Stevens Elementary Trying to Fight Cuts
From Stevens parents worried about their school. Understand that if the Board does not act on policies that are broken/bent/ignored, then YOUR school community could be next.
I can see what the district is doing - clearly, if they got Madrona's enrollment up near building capacity, they are trying to fill schools. But it is just wrong to then leave other schools twisting in the wind. (I think staff believes that more people will eventually move near Stevens and it, too, will fill back up but meanwhile they are ridiculously below their capacity. And, I think the district is triaging schools by student population. Again, that might be okay except that the policy doesn't state that.)
We've been asking the District to move the Stevens waitlist to no avail. The big picture includes:
From PTA letter:
I can see what the district is doing - clearly, if they got Madrona's enrollment up near building capacity, they are trying to fill schools. But it is just wrong to then leave other schools twisting in the wind. (I think staff believes that more people will eventually move near Stevens and it, too, will fill back up but meanwhile they are ridiculously below their capacity. And, I think the district is triaging schools by student population. Again, that might be okay except that the policy doesn't state that.)
We've been asking the District to move the Stevens waitlist to no avail. The big picture includes:
- Stevens is being targeted for reduction while all the other schools in our area are growing or maintaining their enrollment. (Comparing building capacity and 2020 projections, Lowell is expected to be at 125% of building capacity while Madrona is at 96% of building capacity and Stevens is at 57% of building capacity.)
- Stevens had 16 classroom teachers 2 years ago (in 2014-15). Next year it is slated to have 11. Three years from now (in the fall of 2020) it is expected to have 8 (and that number may be optimistic). Cutting a school's enrollment and teaching staff in half over six years is a recipe for disaster and the district needs to ACT NOW and MOVE THE STEVENS WAITLIST in order to slow this train wreck.
From PTA letter:
Our message is simple: Save
Stevens! Follow Board-approved assignment policy, allow choice assignments
where space is available, and MOVE THE STEVENS WAITLIST. It is NOT FAIR to artificially limit choice
assignments to Stevens in order to increase enrollment at Madrona or Lowell given
the District’s 3-year enrollment projections for each school: Stevens is
projected to be at 57% of capacity in 2020, Madrona at 96% and Lowell at 125%
capacity).
|
*We have been told repeatedly, including by the Superintendent
in an email to our PTA, that choice assignments to Stevens are being artificially limited in order to
increase enrollment at Madrona and Lowell.
That is a political choice that is completely out of compliance with
approved Board policy, which allows choice assignments to schools where space
is available. We had space last year, we
have it again NOW!
Please take up one or more of these actions, listed in
order of importance:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28 SPS Board Meeting, 4:15 p.m., John Stanford
Center
Bring kids and signs, and wear your Stevens t-shirts!
If you are willing to testify, sign up at 8 a.m. Monday morning; directions here:
https://www.seattleschools.org/district/school_board/public_testimony
Bring kids and signs, and wear your Stevens t-shirts!
If you are willing to testify, sign up at 8 a.m. Monday morning; directions here:
https://www.seattleschools.org/district/school_board/public_testimony
IMMEDIATELY Email
the Superintendent and School Board to tell them to follow the Student
Assignment Plan, admit our waitlist and slow Stevens’ decline:
llnyland@seattleschools.org; scott.pinkham@seattleschools.org; rick.burke@seattleschools.org; Jill.Geary@seattleschools.org
sue.peters@seattleschools.org; stephan.blanford@seattleschools.org
leslie.harris@seattleschools.org; betty.patu@seattleschools.org
llnyland@seattleschools.org; scott.pinkham@seattleschools.org; rick.burke@seattleschools.org; Jill.Geary@seattleschools.org
sue.peters@seattleschools.org; stephan.blanford@seattleschools.org
leslie.harris@seattleschools.org; betty.patu@seattleschools.org
SATURDAY, JUNE 24 SPS Director Stephan Blanford Community Meeting
10 a.m. at Douglass-Truth Library
10 a.m. at Douglass-Truth Library
SATURDAY, JUNE 24 SPS Director Betty Patu Community
Meeting
10 a.m. at Raconteur, 5041 Wilson Ave. S.
10 a.m. at Raconteur, 5041 Wilson Ave. S.
Comments
2boysclub
Parents should demand the policy be enforce - or Nyland be immediately fired. You won't get what you want by playing nice. *Do not* ask nicely. Be firm and strong and show these bullies you won't stand for it.
Fire Nyland
This is such a sharp contract to all of the years of conversations around the NSAP. As the district transitioned from a 100% choice system to a limited choice system, the critical component was a promise to keep families together. In the 100% choice system, families really did vote with their feet and avoided many schools, as Director Blanford has stated. However, in our current system, the challenge is much more nuanced.
At this point in time, the vast majority of the families that were split, starting with the NSAP in 2010, have worked their way through the system. Last year's split sibling report showed that there were only 200 split siblings looking for choice assignments district wide. The vast majority of these are related to the boundary changes made after the NSAP, (aka Growth Boundary Changes).
The critical component for elementary school boundary changes has been that these changes "roll up" with new families and that families currently invested in an elementary school will continue to be able to stay at that school.
Steven's boundaries were shrunk significantly a few years ago. This was in large part because the original boundaries had been planned around 300 seats in Lowell being set aside for HCC. When HCC was moved out, that left a lot of extra capacity in the area.
Steven's boundaries were shrunk so substantially with the expectation that grandfathered siblings would continue to fill the building. However, since the district has arbitrarily decided that it is just perfectly fine to split families, this school is shrinking fast.
Capacity issues have lots of moving parts. The district's decision to violate their own policy has many unintended consequences, not the least of which substantially lower than expected TOTAL enrollment in the areas where this policy has been violated.
I still find myself wondering what exactly Director Blanford does except make pronouncements.
Mom of 4
Sometimes downtown does something with a good intention to solve Problem X. That thing has an unintended consequence of creating a brand new Problem Y.
Whenever families try to highlight the unintended consequence of Problem Y, the only thing that is heard is an attack on Problem X and then families are labeled as uninformed, uncaring or something else.
This then escalates until there is NO possibility of a real conversation or a real solution. During the closures there was lots of very compelling evidence that there was no need to close schools, because of overall growth inside Seattle. All of this evidence was dismissed as nimby'ism and self interest.
The simpler answer is that by the time communities had organized compelling information, the conversation was already too polarized and the district needed to close schools, simply because that is what they said they would do.
Capacity problems on Capitol Hill are not new. Capitol hill is one of those places where poverty and affluence are adjacent and it is reflected in the schools. This is not the first year, that the district has refused to admit siblings into Stevens. However, it is the first year that the board has taken an interest in following policy.
The Steven's community has compiled compelling evidence that the unintended consequences of not following policy are significant. But ... the district is now entrenched with no way to say ... Oops.
Did you see this article about Dallas, where they are setting up schools where, "Half of their seats are reserved for students from middle- or higher-income families, and some are set aside for students living outside the district." Interesting that Dallas is pursuing well off families. As if there could be some benefit to that. Huh.
With friends like SPS, who needs enemies?
WMSP
Thank you for chiming in. Your comment about schools being pitted against each other is right on point.
However, it is neither this post nor Steven's families that are making this about Madrona.
The district, including Superintenant Nyland and Director Blanford, have said directly and pointedly that the *reason* for not moving the Steven's wait list is to protect Madrona.
The District policy is to grant families their choice school as long as it doesn't have an adverse effect on the school the student is moving from. Madrona is in a special situation right now. We have lost our middle school. Building capacity is 565. Our numbers for next year are at 260. We have very few services for our high needs kids. Last year, only about 20% of public school families in our boundary send their kids to Madrona, their neighborhood school. That is changing, slowly, with a lot of work by parents and staff. The District is finally doing something to prevent families within our boundary from self-segregating.
I'm really curious about the projections at the start of this thread. Where did they come from? And I'm not clear on the numbers for Stevens. It is my understanding that the enrollment at Stevens was artificially high because of the flight we have seen from Madrona. The District is trying to correct this, rather than continue to add to the segregation we have seen. It isn't pretty and it isn't easy. But it has to change.
We are new to Seattle so the lack of movement is puzzling to us. Typically wait list movement is a win-win for all.
FNH
There's no need to be a jerk. Your claims about your neighbors's motives are based on assumptions, not data. There are plenty of reasons families would want to send their children to school together and to avoid moving their older child from the school they're already attending. If Madrona parents and staff are advocating for siblings to be denied the opportunity to attend school together or for older children to be pulled out of their current school to provide more resources for your own students, that's deplorable.
So selfish
I'm sorry that it makes people uncomfortable to to suggest that race is a factor here, but it is. It was for me when I felt "brave" sending my daughter to Madrona, when people told me I was sacrificing her education by sending her to a school with so many poor black kids. I have talked to so many parents- white parents- who went through the same process, the same anxiety about Madrona. I don't need to get into all of that, though I'm happy to talk about my education in this process. The larger issue is the fact that our schools are segregated. The District allows parents to self-segregate through the choice process. They are trying to recognize and correct that now. They suck at communicating their reasoning because they are afraid of the backlash. It's unfortunate, but the work they are doing is a move in the right direction.
I recognize that this is disruptive for a number of families. But a chronically under-enrolled school with insufficient services is also a problem for the fifty homeless students we serve with a .8 counselor and a .5 family support worker.
Fire Nyland
I will say that those "long-standing assumptions" were not all assumptions. Madrona operates in a different manner than the average K-8. That may be one reason that 80% of the neighborhood chooses another school. The district is going to have to figure out if forcing people into Madrona is the way to build up enrollment or perhaps engaging with the neighborhood to find out why that is.
It sounds like there's some community-building that should probably take place but it's not going to happen thru "prevent families within our boundary from self-segregating. "
Choice doesn't mean a guaranteed spot but sibling has always been the first tie-breaker (like for more than a decade). You can go back and see the district's language around keeping sibs together. And the belief was if there was room for that sib, they could get into the same school as their older sib.
I don't think it is about race; I think it is about how the school operates. That many white parents did make an attempt to send their kids to Madrona years back and it turned out badly may be some evidence of that.
If you are suggesting getting rid of the choice process in favor of strictly neighborhood assignment except Option Schools, that's a whole different thing.
And, if the district wants to "correct" the self-segregation, the process should have been open and transparent and part of the enrollment plan. It is not.
If they have the courage of their convictions on this point, they should not fear backlash. And now they are digging themselves a hole.
Fire Nyland, I think if this issue is not straightened out soon, there will be some angry parents rising up. Of course, it's clever that staff waited out until the end of year when they know parents are going off in different directions.
It's really on the Board now.
Yes, the District has dug a hole. They need to be more transparent. But every change brings angry parents, parents who want what they want and want to fire those who won't give them what they want. We need to work as a community to do what is best for our kids, all of them.
Please look at Madrona's website. madronaptsa.org. We are working our asses off to inform people about who we are. And if you think this isn't about race, then site a ten year old issue that white parents had when the principal wouldn't give them what they demanded, and refer to the District "forcing" parents to send their kids to our school, I think you're missing something.
For progress
Oh and many parents are turned off by this kind of teacher. "She then explained her model of peer and differentiated learning wherein the students help teach and learn from each other." It's not racism, it's the insistence that valuing academics above diversity makes one a terrible person that drives parents away.
Self-righteousness is not going to draw people to agree with you.
Still unconvinced
As a Stevens parent, I want to echo the sentiment above that the only reason Madrona and Lowell are mentioned here is that the district keeps TELLING us that Madrona and Lowell are the reason they won't move our waitlist. That justification is not supported by the Board's policy. Someone said above that "The District policy is to grant families their choice school as long as it doesn't have an adverse effect on the school the student is moving from." That may be the district's PRACTICE, but it is not the Board-approved policy, and in fact it violates the Board-approved policy, which is that choice assignments are to be made on a "space-available" basis.
I also I want to say that everyone I know at Madrona is happy there. It seems to be a great community, a great PTA, and a great school. I don't think that anybody in either of our respective sweet neighborhood schools means or wishes to be "pitted against" the other. It's just that families that have older kids at Stevens don't want to move them or have siblings at two schools. (I'm sure the Madrona families on the Madrona waitlist feel the same way!) Anyone who is an engaged, active public school parent knows that keeping up with the needs of one school is plenty of work, and two (or more!) seems daunting. So having the District arbitrarily tell our families that they aren't eligible for choice assignments is a bummer. And seeing our school slated to go from 16 to 8 classrooms in 6 years is no picnic either--it's easy to lose great teachers and families and resources fast, and slow to build them back up again. So to hear that the district is intentionally artificially depressing Stevens enrollment even further under these circumstances is confusing and disappointing.
--Disappointed parent
It is hard to discern anything when the last parent newsletter on the website is from 2016. If it's hard for parents (or anyone) to find info at the first source (website), you can see how people may not know much about the school. Madrona does have uniforms which sets it among the few schools that do require them. Many parents associate uniforms with a more structured/rigid type of school. Is that an issue for some? It might be. Maybe a good question to ask on tours.
I did see the PTSA website which is exceptionally good but I'm not sure enough people would know to click thru to it for more info on the school. (One irony - the garden program which was a source of conflict several years back.)
I'm not saying nor have I ever said Madrona is not a good school. But perception is everything in this district and why the district - in the face of falling enrollment - hasn't tried harder to change that perception is hard to understand.
But Sharon, you are upset because some people still believe Madrona is the same school it was several years ago. I think that period of time really made an impact (clearly) but forcing people into the school isn't the way to build enrollment. It is all a shame and frankly, I think the blame falls on the district.
I don't see hostility here; I see some pushback and questioning.
Disappointed Parent is right; this pitting of schools against each other - even just by numbers - is not helpful. And "practice" is not policy and the Board should say no to that.
I believe it very hard on parents with elementary children to have them at two different schools if they didn't choose that course. It will water down involvement and breed resentment. Of course, the school the younger sib gets assigned to might be so great that the older sib joins them. But we all know how friends and familiarity are for young children; many kids would probably not want to leave the school they already know.
I also do not like the district saying that they don't want to hurt one school for another's sake but that's just what they are doing.
Anyone remember the plan to move TOPS to the Thurgood Marshall building, close Montlake and then make the TOPS building the new Montlake for neighborhood families?? That plan causes lots of conflict between neighbors, because it was nearly impossible to even discuss the plan, without simple statements about pros and cons turning into us vs them shouting matches.
All these years later, I understand that this tactic is so effective because it is just too easy for conversations about neighboring schools to turn into us vs them, particularly when the district already set the parameters for the conflict.
The district has unequivocally violated their own policy. The plan to keep families intact is about strong schools and strong communities. The failure to respect families ultimate hurts every school. They are splitting the sibling at Stevens and Madrona and dozens of other schools, that have more than enough space to keep the families together.
The district needs to change boundaries fairly regularly as Seattle grows. A plan that creates a modicum of stability for families in the midst of lots of change is just common sense.
The entering K cohort in 2005 was one of the smallest K cohorts ever. This was in large part because the "plan" that year was that you were only picking a K and your K student was going to be re-assigned to a new school with the dawn of the NSAP. This enrollment drop was so sharp that a foundation of the NSAP was the students would be allowed to finish at any school they start to the highest grade. This is why board approval is required for geo-splits for new schools.
Any plan that builds one school by destroying another school is not good for any school.
-NP
It would be interesting to hear why Madrona parents think other neighborhood parents aren't enrolling.
But understand, if people are not enrolling in numbers at Madrona, there is a problem. And it's the district problem, not Madrona's or Steven's.
Regarding people's motivations for choosing one school over another, I think we can all agree those reasons are as varied as the people making the choices. Those of us at Madrona know race is one of the many factors considered because we've all had conversations with people who didn't choose Madrona in which they've said so, either overtly or in racially coded language. And I can't tell you how many white people have told me how "brave" I am to send my kids to "that school." To deny race plays any factor is absurd. Of course it's not the only factor, but, then again, nobody here said that.
Regarding academics, I can tell you that my HCC-qualified child has been consistently challenged and engaged at Madrona. All three of my kid's teachers have been very skilled at differentiation in the classroom. I know this because I see it with my own eyes, when I volunteer several times per week. If you're worried about academics, please consider giving Madrona a shot. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Test scores have been consistently improving, and test scores don't paint the whole picture.
As I've said in other, similar threads, my heart goes out to the Stevens families whose kids are being separated by the district right now. That sucks, and there has to be a better way than pitting one school against another. I don't know who is telling so many of you that whatever enrollment is doing with the Stevens waitlist is Madrona's fault, or that we are at capacity when we're less than half full -- or why they would tell you those things -- but those are alternative facts that should be ignored or, at the very least, not repeated as actual facts in a persuasive public forum.
By all means, keep pushing the district to be accountable and do the right thing by your families. But please stop scape-goating Madrona in the process. We are not your enemy. In fact, if there's something I can do to help, please let me know. We are all in this together.
Superintendant Nyland and Director Blanford have stated that the Steven's waitlist is not moving because of Madrona.
This district is pitting the schools against each other, not the families.
- cp
Tracy Libros even said a guarantee for siblings would make her life easier. Turns out that siblings are a predictable group to plan for as families are more than willing to share information about upcoming siblings in exchange for guaranteed enrollment.
The guarantee language didn’t end up happening. The compromise was very strong wording about every effort being made to keep families together, sibling being the first tie breaker for all schools, etc. For many years this promise was kept.
About a year or so after the NSAP was implemented there were planned boundary changes for Stevens. Then Director Kay Smith Blum sought language in the transition plan that would guarantee siblings from Stevens would have a guaranteed assignment to Stevens. That was not enacted as it was not deemed equitable to have a policy on the books for only one school and not all schools. The compromise enacted was that the new boundaries were drawn in a manner that would most certainly allow room for siblings at Stevens.
Today the strong language about siblings has been removed from the transition plans. Enrollment is openly taking action in conflict with policy. And, many families have been experiencing the pain inflicted by these actions, or lack of action in the case of siblings.
In the current climate where policies and promises are openly flaunted I think it is time again to seek a codified guarantee for families in regard to siblings when boundaries change.
Watch out QA/Magnolia. You’re in the cross-hairs with your upcoming boundary changes. Your communities are next up to experience years of split families if current practices by Enrollment are continued.
-StepJ
I recognize that Stevens is upset. I can understand why. What can we do to support? How can we avoid being pitted against each other?
I'm feeling at a loss.
Has anyone compared the wait lists to see where kids are assigned and where they want to go? I admit that I have not, but wonder if someone has identified certain swaps that would ease the tension?
Lastly, I ask that we all take care to avoid making disparaging comments about schools. We all work hard to support our schools. We can't control what the district says and does (apparently). So lets take care of how we treat each other.
I'm also on the Madrona PTSA and glad to collaborate with other schools.
Megan
Thanks Megan for the call for collective action.
I have done most of the analysis regarding specific wait list moves and I have communitcated this information to the board and senior staff. The analysis has only caused downtown to dig their heels in deeper.
The pressure of no state budget and the strong probability of a $50M budget deficit when or if a budget is passed, seems to have made conversations impossible.
I have done multiple scenarios where I have been able to show that many of these wait list moves are cost neutral and in many cases will bring more total dollars to the district. While multiple professionals, who have checked my work, concur ... it has not been persuasive enough to cause action.
The truly challenging part is that this is Year 2 of this problem. Stevens had the exact same problem last year. The 10 split siblings resulted more in that 10 students leaving the district for other options. Somehow I have been unable to persuade the district that when you force families into a corner, a significant percentage of those families just leave the district.
This seems contradictory to me -- Enrollment Up/Fire Teachers?
I can share that our elementary school is up in enrollment (even without waitlist moves) and we are still having two teachers cut.
It seems that Enrollment Planning is sticking to the February staffing forecast no matter what. It is also apparent that not even budget neutral waitlist moves were made. The question is why? What would prompt not even making budget neutral moves?
From personal experience I know Kellie's statement about families leaving SPS to be true. If they have the means they won't be forced into involuntarily splitting their elementary age kids. They go private, move to another district, homeschool, online school, some even rent in boundary and move. For those that leave outright that is fewer funds for SPS. For those that move that is unpredictable enrollment patterns for SPS.
-StepJ
I think your comment is right on target because BOTH of those contradictory items are true.
The ultra conservative Feb budget allocations have caused schools to release teachers. But the reality is that many schools have waitlists and have post open enrollment numbers way above the Feb allocations. Regardless, downtown was unwilling to make adjustments. I think this policy is going to cause big problems down the road. Typically schools don't fight conservative Feb allocations because they trust there will be a post open enrollment adjustment.
As far as I can tell, there were 1500 MORE students actually enrolled post open enrollment than students allocated in the budget. This would match the statement that enrollment is up.
As we all know, actual post open enrollment numbers are not the same as the expected October projected enrollment. Some schools have much higher enrollment in the Spring and the numbers drop significantly by October. Other schools gain substantial enrollment in August and September.
Because of this one should never expect a 1:1 correlation between post open enrollment numbers and budget allocation but ... that gap is really large. This means that the budget office was being very conservative and providing staffing allocations that are significantly less than the enrollment schools are expecting.
For example, Whitman was allocated 500 in the Feb allocation. They had about 570 post open enrollment. We were all told that the waitlist could not move because of staffing allocation. In the big June adjustment .... Whitman was given two more staff, to match the post open enrollment reality. Not enough to move the waitlist and way too late to save the teachers. I have heard from Whitman families that many of these teachers went to other districts.
IMHO, these ultra conservative budget practices combined with the pure disrespect being shown to both families and the school board, is likely to drive enough families out of the district that by the time October rolls around, enrollment will drop from these post open enrollment numbers.
But motivations aren't really the issue in this case because these parents have one motivation - to keep their kids together in the school the eldest one started at. Every single parent can understand that reason especially if you have already been thru the process.
Race could be one reason people are not enrolling in Madrona when their first children. Various Madrona parents seem to believe that.
From my own experience at the school I tutor at, this school is very diverse and yet has many white parents. So why some parents enroll their child at a diverse school and others don't is a good question and would lead to me to think even if race is an issue, it's not the only one.
But I think equating this particular issue with the overall issue of underenrollment is a bit of apples and oranges mixing.
Yea- agree with Momof2. Interesting that Blanford does not send his own kid to his own high free and reduced lunch, high special ed reference school. Lots of white families sending their kids to racially diverse, but not socio-economically diverse private and public schools. Research has also demonstrated socio-economics is the main driver of achievement gap currently (see Reardon @ Stanford), not race.
-K
It looks like the Board is being asked to choose between 2 options, both of which ignore the Board's policy of allowing choice assignments on a space available basis. There is no mention at all of moving waitlists with corresponding staffing adjustments for elementary schools.
Here's hoping the Board chooses Option 3 (not in the presentation): follow Board policy and move waitlists to allow siblings to be assigned together & families to have choices where schools have space available.
This is the full agenda: http://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=23435721
--worried about waitlists