issue is good at compromise.
-critical-
-NW Mom
But let's stick a pin in one notion right now. This IS NOT a 900-student school. This is a ~650 student school. Yes, if you put in the current ~30 students per classroom in every single room, you'd get 900 students. The whole point of this is that you're not. You're making space for K-2 students to have reasonable class sizes. 900 students is a scare tactic.
And now, back to discussions based in reality.
-sleeper
Reality Bites
As I said before...This current design is simply too big for the footprint. Plus, the Nordic Heritage is vacating that former school. Another reason this plan is just plain stupid and a huge waste of our tax dollars. It has nothing to do with educating our kids. Let's put a pin in that.
Larger schools get more PCP space than smaller schools; and with more students, there will be funding for additional PCP. It is a good thing that adequate PCP space was worked into the building design (not a bad thing).
- North-end Mom
Is LH really such a small lot? It looks huge. And isn't a lot of what will be covered by the remodel already covered by portables?
I'm not seeing how LH is getting such a raw deal. There are other north end schools with less play space, and that will be in more crowded buildings. Is this the ideal plan. Bets are, no. (This is SPS, after all.) Is it reasonable? Probably.
IMHO
Comparing BEX IV schools
School Lot Size Lot Coverage
Arbor Hts 5 acres <=35%
Genesse Hills 6.5 acres <=35%
Pinehurst 3.2 acres 40%
Wilson Pacific 16 acres <=35%
Loyal Hts 2.8 acres 48%
Looking at the playground space per kid (and using 660 students, not including space currently occupied by portables and not including the space that will be fenced off for the 20-30 preschool kids)
School Space/kid (square feet/child)
Greenwood 115
Whittier 88
Bryant 95
Daniel Bagley 160
Salmon Bay 303
North Beach 420
The new LHE ~70
As the LHE sq ft/child is decreased, the sq ft/child of neighboring schools will increase because we are taking on their kids and they will be able to get rid of portables.
-From NumbersTalk
Neighbors have been asking all along for the school to be remodeled with 3 classrooms per grade and minimal flex spaces. The decision to go that route for Daniel Bagley shows that it could have been done for LH all along.
Archer14
-North-end Mom
Daniel Bagley was landmarked, so that was probably a factor there. The Wilson-Pacific site has some space that isn't buildable, and the playfield will also likely be used by the new Lincoln HS, which won't have its own onsite (or even nearby). Then there's the fact that the Cascadia is already too small, and will probably need portables on day one. Or another split.
The square feet of space place per child (!) might be low compared to those schools you mentioned, but I suspect there are other schools that would be happy to have that much play space.
Which of those other NW region BEX IV schools do you think should grow a bunch so that you don't have to?
IMHO
Did you know that the Department of Neighborhoods Departures Committee voted against recommending all 4 of the departures necessary to build the 660 student school at Loyal Heights? Their majority report was completely ignored by the city's Department of Construction and Inspections who went ahead and approved them all anyway!
Archer14
If 15+ years from now, there is still growth, I bet North Beach would be thrilled to get a remodel.
-ThanksForAsking
LHE currently has 3 classrooms per grade.
SSCF reader
Wondering
LHE currently has a capacity of ~350 students. An expansion would increase capacity to 538 students. The 3 class per grade remodel would expand capacity to 3 classrooms per grade, 2 Sped rooms, an art room, an appropriately sized gym and cafeteria, and 3 flex rooms to use if the district ever decides that 28 kids in a kindergarten class is too large. Or to hold "population bubbles" as Flip terms them. This is exactly what will happen to Daniel Bagley in a few years.
And as Adams, North Beach and Whittier each have about 100 students occupying portables, Webster, with a capacity of 450, should be able to contain their overflow easily.
ThanksForAsking
Here is the breakdown...
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
24 Classrooms = 640 Students (per Architectural Plans - 4 classrooms / grade)
2 SPED Classrooms = 20 Students (per Architectural Plans)
3 Flex Rooms = 80 Students ("We have seen in the other schools how quickly these spaces are used to absorb population bubbles" - Flip Herndon at 2/24/15 public meeting)
2 Daycare Rooms = 53 Pre-school Students ("Daycare is not the primary role of SPS. But these rooms can easily be converted to kindergarten rooms." - Flip Herndon at 2/24/15 public meeting along with Eric Becker and Richard Best)
2 Computer Rooms = 53 Students (If the computer rooms become obsolete, we can convert that space into classrooms." - Richard Best at 3/12/15 community meeting along with Eric Becker)
2 Art Rooms = 53 Students (Like computer rooms, art rooms can be used as classrooms when needed." Richard Best at 3/12/15 community meeting along with Eric Becker)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 899 STUDENTS based on school district numbers; 26 students per class for grades K-3, 28 students per class for grades 4-5; 10 students per SPED classroom
For those of you that want more facts, here are the SPS enrollment projections 2015-2020.
SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FIVE YEAR SCHOOL ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS: 2015-16 through 2019-20
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Enrollment%20Planning/Projections/5%20Year%20Projections%202015%20to%202020%20(Feb%202016%20Update).pdf
Whittier:
2015/16: 478 students
2016/17: 471 students
2017/18: 467 students
2018/19: 431 students
2019/20: 426 students.....that's a decrease of -52 students enrolled at WE by 2020
Loyal Heights: 2.75 acres lot
2015/16: 435 students
2016/17: 432 students
2017/18: 429 students
2018/19: 414 students
2019/20: 406 students.....that's a decrease of -29 students enrolled at LHE by 2020
Daniel Bagley: 3.84 acres lot
2015/16: 435 students
2016/17: 452 students
2017/18: 450 students
2018/19: 448 students
2019/20: 439 students.....increase of +4 students enrolled at DB by 2020
North Beach:
2015/16: 303 students
2016/17: 310 students
2017/18: 325 students
2018/19: 316 students
2019/20: 313 students.....that's a increase of +10 students enrolled at NB by 2020
Adams:
2015/16: 530 students
2016/17: 586 students
2017/18: 597 students
2018/19: 615 students
2019/20: 628 students.....that's a increase of +98 students enrolled at NB by 2020
Viewlands:
2015/16: 374students
2016/17: 404 students
2017/18: 454 students
2018/19: 466 students
2019/20: 490 students.....that's a increase of +141 students enrolled at WE by 2020
As these clearly show, Loyal Heights is NOT busting at the seams as I hear too often. The school must be upgraded and add on too. This single-family zoned neighborhood does not need an elementary school that accommodates 660+ students. LH school is projected to lose a teacher next year due to a decrease in students. If you don't believe me, please call LH Principal Floyd to verify. LHE certainly does not need preschool. Heck, our neighborhood doesn't need another preschool. There are like 25 within 2 miles of LHE.
I'd like to remind everyone what the Seattle voters approved by 72% in 2013. The BEX IV Capital Levy stated "Loyal Heights Elementary: Modernize and add classroom/core facilities. A permanent addition will be constructed to provide 200-350 seats." LHE current capacity is 359 students.**
** Source: Eric Becker Seattle Public Schools; Capital Sr PM
Seattle voted to construct a new LHE school for 559-709 students.
I'm not saying that Loyal Heights shouldn't have reasonable play space nor am I saying this is a good plan for LHE, but please stop falsifying numbers to help your cause.
I am sorry the kids at NB can't play on the grass. This sounds like a school level decision (LHE kids are allowed to play on the grass) - but the point is there is room to expand there if the need arises. As LHE is surrounded by streets, there will be no room to expand and no way to improve that ratio.
And I have seen 6-8 graders as well as gym classes on the turf field at Salmon Bay. And again, there is room to expand there when need arises.
-NumbersTalk
NB parent
-Life will go on
-ChangeTheConversation
(you should sign your posts...otherwise they will be deleted)
The Loyal Heights boundaries are scheduled to change in 2018, when it will pick up chunks of the Whittier and Adams attendance areas. The 5-year projections only go through 2019-20, and they assume grandfathering for schools affected by boundary changes (except for John Rogers and Olympic Hills, for which the planning assumption is to geo-split kids from those schools into Cedar Park).
I'm not sure why they projected a dip in enrollment at Loyal Hts for 2019-20, but wouldn't you expect there to be growth at Loyal Heights over time, due to the increased size of the attendance area?
-North-end Mom
The neighborhood doesn't want sympathy. We want to know how to make change happen. We have tried following the processes set out by the district, the department of neighborhoods, and the DCI. We participated in the departures process that was supposed to be a way to give feedback that would be listened to. There was a majority decision to reject granting all 4 of the requested departures and instead build an appropriate sized building that would meet the needs of the school district without completely screwing over the neighborhood. We have lobbied district staff, school board members, and given testimony at a plethora of public meetings. Let's be clear - we are fully in support of a remodel and expansion of Loyal Heights, including adding capacity. We understand the need for that and would like nothing better than to see a plan that would work for all.
Yes, the playground has been a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and many would like to see it stay. But I for one could live with the loss of playground space if we got a reasonably sized school that sat well on the small lot. Its all about the building size! That's what leads to the loss of play space!
Archer14
Think of what this district could do if parents and citizens could work collaboratively with it instead of having to hire lawyers.
Stupidity.
DistrictWatcher
Also, it's not just population in the current LH zone, which appear to be what's given above. When the new addition opens, LH will take over a significant chunk of the Whittier assignment area not to mention a small piece of Adams. So you can't really look at just the LH assignment area figures. It will draw from other zones and relieve pressure at several other schools.
And finally, what you're asking for (classrooms for 450 students, new cafeteria, new gym) is going to occupy nearly as much space as the proposed remodel. The really big items that take out the north part of the playground are the cafeteria and the gym.
Nearly as much space is still less than what is currently proposed - and don't forget about the space occupied by the interior courtyard and the child care/preschool that will add an additional 40+ little bodies to the site. There is plenty that could be done if the district were willing to negotiate.
Archer14
The projections were done with the assumption that kids at Whittier and Adams who live within the new Loyal Heights boundaries would be grandfathered at Whittier and Adams, so any increase in enrollment at Loyal Heights due to the new boundaries would be gradual, beginning with kindergartners in 2018-19, then kindergarten and first graders in 2019-20. I don't understand why the district projects a dip in enrollment after the boundaries change (maybe the birth to K ratios are wonky for those years?), but I would suspect there would eventually be growth as larger classes roll up.
-North-end Mom
"FROM SSCF- Pre-school prioritized ahead of before- and after-school care
After the jump is a letter from Associate Superintendent Flip Herndon to the Pathfinder community regarding the forced relocation of the before- and after-school care currently using school space.
The letter makes the District's priorities clear: the first priority is K-5 classroom space, then pre-school space, and then childcare space. While the letter suggests that "we may be able to find multiuse space (e.g. gyms and cafeterias) within our buildings that is licensable and will work for our childcare providers", it is not particularly optimistic about it.
As the District designs schools, I would be curious about the extent to which they include space for preschool or childcare in their facilities plans."
mirmac1 said...
If pressure at LH is to be applied, it shall be for the disabled preschoolers that shall be served by SPS or risk further federal sanction.
Anonymous said...
@Seattle Parent
The decision to expand the LH building was made well in advance of any public discussion of the Seattle Preschool Program.
-North-end Mom
Anthony said...
I've not followed this issue, but if the city wants to push-out child care for their prek program....it is time for parents to take the fight to City Hall.
SPS Mom said...
StepJ-
I have the same memory that you have. That when prioritization was voted upon, there was a clarifying question and I too believe that Flip said city preschools weren't included in the preschool category. I believe it was at a board meeting because I wasn't attending/watching committee meetings. I think it was when the board vote was done, so which meeting to watch should be able to be determined by looking at the board agendas.
Melissa Westbrook said...
My recollection is that after BEX II, they wanted to bulid to have versatile buildings and that includes pre-K/childcare. Somewhere along the line - with the Strategic Plan - that morphed to an order of K-5 academic needs, pre-k and childcare. I don't think I even recall being phazed by this but when I think back, it feels like that's when the City was pre-planning the pre-k levy.
The Mayor seems to have a plan for all SPS. Wish he'd let us in on it.
Anonymous said...
It makes sense when building a new building put in one or two classrooms that are suitable for preschool (this mostly means having an adjoining bathroom). This allows the district to place a preschool class there if needed (I am thinking of the special ed preschool classes required under IDEA). It does not preclude those rooms being used for other purposes though - no harm done at all if older children end up in a classroom with a bathroom (kind of nice for kindergarteners, actually, especially early in the school year when they are still learning their way around). I haven't seen to plans for LH, but it sounds like there is something more going on than just ensuring the building has a space that could be used for a preschool classroom.
Mom of 4
-ChangeTheConversation
North end mom
Short of a law suit (which some are trying) - do you have any suggestions?
Oh, and have we mentioned the two rain gardens that will be on the playground site as well to compensate for the fact that the rest of the playground will be covered in asphalt?
-ThanksForYourSupport
My child's school can safely have only two grade levels at recess at a time. It's not a problem.
As I'm reading this discussion, I wonder what schools in real cities do for recess. Elementary schools in New York and Chicago for instance can not possibly have what Loyal Heights neighbors would consider adequate amounts of outdoor space.
http://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/Oversight/20031009/
It amazes me that a group of parents that are genuinely concerned about the physical and emotional health of students - ours and generations to come - have done their research, and are now trying to present reasonable solutions and compromises (yes - if given the opportunity we would love to try to compromise!) are being treated like this. I am sure SPS is loving the infighting as it means we are less likely to be able to present a united front against them.
And thank you to those who are trying to be helpful and supportive. We all hate the portables on our playgrounds. We just think there is more than one solution to them.
-ThanksAgain