Updates on Tonight's Board Meeting
Update: there is finally a staff document about the amendments. It is terse and I don't have a link but here are their main points on the amendments. There are not comments for all amendments.
Amendments 1A and 1B (grandfathering for Green Lake)
1A and 1B are mutually exclusive and the Board can choose to adopt neither or one, but not both.
Amendments 5A and 5B (Cedar Park)
5A and 5B are mutually exclusive and the Board can choose to adopt neither or one, but not both
Amendment 6A and 6B (only references areas by numbers to either do nothing or grandfather students)
6A and 6B are mutually exclusive and the Board can choose to adopt neither or one, but not both.
Amendment 7 (Viewlands and Whitman and Broadview-Thomson and Eagle Staff)
If 6A is approved, Amendment 7 is no longer applicable.
Amendmen 8 - (Universal grandfathering for rising 8th graders)
If the Board approves amendments 1,2,3,4, either 5A or 5B, AND either 6A or 6B, this amendment is not needed.
Amendment to Postpone
This can be moved and considered at nay point at which another amendment motion is not being considered.
End of update
I must point out that the short one-hour Work Session on the Budget before tonight's Board meeting makes for sobering reading. I have only skimmed it but clearly, the district wants to shift/reduce money around. They also appear to be considering "indirect costs" for grants including PTA ones.
DirectorHarris Peters, at the last Work Session on the Budget, clearly and directly asked where Legal and Executive Directors fall in the landscape of spending (meaning, are they central administration or what?)
Executive Directors are only mentioned in notes on the communities meetings on the budget (and I was the one who brought them up.) Legal is not mentioned at all. Clearly, staff will say they will get back to directors on questions but then don't.
Going into tonight's Board meeting, there are the following changes to the agenda:
- Tom Ahearne - Lead Counsel, Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS) will be speaking during the Superintendent's comments. This will probably be an update on McCleary.
- there are 20 speakers signed up with 13 on the waitlist. The majority of the comments are about the Growth Boundaries.
- Authorization to Commence Salary and Contract Discussions - Approval of this item would authorize Directors Blanford and Harris to engage in contract discussions with Superintendent Nyland for the 2016-17 fiscal year, and report back to the full Board, with introduction and action at the December 7, 2016 legislative session. (This item is for introduction and action at this meeting)
I'm a little confused here because I thought the Superintendent had a contract for this year. Oh wait, as I read the BAR, it's not for a contract for this year - it's for a raise (partial).
Amendments 1A and 1B (grandfathering for Green Lake)
1A and 1B are mutually exclusive and the Board can choose to adopt neither or one, but not both.
Amendments 5A and 5B (Cedar Park)
5A and 5B are mutually exclusive and the Board can choose to adopt neither or one, but not both
Amendment 6A and 6B (only references areas by numbers to either do nothing or grandfather students)
6A and 6B are mutually exclusive and the Board can choose to adopt neither or one, but not both.
Amendment 7 (Viewlands and Whitman and Broadview-Thomson and Eagle Staff)
If 6A is approved, Amendment 7 is no longer applicable.
Amendmen 8 - (Universal grandfathering for rising 8th graders)
If the Board approves amendments 1,2,3,4, either 5A or 5B, AND either 6A or 6B, this amendment is not needed.
Amendment to Postpone
This can be moved and considered at nay point at which another amendment motion is not being considered.
End of update
I must point out that the short one-hour Work Session on the Budget before tonight's Board meeting makes for sobering reading. I have only skimmed it but clearly, the district wants to shift/reduce money around. They also appear to be considering "indirect costs" for grants including PTA ones.
Director
Executive Directors are only mentioned in notes on the communities meetings on the budget (and I was the one who brought them up.) Legal is not mentioned at all. Clearly, staff will say they will get back to directors on questions but then don't.
Going into tonight's Board meeting, there are the following changes to the agenda:
- Tom Ahearne - Lead Counsel, Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS) will be speaking during the Superintendent's comments. This will probably be an update on McCleary.
- there are 20 speakers signed up with 13 on the waitlist. The majority of the comments are about the Growth Boundaries.
- Authorization to Commence Salary and Contract Discussions - Approval of this item would authorize Directors Blanford and Harris to engage in contract discussions with Superintendent Nyland for the 2016-17 fiscal year, and report back to the full Board, with introduction and action at the December 7, 2016 legislative session. (This item is for introduction and action at this meeting)
I'm a little confused here because I thought the Superintendent had a contract for this year. Oh wait, as I read the BAR, it's not for a contract for this year - it's for a raise (partial).
The Superintendent’s employment contract requires the Board to determine whether to increase his salary for this fiscal year no later than the first Board legislative meeting in December.
Funds to pay for any salary increase or contract extension for the Superintendent would be brought to the Board for introduction and action in a subsequent Board Action Report, which is scheduled for December 7, 2015.
Funds to pay for any salary increase or contract extension for the Superintendent would be brought to the Board for introduction and action in a subsequent Board Action Report, which is scheduled for December 7, 2015.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
With guidance from the District’s Community Engagement tool, this action was determined to merit the following tier of community engagement:
Not applicable
Tier 1: Inform
Tier 2: Consult/Involve
With guidance from the District’s Community Engagement tool, this action was determined to merit the following tier of community engagement:
Not applicable
Tier 1: Inform
Tier 2: Consult/Involve
Tier 3: Collaborate
Guess which box is checked? Not applicable. My thinking is that while the Board has to assess the Superintendent's work, it would seem to me that some community input on what THEY see as his performance might be a good idea.
- payment of $315,000 to settle a claim from a teacher that she was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at her school by her principal at Madrona. She agrees to drop all claims against the district and resign by December 1, 2016. As well, the district will never hire her again. Interesting.
- Nearly all the amendments for Growth Boundaries indicate that the BAR has been updated and yet I cannot tell what has changed. Generally the changes are highlighted. I asked the Board about this.
- There are three new Growth Boundary amendments.
Guess which box is checked? Not applicable. My thinking is that while the Board has to assess the Superintendent's work, it would seem to me that some community input on what THEY see as his performance might be a good idea.
- payment of $315,000 to settle a claim from a teacher that she was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at her school by her principal at Madrona. She agrees to drop all claims against the district and resign by December 1, 2016. As well, the district will never hire her again. Interesting.
- Nearly all the amendments for Growth Boundaries indicate that the BAR has been updated and yet I cannot tell what has changed. Generally the changes are highlighted. I asked the Board about this.
- There are three new Growth Boundary amendments.
- Amendment 1.B - Approval of this item would amend proposed 2017-18 Implementation Amendments to the 2013-20 Growth Boundaries Plan to retain areas 41 and 44 in the Green Lake Elementary School attendance Area and to direct staff to engage the community regarding potential boundary adjustments between Green Lake Elementary and B.F. Day Elementary prior to approval of any changes for boundaries for the 2018-19 school year (Directors Burke and Geary)(new amendment)
- Amendment 11 - Approval of this item would amend the proposed 2017-18 Implementation Amendments to the 2013-2020 Growth Boundaries Plan to provide transportation to all transportation-eligible students in the areas where the Board has approved grandfathering. (Director Peters) (new amendment)
- Amendment 12 - Approval of this item would amend the proposed 2017-18 Implementation Amendments to the 2013-20 Growth Boundaries plan in order to direct staff on the Highly Capable Cohort middle school pathways for north-end students in the 2017-18 Student Assignment Plan and place a high priority on mitigation funding for Whitman and Washington Middle Schools in the 2017-18 year to address drop in student enrollment due to the opening of Eagle Staff and Meany Middle Schools. (Director Peters and Harris) (new amendment)
Comments
What does this mean?:
• Adverse impacts for all students at Eagle Staff next year AND the following year. In year 1, there would likely be too few students, district dollars, and parent support to start up strong programs in the school and have adequate staffing. That likely means weaker music, sports, math, and foreign language options, and possibly inadequate staff (nurse, library, counselors). In year 2, a new 8th grade teaching staff would need to be hired, so current 6th graders would have a newly hired teaching staff 2 years in a row.
• Hidden process and no chance for most affected families to weigh in or talk with school administrators about potential impacts. A few impacted families are working on this, with no daylighting or discussion with other affected families. That includes families with current 5th graders and 6th graders who will be assigned to Eagle Staff next year, as well as current Whitman area 7th grade families. An amendment like this has huge impacts. It should have been introduced publicly, discussed, and analyzed months ago.
• Bad precedent for HCC with too many splits. Having a strong cohort of students and a strong, collaborative teaching staff is one of the strengths of the HCC program. This amendment keeps Hamilton as a very large, strong HCC school and gives Eagle Staff HCC a weak start. It also splits the NW cohort into factions.
• Long term strategy. The school board and staff should instead focus efforts on solving the long-term problem of rebalancing the middle school feeders and clarifying HCC pathways, with the goal of a successful startup for Eagle Staff and relief for Hamilton starting in 2017.
This amendment is breaking with precedent and expectations set when JAMS opened 3 years ago under similar circumstances. And, starting as a rollup (just 6th and 7th graders) is not best practice for a successful startup of Eagle Staff as a comprehensive middle school, regardless of who is assigned there.
I’m disappointed that this has been developed with no transparency and no discussion with the communities that are impacted, aside from a few families.
-Long Road
I looked through some of the amendments for changes, and the only change I could find was that the action date had been changed from Nov 2 to Nov 16.
-North-end Mom
Jane
JAMS opened with an extremely small 8th grade, that was mostly HCC. As Eckstein had plenty of space, any 8th grader that applied to return to Eckstein was able to return. However, as Hamilton was full, the HCC students just sat on a waitlist.
Looking back, I think it would have been better for everyone if JAMS started as a 6-7 and rolled up. A 6-7 would have been enough students so that there could be all band levels and math levels and it would have been a less chaotic start.
But who knows, there are pros and cons to roll ups and geosplits.
- jams mama
- Confused
Cedar Park is now an option school. This is a huge victory for community engagement. A few months ago, I thought it would be impossible to roll back a plan that re-segregated the entire north end and geo-split 800 students, who are mostly FRL and historically underserved.
I am incredibly impressed with all the community advocates who worked to create a better plan and a school board that listened and took effective action.
Olympic Hills was named as the #1 school in the State of Washington for closing the achievement gap. This plan preserves the good work that community is doing.
I so wish we had this board during the closures.
This changes means that all of the original school boundaries will be maintained related to the opening of Cedar Park as an option school.
Amendment #8, regarding grandfathering 4th and 5th graders was removed. Amendment #8 was removed because all of the previous amendments reversed the 800 elementary students who were scheduled to be geo-split.
As any potential split at Cascadia will be addressed as part of the SAP, any grandfathering issues with Cascadia will be addressed during that time.
There has been community feedback both to support grandfathering 8th graders and to support geo-splitting 8th graders. Accordingly, Dir Peters wanted to allow a little more time for discussion. Therefore, the issue of grandfathering v geo-splitting middle school students will be handled as part of that vote, currently scheduled for Jan 4th.
There are 5 community meetings regarding the Student Assignment Plan, so mark you calendars if you want to express your concerns regarding geo-splits or grandfathering at middle school.
This is another messy one and I would expect that the SAP meetings will get a lot of feedback on this topic.
Amendment #12 now simply clarifies that the HCC pathways are Hamilton, Eagle Staff and JAMS as per the 2013 Growth Boundaries and the Student Assignment Plan that will be introduced at the Ops Committee tomorrow.
Amendment 12 passed. So HCC families can plan on Eagle Staff as their new location.
The Growth Boundaries plan with amendments was passed 6-1.
this is the first meeting that I have attended in the last 14 years, where student outcomes was the center of the conversation. It is a good night.
You stated that it is the first meeting that you have attended in the last 14 years, where student outcomes was the center of the conversation and that it was a "good night." That is grand that it was a good night for certain students. But was it a good night for all students? What about the Lincoln Springs students that are currently housed at Lincoln with a cap on enrollment and reduction of classrooms? Was there any discussion by the Board during the amendments deliberations about Licton Springs students and their placement at Eaglestaff?
Was there any amendment discussed that considered our Native community?
Was the testimony about Indian Education and the Rally and the number of speakers, totally ignored other than a few remarks from Board members during Board comments?
Was there any consideration in the discussion of the Amendments that included the restoration of Indian Heritage High School? Was there any consideration of postponing the proposed 2017-18 growth Boundary Implementation until the Board dealt with the BLATANT violation of the previous Board's action? or the plans to restore Indian Heritage High School?
Yes, for certain students there were positive outcomes, for our underserved Native students, again not so.
The motion to postpone the amendments should have been approved until this was done. The Board obviously was only concerned with certain students. What a disappointing night.
Carol
-another JAMS mama
- MemoReader
-sleeper
Yes, it was a good night for Licton Springs. Having attended more than my fair share of meetings over the years where the focus of the meeting was closing AS1, it was beyond refreshing to have a board that made the students a priority over "building utilization."
Both at the board meeting and at the work session last week, the commitment to Licton Springs was reaffirmed and the board asked staff many questions to confirm that the work to support Licton Springs was done. At the work session last week, the current board referenced an email from former Board President Sharon Peaslee, who wrote the amendment to save what was then AS1 and Indian Heritage and place this newly combined program at Wilson Pacific, where Sharon noted all of the details of that amendment.
They then specifically asked the staff to confirm that there were at least 14 homerooms set aside for Licton Springs and the board made note of your comment that only 10 rooms were set aside.
There is work to be done to make certain that Eagle Staff works for everyone. The intention was made clear last night that this work would happen at the 5 community meetings for the Student Assignment Plan.
-sleeper
There were around 360 American Indian students in the district last year - so maybe 100 high school students. I believe I heard earlier this month that the largest concentration of students is at Denny and Chief Sealth. What kind of high school program does the community want - and where?
I was shocked to hear Director Pinkham's daughter's testimony last night. Is he as misinformed on the history of the kids at Lincoln and the program placement process as she is?
I completely agree that there needs to be more work done with and for our Native students. I don't know what outcome you expected based on testimony, it would be helpful if you could be more specific about what action you expect the board to take.
The Growth Boundaries vote is only one piece of the puzzle. Leslie Harris made continual erudite remarks about how many pieces were missing. Here are just a few pieces that are missing that I know about.
High School - a plan for a timeline for when boundaries will be drawn for Lincoln as well any intermediate plan to for 2017 or 2017.
Middle School - Eagle Staff and Hamilton have been promised to too many communities while Whitman will be half empty. The feeder patterns for Whitman, Hamilton and Eagle Staff all need to be revisited. Schools that are likely to see a change would be West Woodland, Greenwood, BT, Viewlands and Olympic View.
Elementary - There clearly needs to be some work on the whole axis of West Woodland / BF Day / Greenlake / McDonald and JSIS. There also needs to be a plan for Cascadia.
Carol, I, too, heard discussion (briefly) at this meeting about the agreement on Licton Springs being upheld. What is troubling was to hear Native American families saying the Superintendent and staff had been saying things to try to split their community. I'll have to ask them about that.
One last clarification about your "some students" comment. Olympic Hills was named the #1 school in the State of Washington in closing the achievement gap. This school clearly does excellent work.
The original staff plan was going to decimate that learning community and cause over 800 elementary school students to be geo-split so that two buildings would be full utilized at the cost of disrupting 12 learning communities and re-segregating North Seattle.
I don't think this was a win for "some students." I think it was a win for education. The highest poverty census track in all of Seattle is along Lake City way, this area clearly needed a much more thoughtful and student centered approach and this board was positive, thoughtful, respectful and proactive in making a better outcome.
I remember many board meetings that deteriorated into personal attacks, including half the board filling a lawsuit against the other half. Many voices were heard last night, many representing completely opposite points of view. Then the work moved forward a little bit and there is a still a lot left to do.
The 2013 Growth Boundaries vote was so intense and reactive. It was the last vote for outgoing board members so there was this urgency to get it done, over doing the right work. That was a rough night.
It is really clear that at least for this board, the public comments during the SAP meetings will be directly incorporated into how they shape and most likely amend the SAP. If you attend one of the SAP meetings, be certain to fill out one of the comment cards as that becomes official community feedback.
Not an easy night.
You mean native as in all the students born in Seattle? If not then just be gone with your Sawant anti-white bigotry.
Maybe we need a one on one to straighten this out.
Pinko hunter
Because of the decisions made last night, school communities throughout the north-end, including several title 1 schools, will be allowed to remain intact.
The amended plan will allow the Olympic Hills community to move, intact, into their new building which was specifically-designed to serve their high-needs population, with its health center, preschool and childcare spaces and small group instruction areas. Olympic Hills added a 4th kindergarten this year, and should have no problem growing into their new building without the need for highly-disruptive geo-splits.
The decisions made by the Board last night will put an option school at Cedar Park, instead of an assignment school. The staff-recommended attendance area boundaries for Cedar Park EXACTLY MATCH the boundaries for Census Tract #1, which has the highest non-white population of any census tract in North Seattle, and includes extremely high-poverty neighborhoods. I have no doubt that the planning principal for Cedar Park is excellent, but it is not best practices to intentionally set up a segregated, high-poverty school when there are other options available.
The decisions made by the Board last night will halt a boundary change plan which would have segregated students of color into Cedar Park, and, to a lesser degree, into Olympic Hills, while gentrifying the surrounding schools (John Rogers, Sacajawea, Olympic View, etc...). For these schools, which highly-value diversity, and work incredibly hard to close achievement and opportunity gaps, this is a very big deal.
After reading some of the comments above, I did some digging. There are 14 students of American Indian/Alaskan Native heritage currently attending schools which would have experienced boundary changes if the Board had not passed amendments 5A and 6A, along with about 900 students who identify as either Black, Hispanic, or Pacific Islander. Would these kids have been re-assigned if the boundary changes had gone through? I have no idea, since we were never provided a demographic breakdown of each boundary change area. Regardless of if they had been reassigned or not, their school communities would have been impacted by the large-scale boundary changes and subsequent re-structuring of both their student populations and school budgets.
Last night was incredible, and I am still in shock. I am extremely grateful to the members of this School Board for putting students and their families first.
-North-end Mom
-North-end Mom
Thank you.
As Kellie and others high-five the board (rightfully so), the thinking that went into this school should be SOP in the district and by parents and the board.
How about now looking at the schools in the district that are highly impacted by poverty and gerrymandering their boundaries?
While the Cedar Park decision was significant it tell several things:
--The district is willing to dispose of unprivileged and vulnerable children.
--It will only stop when privileged families step up and say no.
--The entire student assignment plan is based on the same premise and delivers the same reality already in many schools in this district.
Hopefully, the work of the advocates and the board are the beginning and not a one-time event. This response needs to be a district-wide revamping of the student assignment plan which already produces many schools that are already what Cedar Park would have been.
As some have stated, the "optics" were horrible in this case. Fairness toward the vulnerable and non-privileged should not depend on optics.
FWIW
What's with him?
Intentions Matter
The subject of cost is always a tricky topic. IMHO, the board actions last night will ultimately be cost neutral, because the net impact of all the amendments was zero change. Therefore zero change is cost neutral.
You can only optimize a system for one variable. The staff plan was designed to optimize building utilization. As such, it was looking at the cost associated with the WSS and having large full buildings that were cost efficient from that point of view and those indirect savings.
The staff plan was not designed to optimize bussing costs. While the plan around Cedar Park would have taken some busses out of the system, there were multiple change areas under the staff plan that were putting students on busses and taking them out of walk zones. As such, the cost impact statement that was included with the BAR said that there was no cost analysis for transportation.
However, last night, every amendment was accompanied by a transportation cost for that amendment. Director Blanford was persuaded that these costs were significant and he felt that with the potential $71 Million budget shortfall if the "levy cliff" happens meant that these costs should be avoided. That is not an unreasonable point of view.
That said, those of us that advocated through the closures, which includes much of the current board, was not persuaded by this. The mantra during the closures was that by creating efficiencies in transportation and building utilization that we would see a direct impact on student outcomes. However, that never happened.
Also staff clearly noted that any transportation cost is a one time cost, as transportation is now 100% reimbursed by the state. So the only true transportation cost is the cost of the float where SPS pays the cost and waits for reimbursement.
2) Blanford has a tendency to want to "honor" the work of staff which is fine but if there is not alignment among dollars, input from families/staff/communities and staff, then the Board has to take everything into account.
The big issue is truly - as always - the money. The Board just voted in grandfathering which means, for equity's sake, transportation dollars for all. (Otherwise, only students who could find their own transportation would be eligible for grandfathering, creating an equity issue.)
While some may think that busing is the answer to segregated schools, well, the district tried that (it didn't work) and it costs a lot of money. I think the key is - as much as humanly possible - to NOT create schools as they had wanted to for Cedar Park.
There should be community meetings scheduled to discuss possible focuses for the option school.
-North-end Mom
Districts around the country (less "liberal" than Seattle) used gerrymandering,
FRL tie-breakers, and option/magnet schools.
Promoting privilege on this blog is no longer tolerable.
It's about finding solutions to the same issues
that many people realized were inhumane in the plan for Cedar Park.
Defaulting to calling real solutions "busing" so you can plug your ears isn't cutting it.
FWIW
I have been corrected about the number of classrooms. I now heard the number is 6.
Regarding this conversation It has drawn attention to the Native students who are underserved, discriminated against, vulnerable and economically underprivileged. At least now the Native Students educational needs are being discussed.
Thank you
Carol
I was on the design team for Wilson Pacific. At that time, Licton Springs was allocated two full floors of one wing of the building. Sharon Peaslee's memo stated that that Licton Springs was guaranteed at least 14 homerooms.
I believe the six classroom is the current configuration at Lincoln. With a permanent location, the program should be able to grow.
The board has repeated their commitment to ensure that this minimum space promise is delivered. That is one of the reasons why so many parents have voiced their concerns that the Eagle Staff building has been over promised. The original boundaries for Eagle Staff were drawn to create a 1,000 student middle school.
In order to ensure that there is space for both the middle school and licton springs there will need to be amendments to the Student Assignment Plan to redirect some elementary schools away from Eagle Staff. The board made it clear in their comments that they fully expected this work to happen and were expecting to get many parent comments during the SAP community meetings. I hope that you will add your voice to this request.
There is one other concern about Licton Springs. The "geo-zone" for the school was drawn to only include the Bagley attendance area and none of the area immediately north of the school. A more expanded geo-zone would help to support the program.
As for what is going to happen or not happen on this blog, that would be for Charlie and me to decide.
Excited
This was discussed at the operations committee today. Flip confirmed that they only set aside 150 seats for Licton Springs, for capacity reasons. In other words, because they did not rebalance the feeder patterns, they only set aside this reduced amount.
I'm so sorry for this broken promise. Hopefully, this board will take action as part of the SAP vote.
It's no wonder families have lost trust. It seems there are surprises and disappointments at every turn if you get too comfortable and assume they will just do the right thing.
Licton Fan
Thank you so much for your support for Licton Springs K-8. You and Kellie are correct - we have been allocated 6 teaching rooms in the Eagle Staff building, and one special ed room, for nine grades. Currently in Lincoln we are using at least nine home rooms and an art room. We have been moving away from multi-age classrooms because of an influx of high-needs students that have widened the ability gap in our classrooms (so a 4/5 split, for example, may have kids ranging from 2nd grade to 7th grade reading level, for example). The new space will mean we have to move back to a more rigid multi-age approach, and will hem in our ability to ever grow beyond our current size.
An additional casualty are the ACCESS and SM4 special ed programs that are part of our school at Lincoln. And when I say part of our school, I mean that they are not just located there, but integrated into out community. Even the SM4 class, while officially self-contained, participate in school activities, and whenever possible in our classroom. At Eagle Staff we will have one special ed room, which is supposed to serve the SM4 self-contained, Access, and resource room students.
In part we knew this would be an issue - when the board decided to save Pinehurst, we knew that there were space constraints at the new building (when someone sends you a life-boat, you don't complain about the size - we were willing to accept a cluster of portables at Broadview-Thompson at one point). There was hope at the time that there would be some flexibility down the road, and that we might get a little more than 6 rooms.
I think the development of a Native-centered curriculum at Licton Springs was the right thing to do, and I am grateful for the many people who have been involved in moving this work forward. We are implementing elements of the Tribal Sovereignty Curriculum in every grade. We have developed a Coast-Salish art curriculum with Roger Fernandes (Lower Elwha Skallam), and are working on implementing a Native-focused science curriculum based on the work of Megan Bangs (Ojibwe) and Alice Tsoodle at the University of Washington. 25-30% of our students are Native or mixed-race Native, and two of our teaching staff. I am grateful to the storytellers, drummers, musicians, and scientists that have shared their knowledge with our students. There are a lot of challenges, we are not the perfect place for every student, and we still have much more to do, but I think that we have begun the shoot of something very important. I hope that shoot is allowed to grow.
Would the Licton Springs community be willing to move to Cedar Park? At Wednesday's Board meeting, the planning principal for Cedar Park said that moving an existing option school program to Cedar Park would be one way to start an option school there. Cedar Park is about the same size as the original Pinehurst building.
-North-end Mom
It sounds like your school is doing great things, despite the circumstances. I suspect this board will be committed to ensuring that the promised space is secured.
The additional irony is that I had long suspected that the insistence on Cedar Park being an attendance area school, rather than option school, was precisely so that AS1 would not get the building, so this whole mess is deeply entangled, in that old fight. Even more ironic, the decision to place AS1 at Wilson Pacific was based on extra space at WHITMAN, not WP, as they had drawn boundaries to completely filled WP and emptied Whitman. The amendment to place AS1 at WP, included an instruction to re-balance the feeder patterns.
I remember this clearly because Sherry Carr was originally opposed this decision and she asked many questions of Traci Libros about Whitman and then she changed her vote.
However, in the loss of institutional memory, this action was never taken.
Licton Springs would have a better change of attracting new students at Eaglestaff than way up in the northeast corner in Cedar Park.
To fill an option school way out at CP, it is going to have to be fairly conventional and attractive to the masses. I love the way Licton Springs approaches their curriculum, but have always thought it would be a great place for camp, not daily school, for my child.
Boy, what is the District thinking/doing now? They really blew it. I hope they take time to reflect and learn from this experience.
Live nLearn
Wondering
"There were around 360 American Indian students in the district last year - so maybe 100 high school students."
There are more than 360 Native students at SPS. The official reporting on American Indian/Alaskan Native students from SPS and OSPI significantly undercounts Native students because it only reports students where the family checked only the American Indian/Alaska Native box for race/ethnicity on their enrollment form. However, many Native people are technically mixed-race, despite being enrolled tribal members and having strong cultural connections to their Native heritage. Bernie Whitebear, the famous Native activist and founder of Daybreak Star center was Native and Philippino, and would likely not be counted as AI/AN in the OSPI reporting if he were a student today. There are examples of north-end schools where OSPI lists one AI/AN student, but there are actually 8 who are eligible for Title VII funding as AI/AN students.
If you look at the demographic data under State Reporting Rules, which break out the Hispanic ethnic category into its components, there are "355 AI/AN-Not Hispanic" at SPS, but "1,643 AI/AN Hispanic". Many of those students are probably counting indigenous Central/South American heritage, but there are also plenty of people in the native community who are mixed, say, Cowlitz and Hispanic. At Licton Springs in 2016 we officially had 10 AI/NA Not Hispanic, 5 AI/AN Hispanic, and more than 20 mixed-race students with AI/AN tribal affiliation.
506 form are another means of counting Native students, but the criteria for that has its own issues. It counts students who have a tribally enrolled parent or grandparent or are tribally enrolled themselves. However, it only counts federally recognized US tribes. Someone who is a fully enrolled "full-blood" member of a Canadian First Nation is not considered AI/AN by the US. A member of a non-recognized tribe like the Duwamish Tribe is not considered AI/AN.
So that is some of the complexity involved in counting Native students.