Real Background on Real Data, a Guest Post

I've known Kellie LaRue for quite a long time. We met as activists trying to understand Seattle Schools. 

Kellie is a data analyst which is something I could never be. She wrote this blog post about the history of Option Schools and, once again, we are watching Seattle Schools attempt to put out revisionist history. Doing that is one of the more distasteful things that SPS just can't stop itself from doing. 

Her post is worthy reading.

Kellie's Post

To all the new folks that are experiencing their first closure round, welcome and I’m so sorry that you are now part of the club.  I first joined this club way back during the Olchefske financial scandal of 2002. I was very active in the 04-05, 06-07 and the 08-09 round of closures that were triggered by the Olchefske scandal. 

 

Here are a few notes for all of the new folks trying to make sense of the current financial scandal. 

 

When dealing with SPS and “data” it is always important to remember the old axiom of lies, damn lies and statistics. SPS has always brought their own special spin on data analytics. It took me years to fully comprehend, how little SPS understands their own data and therefore I spent far too much time under the mistaken belief that better data would help the district make better decisions. 

 

Occasionally, SPS moves beyond bad data analysis and moves into revisionist history, disinformation and alternative “facts.”

 

In this note, I am focusing solely on this gem of revisionist history as it applies today.

 

Option schools 

·      Option schools historically provided capacity relief for overcrowded schools; today, they draw enrollment and resources from neighborhood schools.

·      Both option and neighborhood schools develop unique instructional models to serve their student and communities.

·      Option schools disproportionately serve students who have traditionally had additional access to additional educational resources.

·      Most option schools also serve a smaller proportion of students who are eligible for free and reduced school meals compared to the demographics of their geographical zone

 

 

These statements are simply incorrect, but sound plausible.

 

Seattle has a very long history of alternative schools.  There are folks on this blog like seattle citizen, old timer, stuartj, suep and others that have a far greater understanding of Seattle public education history and I’m hoping some of the many folks that have supported alternative education will share of their stories for the next generation of advocates. 

 

Many folks reading these statements will be quite surprised to learn that alternative schools were never created for capacity relief. Never is a bold word, but it is accurate. 

 

The majority of Seattle’s alternative schools were created to help with declining enrollment, not over-enrollment. Additionally, most of these schools were created to serve under-served students, not “students who have traditionally had additional access to additional educational resources.”

 

When John Stanford launched Seattle’s first language immersion school, back in 2000, it was created as an attendance area school, not an option school. This was because district administration needed to reserve the right to give mandatory assignments to the school. Twenty-four years later, long after JSIS had won an award for best elementary school in the nation, this seems rather silly. However, in 1999, it was considered a very risky proposition to bus under-served heritage speakers to share a school with neighborhood students.  

 

So where did this “plausible” revisionist narrative come from?

 

The closure rounds of the 00’s were both unnecessary and based on very bad data, but that is a story for a different thread. 

 

What is relevant to the revisionist history is that these multiple closure rounds, resulted in very little capacity in the system. There was just barely enough space for the currently enrolled students. Concurrently, Seattle was always one of the top ten fastest growing cities in the US in the 00’s and there was simply no room for all the newcomers in an already full system.

 

In 2010-11 school year, SPS introduced the current attendance area based assignment plan, often called the New Student Assignment Plan or NSAP.  The previous system was 100% choice based. The NSAP drew the majority of the current boundaries and created the middle school feeder pattern system. This plan was launched for the 2011-12 school year. 

 

The creation of these boundaries was quite contentious as there simply was not enough capacity in the system to guarantee space for everyone. There as so little capacity, that the NSAP required opening 5 schools to make the NSAP barely work. Additional schools sneeded to be added again as part of BEX IV in 2015 and growth boundaries. 

 

Attendance Area schools were opened to deal with over-crowded schools. The BTA III levy opened Sandpoint, McDonald, Rainier View and Viewlands so that boundaries could be drawn at all.  Why? Because attendance area schools are the only way to manage over-capacity. 

 

So where is the revisionist history?   

 

During this time period. Jane Addams K-8, now Hazel Wolf K-8, Queen Anne Elementary and Boren K-8 were also opened as OPTIONS. These schools were created as options, simply because it wasn’t possible to make these schools attendance area schools. All three of these schools are now very popular with long waitlists, thanks to the commitment of the educators in those buildings. Not because the district created options for students “who have traditionally had additional access to additional educational resources.”

 

As always, we have great educators to thank for schools that are successful. And the educators for those three schools had an incredibly heavy lift to build community without any guarantee of assignment students. 

 

Hazel Wolf was created out of the forced closure of Summit K-12 and the inability to place enough portables in NE Seattle to assign students. 

 

Queen Anne Elementary was just blocks from the attendance area schools and therefore it was deemed impossible to draw boundaries for the NSAP, unless it was an option school. 

 

STEM at Boren was made an option school due to the promise to not re-draw boundaries for 5 years after the implementation of the NSAP. (spoiler alert: it was only 4 years the BEX IV and the growth boundaries redraw).

 

Cedar Park as an option school is also likely part of this revisionist history. However, Cedar Park was made an option school for the entire point to “serve a smaller proportion of students who are eligible for free and reduced school meals compared to the demographics of their geographical zone”.  When attendance area boundaries were proposed for Cedar Park, this created a school with an almost 90% FRL student population. That number was absurd and caused the FRL numbers at Cedar Park to be grossly disproportionate to the neighborhood and all the adjacent schools.

 

In sum, this current plan follows the mold of “never waste a good crisis.” The financial problems the district is facing are real. The legislature created a time bomb for urban districts when they enacted the levy swap model in 2017 and that problem is here, right now. 

 

But rather than have the adults in the room discuss the funding issue with transparency, we once again have a manufactured crisis designed to distract by pitting schools against each other. 

 

Option schools do not draw “enrollment and resources from neighborhood schools.” 

 

Option schools serve Seattle students.