Mizrahi and Clark Issue a Throwdown (of sorts) to the Seattle Superintendent and Staff

 The Urbanist has printed an op-ed by Director Sarah Clark and Director Joe Mizrahi called: 

Seattle Public Schools Enrollment Practices Starve Schools and Harm Students

That's pretty blunt.

They lay out every single thing that was learned at the last Work Session on enrollment. Now staff might say that there are good reasons for the way enrollment currently works but I think those reasons might pale in comparison to  what Clark and Mizrahi have stated. (I am changing the formatting in the following paragraph so I can use bullet points. Bold mine)

At the most recent board meeting, district staff detailed current enrollment practices that assign teachers to schools before students, keeping families on waitlists even when space exists at their preferred schools. The stories reaching us through public comment, emails, and community meetings are devastating: 

 - CODA children (Children of Deaf Adults) unable to attend TOPS, a K-8 school with a deaf and hard of hearing program; 

- children of color who qualify for Highly Capable programs denied access to established programs, an experience so traumatizing that parents are leaving SPS rather than endure continued harm;

- newcomer students waitlisted for dual language programs in their native language; and

- siblings separated despite available space.

These aren’t isolated incidents or misunderstandings. According to the district’s own presentation, these enrollment practices are by design.

Administrators claim they’re balancing staffing and neighborhood enrollment, but it’s increasingly clear some want these option schools eliminated entirely.

What the data shows about enrollment:

SPS data shows the number of students not getting their choice school and then leaving the district has more than doubled last year. When students leave, state funding leaves with them, causing cascading budget challenges and program shortages for remaining students.

After fighting proposed school closures, it’s shocking that we’re losing an elementary school’s worth of students each year because we’re putting adult needs ahead of children and refusing to enroll students in schools with available space.

It is deeply inequitable to limit school choice based on zip codes, parent income, or convenience. The right way to address equity is not by reducing choices and starving popular programs that meet important needs. This problem demands creative, collective solutions. Eliminating dual language, exploratory learning, K-8, advanced math, and Highly Capable programs contradicts SPS values and isn’t real equity. True equity means expanding access to quality programs for historically disadvantaged students, not eliminating them.

I note that what is being said by staff is that they do teacher assignment for the next school year BEFORE enrollment happens. That makes little sense UNLESS you are trying to control who gets into what schools.

Also to state, the enrollment procedure DOES keep sibs together but it's just that the older sib (established at one school) is more likely to have to change to a school where the younger sib is assigned. So the district can say, "Yes, we do keep sibs together" without explaining how hard on families the district makes it. 

Families follow SPS’s process: they apply on time, their chosen school has space, and yet without explanation, their children remain stuck on waitlists that never move. 

What can you do? Stand up. Clearly this drumbeat is being heard.

But we can’t do this alone. We stood together to stop school closures last fall, and we need to continue that momentum. We’re deeply grateful to the parents, teachers, and community members whose advocacy has already made a difference.Your advocacy matters, and we are listening: together we can create the thriving, equitable, and diverse public schools that Seattle’s children deserve.


I do want to point out two things also in the op-ed but not about enrollment.

- "...we’re putting adult needs ahead of children ..." I perceive that comes from the Board's governance system - Student Outcome Focused Governance - because that phrasing gets used there. A lot.

I'm sure A.J. Crabill (Mr. SOFG) would say these two directors are waaaay out of line here. But I would posit that they are actually doing THEIR jobs. Listening to public testimony, reading emails, asking for data, asking about execution of Board policy, are all exactly in their wheelhouse.

- As I wait for the final day of filing for School Board positions, I do want to throw out there that another part of parent advocacy that should happen is to ask organizers for every - single - debate to include a question on SOFG. Something like:

Do you support the current form of Board governance and explain your stance. (For bonus points, ask each candidate what the acronym means.)

This election very much comes down to either supporting that governance or not as it guides what directors do. Clark and Mizrahi may support SOFG in theory but clearly not in practice.

Lastly, I do hope that every candidate for superintendent gets asked the same question at any public forums.