Seattle Schools This Week
To note; even though SPS is not open tomorrow, Monday the 2nd, you can sign up for the speakers list for public testimony for Wednesday's Board meeting. Starting at 8 am, either call 252-0040 with your info or send an e-mail to boardagenda@seattleschools.org.
Tuesday, January 3rd
Final Community Meeting on the Budget Gap at Franklin High from 6:30-8:00 pm.
There was to be an "Orientation:New Charter School Application" in Yakima by the Washington State Charter Commission on Jan 3rd, but it was canceled without explanation. There are two others; on January 5th in Seattle and on Jan. 11th in Vancouver. Also, on January 6th, questions that charter applicants were to have submitted about the process by December 20th, will have answers posted.
Wednesday, January 4th
School Board meeting, starting at 4:15 pm. Agenda
Highlights:
- annual report of the Native American Education program
- amending the Board policy on Advertising and Commercial Activities at athletic events. From the BAR:
I'm also going to point out that the BAR states that "pages 32-33 replaced" in the contract. However, the attached items are not numbered in any clear manner that would allow anyone to know exactly what pages were replaced. Not good.
- And then we come to the Student Assignment "Transition" Plan for 2017-2018. I first want to thank those eagle-eyed parents who told the Board and the staff that what was originally being put forth was an actual "plan", not a transition plan. I'm glad that got changed.
There are now just three amendments. Director Burke withdrew his amendment to remove the HCC Geo-split to Decatur and Move Entire Cohort to New Cascadia site. So there is:
Amendment 1 is sponsored by Director Peters to "allow grandfathering with transportation for all rising 8th graders." This would be for all comprehensive middle schools for 2017-2018 who live in a region where a rising 8th grader would have to change schools because of a new school being opened in their region.
I have pondered this one. It's a choice between truly rolling out a full 8th grade at new schools or note. One thing I believe will happen - no matter what - is that some students may choose to stay put and some will go to a new school. That means the old school will have fewer students and therefore, less funding. I think that weakens both 8th grades and I think it better to spend that transportation money on having the best opening 8th grade at the new schools.
Amendment 2 is sponsored by Directors Pinkham and Burke to adjust the elementary feeder school patterns to move Greenwood and Broadview Thomson K-8 into the Whitman Middle School service area. This one seems to make sense to me.
Amendment 4 is also sponsored by Director Peters and it would establish Decatur school site as an optional, rather than geo-split pathway for northeast elementary HCC students. Director Peters is on some fairly sound territory here as Ingraham and Fairmount Park are both optional HCC sites for students in those regions. Even though Decatur is a lesser building, the smaller size might appeal to parents as well as the opportunity to create an optional school.
As for the SAP Transition Plan, well, it appears that the "fiscal impacts" certainly have gone up. I understand adding in Decatur reopening but everything else is about the same. (The jury is out on the district's claim that an Optional school is more expensive to open than a Gen Ed school.)
I also note that adding Chief Sealth as the SE dual language immersion pathway high school has had virtually no notice or public discussion. I have to wonder why this is being ignored and not truly vetted.
There is also this:
Adding language clarifying current Special Education services and placement
I looked but the Transition Plan attached is not redlined and so I am unable to see what language has clarified what.
I also see that the Boundary Maps page says:
Updated maps are in production. Thank you for your patience.
This brings me to a major point - why were boundaries and the Student Assignment Plan changes done separately from each other when, in fact, they are intertwined? This suggests to me a couple of things.
1) I sincerely doubt that any parent in this district can truly say they know how both the boundary changes and the SAP Transition Plan changes will play out for any given region. To allow parents to figure it out AFTER the Board vote seems suspect.
2) My belief that there is more going on here than just boundary changes and SAP changes is growing. I think that there is some major social engineering going on here towards a couple of district wishes (that have NOT been clearly articulated.) One is this issue of "segregation" and "equity" (and I put both in parenthesis because I'm not sure of the district's definition of either and how they intersect.) And second, I believe that the district truly wants to control who goes where to a far more fine-grained degree than they have in the past in the name of MTSS.
Under Introduction Items, the most interesting one is the JUA between the City Parks Dept and the district for use of fields. It's a long contract that I haven't read thru yet.
Thursday, January 5th
Executive Committee meeting, from 8:30-10:30 am. No agenda yet available.
Robert Eagle Staff Middle School Planning meeting from 6:30-7:00 pm at Broadview Branch Library. Given that it's a half-hour meeting after a long holiday break, I'm wondering if it is worth attending.
Saturday, January 7th
Community meeting with Director Blanford from 10 am to noon at the Douglass-Truth Library.
Tuesday, January 3rd
Final Community Meeting on the Budget Gap at Franklin High from 6:30-8:00 pm.
There was to be an "Orientation:New Charter School Application" in Yakima by the Washington State Charter Commission on Jan 3rd, but it was canceled without explanation. There are two others; on January 5th in Seattle and on Jan. 11th in Vancouver. Also, on January 6th, questions that charter applicants were to have submitted about the process by December 20th, will have answers posted.
Wednesday, January 4th
School Board meeting, starting at 4:15 pm. Agenda
Highlights:
- annual report of the Native American Education program
- amending the Board policy on Advertising and Commercial Activities at athletic events. From the BAR:
This Board Action Report makes edits to Board Policy No. 4237, Advertising & Commercial Activities, in order to provide equitable opportunity for all District athletic teams to receive financial benefits from advertising and commercial activities.
Current Board Policy No. 4237, Advertising and Commercial Activities, permits advertising on District property on high school fields, stadiums, and scoreboards. As a result, there are a number of high school sports that are unable to receive the monetary benefits of advertising because they do not use fields or stadiums as a venue for play. Sports such as basketball, tennis, and cross country are therefore limited in their ability to receive the benefits that may be available to sports such as baseball and football. In order to provide equitable opportunity to all high school sports, this motion will amend the policy by removing “fields, stadiums, and scoreboards” and adding “athletic venues” in its place.
There is an additional edit that adds marijuana to the list of items that cannot be advertised, as it no longer fits under the category of illicit drugs.
With the exception of advertising placed on athletic venue scoreboards, advertising on athletic venues in school buildings, e.g., gymnasiums, is only permitted to be visible during interscholastic athletic competitions.
Revenues from athletic venuedistrict propertyadvertising will first and foremost enable equitable funding of the Associated Student Body (ASB) accounts. Advertising is also allowed on the school calendar and revenues received will support the publication of such.
Okay, so when they had advertising in the calendar, it was to go to ASB. Did it or does it? I don't think so. It was promised especially for ASBs in the south end that have a harder time raising funds.
Do I believe new revenue from this policy change will go to ASB? I doubt it. But again, the district rarely makes good on transparency around claims of potential benefits to policy changes.
- compliance for website accessibility for those with disabilities. Some of the language would be funny if it were not such a serious subject:
- compliance for website accessibility for those with disabilities. Some of the language would be funny if it were not such a serious subject:
The proposed contract allows the District to wisely manage Seattle Public Schools resources and ensure compliance with the policy, laws and decree noted.
Yes, it's a rather long laundry list of laws that the district wasn't complying with and so got dragged into court.
Under Background Information, there's a bit of defensiveness:
In 2015, SPS entered into a consent decree with a parent of students in the District and the National Federation of the Blind, Inc.I'm not sure anyone, least of all anyone who is disabled and attempting to access information about public schools, should worry that coming into 21st Century compliance of the law for that access was hard on staff.
This decree provides timetables, standards, and specific steps that SPS will follow to provide individuals with disabilities equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from SPS’s services, programs, and activities, as SPS increasingly relies on web-based, digital, and emerging technologies.
One of the main components of the Decree requires that all District web pages comply with the WCAG 2.0 AA level of accessibility. The Decree covers the approximately 4000 web pages that are available to the public under the www.seattleschools.org domain.
Over the past 11 months, staff in the Office of Student Civil Rights (OSCR), Communications and DoTS have worked to bring the District’s website into compliance. This has been a daunting task and one that is extremely arduous and time-consuming with the present staffing levels.
I'm also going to point out that the BAR states that "pages 32-33 replaced" in the contract. However, the attached items are not numbered in any clear manner that would allow anyone to know exactly what pages were replaced. Not good.
- And then we come to the Student Assignment "Transition" Plan for 2017-2018. I first want to thank those eagle-eyed parents who told the Board and the staff that what was originally being put forth was an actual "plan", not a transition plan. I'm glad that got changed.
There are now just three amendments. Director Burke withdrew his amendment to remove the HCC Geo-split to Decatur and Move Entire Cohort to New Cascadia site. So there is:
Amendment 1 is sponsored by Director Peters to "allow grandfathering with transportation for all rising 8th graders." This would be for all comprehensive middle schools for 2017-2018 who live in a region where a rising 8th grader would have to change schools because of a new school being opened in their region.
I have pondered this one. It's a choice between truly rolling out a full 8th grade at new schools or note. One thing I believe will happen - no matter what - is that some students may choose to stay put and some will go to a new school. That means the old school will have fewer students and therefore, less funding. I think that weakens both 8th grades and I think it better to spend that transportation money on having the best opening 8th grade at the new schools.
Amendment 2 is sponsored by Directors Pinkham and Burke to adjust the elementary feeder school patterns to move Greenwood and Broadview Thomson K-8 into the Whitman Middle School service area. This one seems to make sense to me.
Amendment 4 is also sponsored by Director Peters and it would establish Decatur school site as an optional, rather than geo-split pathway for northeast elementary HCC students. Director Peters is on some fairly sound territory here as Ingraham and Fairmount Park are both optional HCC sites for students in those regions. Even though Decatur is a lesser building, the smaller size might appeal to parents as well as the opportunity to create an optional school.
As for the SAP Transition Plan, well, it appears that the "fiscal impacts" certainly have gone up. I understand adding in Decatur reopening but everything else is about the same. (The jury is out on the district's claim that an Optional school is more expensive to open than a Gen Ed school.)
I also note that adding Chief Sealth as the SE dual language immersion pathway high school has had virtually no notice or public discussion. I have to wonder why this is being ignored and not truly vetted.
There is also this:
Adding language clarifying current Special Education services and placement
I looked but the Transition Plan attached is not redlined and so I am unable to see what language has clarified what.
I also see that the Boundary Maps page says:
Updated maps are in production. Thank you for your patience.
This brings me to a major point - why were boundaries and the Student Assignment Plan changes done separately from each other when, in fact, they are intertwined? This suggests to me a couple of things.
1) I sincerely doubt that any parent in this district can truly say they know how both the boundary changes and the SAP Transition Plan changes will play out for any given region. To allow parents to figure it out AFTER the Board vote seems suspect.
2) My belief that there is more going on here than just boundary changes and SAP changes is growing. I think that there is some major social engineering going on here towards a couple of district wishes (that have NOT been clearly articulated.) One is this issue of "segregation" and "equity" (and I put both in parenthesis because I'm not sure of the district's definition of either and how they intersect.) And second, I believe that the district truly wants to control who goes where to a far more fine-grained degree than they have in the past in the name of MTSS.
Executive Committee meeting, from 8:30-10:30 am. No agenda yet available.
Robert Eagle Staff Middle School Planning meeting from 6:30-7:00 pm at Broadview Branch Library. Given that it's a half-hour meeting after a long holiday break, I'm wondering if it is worth attending.
Saturday, January 7th
Community meeting with Director Blanford from 10 am to noon at the Douglass-Truth Library.
Comments
1) 2017-18 change from 7th grade Hamilton to 8th grade Eagle Staff
2) 2018-19 change from Eagle Staff to 9th grade high school
3) 2019-20 move again for 10th grade at new Lincoln High School
That's 3 consecutive years of starting over at a new school during puberty/adolescent years which can be hard in itself. Most of these kids changed schools at least once in elementary schools. Add starting new schools in 8th, 9th and 10th grade is a total of starting at 6 new schools (3 non promotional). This is not putting students first. One year of transportation costs to grandfather these kids is paltry compared to long-term academic, social and mental stability for these humans. It's ONE YEAR.
I'm genuinely curious to know if this factors into your thinking of not supporting grandfathering rising 8th graders for this one year.
--Supposedly Students Come First
The program will eventually be sited at Franklin, but it is being sited at Chief Sealth because the principal at Franklin doesn't want it. There is no other rationale provided.
K at neighborhood school
Gr 1-3 @Lowell
Gr 4-5 @Lincoln
Gr 6 @Hamilton
Gr 7-8 @JAMS
Gr 9-11 neighborhood HS
Gr 12 Lincoln
This does not justify so many moves for students, but simply shows it's not unprecedented. Given the looming budgetary issues, how do you think SPS will prioritize?
realist
What about current 6th graders? They are in the same boat as your current 7th grader. Please explain why your child should be grandfathered and not current 6th graders?
2016-2017: Changed from 5th grade to Middle School
2017-2018: Changed to REMS from HIMS or Whitman
2019-2020: Changed to high school
Bam, now you need to advocate for ALL kids to be grandfathered or none. "I thought it was students first". I'll rephrase your comment for you. "I want the best for my kid and I don't care about the greater good".
Director Peter's should pull this amendment based on the apparent conflict and lack of financial data when we are facing a massive budget shortfall. The costs will be significant.
I agree the Hamilton kids' experience doesn't sound great. I'm unclear why they changed elementaries, though.
It appears that many of these kids are HCC. That points to a district that clearly thinks these students - and their high test scores - are a movable feast. Talk to your Board members about how AL - and the students in it - are being used and it hurts their academics.
Melissa, HCC kids start program in 1st grade or later, so many changed from their neighborhood schools to Lowell or Lincoln/Cascadia during elementary. Many wouldn't have opted to uproot then if the neighborhood school was a better fit.
-- Supposedly Students Come First
HF
Rising 6th, I'd swap a rising 8th grader's situation of attending one year and for the last year of middle school with a 6th or 7th grader's that allows 2-3 years and graduating from that school and be ok with switching schools.
It's great we advocate for our kids, whatever our beliefs. Doing it without spewing vitriol toward those with another view is even better. We're stronger together! We're all in this together and can choose to stay strong and kind while we advocate based on our different beliefs.
Rising 6th, I'd swap a rising 8th grader's situation of attending one year and for the last year of middle school with a 6th or 7th grader's that allows 2-3 years and graduating from that school and be ok with switching schools.
It's great we advocate for our kids, whatever our beliefs. Doing it without spewing vitriol toward those with another view is even better. We're stronger together! We're all in this together and can choose to stay strong and kind while we advocate based on our different beliefs.
--Supposedly Students Come First
Two, there is a difference between having a choice and not having a choice. Do I wish this district cared enough to have rigor and differentiation in place so that more parents could make the choice to stay local? I do. But that is a choice versus being assigned to a school.
Three, I can only say that the money issue for this grandfathering will weigh heavily on Board members' minds. Then again, the district seems to pull figures out of somewhere that never seem to be believable. So how much will one thing cost over another? I don't know.
I will say that if it's to be no grandfathering, the rollout of 8th grade at the new schools better be handled very well.
Director Peters, if you're reading, your amendment needs a 2nd piece that says 8th grade HCC in the north end will only be at Hamilton and JAMS next year.
Or is the idea that there will be a few 8th graders who opt for REMS anyway, so there will be a small cohort of non-HCC 8th graders and a smaller cohort of HCC 8th graders? What a nightmare. I'd say either open REMS as 6th and 7th only, or implement the full geosplit without the grandfathering. Commit to making it work for everyone, or do a partial roll-up. This half-assed approach isn't likely to work well.
DisAPPointed
HF
Looking at Melissa's write -up, it appears Director Peters seeks to offer 8th graders 'choice ' and stability'. ,Choice' is something parents desire and some seek to privatize our education system to provide parents and students with 'choice' . Given the developmental stages of an 8th grader...it would seem some 8th graders would benefit from a stable environment.
There's a specific amendment for grandfathering rising 8th graders. It's reasonable and expected parents will advocate for it if they want it. It would be odd if they didn't, especially while those who oppose it are aggressive, not so much assertive.
--Supposedly Students Come First
--Students First?
We are looking at a very complicated issue.
-Whitman issue
Which 7th grade HCC student would choose REMS when all of their program classmates are still assigned to HIMS? Many would take it in stride if reassigned to REMS, but there wouldn’t be a REMS “choice” for individual HCC 8th graders assigned to HIMS without basically leaving the HCC program.
6th and 7th graders at Whitman already have the option of choosing to stay at Whitman through open enrollment because there will be space at Whitman. So the amendment doesn’t add choice, especially if 8th grade students at the north end of the Eagle Staff area lose the option of transportation to REMS because they are grandfathered at Whitman. In fact, it creates a bad option for rising 8th graders who might prefer to move to REMS or who are new to the area, especially those who live near or east of 99---many of whom would find benefit in an attendance area school more accessible from their home. There wouldn’t be much of an 8th grade program at REMS for anyone with grandfathering. That’s not a equitable “choice" by any stretch.
On #s… per Enrollment Planning data, there are about 111 HCC 7th graders at Hamilton, who will be reassigned to REMS next year. There are 105 Whitman 7th graders being reassigned (or there would be about 60 assuming Greenwood and Broadview Thomson continues feeding to Whitman). A majority of that 60 is likely go where they are assigned rather than proactively seek reassignment back to Whitman.
(There are also about 8 current 7th graders slated to be moved from JAMS to Eagle Staff. If anyone should be grandfathered, its JAMS students, so that they aren’t moved in tiny numbers. And since Eagle Staff would have space, they could probably choose Eagle Staff if they preferred.)
Reluctant Data-wonk
I count 42 of them that either make no reference to advanced learners at all, or utterly fail to offer any plan for addressing their academic needs.
So we have a situation in which the Board directed the Superintendent to do something - include plans for Advanced Learners in the CSIPs in this case. The Superintendent says he'll do it, The Chief of Schools attests that it was done. The Executive Directors of Schools say that they reviewed the documents and it was done. But when we make a quick review of the documents we find that it wasn't done. So the Superintendent is refusing or failing to follow a specific direction from the Board. The Chief of Schools is misinforming the Board. The Executive Directors of Schools are failing in one of their few objectively measurable tasks (what is their job?) and are likely lying to the Chief of Schools.
What are we to make of this situation?
What does the Board do? Do they just pretend that everything was done as claimed even though they can see that it wasn't? Do they insist that the CSIPs be fixed? Is there time for each school to fix their CSIP before the vote? Will the fixes mean anything or will the schools simply add some blah-blah-blah band-aid language about how the teachers will all meet the needs of advanced learners by providing differentiated instruction?
Does anybody even care? Are CSIPs meaningful documents or are they just a form that the State requires schools to complete? And if the CSIP is a pointless exercise, then why even do it?
It's better if Nyland doesn't do what the board requested.
Green Lake
Melissa, SB 6194 is in the court system. Charter schools are not under local and elected oversight. It appears the Charter Commission is just fine with opening additional schools while SB 6194 is in the court system. Has the Charter Commission commented on this issue?
Fix AL
Advanced Learners are kids who have tested in the 87th percentile or above on the CogAT and 87th percentile and above in reading and math. Obviously there are plenty of kids out there who would qualify as advanced learners if they took the tests in question but haven't taken the CogAT. This is a whole lot more students than just the HC cohort.
The district NEEDS to teach these kids. Many principals and teachers have decided not to teach these kids anything beyond "benchmark" or "grade level," but many of these kids start each school year already having completed that year's learning goals. So in many classrooms around the city, these kids (who are no better or worse or more valuable or less valuable than any other kids) are just sitting there year in and year out doing busy work. Because they **already** know the material they're being "taught." SPS should not be warehousing any children like this. If kids already know the material to be taught for the year, what is the district's plan for teaching them something? Surely the point to school is to learn something? The schools can't just lock them in a janitor's closet with a game of Tiddlywinks and let them out in June.
This problem is only tangentially related to the HC cohort, which is a much smaller pool of kids. HC is 98th percentile on the CogAT or above and 95th percentile or above in reading and math achievement. Way fewer kids.
For a city with 50,000 school kids it is pretty inexcusable to just not have any plan for how to teach the kids who test in the top 13th percentiles.
Our daughter's kindergarten teacher assured us there was no way our daughter could be bored. "Five year olds can't get bored," she said. They can if they're asked to spend a whole year reviewing how to count to ten and sit quietly and wait for all the other kids to finish learning their alphabets and how to read.
If the schools actually taught advanced learners anything, it wouldn't matter so much if the cohort size got reduced and kids when back to their assignment area schools because they would be getting to learn something there instead of just playing Tiddlywinks. Right now, if your kid is at least one year ahead of benchmark, you pretty much need to get them into HCC if they're going to learn anything at all in a given school year. And obviously that's not possible or desirable for most advanced learners.
Pro: this provides for the opportunity to cap enrollment and control numbers at a site that will be shared with a less-than-excited neighbor, Thornton Creek.
Pro: this opens the school to the northeast HCC students, not just those in the Eckstein feeder schools, which could provide more diversity and these are all kids who likely will attend JAMS together.
Con: this recommendation could mean the first year(s) is under enrolled and there likely is no mitigation funding. This is a gamble, it could fill up the first year...or not.
NE HCC
The school, the PTSA and many active parents are aggressively promoting the school choice option. We have the forms ready for the first day of open enrollment and notifications have been sent home with those students assigned to move to REMS.
Good News
Weird. Do you mean that you have enrollment forms ready when they aren’t being produced until after the SAP votes and not released until February 6? Are you a time traveler?
Dr. Who
Fix AL
No time travel required. Last time I checked, open enrollment or school choice is not dependent on a vote by the board. Is the board playing to try an end around on school choice?
Good News
I'm glad there are people actively trying to retain Whitman students. A lot of energy has gone into transforming that school. I'd hate to see the school break.
The most common way schools offer advanced learning is through walk to math and walk to reading. Every elementary school is capable of that and has the resources to do that.
As for the middle schools, let's remember that every single one of them is a designated Spectrum site. Yet only three of the comprehensive middle schools, Aki Kurose, Hamilton, and Jane Addams, offered any sort of plan for advanced learning services in their CSIP. Not Mercer, Washington, Denny, Madison, McClure, Whitman, or Eckstein.
By the way, a shocking number of designated Spectrum sites make no reference to Spectrum in their CSIP.
Since there are schools that can and do offer advanced learning services and do so without extra resources, we can conclude that those who offer nothing do so because they choose not to. Either they have other priorities which preclude them from providing support for students working beyond Standards or they simply don't believe that they should be providing support beyond Standards - read the McClure CSIP, it voices active opposition to advanced learning while acknowledging that 25% of the students are Spectrum-eligible. They are intentionally refusing to serve a quarter of the students in the school.
"We have no 'honors' math courses; students are placed in math courses
based completely on the previous year’s math course mastery (i.e. students
taking 6th grade math will move into 7th grade math). McClure does not
'skip' students in math but focuses on genuine mastery of grade level
standards."
Some claim to be offering something, but it's nothing real. They only offer the magic pixie dust of "differentiated instruction". Unless they can quantify this differentiation and guarantee it, I don't believe in it. I believe in what I can count and measure; not elegant narratives. There is no data on differentiated instruction - none - there are only fairy tales and ad copy about parallel curricula and project-based learning. If you can actually name examples of differentiated instruction, then there are too few of them. They are events rather than practices.
The school district and some of the schools are trying to sell the idea of differentiated instruction for advanced learners through MTSS, but when you read the CSIPs it's clear that most of the schools see MTSS as a tool for finding and serving struggling students, not high achievers. If the District thinks MTSS is a tool for advanced learners, they need to get that message out to the schools.
It comes down to this. If there isn't something in the CSIP that a student's family can read and correlate to the child's everyday school experience, then there's no real service for the student. If there is no clear statement that says "Here is what we are teaching advanced learners that is different from what we are teaching general education students." then there is no service.
Some of the schools - about half of them - can do it. So the schools are getting the necessary resources. The rest of them aren't doing it because they don't want to do it and they don't think anyone can make them do it.
"We have no 'honors' math courses; students are placed in math courses
based completely on the previous year’s math course mastery (i.e. students
taking 6th grade math will move into 7th grade math). McClure does not
'skip' students in math but focuses on genuine mastery of grade level
standards."
so it's bad to require mastery? Isn't that a big problem in the hcc, kids who are behind?
junior
-another perspective
There is a fatal flaw in your argument. Grandfathering would allow 111 HCC kids "choice" who currently have no choice but being split. Whitman kids it sound like will have choice. It would allow 111 HCC kids better assurance they will get the classes they need for continuity during a "levy cliff" crisis when mitigation funding which will be needed to run small classes is at risk.
I also wonder if people will be advocating hard against grandfathering those future 12 graders who will be spit from their schools to open Lincoln. I have a Roosevelt bound child who may be split to Lincoln in 10th. I for one, will not be advocating against grandfathering 12 graders. Grandfathering kids who are in their last year of a school is a common "best practice" across the country.
-The whole truth
Fix AL, well, AL as an unfunded mandate? First, the schools have to serve HCC students just as if they were serving SPed students. Second, it's a program in the district; doesn't the district have a responsibility to either change that program or invest it in if it exists?
Wild Cat, that 10% was only for comprehensive high schools and I don't think it happened even one year. That was another "feel-good, on-paper" kind of promise to parents.
Another, good points.
That said, moving in 8th grade is an entirely different ball game than moving in 12th when college is on the horizon and not getting classes could be detrimental to your application success. To equate that to moving in 8th grade is ridiculous. By arguing against the current grandfathering amendment doesn't mean I'll argue against 12th grade grandfathering when the time comes. I actually think 11th grade is the more important high school year so they should get to stay, too, unless there are HUGE guarantees that ALL necessary courses will be available.
And, unless I am missing something, you have no idea who is going to Lincoln so that's another 1/2 truth.
It's sad that Sue Peters pit us against each other instead of ensuring a successful start for REMS. It's completely unlike her past performance. We've lost so much time that could have been spent planning a great school. Now, we'll have to recover from whatever the outcome is tomorrow night before we can start the planning. And, ironically, the LAST of the REMS planning meetings is Thursday. No one really knows who is going there yet and the planning is "done".
So we have 3 director's covering the issue, but it's being driven by an outside director. Why hasn't a single one of these directors attended any of the REMS meetings?
No clue
What are you recovering from? Whitman's parents and students have been very vocal in opposing the change to REMS. That opposition is not going to change regardless. You are wrong to assume if they build it people will come. Tearing apart Whitman to make REMS work is not going to happen, so get over it and work with what you have and stop demonizing people for wanting to keep Whitman as is. We have worked hard to make Whitman a decent school with great programs.
Good News
You're missing the point of Data Wonk's post. Choice WILL be an "illusion" because the choice will basically between something and practically nothing. I suppose that's technically a choice, but for practical purposes it isn't (and you know it).
Yes, grandfathering would allow 111 HCC kids the "choice" to stay at Hamilton, but given the tiny 8th grade HCC cohort that will be at REMS--and the lack of appropriate courses it will mean--it's really a no-brainer. Choosing to move to REMS isn't a feasible option for most, so how can that really be called choice?
Yes, it sounds like Whitman kids (regardless of grade?) will have choice, too. But then again, Whitman is pushing for students to stay based on current enrollment projections, which don't account for Amendment 2. Amendment 2 gives Whitman 2 additional feeder schools over what's in the projections. Amendment 2 makes a lot of sense and is necessary because the draft SAP put too many feeder schools in the REMS area and not enough in the Whitman area. So with Amendment 2 addressing that problem, what would Whitman's revised numbers be? Would there still be enough room for everyone who submits a Choice application to stay?
As to your grandfathering comparisons, middle school and high school are completely separate beasts.
I wish those pushing the "stay at Whitman" agenda were willing to talk honestly about the potential negative impacts on other schools if Whitman gets it way on this one. We're all in this together, folks. What's the best solution for all--not just for Whitman?
DisAPPointed
This Thursday, January 5, Ingraham is hosting a Town Hall meeting for the 46th legislative district with Sen. David Frockt, Rep. Gerry Pollet, and Rep. Jessyn Farrell. Doors open at 7:00 pm.
http://www.hallerlakecommunityclub.org/event/community-event-46th-legislative-district-town-hall/
-parent
Most of these 70 students are HCC students from NW Seattle and the likelihood that they will be drawn into the Lincoln boundary is small.
-REMSparent
Fix AL
REMS itself is not my concern, but for those of you working on REMS you need to work with what you have and stop trying to cannibalize Whitman, because it's not going to happen.
Good News
And, just so you know, the schools are rolling it down onto the teachers with AL plans that consist of nothing more than "Teachers will differentiate instruction." which is, of course, no plan at all.
REMSparent- If Lincoln becomes a designated north end HCC pathway school, relieving Garfield which will be far over capacity, than likely many kids will be moved again to Lincoln.
- likely scenario
Fix AL
"moving in 8th grade is an entirely different ball game than moving in 12th when college is on the horizon and not getting classes could be detrimental to your application success"
8th grade is very similar to 12th grade in terms of taking pre-requisite classes and choosing high schools. Many 8th graders will also be testing for and applying to special programs, private and parochial high schools.
"I find it a disingenuous argument by the pro-grandfather group that these same 70 HIMS 7th graders will be moved to Lincoln in 10th grade"
The district has not yet determined who will be attending Lincoln, but there is a good possibility north end HCC students will be included. If this happens, yes, it will be certainly be the same HCC HIMS students who have to move in the middle of high school.
Who said anything about not "caring" about younger kids, you are making an assumption. Can you see beyond your argument to how this move will negatively affect 8th grade kids?
BTW Most of Whitman's 8th grade kids will likely remain at Whitman as this is not a true Geosplit. Same as what happened at JAMS when Eckstein kids remained. History is being repeated.
In addition, moving students during a fiscal cliff crisis which may impact mitigation funding may impact not only elective but core classes.
And data wonk did not mention the whole situation in his/her argument, which is why I added the information. Data wonk seems to be a bit biased.
-Whole Truth
"Approval of the Annual SAP Software Maintenance and Licensing Agreement - (Ops, Nov. 17, for approval) Approval of this item would authorize the Superintendent to execute a one-year agreement extension with SAP in the amount of $284,761.98 to provide enterprise and Business Systems Incorporated (BSI) software support."
SPS has no business running SAP, this has been an ongoing expense. I not sure of the cost, but it's most likely above 3-4 million and these type of support agreements NEVER go away until they move on to the next big thing.
Places like Boeing, Costco and MS use SAP not SPS...Stop the bleeding!
--Peoples Monies
Louise
What would you suggest as an alternative? Many large districts use SAP, what's better?
arduino
Am I mis-remembering? Or did some kids get to stay at Eckstein sort of under the radar, without most people realizing it?
Either way, though, tt's frustrating that the district feels the need to reinvent the wheel over and over. There should be a clear policy that guides how new neighborhood schools open (geosplit versus roll-up, grandfathering or not) so that everyone knows far in advance what to expect. The fighting about who goes where and who gets to stay where else is maddening. We went through all of this 3 years ago, yet the district learned nothing?
-Wheels Exist
You are spot on. Yes, we have done this before and actually, there have been 3, almost 4 years, to prepare for this split. But in the 11th hour, or should I say in the last 2 1/2 months, it was the SPS BOARD that made this decision to put a grandfathering amendment in place, not SPS. I can't imagine that SPS has the appetite to open a new Middle School in the midst of a capacity crisis AND budget crisis with the possibility of a completely under-enrolled middle school on the North End with only two grades present. That is effectively what we are talking about here. If there is culpability by the school district, it's around a complete lack of parent communication and engagement around this topic for ALL impacted families. Those impacted families are NOT just the current 7th grade families. Everyone who attends or will attend these schools, but especially the families attending REMS, are impacted. So really, who is responsible for communicating these proposals and impacts to the community? Is it the PTA? I don’t think so. Is it the SPS/SPS Comms? I think there’s great responsibility there. Is it the sponsor of the amendment? I think there’s also great responsibility there. You know whose job it isn’t? It isn’t the job of parents to communicate this to other parents, but in the absence of any real leadership from the Board or the District, parents will fill in the gaps, leading to mistrust and fractured communities.
I understand that if Amendment 2 passes and Amendment 1 passes as well, there could be as few as 340 kids @ REMS but still huge crowding @ HIMS (1100+ students), JAMS will be 1000+ and Whitman will be 600+. That is just in the north. Nobody can seem to answer the question about numbers in the south. The problem with catering to special interests is that once you start, you can’t stop because you have set precedent. This is an ill thought through “remedy” that is doing nothing to solve either short term or long term Middle School rebalancing efforts. One last thought, these decisions should not be made based on the loudest voices, but instead should be about the smartest voices and the best decisions for all.
-Long Road
First of all, it is Director Peters. Second, Director Peters does not pit groups against each other.
Try attending one of her community meetings regarding this issue. There is more probably more information to garner. I've been through boundary issues. Sometimes it takes time, but there are solutions.
Again, I do not think that the boundary changes plus any SAP changes have been clearly vetted - to parents or the Board - so it is tough to know what might happen. But given that, it sure might have been a good idea for staff to survey middle school families to what they want to do. Going on real information might help make the decision about how to open RESMS.
So let's not create problem where there isn't any. Leave Whitman alone and if any parent wants their children to attend REMS there the school choice during open enrollment option. Seems really simple to me.
Good News
11th hour
HIMS has only three attendance area (non-option) feeder schools. Rerouting those kids away from their neighborhood school would make HIMS our only option middle school. That's not the direction the district seems to be wanting to go.
Moving kids out for the last year of middle school to shore up the resources available to other students is not OK. 6th and 7th graders can be educated without 8th graders in the building.
Whitman is not in OK shape. There are 16 portables on site, which indicates the cafeteria, gym, lunchroom and bathrooms are over capacity.
WPS
You said newly qualified HCC students will likely need to join the 8th grade cohort at HIMS for their program, but there's not a mechanism for that. The draft SAP identifies RENS as the HCC pathway school for students in the NW starting next year, not HIMS. The grandfathering amendment also does not apply to these students. A supplementary amendment is needed if grandfathering passes.
DisAPPointed
In 2014, in response to concerns about Wilson Pacific starting in 2016 in the John Marshall building and then moving in 2017 to the Wilson Pacific campus, and the multiple splits and moves this would create for students, SPS promised that "Whitman" students would be grandfathered. This information was posted on the SPS website for almost two years and I have a screen shot of that promise.
The exact words were ... "Students who will be assigned to Wilson Pacific (or whatever the name may be in the future) and start at Whitman can follow one of two paths. They can stay at Whitman for the duration of their middle school experience or they can attend Whitman for the year(s) before Wilson Pacific opens and then attend Wilson Pacific when the building is complete."
All of the challenges of this current issue started with that promise made ONLY to Whitman families.
Sounds legally binding to me. Let's see what my lawyer friend says.
Good News
Or, was there maybe no real consideration to any of the consequences of such a statement in the first place? In fact, who made that promise, and did the school board approve it?
DisAPPointed
Just another year in SPS.
-same old
Jenny Young
"Whitman is not in OK shape"
Really, how would you know?
We love Whitman, we love the staff, the parents and the location. We drive our son to and from there everyday and if he did need to walk then we feel he would be safe with an overpass across Holman road and with the fact that the school is located in a beautiful and safe area. I do not have the same warm and fuzzy feeling about RESMS, because of all the unknowns including, lack of school history and the location. I'm also completely turned off by aggressive comments by APP student's parents on this blog.
Whitman Parent
I have been completely surprised by the aggressive comments on both sides of this issue - we all want what's best for our individual families and I see no reason for the hostility towards one another. I would hope that we can all accept others might have a different viewpoint, respectfully disagree and also know that we all want the best for all kids - all at the same time.
You are correct that all of the amendments create uncertainty. However, you are incorrect in the assessment of the timeline and the confusion. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the strong start to REMS was lost long before any amendments were proposed.
The plan to open Wilson Pacific was made in Nov 2013. As such there was ample planning time and no need to any of this last minute ambiguity. The entire push for establishing boundaries for REMS was so that every single family in the future REMS area would know when their student started middle school at another school, they would finish at REMS.
Last spring there were two planning meetings for REMS. There was a total of 11 parents who attended the two meetings. That one data point, should have been a huge warning sign that something was amiss and that families were not thinking of REMS as their future school. This is in direct contrast to the JAMS planning meetings that typically had over 100 parents.
Once again, I can only simply state, that all of us are feeling the loss of long time head of Enrollment Tracy Libros. When Tracy retired a tremendous amount of institutional memory went with her. If Tracy were still in charge of enrollment, all of these details would have been handed last year.
How does a fellow Phinney ridge parent train their child to deal with all the social economically challenged homeless people that will be interacting with your child when traveling to and from school each day? Do you feel comfortable subjecting your child to the risk each day?
From my experience, 85th and Aurora is no place for a child to be at anytime of the day or night. You could have them walk up the north side 85th from Greenwood to Fremont continuing north on Fremont then use 90th to cross Aurora, but keep in mind 90th is also very sketchy especially with the proposed homeless encampment being build on 89th and Aurora.
Also, I think your distance measurement is wrong. No homes in the area you described are 1.98 miles from the RESMS site. The furthest home in the SW corner of RESMS attendance area east of 3rd is 1.9 miles, but I was told SPS measures by straight lines which is then 1.32 miles.
I'm not worried about the distance as much as other things. It appears that SPS drew up the southern bounds to avoid having to provide transportation. In contrast, NW attendance area furthest home is 2.62 miles straight line and 3.72 miles walking ,very similar for the NE area. I left out the Sherwood area in the NW area because I doubt any children from that area would attend SPS.
I hope we don't see any jay walking tragedies on Aurora. Aurora's traffic has surge 2000% since the days of Wilson middle school and now SPS is going to have K-8 kids by the hundreds crossing Aurora twice a day. I hope parents are ready to man each crossing area and some places in between to help stop jay walking be the kids.
Another Parent
Look. http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Enrollment Planning/Growth Boundaries
Just Goofy
Just Goofy
-Just As Goofy
As Sue Peters has said, "de-facto" grandfathering for Whitman in placed that will affect 8th grade enrollment at Eagle Staff with our without the amendment. The kids without choice are those who rely on transportation from Whitman and the HCC HIMS kids who have a full school.
Eric B- 110 8th graders will not make or break the capacity issue at HIMS. They project less students next year due to losing 6th and 7th to Eagle. If 8th graders leave number is 1030, if they remain is 1130. This year we have 1200, last year we had 1100.
HCC 7th graders overwhelmingly want to remain at HIMS which is the ONLY school that can provide them certainties of HCC and core classes (not just electives) they will need. No HIMS 7th graders are advocating to go to Eagle Staff.
JAMS principal Paula and the district made promises to offer kids the classes they would need at JAMS when they split from HIMS.
That same promise is NOT being made this time around due to the mitigation funding being on the table to be cut.
Does it make sense to spread out funding among three grades or two? Nyland pointed out they cannot meet expectations in FALL at the board meeting. Eagle Staff is in trouble.
- JT
Tell your Board member you want it broadcast. I will be there and will report out on it.