Seattle Schools Releases Closure Proposals

 

 I have not reviewed all this data and analysis but here are the cold, hard proposals. I can't believe how many schools appear to be stripped of their personality. We're looking at cookie-cutter schools here.

I also have not reviewed the boundary maps.

SPS is creating two alternative models/scenarios as the district works to stabilize and improve our school system.

As you review the proposed options below, please know these are drafts under consideration.

Superintendent Jones will present the preliminary recommendation with the Well-Resourced Schools proposal to the School Board in October. The School Board will vote on the proposal before winter break (Dec. 2024).

 

Proposed Option A (summary)
Savings: $31.5 million
52 schools​ (21 closing)​

Transition to a system of attendance area elementary schools with no K-8 or option elementary schools.​

Draft interactive boundary change tool for Proposed Option A.

Learn more about this proposal.

Under Option A -

NW

  • Closing:​ Licton Springs K-8​, Salmon Bay K-8​, North Beach​, Broadview-Thomson K-8​
  • School Type Changes: ​John Stanford, McDonald, and Cascadia become attendance area schools

NE

  • Closing:​ Green Lake​, Decatur​, Sacajawea​, Cedar Park​, Laurelhurst​
  • School Type Changes: Thornton Creek Elementary becomes an attendance area school, Hazel Wolf K-8 becomes an attendance area K-5 school​; while Laurelhurst building serves as interim site for Sand Point

Central

  • Closing:​ Catharine Blaine K-8​, John Hay​, McGilvra​, Stevens​, TOPS K-8​
  • School Type Changes: Queen Anne Elementary becomes an attendance area school

SE

  • Closing:​ Orca K-8​, Graham Hill​, Dunlap​, Rainier View​
  • School Type Changes: South Shore PreK-8 becomes an attendance area K-5 school​

 

SW/West Seattle

  • Closing:​ Lafayette​, Boren STEM K-8​, Sanislo​
  • School Type Changes: Pathfinder K-8 becomes an attendance area K-5 school

 

 

Proposed Option B

Proposal B includes 56 schools ​(17 closing)​ and creates a system of attendance area elementary schools and one option K-8 school in each region.

  • Savings: $25.5 million
  • 56 schools elementary and K-8 schools ​(17 closing)​​
  • Keeps an option K-8 school in each region
  • Reduce the budget using other strategies including staffing reductions

See Option B schools below:

NW

  • Closing:​ Licton Springs K-8​, North Beach​, Broadview-Thomson K-8​
  • School Type Changes: ​John Stanford, McDonald, and Cascadia become attendance area schools

NE

  • ​Closing:​ Green Lake​, Decatur, Cedar Park, Laurelhurst​
  • School Type Changes:​ Thornton Creek becomes an attendance area school.​ Laurelhurst building serves as interim site for Sand Point

Central

  • Closing: ​Catharine Blaine K-8​, John Hay, McGilvra, Stevens, Thurgood Marshall​
  • School Type Changes: Queen Anne Elementary becomes attendance area school​

SE

  • Closing:​ Orca K-8, Graham Hill, Rainier View

 SW and West Seattle

  • Closing:​ Louisa Boren K-8, Sanislo

Comments

This comment came via the first post which had a technical issue. Unknown: John Hay (our elementary) closes under both plans so I guess my child is in a dead school walking. It’s a nice community with great teachers and I hope they’ll end up basically intact at QAE, but I’m betting a lot of families who were on the fence anyway will go private.
Unknown: I’m actually surprised to see a detailed proposal plan! The months of moving the goal posts for providing usable information is haunting them.

I predict many more families will leave the district. Students will start leaving the schools on that common list as soon as parents can find another option.
Anonymous said…
I wish they would provide more details about what they mean by "Reduce the budget using other strategies including staffing reductions." You can't really compare plans without knowing what exactly would be cut in Plan B.
Anonymous said…
What does this mean: “ Laurelhurst building serves as interim site for Sand Point”? Sand Point elementary?

Public2Private
Anonymous said…
Kids need a smaller school option at middle school, period. These are the years so many are lost to the education system. The district's had it in for K8s for at least a decade because they can't get their brains around them. No just no to losing this option for students who need an environment different from their neighborhood assignment.
Anonymous said…
Sorry, that's me "Veteran" on the above comment
Anonymous said…
I have two initial thoughts:
1. I am shocked that Thurgood Marshall appears slated to close in the second plan. It has 500+ students, a good building and just was named a national blue ribbon school last year. How did that happen?

2. I found a note about the Highly Capable Cohort in the district’s FAQs. It says that students currently in cohort classrooms will “have the option to remain in a cohort model, even if their school closes.” Where will these HCC classrooms be? Decauter is slated to close in both plans, Cascadia is slated to become a neighborhood school in both plans and Thurgood Marshall is slated to close in Plan B. There will still be HCC classrooms needed in 3rd — 5th grades in 2025-26.

—Exhausted
John Nowicki said…
Hah! I said way back they would use this closing for the "equity uber alles" they started under the cover of Covid, and you said your heard internally that wasn't the plan.

Lo and behold, under the rubric of cost savings they are killing option and bilingual schools, just like I said. Soon we can all aspire to the equity of mediocrity.
Frustrated Mom said…
Dual Language schools get cut under both options. Which is unfortunate. I think they should be expanded as an easy way to attract people from private schools. It pains me that the district is making zero effort to attract new enrollment.
Jet City mom said…
I haven’t really been keeping track, but how many properties have not been used for students in decades ( some I know have never been used as classrooms)
It seems the district should divest themselves of those properties before they displace so many students.
Jet City mom said…
How many properties does the district act as landlord?
I know there have got to be a few that have never been used as classrooms.
Also, what is the rent that we pay for the Center school?

Anonymous said…
Seattle dropping the ball here big time. Why would young people want to start a family in the city and contribute to a vibrant urban community if the city can't get their shit together and find a decent school system. Cut admin, raise taxes, cut sports and other non educational programming before considering any further degradation of elementary classrooms
Curiously Cynical said…
Shouldn't the district's primary focus be on K-12 education? I'm curious why pre-k gets such focus from SPS when there are far more pre-k alternatives than K-12 and it is not funded by the state.
Seattle is Lost said…
Where is SEA?

It is never a good idea to cut sports. Sports are the only reason some kids go to school.

Anonymous said…
I think they want to pit schools against each other - in this case Thurgood vs. TOPS - and keep the focus off the underlying issues.
-Seattlelifer
Anonymous said…
Reading the FAQ, that's a goal. They explain how students cost more than they bring in, so they don't actually want them.
-Beyond furious
seattle citizen said…
Unbelievably sad. Incredible. The abandonment of fifty years of alternative schools of various types.
When I fought the closures of alternatives in 2008 I used policy to argue with SPS admins. Those arguments at least daylighted the lack of research and study of pedagogy the district was guilty of. I'm sure that in this...slaughter of Alt schools they haven't weighed the damage to students. They need to be made accountable for their lack of consideration of pedagogy.
What is the current policy on closures of programs? What is required? Did they do it?
This is heartbreaking.
Licton Springs? Really? Our Native kids' school is going to be rubbed out, after SPS promised them a new school when they rubbed out Indian Heritate in 2008? Really? Chasing Natives out of the city in 1854, making them illegal in the city in 1867, now here's SPS, chasing them out again, here in 2024.
So sad.
Anonymous said…
I know sports are not more important than academics and mental health. But I wonder how these closings will impact a city that is already lacking in playgrounds and play fields. I just came from a meeting where school officials fully admitted that some of their middle school teams don't have practice space and that they are struggling to piece together fields for games.

NW Mom
Anonymous said…
I scoured BEX VI last night thinking that I must have missed funding for a Sand Point rebuild. Nothing there. No idea how a February levy will pass, never mind how an entire school will get magically rebuilt. I have a pet theory that the goal is to absorb everyone from SPE and LES into VR and Bryant and the Sand Point at Laurelhurst concept is just to get families south of 45th to play along for a few years.

NE mom
FutureIsGrim said…
I wonder if there was an understanding on the district level when they approved the larger contract a couple of years ago that it would be impossible to sustain and so would necessitate school closures and consolidations - I don't know if that was discussed or not.
Anonymous said…
@Beyond Furious
Which FAQ was that? Can you link it? I remember hearing some offhand mention from Podesta during a presentation that the drop in enrollment wasn't the problem and conversely that fixing enrollment would be at best a 0 and probably a net negative in terms of effect on budget. There was no data to support that remark and I suspect it hides a lot of assumptions and ideology but it was still a very intriguing statement in a public forum. (Maybe I heard it in a clip in Seattle Hall Pass podcast?)

- Seeing Red
I believe these are the referenced FAQs. https://www.seattleschools.org/resources/well-resourced-schools/faq/
Anonymous said…
What they really mean by, “while Laurelhurst building serves as interim site for Sand Point,” is that Sand point is de facto closing and being divided between VR and Laurelhurst. Based on the boundary map, Windermere and Laurelhurst areas will attend the “interim Sand Point site,” while Magnuson Park will attend VRE. I don’t exactly know the reason for this deception, but my guess is (1) they don’t want to be called out for inequity by closing SandPoint, and (2) they’re hoping to slow the exodus out of VRE. And oh look, Wedgwood looks unaffected by boundary changes! What a coincidence, guess who lives in that neighborhood!

I tried to warn people in 2018 that this is what was coming if Hampson and Rankin won, but no one listened!

Ex-NE Seattle mom
kellie said…
@ ex-NE Seattle mom,

There is a part that is even crazier.

Sandpoint is a candidate to be re-built for the BEX VI levy, due mostly to the higher FRL enrollment as part of the low-income housing at Magnuson.

All of the Magnuson students are scheduled to move to View Ridge, which will now be much more economically diverse. Leaving the brand new Sandpoint school for the Windermere and Laurelhurst neighborhoods, creating a very high SES community in that new building.

Laurelhurst has a better campus for a rebuild, but the school is not eligible for a rebuild due to the equity matrix being used for planning.

Anonymous said…
That interesting…. The Sand Point site is small and not very accessible. It’ll become a traffic nightmare if it really does serve the new boundary area stretching to UW. If Magnuson Park really is re-assigned to VRE, it would make much more sense to rebuild that building. Large plot, old building in very poor condition. However, my overall opinion is that small walkable schools is preferable to big new fancy buildings, and it is tragic that the district is moving away from that original vision.

Ex-NE Seattle mom

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?