Tick Tock; Where's the Board Meeting Agenda with Growth Boundaries Amendments?

 Update: here's the agenda.  There are nine amendments including one to postpone (that one from Director Harris and I think she's right.)

end of update

I do believe that the "end of the day" means 5 pm especially since the JSCEE closes at more like
 4:30 pm.

I suspect the amendments are what is holding up the agenda.

I'll update when I can.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think they might be up now?
https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/one.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=12291632


with about 9 amendments, including one to postpone

reader47
10/28/16, 6:06 PM
Anonymous said…
So the vast majority of the amendments are focused on elementary school. With almost nothing regarding middle school or high school. The only mention of middle school is keeping area 45 at Eckstein, instead of moving area 45 to Hamilton.

It's wonderful that the amendments seem prepared to stop the nonsense at Cedar Park and the craziness of geosplitting all of these students.

But what about Whitman?

- KT
10/28/16, 6:29 PM
Anonymous said…
There is still time for them to submit additional amendments. Hopefully there will be one concerning the North Seattle middle school feeder patterns submitted early next week.

I appreciate the time the Board directors put into listening to their communities and formulating these amendments. It is not an easy task.

-North-end Mom
10/28/16, 6:56 PM
Anonymous said…
Cascadia?!! Decatur?

When?
10/28/16, 7:05 PM
Anonymous said…
Cascadia doesn't have boundaries. It isn't part of the Growth Boundaries plan, but should be part of the upcoming Student Assignment Plan BAR.

-North-end Mom
10/28/16, 7:10 PM
Anonymous said…
From the 7 amendments:
"implement grandfathering for current 6th and 7th graders living in area 126 to allow those students to finish middle school at Hamilton Middle School."

Does anyone know why 6th and 7th graders in area 126 are requesting (& possibly being granted) grandfathering at HIMS? I know it is a small area so likely not many students being grandfathered. However, kids have to move from HIMS for 8th grade under current plan. Why are some and not others being grandfathered?
-a NW parent
10/29/16, 8:06 AM
Green Lake Parent said…
Per this document, it's less than 10 kids moving in area 126, and they would be moved from Hamilton to Whitman. So, although it would reduce Hamilton's numbers by a few, it doesn't move them to the newly opening middle school (Eagle Staff), which has been logic in the past for middle school geosplits (for example when JAMS opened).

http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Enrollment%20Planning/Growth%20Boundaries/2017-18%20Changes/GB%20BAR%20Attachment%20D.PDF

When you look at this document it appears that virtually no one is moving from Hamilton. What's missing here though is HCC, since that's related to pathways and not boundaries. Although not official, the documents I've seen state that HCC students who live in Eagle Staff and Whitman area (and currently go to Hamilton) will move to Eagle Staff next year.

-Green Lake Parent


10/29/16, 8:34 AM
Anonymous said…
Green Lake Parent- Thank you. If I understand correctly, 6th & 7th will be grandfathered at HIMS because the area 126 is being redefined to go to Whitman. So you are stating that only kids slated to go to the new middle school will not be grandfathered. I assume because they are trying to keep the same policy for all those who will go to a new school.
The proposed pathways for HCC for Eaglestaff include Eaglestaff & Whitman are in a Friday memo, but not voted. That's 350-400 kids. However, they won't all fit if proposed elementary schools also feed in as well. So that area needs to be figured out. It is not a done deal. In addition, last I heard if current plans are implemented, Whitman is left too under enrolled while HIMS too over enrolled.
-a NW parent
10/29/16, 8:49 AM
Anonymous said…
"Motion To Postpone - Approval of this motion would postpone consideration of the proposed 2017-18 Implementation Amendments to the 2013-2020 Growth Boundaries Plan until such time that staff comes back with the 2017-18 Student Assignment Plan, to include middle school pathways, a report for Lincoln High School boundaries and use, and the demographic and Free/Reduced Lunch/socio-economic status and disaggregated data regarding racial balance or imbalance for each proposed change. (Director Harris)"

Due to the large number of kids left out of boundary meeting discussions (HCC program) do people think this also includes HCC pathways, as well as middle school pathways?
-BT
10/29/16, 9:03 AM
kellie said…
I am very happy that the current board has clearly listened to community feedback and created multiple options that solve the core problems at the elementary schools with outdated boundary assumptions and geosplits that would be impossible to mitigate with the levy cliff.

However, there is very little in the amendments about the equally large problems with grandfathering and geo-splitting at middle school. I hope there are more amendments to be revealed on Monday.


10/29/16, 9:59 AM
Anonymous said…
When I try to click on Amendment 6A, Amendment 6B pops up. Has anyone found the file for Amendment 6A?

-North-end Mom
10/29/16, 10:39 AM
kellie said…
Director Burke clarified that 5A and 6A go together and 5B and 6B go together.

5A makes Cedar Park an option school and 6A will then roll back all of the boundary changes. 5B makes Cedar Park an attendance area school and therefore the boundary changes moves forward and then 6B grandfathers students in the boundary change areas.
10/29/16, 12:05 PM
Anonymous said…
Any idea if Director Harris has the needed vote to pass the amendment postponing this until staff comes up with comprehensive plan that includes elementary, middle, and high school--including Lincoln HS boundaries?

Concerned Hamilton and Cascadia parent
10/29/16, 3:13 PM
Green Lake Parent said…
I'm curious to see what happens with Director Harris' amendment...how this all plays out. I think the problem is that new schools have to open next year, so some decisions need to be made in time for transportation planning and bids, open enrollment, etc. And SPS is no where near any decisions about Lincoln's boundaries. I think the best we can hope on that is a vote next November (which is what Director Burke is pushing for and is a year earlier than SPS had planned).

-Green Lake Parent
10/29/16, 3:50 PM
Anonymous said…
There appear to be quite a few special "evaluation of a public employee" sessions upcoming - are they all for the Supe or ?? - seems like more than previously held

Board Special Meeting: Work Session - District Scorecard/Operations Data Dashboard; Executive Session: Evaluation of a Public Employee, Wednesday, November 09, 4:30-7:30pm, Auditorium, Stanford Center


Board Special Meeting: Executive Session: Evaluate the performance of a public employee, Tuesday, November 15, 5:00-7:00pm, Board Conference Room (this is a closed session, per RCW 42.30)

Board Special Meeting: Executive Session: Evaluate the performance of a public employee, Monday, November 21, 5:00-6:00pm, Board Conference Room (this is a closed session, per RCW 42.30)

Board Special Meeting: Executive Session: Evaluate the Performance of Public Employee, Wednesday, November 30, 4:30-7:30pm. Board Conference Room, Stanford Center (this is a closed session, per RCW 42.30)

reader47
10/31/16, 8:59 AM
Anonymous said…
The correct content for Amendment 6A has been posted.

-North-end Mom
10/31/16, 9:20 AM
Melissa Westbrook said…
Will the Board postpone these boundary changes? Unlikely because they never do. Despite not being able to really see and understand all the effects of these changes, the Board will say yes because, you know, timing.

And staff, in the end, always gets their way because of "gotta get this done." Did the staff have all the appendices that were promised in the BAR when it first came out? They did not. Have the transportation issues been clearly explained for fiscal outcomes? Nope.

It would seem the Board doesn't have all the information before the group that they might need to make good decisions. So they'll just do "something" in order to get the ball rolling. History has shown this not to be a good course of action for SPS.

Reader 47, that's a good question and now that you line them all up, it might not be just for the Superintendent.
10/31/16, 1:12 PM
Melissa Westbrook said…
One last thing to consider is that directors don't have to vote yes to Harris' amendment to stop the process. They simply decline to pass the whole package when it comes up for a vote which is the same thing.
10/31/16, 1:13 PM
Anonymous said…
Per the RCW cited - the only times it can be a closed meeting as described are:

*To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee

*To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the performance of a public employee - (with some caveats re salary etc)


*To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.

hmmmm

reader47
10/31/16, 2:01 PM
Anonymous said…
@ Melissa

I was under the impression that, if they don't pass an amended plan for 2017-18 (either staff's recommendations for amendments or the staff recommendations plus various Board amendments), then the plan reverts back to what was previously-approved by the School Board in 2013 (Cedar Park opens as an attendance area school, and north-end boundaries redrawn). With no clear implementation specified for the 2013-approved Growth Boundaries Plan, this would be at SPS staff's discretion, and it could very well be geo-splits for all.

So, I might be wrong, but I think the Board has to either go with the motion to delay, OR vote in an amended plan. A no vote doesn't scrap the boundary changes, as they will go forward since they were approved by the Board in 2013.

-North-end Mom
10/31/16, 2:19 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