Who Gets to Go to Maple Elementary?

It's a topic that heating up over at Facebook.  It's worth discussing because of the central issue - historical patterns of enrollment or racial equity?


Should kids who have traditionally gone to a school always go there?

Where does the need for racial equity start for a school?

And, most of all, are district promises really just that - a promise and not a guarantee?

Here's the basic story (this from the Equity in Seattle Schools blog):

Seattle Public Schools is planning to change the boundary for Maple Elementary School, to take effect in either 2019 or 2020. On November 20, 2013, the district approved a vast set of boundary changes across the city (as described in this 88-page document), with most taking effect the following school year, and others planned for later years. In recognition that the future Maple Elementary School boundary change may not be racially equitable, the Board unanimously passed an amendment to the 11/20/13 resolution to "reassess all boundary and feeder pattern plans for District 7” (Southeast Seattle) with racial diversity in mind.

The Maple change was originally supposed to take effect in 2020, but due to capacity issues at the school, the district is considering moving that change up to 2019. 

Therefore, the district and community are now doing the work to reassess the boundary in terms of racial equity. As such, the district has created an Alternate Plan for Maple Elementary.

Maple, with a diverse population, is a fairly high-achieving school.  They have receiving several awards for distinction over the last decade.  Those stats make it a desirable school.

The school which would take in students affected by boundary changes is Van Asselt which is housed in the former African American Academy building which was built to be a K-8.  It is also a diverse school but it struggles academically.  Interestingly, they do better at math than ELA.

The biggest issue is who will this boundary change hurt more - Georgetown kids who have traditionally gone there and will likely be divided (some stay, some go) OR minority kids as the data shows Maple will lose percentages of them.

Let examine the Georgetown parent issue.  From parent, Matt Pearsall',  Change.org petition:

Seattle Public Schools is considering dividing Georgetown in two. Kids north of Corson would continue to go to Maple Elementary, our neighborhood school since Georgetown Elementary was torn down in 1970. Kids south of Georgetown would go to Van Asselt Elementary, which is over twice as far away and up on top of Beacon Hill.

Not only will this divide Georgetown kids from each other, deprive half of them of the ability to walk to school, and make it more difficult for Georgetown families to support each other, it will damage our neighborhood. by removing one of the few official institutions that bind this community together. Georgetown faces many issues, including industrial traffic, water, soil, and air pollution, and a crime rate that's growing faster than most everywhere else in the city. We should not have to shoulder this burden as well.

In 2013, Seattle Public Schools rejected this idea in favor of a plan to keep Georgetown families united at Maple Elementary. We ask that Seattle Public Schools honor their word and stick with this board-approved decision. To do otherwise is neither fair nor equitable to the residents of Georgetown.

Parent Julie Van Arken (whose children went to Maple and is still a resident of the area) writes about this issue using a lot of data.  Interestingly, over at Soup for Teachers, they call her efforts "weaponizing data." Using data in a thoughtful, expansive manner is "weaponizing?"  She doesn't appear to cherrypick the data to me.

 As well, someone at Facebook said,  "Unfortunately my historically-disenfranchised little girl's future has become threatened by a well-connected white woman of privilege who is not a parent at Maple."

Julie gently replies, "I believe he is speaking about me. I’m mixed-race and the daughter of working-class immigrants." 

 Julie also went to a Van Asselt meeting on the issue to present her data and got drowned out by boos.  Think what would happen if immigrant parents of color tried to say something on the issue.  It's not the way to get parents to come to meetings if that is allowed.

I'm not reprinting her lengthy chart but here's her take:

The below table compares the 2013 Plan with the Alternate Plan according to criteria of racial equity, English Language Learners equity, Special Education equity, the district's own guiding principles for boundaries, and other arguments raised by the community.

Neither community wants to be displaced from Maple Elementary. However, as shown below, the Alternate Plan is the better plan in terms of racial equity, equity for students requiring special services, keeping children in walk zones, cost savings, minimizing displaced students overall, and upholding the district's own boundary criteria. Please email schoolboard@seattleschools.org and growthboundaries@seattleschools.org and let them know you support the more racially equitable Alternate Plan for Maple Elementary.

What is striking is that data on how many more black, Asian and Latino children would be displaced if the district changes its plan.

This will be quite the test of the racial equity tool.