Useful Resources in Talking about Closing Schools

 I wanted to post some helpful links to resources around school closure. 

However, I do want to first point out that it feels like the district is deliberately making it confusing for anyone who wants to get information on the public meetings on well-resourced schools. Here's how:

- Not the top of the homepage. I get that the district want to celebrate good things happening in the district first. But the first time you see "well-resourced schools" is in the middle of the homepage. It's a section about the Superintendent's plan. The notice of the actual meetings is buried in this info. 

- But then, if you scroll down further, you get to the "News" section and you see not one but two items about public engagement. One is titled, "Well-Resourced Schools Community Meetings" which is the actual notice of the meetings but the other is titled, "Well-Resourced Schools Community Engagement" so you might be confused about what is past and what is present. 

Here's the link for the latter in case you missed what the district said the feedback was from parents/community, students, and also from adults who were part of a focus group for multi-lingual and POC families.

I'm not being picky. I feel like parents and community members have little extra time to be going from link to link. It would be nice if it looked like the district was really doing its best.

And, of course, there is not a single mention of school closures. 

One last thing about the upcoming meetings, the first this Saturday at 10:30am at Garfield High School - please, some of you, have the courage to push back on being facilitated as the district is going to try to do at these meetings. Demand an open mic period where EVERYONE in the room gets to hear EVERY question. When they put you into these table groups, you'll only hear what that table says. I think it important for participants to have a clear view of the mood of the room.

Onward.

Resources

- State of Washington RCW 28A.335.020. This section is about school buildings is and what the minimum is that school boards are required to do when schools are closed.

Now I have mentioned that charter schools within a district's boundaries have right of first refusal to closed school buildings for lease or sale. However, reading the charter law, I see something that I need lawyer eyes for:

(2) If a school district decides to sell or lease the public school facility or property pursuant to RCW 28A.335.040 or 28A.335.120, a charter school located within the boundaries of the district has a right of first refusal to purchase or lease at fair market value a closed public school facility or property or unused portions of a public school facility or property by negotiated agreement with mutual consideration.

The way I read that is there already has to be an authorized, existing charter school in the boundaries of the district. I had seen this move to close schools as a bonanza for possible charter schools but I don't think the law give applicants for a charter school that right of first refusal. If they wanted to use a closed SPS building, they would have to negotiate a lease first AND then get approval by an authorizer. Not sure that can happen.

Of course, the buildings being closed are going to be in poor condition so that may give some charters pause. There are only three established charter schools in Seattle; two in the SE and one in West Seattle.  

 

- Seattle School Board Policy 6883 - School & Instructional Site Closures

This is a key policy and I hope parents will track whether the Superintendent and staff are following it to the letter.  

Now the Superintendent and staff have done something a bit clever here. Superintendent Jones is to give his "preliminary recommendations to the Seattle School Board in June 2024. " But those recommendations include any number of things, including school closures.

Reading the policy, we learn that it's "the development and presentation of the Superintendent's preliminary recommendation for school closures..." So is what he will be presenting in June be considered that actual preliminary recommendation? Because there was this odd exchange at the last Board meeting on this topic:

Rankin, who feels the need to "and/or", "if this, then that" every single sentence said:

"I think I will say it sounds like we have we expect a recommendation in June unless you provide information that says that’s not possible."

What? How could she believe the staff would have done all this work and could NOT be ready in June?

Jones replies:

"If we are clear-eyed and bring a feasibility back that says we cannot do the depth of engagement that what I heard you all expecting, then I will ask for an extension perhaps or for. You all to consider. But otherwise we are going to plan for sometimes in June."

Because the policy goes on to say:

1. Development and presentation of the Superintendent’s preliminary recommendation for school closure(s) and publication of analysis of possible effects of proposed school closure(s) to include:
1. Criteria for school closure(s)
2. Demographic and integration effects
3. Relationship of the proposed closure(s) to any on-going, established long-range program for facility use, and
4. Proposed site classification

So if what happens in early June IS the "preliminary recommendation" then it HAS to have all that analysis and info in it to meet the policy. 

But I don't think it is going to be the preliminary recommendation because there has to be a 30-day public review for school closures. And info has to be available at every school on the list and given to both PTA/PTO as well as any community council in the affected area. 

You can't do this if the school is closed, can you? 

You also have to have public hearings and again, this wouldn't be during the summer. 

So HEADS UP, if you are looking for the Superintendent and staff to provide full analysis on any school mentioned, I'm not sure you'll see it at this point. This may just be the early warning.

I suspect the preliminary list will be released just as school starts, then the 30-day period and the hearings for each school and THEN, the Superintendent's final recommendation. As I recall, September isn't a very busy month for families, is it?

Then comes more public review and a single public hearing on the final recs, then School Board discussion on the final recs, and then School Board action. The latter has to be within 90 days of the hearings for each school and no less than 7 days after the Superintendent gives them his final recs. 

And, that will just about get you to November which is what was laid out at the staff presentation at the last School Board meeting.  

There is one section of note:

In the event exigent circumstances make adherence to the above policy infeasible, the Board of Directors may so declare and make a school closure(s) decision following a process consistent only with the minimum requirements of RCW 28A.335.020.

 

 

- School Board Policy 6882  - On uses of district facilities  - Rental, Lease and Sale of Real Property

- The Facilities Master Plan classifies each property not currently in use for educational purposes as either Inventoried or Non-essential (Surplus), as defined by the current Facilities Master Plan. Inventoried Properties are those that are not currently used, but are being kept for possible future use. Non-essential (Surplus) Properties are those that are not projected to be needed in the future and may be disposed of, through sale or long-term lease.

- The district will seek to achieve maximum long-term economic benefit from its real property assets. Facilities and properties currently not being used for district programs will be managed to provide funds to maintain, upgrade, and improve district facilities. 

If the above paragraph were true, then the district would be charging the City of Seattle for use of all that classroom space for Pre-K programs. According to Board policy, the district doesn't have to charge the highest amount it could get if the program is for "youth education" such as Pre-K. It seems to me that in dire times, the City could cough up a nominal amount.

- Also interesting is this: The neighborhood community surrounding the property shall be provided a timeline and invited to comment in advance on the proposed disposition of the property and their views will be considered by the Superintendent and the School Board in determining the appropriate disposition of the property.

Plus:  Private schools shall have the right to submit proposals and have them considered in accordance with applicable state law, provided that they do not engage in unlawful discrimination of any kind."  

Well, charters aren't private schools but it would be interesting to see if no charter wants a building, if any private schools try to come in. Because some religious schools absolutely discriminate against LGBTQ students and families and reject applications from those individuals. A public school could not do this. Hmm.

Not a resource but a parallel tale  - San Francisco Unified School District is also closing schools but seems to have quite a different take on how to do so. How is it different?

- A community advisory committee made up of parents, labor, and other groups

- They started their process engaging the public back in March and are continuing through May. 

- Stanford University researchers will conduct a third-party equity audit to ensure that no community or student group is unfairly burdened more than others by our resource alignment decisions. Stanford U!

- We will follow the California Attorney General’s guidance on school closures to ensure equitable access to education and prevent systemic discrimination in schools.

-  The new portfolio of schools is approved by the Board of Education in late 2024, we will stand by our staff and families throughout this process. Throughout the spring and summer of 2025, all families and staff will be fully supported with their enrollment and career options in the District.

Seattle Schools has said nothing about how they will support school communities that will see their buildings closed. 

Stanford is also creating an enrollment plan for SFUSD? 

In fact, a team of Stanford University researchers has begun work on the new elementary school zones. They should produce new maps soon after school closures are finalized in December. 

Also this:

While the zones remain unclear, one thing is certain: the Stanford team has already determined that every school cannot represent the city’s larger socioeconomic mix. Lo said this is due to two factors: San Francisco’s racial segregation and its geography. The district can’t gerrymander its way into equity. 

“There’s a lot of pockets of racial concentration,” Lo said. “If we want to actually have demographic parity, we would need these very long, snaky zones that are not tenable for families getting to schools.”

Sounds familiar.

One part of the SFUSD's problem that is much worse than SPS? Building conditions. Apparently, they have had problems moving quickly enough AND showing that capital dollars have been well spent and the district is quaking in its boots to ask for $1B. 

Not SPS. The last Operations levy and the last Capital levy have each been about $1B.

Meanwhile, over in Oakland, it has not gone well. It's fascinating that the AG in California is part of the closure process. 

There was also this issue that ALSO has not been mentioned by SPS:

There are subtle differences between a school closure, merger, and co-location, though they can seem similar. Here’s how they differ:

• School Closure: A school closure happens when a school permanently stops operating. When a school closes, students will attend a new school.
• School Merger: A school merger occurs when two or more schools join together to become one single school. This is often done to combine resources, improve educational programs, or address issues like decreasing student numbers. After merging, the original schools stop existing as separate entities and operate under one name and administration.
• School Co-location: School co-location is when multiple schools share the same building or campus but keep their separate identities, students, and staff. These schools might share common areas like libraries, gyms, and cafeterias, but they run their own programs and activities. Co-location is a way to use space efficiently, especially in crowded areas where building new schools might not be possible.

In a school closure, that is when most of the students fly off to 2+ other schools and their school's identity ceases. They become part of the community of their consolidation school.

In a merger, like in the possible case of Montlake and McGilvra where nearly all of McGilvra's population will move into Montlake, it will be interesting to see how the district handles it. Does the school get an entirely new name/persona? Do they try to keep aspects of both schools like Montlake's name but McGilvra's mascot? 

As for school co-location, I'm not sure that's gonna be in the mix at all but you tell me - does this make sense for any schools you might be thinking of?  

Meanwhile, over in Oakland, it has not gone well. It's fascinating that the AG in California is part of the closure process.