Meeting Items of Note
Update: link to district update on the Student Assignment Transition Plan and High School Boundaries.
Documents for today's Task Force meeting. I note that they will be making a decision for a recommendation on Cleveland today which is likely to be returning it as a comprehensive instead of a STEM school. What a mistake.
Decision Timeline
If you have questions about next steps for high school boundaries, please send them to growthboundaries@seattleschools.org . If you have questions about highly capable pathways, please send them to advlearn@seattleschools.org .
You may also contact School Board Directors at SchoolBoard@seattleschools.org (all board directors and cabinet level staff) or SPSDirectors@seattleschools.org (only school board directors).
First, there is a High School Boundaries Task Force meeting tomorrow, Thursday, the 14th, from 12:30 -2:30 pm at JSCEE, Room 2750. Thanks to Director Mack for the heads up.
Next, the agenda for the Board Work Session today from 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm has switched the order of the items. BEX V was to be first, at 4:30 pm, but is now the last item, starting at 6:30 pm. Some kind of Spidey sense told me to check this (as I had planned to attend to hear the BEX discussion) and sure enough, it's now at the end (and I cannot attend then). The agenda does include the presentation.
I find some of the wording in the presentation odd. They use quote marks for several terms like "prioritization." They also do not definitely say they will seek parent/public input on the list (and where they possibly may, it looks like only at the final stages). I believe parents and staff should have direct input on the list.
They include the facilities report in the presentation. The priority schools, based on the assessment, appears on page 14. BUT, there's yet another list for capacity.
Facilities Assessment Priority Schools
Documents for today's Task Force meeting. I note that they will be making a decision for a recommendation on Cleveland today which is likely to be returning it as a comprehensive instead of a STEM school. What a mistake.
Decision Timeline
- Dec.14: Various highly capable pathway scenarios and related boundaries will be presented to the High School Boundary Task Force. View the proposals and event details.
- Jan. 3: Recommended high school boundaries and related highly capable pathways will be introduced to the Board. View the board meeting event entry.
- Jan. 10: A high school boundaries work session with the full board. See the board meeting event entry.
- Jan. 17: Anticipated that the Board will take action on the new high school boundaries and any changes to the high school highly capable pathways. This action would ensure families are aware of new high school boundaries before open enrollment, which is February 5-16. See the board meeting event entry.
- Jan. 20: Option School Choice Fair
If you have questions about next steps for high school boundaries, please send them to growthboundaries@seattleschools.org . If you have questions about highly capable pathways, please send them to advlearn@seattleschools.org .
You may also contact School Board Directors at SchoolBoard@seattleschools.org (all board directors and cabinet level staff) or SPSDirectors@seattleschools.org (only school board directors).
First, there is a High School Boundaries Task Force meeting tomorrow, Thursday, the 14th, from 12:30 -2:30 pm at JSCEE, Room 2750. Thanks to Director Mack for the heads up.
Next, the agenda for the Board Work Session today from 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm has switched the order of the items. BEX V was to be first, at 4:30 pm, but is now the last item, starting at 6:30 pm. Some kind of Spidey sense told me to check this (as I had planned to attend to hear the BEX discussion) and sure enough, it's now at the end (and I cannot attend then). The agenda does include the presentation.
I find some of the wording in the presentation odd. They use quote marks for several terms like "prioritization." They also do not definitely say they will seek parent/public input on the list (and where they possibly may, it looks like only at the final stages). I believe parents and staff should have direct input on the list.
They include the facilities report in the presentation. The priority schools, based on the assessment, appears on page 14. BUT, there's yet another list for capacity.
Facilities Assessment Priority Schools
Elementary & K-8 Schools:
Alki, Rogers, North Beach, Montlake, Salmon Bay K-8 @ Monroe, Northgate, McGilvra, Roxhill, Lafeyette, Schmitz Park, Kimball, Sacajaweja, Louisa Boren STEM K-8
Middle Schools:
Whitman, Washington, Mercer International, Aki Kurose, McClure
High Schools:
Ingraham, Rainier Beach, Franklin
Service Schools:
North Queen Anne (Cascade Parent Partnership),
Alki, Rogers, North Beach, Montlake, Salmon Bay K-8 @ Monroe, Northgate, McGilvra, Roxhill, Lafeyette, Schmitz Park, Kimball, Sacajaweja, Louisa Boren STEM K-8
Middle Schools:
Whitman, Washington, Mercer International, Aki Kurose, McClure
High Schools:
Ingraham, Rainier Beach, Franklin
Service Schools:
North Queen Anne (Cascade Parent Partnership),
I can't argue with this list except for a couple of things:
- it's quite the Sophie's choice in some places like Montlake or McGilvra which are small schools in very old buildings on small plots of land. That means almost no expansion of their school in terms of enrollment and yet the cost to renovate will still be large.
- as well, Northgate versus Rogers. Both are old tired buildings. Northgate has majority minority with many at-risk kids but Rogers' is a larger population; both would be on my list.
- Salmon Bay K-8 versus Louisa Boren K-8. Well, Salmon Bay is in a decidedly older building and have been waiting patiently for their turn. However, Boren had been a long-time interim building and so was never on any BEX list.
- Hard call on middle schools.
- On high schools, it's Rainier Beach High School #1 for both priority and where they should be on the timeline. Ingraham continues its run as being on every single BEX and BTA since they started. (Not to damn them but the district has been very piecemeal in how they have treated Ingraham.) Franklin's building is not that old so I'm a little surprised to see them there.
The high school enrollment numbers (page 20) are quite interesting.
High school growth is anticipated to continue through 2025
– The largest enrollment growth over the next ten years is projected to be in grades 9-12
Capacity Assessment – Priority Schools - Elementary, K-8 & K-12 Schools:
Fairmount Park (1), Alki (2), Lafayette(2), Coe(3), John Hay(3), Olympic View, John Muir, Adams, North Beach, Viewlands, West Seattle Elementary, Downtown Elementary School(4)
Middle Schools:
Denny International (1), Jane Addams, Madison, Mercer International,
McClure (4)
High Schools:
Ballard, Chief Sealth(1), Garfield, Nathan Hale, West Seattle, Downtown
High School (4)
– The largest enrollment growth over the next ten years is projected to be in grades 9-12
Not sure I believe that opening Lincoln and beefing up RBHS aren't enough. I absolutely will fight a downtown high school with this kind of facilities condition need. Better to do more with existing buildings than put on a new showcase school downtown.
Here's the second "priority" list:
Capacity Assessment – Priority Schools - Elementary, K-8 & K-12 Schools:
Fairmount Park (1), Alki (2), Lafayette(2), Coe(3), John Hay(3), Olympic View, John Muir, Adams, North Beach, Viewlands, West Seattle Elementary, Downtown Elementary School(4)
Middle Schools:
Denny International (1), Jane Addams, Madison, Mercer International,
McClure (4)
High Schools:
Ballard, Chief Sealth(1), Garfield, Nathan Hale, West Seattle, Downtown
High School (4)
There follows charting showing those schools with both condition and capacity issues.
Didn't have time to go thru the Budget portion of the agenda thoroughly but there was this:
SMART Goal 3 Update
- BAR will come to the next A&F meeting to change language from “Program Review” to “Program Summary”
- Reformatted list
- Added Decatur, Fairmont Park and Thurgood Marshall, but will include them as part of Advanced Learning
- Eliminated Athletic Directors
- Combined Athletic Programs and Athletic Transportation into Athletics
- Retitled Nurses/Health Services to Health Services
- Selection of final 10 Program Summaries
- Athletics
- Career Ladder Teachers
- Mentor Teachers
- Master Teachers
- STAR Mentors
- MTSS
- International Baccalaureate
- Resource Conservation
- Open Doors
- Advanced Learning/AP
Comments
who knows
:o
That list for SMART goals is pretty weird. I mean, nice to see some teaching-related things on there. Odd that there's nothing about curriculum. Also seems like they might want to look that list over using their equity tool.
Also oddly, the lower level classroom doors all open directly to the outdoors (there is no hallway), so kids' coats and bags are hung outside all day in any weather (unless a teacher has cubbies in the small rooms). Kids also have to walk outdoors to reach the bathroom or the doors up to the cafeteria. They have portables there to accommodate its wonderful program for kids on the autism spectrum.
Personally, I think that site would be much better used if they tore down the existing structure, which is not only old (although fairly well maintained) but also architecturally bizarre and completely inadequate, and replaced it with a modern and much larger facility that could serve more kids in NE Seattle. It's so close to both Olympic View and Wedgwood I wonder if it wouldn't be a good spot for an option school or a proper K-8 even.
As for Sacajawea, like Montlake and McGilvra, I suspect their land area is small.
Sorry that the flip on the topics for tonight's work session are problematic for you. I approved it because that way we can let some staff leave earlier than the way it was previously set. Also, the BEX portion may go long and we have an Executive Session following.
Cordially,
Leslie Harris
President, SPS Dir. 6
Leslie.Harris@seattleschools.org
206.475.1000
HP
HP
http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Enrollment%20Planning/Reports/Annual%20Enrollment/2016-17/Section%202.pdf
Oh, and remember Alec Cooper recommended that the school climate reports include "opt out" information about how many students opted OUT of each attendance area school? Well, that information is now all summed up here although it's presented as the percentage of students living in the attendance area who opt IN:
http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Enrollment%20Planning/Reports/Annual%20Enrollment/2016-17/Section%203.pdf
And looking there, we can see that only 51% of the students in Sacajawea's attendance area attend Sacajawea, which is MUCH lower than the surrounding schools (these are the opt-in percentages):
Olympic View 67%
Olympic Hills 63%
John Rogers 55%
Wedgwood 69%
In fact, there are only nine other elementary schools that fewer attendance area students choose to attend than Sacajawea (these are the opt-in percentages):
Greenlake 36%
Emerson 40%
Madrona K-8 (the elementary part) 43%
B.F. Day 47%
Roxhill 48%
Dunlap 49%
Rainier View 49%
Hawthorne 49%
Lowell 50%
The reports go on to say that 12% of Sacajawea students choose to attend another attendance area school and 31% attend an option school. OUCH. They might needs to do more than throw BEX money at some of these schools...
They had a long time principal who seemed well loved.
It wasnt that long ago that the district contemplated closing the school.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Manhas-plan-saves-Sacajawea-Elementary-1205257.php
That list refers to the board’s request for an inventory of programs and program reviews with information on which schools offer a particular program, which students are served, what are the costs, are there measurable academic outcomes, etc. I’ve seen reports on language immersion and advanced learning in one of the work sessions. (The LI report had lots of data while the AL report included lots of subjective opinions.) The board has been given a long list of programs and asked to choose 10 for this year.
You can see some info on this in the October 25th agenda and materials.
Fairmount Parent
(I know this discussion isn’t about Green Lake. But, just wanted to clarify, since the data presented gives a different impression.)
-GLP
-south paw
Capacity, enrollment and pathways is enough to give anyone a roaring headache!
They had a long time principal who seemed well loved.
It wasnt that long ago that the district contemplated closing the school.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Manhas-plan-saves-Sacajawea-Elementary-1205257.php
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 2006, when Manhas "saved" the school, it WAS beloved. Deb Nelson was the principal, there was a wonderful arts/music/theater/movement program, run by Lassie Webster of Roaring Mouse, and there was incredible community/family financial support with auctions/events that raised surprising amounts of money to help cover costs. Unfortunately, Deb Nelson moved on, the district completely ignored the principal search results and, instead of assigning one of the three choices, installed a "fourth choice" that wasn't qualified or beloved. In the true and typical "let's stick this principal here" fashion, the school lost much of its charm, the arts/music program, Lassie, a number of wonderful teachers, and, eventually, its reputation.
Our son had a wonderful couple of years there, before moving on to APP at Lowell. We were sad to leave our neighborhood school but, it turned out, we got out at a good time.
stu
It sure would be nice if this district had a transparent list of buildings to be remodeled. That is the norm in surrounding districts. There is variety in feeder patterns, elementary/middle/high schools, and so that a student doesn't experience a remodel throughout their educational career. For some reason, SPS is shrouded in mystery and refuses to have a transparent list. It's time for the middle schools. There hasn't been a renovation to Eckstein since it was built in the 50's. There have been repairs, but walk the halls and you'll see a building that is in distress and tells the children in that building that they are not a priority.
Middleschools Matter
* The original plan was to build a new elementary on the North Beach site while keeping the old school open, saving money. That was later determined not to be feasible (not sure why).
* NB is close enough to Loyal Heights that the boundary would have had to be really close to LH.
* Whittier and Adams are both overcrowded and LH was closer to both of those schools.
* The LH boundary was already really small, with kids living 3-4 blocks from the school assigned to Adams.
* Re: transportation, SPS has to pay for busing for all of the students in the 85th/Greenwood/Holman triangle because those students have to cross a major arterial to get to any elementary. That means that there's no change in transportation cost to the district no matter where they go.
Those are the historical reasons. Obviously, reasonable people can disagree about whether they are more important than the reasons to make other boundary decisions.
1). The agenda states they are making a recommendation on Cleveland’s option school status. Changing Cleveland would disrupt the entire south end.
2). Lots of new maps. Many of the maps go practically to the doors of Ballard and Roosevelt. A lot of people will be shocked to learn that they are in change zones.
Where are you seeing new maps?
Thanks!
N by NW
Thank you,
Mid Beacon SPS parent
https://www.seattleschools.org/families_communities/committees/high_school_boundary/updates/december_14__2017_meeting_documents
Very disappointed to see that they are thinking of sending kids so close to Ballard to Ingraham & Lincoln. How is this listening to families who wanted walkability? Also, I've been following this closely and now on 12/15 first time I'm seeing a change in our assignment (area N. of 80th now Ingraham). Also, someone needs to lay out how this will be implemented for this year's 8th graders. Will all kids be geo-split? Couldn't 10th graders at other schools other than Lincoln stay? Can we please try to move the fewest kids possible - my child just moved for 8th grade, under all the new "F" scenarios looks like she'll be moved again for 10th even though there would be plenty of room for her to stay at Ballard...
NW also
https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=29628240
N by NW
This is yet ANOTHER reason why we don't need a downtown high school now. It's a luxury that the district cannot afford while the middle schools don't have adequate science labs (and yet the kids will be tested for science). Tell your Board member - no downtown high school until more of the middle schools get fixed.
Does anyone know where Olympic View->Eagle Staff HCC kids would be assigned for HS if:
1) Four regional pathways with Ballard, Roosevelt, Garfield and West Seattle as pathways;
Would we be assigned to Ballard or Roosevelt?
Thanks
For instance, the map for Scenario F Version 2 shows the following for Ballard, including a total of one 1358 for 2017, when Ballard currently has over 1800 students, and certainly 400 of them aren’t from outside the current geozone. What do these numbers mean?
Ballard: Attendance Area Right Size Capacity: 1607
2017 9th-12th Grade SPS Residents: 9-361; 10 – 371; 11-341; 12-285 Total 1358
Fairmount Parent
Surprise
(And a note to the school board - What is up with getting involved in city zoning decisions? Is that really your place? If Green Dot is seeking a zoning variance, that's up to the city to decide. Please focus your energies on improving SPS schools. Perhaps you wouldn't feel threatened by charter schools if you were spending your energies making sound decisions for SPS students.)
ranter
I totally get that Magnolia students have to deal with city traffic to get to Lincoln, but north of 85th students who could WALK/BIKE to BHS have been forced out of our neighborhood to be bused to far away IHS for years. Map H would allow more students to walk/bike to school and the yellow buses currently used for IHS could be used to bus Magnolia students to Lincoln. Has anyone suggested using the current IHS buses be used to transport Magnolia students to Lincoln instead??? Let's get SOME of our SPS students off of buses and back into their actual neighborhood by voting for Map H.
Side note...There has been no outreach to families north of 80th St that they're potentially being drawn into IHS. I'd wager that those families wouldn't think that even though they live so close to BHS that they'd be drawn to IHS (one of my friends lives .8 miles away from BHS and plans on her child walking there). This is hugely impactful and it's a true shame that this is being quietly introduced with zero community input right before winter break. I know that those families will be blown away by this if Map F passes.
North of 85th
I find that hard to believe, as the lottery set aside (which was supposed to be ten percent) is largely gone.
I just don't believe that more than 450 BHS students live outside the attendance area.
Future Ballard Graduate Possibly
I think that sometimes, people forget that schools are in the education business, not the assignment business. Running a limited choice system is challenging but the limited choice model does create more opportunities for more students. High School student need some flexibility. These are young adults who are getting ready to launch into the world and there is not one-size-fits-all solution.
Ingraham has a wait list at every grade level. The IB program is very popular. There is no “demand:” reason to expand Ingraham’s boundaires, the boundaries are already quite large and it would be very easy to fill the additional 500 seats from their expansion with choice students. Expanding Ingraham’s boundaries means that hundreds of students who walk to Ballard and Roosevelt will now on be on a long bus ride AND displacing students who would consider that bus ride to be their first choice.
That said, there is an administrative burden to managing choice seats. Expanding the boundaries minimizes that burden. The cost of that minimization is the loss of genuine choice for high school students.
I don’t think anyone expected that there would be such a hard push to export all the Language Immersion students and HC students to other schools, such that there would be need to draw the largest possible boundary for Lincoln.
There was never going to be a scenerio in which every student gets their closest school. Schools are students just are not located that way. However, these maps will most likely mean that 1-2,000 students will now be assigned away from a walkable school to a bus, without a transportation analysis or feasibility study.
To reiterate on this thread what you have said before elsewhere and alluded to above: if HCC and Language Immersion were placed at Lincoln, thousands more high school students (mostly general ed) would be able to go to a closer high school.
The fact that the principal for Lincoln refuses to host HCC and Language Immersion causes thousands more kids to travel farther to their assigned school against their wishes. The district claims that not putting HCC at Lincoln is an equity issue. Also, Lincoln High School has no fields of its own.
Parents need to let the district know what they think of that decision.
Momof2
Thanks for all your good insights. However, I don't understand what you mean about the hard push to export LI students to other schools? IHS has been the north end DLI pathway HS for many years. While some kids on the LI pathway have gone to Ingraham, others have chosen RHS. I don't think that the DLI kids are actually taking up that many seats at Ingraham. I am frustrated that SPS is backtracking on what families of DLI students were told in October and is now considering making LHS the DLI pathway when it opens in 2019. I hope that if they reverse their decision and move the DLI pathway to Lincoln in 2019, they will let the rising 9th graders stay at Ingraham for all 4 years versus yanking them to Lincoln.
NSeamom
Regarding the new HC options they are considering & the Lincoln/Garfield 2 pathway option, there are some issues to consider for current HC 8th graders who will be 10th grade HC in 2019.
In this scenario, Lincoln opens as a 9/10 with 9th grade HC. Garfield & Ingraham HC are grandfathered .
However current HC 8th graders who are not at Garfield or Ingraham in 2019 (10th graders) and have boundaries change get sent to schools in 10th that may not be able to serve them.
Example, you start your HC child in 2018 at Roosevelt or Ballard (your current neighborhood school) assuming they can have their needs met. In 2019, your reference area changes to a school that cannot/will not etc. serve them, ex Lincoln or Hale etc. This is an issue.
The 4 pathway plan is the only plan as far as I can tell that allows for HC students from other areas outside where HC are concentrated to enter a pathway. It allows for more entry points to have access both HC and respective AP courses.
LM
All types
I strongly feel that the district needs to pick the maps that move the fewest students. Period.
-Looking For a Rental
"It's hard to believe that the district is considering moving even more students who can WALK to Ballard HS into Ingraham. "
Why is this hard to believe? Several years ago, the district tried to push Ballard residents OUT of Ballard high. Any student one block north of Ballard was slated to go to Ingraham. East lines were eventually tightened which allowed Ballard families (s. of 85th) to attend their neighborhood school.
I've not seen the maps, but it seems reasonable to look at east boundaries, again.
Presently, there are some HC Ballard students that want to attend Ingraham, but are slated to go to Garfield.
I can't imagine families know that there are discussions to push families out of Ballard- again. Historically, 85th has always been the boundary.
There is a bit of a loophole, but I understand that if an HC student enrolls at their neighborhood school, they are leaving their pathway and going to their neighborhood school via a "choice" enrollment. I also understand that choice enrollments, much like option schools, will likely be grandfathered. This would indicate that if an HC student is enrolled at Ballard or Roosevelt, and the boundaries change in 10th grade, they might be able to stay where they are currently enrolled to graduation.
This could all change at any time, so please don't quote me!
"(And a note to the school board - What is up with getting involved in city zoning decisions? Is that really your place? If Green Dot is seeking a zoning variance, that's up to the city to decide.)"
Well, there are several things to say to this.
While it may seem like a purely technical issue (and one Councilperson's office tried to sell it to me that way), the City has said they want to be good partners with the district.
However, does a good partner:
- undermine a school that is struggling (and making progress)like RBHS by putting in a school that would directly compete with it?
- In a city where charters were voted down
Sure, they could but then what's next? Giving charters access to Families and Education levy dollars? Is that a good partner?
And a good partner doesn't wheedle and twist arms to get free rent for THEIR program (pre-K in multiple schools) and yet, year after year, charge the district for space at Seattle Center (for the Center School)?
So if the City wants to be "partners" and have good cooperation on Memorial Stadium, they might want to look beyond "technical" issues.
The interesting news, though, is that this issue is rolled into an omnibus bill that probably won't get heard until early March 2018. I suspect there might be some arm-twisting from the moneyed charter community to change that.
Regardless, there is no reason to create so much disruption by changing Ingraham’s boundary. Ingraham could easily be filled by program placement or choice students.
As for language immersion, this is a huge last minute change. The language immersion task force recommended Lincoln. Superintendent Nyland concurred well over a year ago, it was “practically done”. By not having the LI at Lincoln, the Lincoln boundaries need to be larger to accommodate the students who are guaranteed Ingraham.
Seattle Citizen, the difference is that the boundaries change on the new map. So there are 1300-odd current residents in that proposed new Ballard zone. It doesn't really address how many students are resident in the current/old Ballard zone.
Ballard Resident, in the first round of the NSAP, there were rumors that the Ballard-Ingraham boundary would be as far south as 67th NW, but I don't think there was ever an actual map or proposal showing that boundary. That said, this time map H3 has people across the street from Ballard going to Lincoln. I have trouble believing that this is an actually serious proposal and not a "well, you asked for something we think is ridiculous, so we're giving you a ridiculous map" issue. It may also make the other boundaries look not so bad.
Some of these maps, move over 50% of north end students. It should be call the maximum disruption program.
Drawing the boundary at 85th was a long negotiated neighborhood compromise that sent most of Phinney to Roosevelt and then wedgewood to Hale.
The process took two years for a reason. The entire notion this would happen in weeks is fatally flawed.
It might feel like a huge last minute change (that Ingraham was slated to be DLI pathway instead of LHS) to you and others who are more closely following the ins and outs of SPS. However, as a parent of an 8th grader LI student at HIMS (elementary at JSIS), Ingraham has always been the DL pathway since my son started K. So it feels like a huge change to me that now in the 11th hour they are trying to switch it to Lincoln with no word on whether rising 9th graders will get to stay at Ingraham after 9th grade. AND, in October Michelle Aoki shared critical information that DLI would be at Ingraham NOT at LHS and Ruth Medsker also shared this information. So, my family has been assuming (with good reason) that our child would be able to go to Ingraham via the DLI pathway and stay there all 4 years. Now, we are being jerked around like so many other families in the district. So frustrating. My hope at this point is that they will allow kids at Ingraham (9th graders in 2018) on the LI pathway to stay there even if Lincoln opens as a DLI pathway in 2019.
NSeamom
J
@Kellie can you confirm and do you see this potential issue? If the Lincoln plan was to pass I suspect there would need to be an amendment. See below.
"I know there are issues with all 4 plans being discussed today, but I just wanted to point out one I think may not have been raised.
Regarding the new HC options they are considering & the Lincoln/Garfield 2 pathway option, there are some issues to consider for current HC 8th graders who will be 10th grade HC in 2019.
In this scenario, Lincoln opens as a 9/10 with 9th grade HC. Garfield & Ingraham HC are grandfathered .
However current HC 8th graders who are not at Garfield or Ingraham in 2019 (10th graders) and have boundaries change get sent to schools in 10th that may not be able to serve them.
Example, you start your HC child in 2018 at Roosevelt or Ballard (your current neighborhood school) assuming they can have their needs met. In 2019, your reference area changes to a school that cannot/will not etc. serve them, ex Lincoln or Hale etc. This is an issue.
The 4 pathway plan is the only plan as far as I can tell that allows for HC students from other areas outside where HC are concentrated to enter a pathway. It allows for more entry points to have access both HC and respective AP courses.
LM
Juicygoofy is correctly reading the SAP. However, anything can happen. I would not bank on that provision.
We really are playing 52 card pick up at this point.
Couldn't Lincoln solve the same problem that Cascadia has solved, which is to provide a capacity overflow mechanism to minimize disruption from growth? No one is currently at Lincoln, so putting HCC there doesn't disrupt anyone. What is the reason for not just doing this instead of moving HCC from Garfield to Ballard and Roosevelt and disrupting thousand(s) of students?
Does anyone really object to Cascadia in the north end? What if they had decided Cascadia was to be a neighborhood school and redone all of the attendance area boundaries to squeeze kids back in? Why is there such an objection to a north end HCC HS pathway?
Why does anyone care what the principal at Lincoln wants when there's a good chance they won't be there in 3 years anyway? Isn't the placement of HCC a board decision?
Is it really credible to believe that in 2 or 3 years the district can get rid of the HCC pathway in the south end and provide needed services at all the neighborhood high schools? What is that going to cost?
Why is the board getting involved so late? Wasn't this always going to be a highly charged political decision?
building explosion
"Example, you start your HC child in 2018 at Roosevelt or Ballard (your current neighborhood school) assuming they can have their needs met. In 2019, your reference area changes to a school that cannot/will not etc. serve them, ex Lincoln or Hale etc. This is an issue."
"The 4 pathway plan is the only plan as far as I can tell that allows for HC students from other areas outside where HC are concentrated to enter a pathway."
What? How do? If they have already gotten off the pathway and are geosplit to a school that can't/won't serve them, the number of pathways is irrelevant, isn't it?
"It allows for more entry points to have access both HC and respective AP courses."
It doesn't allow for more entry points, and you're assuming it means more access to AP classes but that won't always be the case. Garfield is likely to see reduced access. The more pathways, the fewer the AP options for HC students.
All types
Selfish 4once
me cubed
can it?
The pathway plan proposes linked schools. So if using the same example, a BHS or RHS 10th grade HC student in 2019 has a boundary change to Lincoln or Hale, they would not get sent to school that cannot or will not serve them.
Also, It's clear from the HC Pathways Projected Enrollment table that NONE of the scenarios alleviate capacity for the North long-term (2021-22 vs. capacity). This includes the Lincoln HC north option. HC is not a big driver in pushing kids out from anywhere. There is a big boom of kids period.
I feel like some are trying to pit groups against one another to drive an agenda.
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/task_forces/high_school_boundary_task_force/December_14_2017/HS%20Scenario%20Comparison_12.13.2017.pdf
Geo
Oh yes it can! SPS Staff hasn't run any scenarios except where students live. I asked Rick Burke if SPS had complete a transportation analysis for Magnolia students going to Lincoln ... nope!
At Rick Burke's community meeting, he basically admitted that the board meeting was a total sh^* show! He also said that the board knows that this process is going badly and uniformed decisions are being made that could have unintended consequences which will then have to be fixed in the years to follow.
Nevertheless, Rick said the process is moving forward and decisions will be made in January because they promised to let families know the final maps before open enrollment. Parents pushed back and said they would rather the board extend the deadline and take the time to develop a plan that was well thought out.
What a mess!
N by NW
all types
1) Yes, I have stated that people who can afford to rent an apartment near Roosevelt can try to game the system.
2) FINALLY, all those ratty, falling-down buildings in front of Roosevelt are gone. But enjoy the view while you can Roosevelt; the new buildings will block the view to the south. Hilariously, SDOT decided that the station itself would be short and squatty. So much for density.
One of the board members told these current 8th graders at the board meeting where it was decided to not grandfather them, that they would need to shoulder this burden for the good of everyone else - and they have, don't think they should have to yet again 2 years later. I believe it was Director Burke who also said during those same meetings that their job was to "do the least amount of harm"
Yes, do that.
The numbers on the map reflect the number of high school age SPS students living within the proposed (smaller) boundaries for Ballard. They are not reporting the students living in the current Ballard attendance area or the students currently attending Ballard.
Fairmount Parent
It's also worth noting that there are very few combinations of maps and HC pathway options that don't result in something totally unworkable at at least one high school. For that threshold, I'm using any school being more than 200 students over nominal capacity. None of the maps work for either the status quo or the Garfield/Lincoln HC options.
For the distributed model, only F3, F4, and F5 could possibly work. For the Garfield/Ingraham with Lincoln in the north model, only E, F, and H3 could work (H3 is politically untenable since students across the street from Ballard would be sent to Lincoln). For the 4 pathways option, only F2, F3, or F5 could possibly work. Staff's preferred option as stated in the meeting today was for F4, which can only work for the distributed model. It is entirely possible that the maps listed above may also not work for one reason or another. The 200 over capacity threshold was only intended to filter out the ridiculous.
Interestingly, what staff provided here is not what the Board requested at the last meeting. They asked for maps that would work with each of the HC models. Since neither status quo nor Garfield/Lincoln have workable maps, staff didn't do what the Board asked. We may yet see pushback on that issue.
Thanks for the history on 67th and Ballard, Kellie. I had forgotten that.
-NP
I would fight hard against decisions without data.
Also, the land there is very boggy with poor drainage so I think that was the reason for not expanding on that site.
NB neighbor
mud
First, Tracy Libros is forever irreplaceable. Bless her soul.
Second, yes, this is a mess. Redrawing boundaries always is. It isn't just peculiar to Seattle. But here, we have all the usual moving parts, plus a lack of institutional knowledge, plus a lack of adequate resources to do the in depth data analysis posters including moi wish were available. Plus at least a decade, maybe more, of ill-thought-out (or not addressed at all) program pathways that are now coming to a head as our students overburden physical plants.
But.
We do have a thoughtful and responsive Board.
We do have a downtown staff trying to incorporate community and Board feedback. All the iterations of the scenarios are maddening, but it does seem that they are trying. It isn't as in-depth as I and others wish. It is far too rushed as always.
But.
I lived through the horror show that was Goodloe-Johnson's term. There was NO attempt at listening to let alone incorporating community feedback. There was VERY LITTLE Board responsiveness to community concerns.
This redraw of boundaries and movement of programs could be going better.
But.
It could be going a heck of a lot worse. Much, much worse.
I say this because I know staff and Board read this blog. (Atta girl Melissa.) I don't want comments here to discourage the people downtown from continuing to plow forward toward best solutions, especially with the holidays upon us. Yes, we are harsh critics, and for good reason. But.
I'd like to at least say thank you for trying to do professional work, incorporating community feedback. It's a big step forward from the bad old days of not long ago.
EdVoter
Even after Lincoln opens, it looks like the north-end will be short 300-500 seats.
Although I guess the proposals don't include students that will opt for Running Start.
I don't think they take Center School into account either???
N by NW
- NP
N by NW
N by NW
"It's also worth noting that there are very few combinations of maps and HC pathway options that don't result in something totally unworkable at at least one high school. For that threshold, I'm using any school being more than 200 students over nominal capacity. None of the maps work for either the status quo or the Garfield/Lincoln HC options."
" Also, It's clear from the HC Pathways Projected Enrollment table that NONE of the scenarios alleviate capacity for the North long-term (2021-22 vs. capacity). This includes the Lincoln HC north option. HC is not a big driver in pushing kids out from anywhere. There is a big boom of kids period.
I feel like some are trying to pit groups against one another to drive an agenda.
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/task_forces/high_school_boundary_task_force/December_14_2017/HS%20Scenario%20Comparison_12.13.2017.pdf"
BN
K
- allow for smaller Lincoln boundaries, resulting in fewer students being geo-split from neighbor schools
- allow more students to "opt" in, increasing buy-in and better setting the school up for success
- allow for more advanced class options, likely of interest to the surrounding neighborhood that also has high numbers of AL/Spectrum qualified kids
- increase walkability for north-end students, and likely improve commute times for many HC students who had to travel to Ingraham or Garfield
- decrease mitigation costs, because advanced classes would be able to be filled--and whether SPS likes it or not, by pulling some students from RHS and BHS they are going to need to offer advanced options upon launch
- increase equity by creating a north-end AP-focused HC site
- minimize disruption across the entire north end
Why is this so complicated? What are the arguments against it? Not the "reasons" against it (like the principal's personal interests)... I mean the logical arguments against it. It it just optics, as in, we can't give "them" (and the neighboring community that would SHARE the school) a newly redone school? Fine, make it uglier, or leave it partly unfinished if that makes people feel better. Academics, not optics, should come first.
Are there valid reasons to not make LHS an HCC pathway?
The Garfield/Lincoln option had Ingraham at 120/grade. The other options did not say how many per grade.
Is the accurate? Who knows? But it begs the question of why isn’t the district asking the same specific question.
When Cascadia and Decatur were up for a split last year, there was a detailed survey asking about specific preference given concrete alternatives for the split. When it came to math textbook selection, parents were asked to rank specific concrete alternatives.
The problem with the way the district has asked the question about HS is that instead of asking to rank concrete alternatives, it’s asked about nebulous priorities. Perhaps that was fine early on, but now the district needs to ask parents for a concrete ranking given very specific options with detailed maps so parents know exactly what it means for their family.
Only when Board members have data from a detailed survey that ranks concrete alternatives can they make an informed decision. They wouldn’t have to follow parent’s wishes, but at least they would know what they are.
It occurs to me that the district SHOULD be able to make ANY program delivery/assignment configuration work out numerically, so if they are showing maps that have numbers that don't work, it's because they are not making them work. In other words, for any scenario (e.g., HCC pathways to Garfield and Lincoln only, with IHS option), the should be able to draw maps that make the numbers work. You figure out what you're going to provide where, then you adjust all the boundaries to get the numbers you want. The boundaries will be funky, but they already are. But let's see them. For each requested scenario. We don't want the "oh no, this doesn't work!" maps. We want the maps that say, "under scenario x, these are boundaries that could get us ideal numbers."
pleeeze
Forgive my assumptions, but you must be new to the district or to the HCC politics. Cascadia as a stand alone program has always been a hard pill for the district to swallow. There was a big push for the Wilson Pacific site to be a neighborhood school, or at least partially so. There's always talk of wanting to return the kids to neighborhood schools and allow differentiation and MTSS to meet their needs. There's a feeling that these kids are getting something extra, when no...there's no gifted education program, certification, or extra training provided by the district. No money goes to anything beyond identification, as far as I can tell. From Lowell, to the split to Thurgood Marshall/Lincoln, to the most recent split to Cascadia/Decatur, there in always animosity toward a grouping of HCC kids in a building,
Yes, and another problem with the way the district has asked the question is that they essentially asked those not eligible for HC services how they think HC services should be provided. Majority rules, apparently. Then, in the response analysis, they are conflating advanced learning with HC services, making it seem like they are one in the same and you can't do one without the other. Which is incorrect. If people want more AL options, great--have all schools provide more! That has nothing to do with how many HCC pathways you have, though. Add some honors and AP classes at the schools that don't have as many and call it good. If the classes fill, and demand builds for more, expand further. If not, don't. It's not that complicated. Then separately, through a couple HCC pathways, you can ensure that HC students, who have different needs when it comes to legislatively defined basic education, have sufficient options as well. It's a
win-win
I should have said, “Do any parents really object to Cascadia in the north end?” I am well aware that many district staff didn’t want it, but I’ve rarely heard any parents complain. The only complaints from parents that I’ve heard of are those that live near to Cascadia and are frustrated their children can’t attend, but Licton Springs is an alternative. That is compared to the south end where I read complaints all of the time.
My point is that I generally do not believe parents at Roosevelt or Ballard or Ingram are going to complain if HCC north is placed at Lincoln. On the other hand, if HCC is placed at Roosevelt and Ballard, and as a result families in those attendance areas are forced out and there is a major disruption, I think lots of parents will complain.
But this is just my opinion. For the board to make a decision, I believe they need a set of detailed concrete alternatives that parents can rank via a survey. I believe only then can they make an informed data-based decision.
Parents clearly think the problem Lincoln is supposed to solve is severe overcrowding at Ballard, Roosevelt and Garfield, with more growth coming and no where to put more portables and the heavy reliance on Running Start.
This begs the question. What problem is the district plan trying to solve? Because this is not a capacity solution.
It seems to the district is trying to solve the following: (1) the district has equity issues related to HCC that are exacerbated by placement at Garfield; (2) the district wants middle schools to be linked to high schools; and (3) the district has capacity issues.
So along comes Lincoln, and instead of using Lincoln to focus on fixing problem 3, the district is using Lincoln as an excuse to address problems 1, 2 and 3 which has the potential to cause large-scale disruption and in the case of HCC not necessarily address the underlying issue.
Perhaps the district's priorities are the same as family priorities. But it seems to me the only way to really know is to create a set of concrete proposals that include detailed maps as well as an analysis of the impact on classes etc and to then ask for parent feedback.
Kellie, perhaps you are aware of a different set of problems?
But this isn't what the people of Seattle want. This isn't what most of the board wants. This isn't want students and parents want. Probably no one even thought to ask teachers what they want. We all want real opportunities for all students. We want to work toward erasing the social and economic and racial injustices of the past. We want students educated for the competitive world they will (hopefully) graduate into. We want them to be able to pursue a course of study that will work for them, that engages them, that values their personhood, whether that be a high school diploma alone, CTE, community college, university, whatever. Students have dreams and we need an educational system that will foster their abilities and make it possible for them to do the work that it takes to get to the goals they choose for themselves.
What problem is the district trying to solve indeed?
There is no perfect solution and time is growing short.
Draw the enrollment patterns to include all kids including special education and HCC in each comprehensive high school.
Put money into supplying the courses desired by the student body then enrolled in the school.
Put floors into place promising access to base level advanced courses, and no they don't have to be AP, in every school. If some schools end up with half-filled classrooms, that's the breaks. Money has to be spent on every one of these solutions. That's the price of the most obvious solution.
Leave a few lottery seats for IB in north, south, west seattle. Leave a few lottery seats for language pathways. Guarantee the lottery seat numbers.
And that's it. Move on people. Yes, some of our kids will get the short end of the decision. That's life. More than 50+ thousand students need to enroll in short order for next year. Let's move. Sheesh.
Over it
Bravo.
Over It, yes, students do need to enroll soon. BUT this is decision that will have huge impacts for years to come.
The district is not good at providing services district-wide. So I'm not believing this idea that they can provide enough acceleration and rigor at all the high schools especially for HCC student.
And that "if it costs more money, so be it" - well, tell that to staff and watch them laugh.
The district promised a lottery for high school seats before - never happened.
Lastly, of course, there will be unhappy people with the boundaries but it needs to be based on data and clearly explained.
1) Make Lincoln the north end HCC school (maybe language/spectrum too?)
2) Make Lincoln a meaningfully exciting option school to attract enough kids to balance out the other schools.
Oddly (to me), neither option is one the district is considering so they’re drawing map after map considering how to move kids around in ways that add large logistical burdens to kids who would like to be in school, so activities, have jobs, and will spend a ton of time bussing around (or adding more cars in very cramped neighborhoods).
As a parent who’s kid misses the HCC cut-off, but is performing well above grade level and I would expect to be able to handle AP science, BC Calc, etc as was the norm for the more advanced kids where I grew up (maybe top 10-15%, not just top 2%), I’d rather HCC in the neighborhood high schools and an option Lincoln, but either of those seems better than the myriad options the district has thrown out there.
NE Parent
N by NW
no guarantees
@anonymous 8:56 "decrease mitigation costs, because advanced classes would be able to be filled--and whether SPS likes it or not, by pulling some students from RHS and BHS they are going to need to offer advanced options upon launch.
They will pull some 10th graders. Just an FYI though the plan has Lincoln opening as a 9/10 with only 9th grade HC.
K
Jane
Fairmount Parent
The rest of these contortions are simply maddening. We're about to end up with a hell of a mess of boundaries and programs. Seattle does NOT have to reinvent the wheel every time. North end neighborhood schools offer programs to serve their populations. Duh. Double duh. It doesn't have to be the deluxe Cadillac version. It does have to have a core of advanced classes and competent resources to get students into Running Start for additional advanced courses.
This solution also means less impact on Central schools. Leave Garfield alone minus rightsizing the draw area. Ditto Cleveland. Leave it as a tech option school. Expand the number of kids it takes? OK. But leave a program that is working alone.
+1 also for forcing district in writing to serve central and south kids with the same menu of in-school advanced classes as the North End. Equity costs money. But the promise in writing means no more hand-wringing as to whether or when these classes will be offered. They will be offered. Period. Maybe it's one section, not 7, but they will be offered.
Again, enough with the ridiculous HCC paths and shoving all students this way and that to accommodate what should just be happening in their comprehensive high school as a matter of BASELINE DISTRICT COMPETENCY.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FRUSTRATED
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FRUSTRATED
I honestly don’t know what question the district is trying to answer. But I do know that when things get this convoluted, some clarity around the question certainly helps.
It took me a long time to really understand that the madness of the closures dragged on for as long as it did because of bad questions, Everyone thought the question was “Which schools need to be closed?” When in actuality a better question would have been about how do we measure capacity?
The 2004 closure report starts with this little paragraph that states Enrollment will be declining to 45,000 students and SPS has capacity for at least 55,000 students. People focused on how the projections were incorrect but that didn’t help because the other number was the real problem. SPS never had capacity for 55,000 students. We have almost that many students now and to accommodate that number, we needed to reopen every closed school, reopen additional schools and add over 200 portables in the process.
So that is why I’m asking ... because the board keeps asking for some better data and enrollment keeps producing more and more convoluted scenarios. So I’m now at the point, where I think we need some better questions.
- SAB
I agree with a lot of your underlying comments. Decisions need to me made and there are no perfect choices. Not everyone is going to get everything at a local convenient school.
But that said, this is far more complex and there are substantial domino effects to these decisions that have received precious little daylight.
Because of the way that high school is funded, there are multiple unique programs that will only ever be provided at 1-3 high schools. AP Classes are a powerful distraction at the moment, because these are not unique, they are offered at all schools and it only takes a wee bit of flexible funding to expand this options. I repeat the focus on AP is a powerful distraction.
The truly unique offerings are IB and CTE and a handful of specialty programs at each high school, like the Hale Radio program. The way the boundaries are set, will either provide a long term commitment to IB and Career and Technical Education or it will be the deal of these programs.
Thank you for bringing up Cleveland again. I think it was beyond overreaching that Cleveland’s status as an option was ever on the task force agenda. The implication for changing that status would change every boundary in the south end, and not improve education outcomes for one student.
I also believe it is an urban legend that Cleveland hurts Rainier Beach. Frankly, I think that Cleveland’s option status helps Rainier Beach.
There is this mythology that somehow, we can treat students as if they were widgets and just cause them to enroll where it is convenient for administration. That mythology loses sight of the fact that Schools are in the education business, not the assignment business. The biggest impact on enrollment is not option school enrollment but out of district enrollment. Families have the choice to enroll their students in public school in adjacent districts. When these families pick Cleveland, we have families staying in the Seattle Public system.
There has been zero analysis to show that the artificial enrollment caps at both Franklin and Cleveland benefit Rainier Beach. This analysis is shockingly easy to do. You simply pull the enrollment ID numbers for any student who was waitlisted at Franklin and Cleveland and then report on where these students are actually enrolled in October. I would love to be proven wrong but historically any time an analysis like this was done, it was reported that a very high percentage of these students just left the district rather than take a mandatory assignment.
Thank you for taking the time to explain the Cleveland situation. I fell for the myth. It's frightening to think that staff put the school's option status up for discussion based on a faulty understanding of what is going on, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. From what I heard, the task force didn't believe it had the info to come to a consensus, so staff didn't get the endorsement they might have been looking for. Given all the other changes taking place throughout the district, maybe they will let Cleveland be. It's a shame they are not supporting the school with the number of student it needs and doubly so if those students are indeed leaving the district.
-SAB
A promise “in writing” may or may not mean anything. Hence the tremendous amount of localized upset. Please remember that the promise to grandfather students at Whitman was “in writing,” posted on the district website, was cost neutral, AND was completely ignored.
Without a written policy that mandates a minimum AP slate of specific course and the budget for this written directly into the WSS, there is no reason to believe this promise. After all, Michael Tolley directly stated the district will NOT offer classes without sufficient enrollment.
Once again, this focus on AP offerings is a distraction.
I’m glad I was able to help. There are two items that are tied for first place in the category of over-reaching and out-of-scope, from my point of view.
1). Downtown school. Talk about an existential problem. Significant time was spent contemplating modifying boundaries for a potential-future-possible downtown school with the earliest opening date of 2025. This project has not even been put in front of voters for a budget or timeline, but yet it got task force time.
2) Cleveland - Any change to Cleveland’s status needs to be brought to the SE community at large.
Significant time was spent on these topics and now there are looming deadlines.
As a veteran of several task forces/committees, I can tell you that placing of info from staff can doom many a group who may struggle to be making the best decision.
So why are enrollment projections capped at 5 years when North end high-density housing construction, light rail development and enrollment patterns in elementary and middle school indicate even greater capacity demand within 10 years?
Why is a downtown high school being planned for opening 8 years from now with 5 year projections?
I'm concerned that data is not being used to guide sound long-term decisions.
/M
It means busing to one school when you could walk to another so a kid in another neighborhood doesn't have to ride a bus for over two hours a day.
The overall picture - how many kids will be on buses with one plan versus another versus what that picture is today?
The smaller picture - are there more kids on buses but with about the same number of minutes?
Of course, this does beg the question of the district stated goal of having more kids walk or bike to school. I'd like to see the current data on that and how that might change with different boundary scenarios.
North of 85th
During all the last high school boundary redraw, there were maps that showed the number of students and their closest school. This made it very clear where the challenging areas were and which schools could simply not handle every student for whom that was the closest school.
Those maps brought some civility to the conversation. Without the maps we once again have neighborhoods pitted against each other.
Garfield can't handle much more than they have now. Ballard is pretty strained and I'm pretty sure can't put any more portables down. I don't know how Roosevelt is doing.
Ingraham needs portables and there should be nobody assigned to the three schools above on a waitlist come April. Otherwise staff simply aren't doing their jobs.