tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post2867000738126535111..comments2024-03-29T02:41:52.718-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: One Way to Get Your Growth Boundaries Ideas to DirectorsMelissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-23330650340696017052013-10-18T10:12:09.551-07:002013-10-18T10:12:09.551-07:00NoJM,
In any and all scenarios, students will be ...NoJM, <br />In any and all scenarios, students will be at John Marshall, over the coming years, there's no way around it. Most interim placements will be 2-3 years, and siting APP MS there would (should) be for 3 years, followed by a move to WP, presumably intact, that would make perfect sense to allow for other buildings to continue to use JM on an interim basis.<br /><br />I don't necessarily buy the argument that APP stays at JM permanently, and I do think that <i>anyone</i> using that building deserves a filtration system (but they are expensive). But <i>by far</i> the best solution for both APP and the rest of the north end, one that spreads the pain and overcrowding while we're waiting for WP to come online, is for APP to move intact to JM for now. <br /><br />The decision of how/where to move them later, or whether to split at <i>that</i> time, will depend HUGELY on the upcoming changes to identification. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to be planning for growth/split to middle school APP right now when the future numbers are dependent on the results of these decisions that won't even be made until several months from now, let alone understanding how they will pan out in real life.dwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-24351986806173057312013-10-17T17:42:06.192-07:002013-10-17T17:42:06.192-07:00The King5 report on JM:
Exhaust, diesel fumes
-n...The King5 report on JM:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.king5.com/news/investigators/Exhaust-diesel-fumes-foul-public-schoolyards-across-Washington-state-222592641.html" rel="nofollow">Exhaust, diesel fumes</a><br /><br />-no JMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-89875384650266630632013-10-17T17:30:34.844-07:002013-10-17T17:30:34.844-07:003. "Proximity to Freeway"?
This has been...<i>3. "Proximity to Freeway"?<br />This has been claimed in the past, but it is an unprincipled argument unless its environmentalist advocates also advocate shutting down TOPS K-8 and John Stanford International School, both of which stand closer to I-5 and go unchallenged.</i><br /><br />Many existing schools have possible health and safety issues, from asbestos to lead paint to earthquake and fire safety. There are risks from many of the buildings simply because they are old. That said, knowingly placing young students a short distance from the freeway, in a location without any air filtration or other mitigation such as a wall or natural barrier or trees is not principled. The district should take air quality measurements and assess the risk. It's a risk not only to children, but to teachers, especially those that are pregnant. It's not a healthy work environment/location. According to the King5 report, one of the existing schools mentioned has added filtration, but not JM.<br /><br />Given it's location, it shouldn't be anything but an interim site, in order to minimize exposure to a given student population. <br /><br />-no JMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-52548700028235045212013-10-17T17:28:49.566-07:002013-10-17T17:28:49.566-07:00apparent-
I posted something similar on the APP b...apparent-<br /><br />I posted something similar on the APP blog about keeping north-end APP MS together at least through the next three year transition. No roll-up <b>anywhere</b>.<br /><br />I don't think the district will go for a stand-alone MS program, but at least keep it together for three years so teachers can have a chance to create curriculum (in the absence of the district doing it--like the current 7th grade APP science teacher did) and mentor all of the new teachers who came on board during the recent growth.<br /><br />LHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-59823208938384693812013-10-17T15:24:52.803-07:002013-10-17T15:24:52.803-07:00On reopening John Marshall Middle School as a full...On reopening John Marshall Middle School as a fully comprehensive middle school now . . .<br /><br />Requesting indulgence for this following post on a very important topic, for speed and efficiency let me try to refute now the most likely objections to *reopening* John Marshall Middle School as its own fully comprehensive middle school asap including the north Seattle APP community intact.<br /><br />1. "Needed as Interim Site"?<br />This has been claimed in the past, but the claim is mathematically incoherent. Every student must be seated somewhere and by definition putting every enrolled MS APP student together with some other program into the reopened John Marshall Middle School will release an exactly equal number of seats elsewhere in the system in whatever school building that can then be released for "interim" use as north seattle school construction projects continue without interruption. Moreover, we should always search for long-term rather than interim capacity solutions: this would remove a major source of neighborhood instability; and if necessary, SPS can find new buildings like the old Mohai museum, the University Heights School Building which they recently sold for $1.00 (like the nearby Ravenna School building around the same time), or rent buildings or use eminent domain as needed for interim use.<br />2. "Won't Solve Capacity Crunch Elsewhere"<br />This has been claimed in the current discussion of alternatives to the draft Intermediate Capacity Plan. This claim too is mathematically incoherent. After reopening John Marshall Middle School, vacated APP seats at Hamilton MS, for example, can obviously be filled by other programs or else adjusting neigborhood boundaries. As one obvious example, keep Laurelhurst Elementary feeding into Hamilton as it does now instead of shifting it to Eckstein under the current proposal, others can easily be devised by the plenty smart SPS planners and engaged community already working on this together.<br />3. "Proximity to Freeway"?<br />This has been claimed in the past, but it is an unprincipled argument unless its environmentalist advocates also advocate shutting down TOPS K-8 and John Stanford International School, both of which stand closer to I-5 and go unchallenged. A counter argument in the environmentalist literature condemns the abandonment of historic school buildings including John Marshall Middle School in favor of constant new construction with major environmental damage. It is also easy to visualize the necessary filtering systems, a solid freeway barrier, and a dense stand of tall columnar trees as obvious measures, maybe with some federal financing?<br />4. "APP Family Approval"?<br />This claim is unsupported by the voices on these threads, and indeed was specfically posed to APP families in the PTA survey taken when previously threatened with splitting: a clear majority (no time to check percentage right now) favored the John Marshall Middle School building over elementary splitting. The same middle school sentiment appears on these threads.<br />5. "Equity"?<br />This claim may be raised, although the decision to keep north Seattle APP ES together at Wilson-Pacific is being made while south Seattle would be split with two additional options. Since enrollment is guaranteed to all qualified students, and a separate task force is now looking and outreach, there is no reason why reopening John Marshall Middle School cannot enhance advanced learning equity in north Seattle.<br /><br />Apart from those above, is there any stronger objection to reopening John Marshall Middle School including north Seattle MS APP intact?apparentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-66471521068840729322013-10-17T13:52:34.123-07:002013-10-17T13:52:34.123-07:00Reopening John Marshall Middle School . . .
"...Reopening John Marshall Middle School . . .<br /><br />"I would rather there be a solution that could keep APP MS together at one site." Eden, 10/17 @12.58am<br /><br />"The SPS staff-calculated capacity for John Marshall:<br />- Housing a middle school program: 952<br />- Housing a K-8 program: 850<br />Happy to share other data info from Capital Planning." Joe Wolf,<br />K-12 Planning Coordinator, SPS, jawolf@seattleschools.org<br /><br />There is indeed one obvious solution that will *permanently* keep all of north Seattle MS APP together at one site, not just on an interim basis. It stares us all in the face, yet only now do we return its gaze.<br /><br />John Marshall was originally built as a middle school and it should be used now to keep all of the north Seattle MS APP together without needlessly splitting this cohort any further. Establishing JM from the outset as its own comprehensive middle school including all of north Seattle APP together with Pinehurst or some other right-sized option program ensures full music, sport, etc., so there will be little attrition or loss of critical academic mass. Like Wilson-Pacific Elementary, John Marshall Middle School is ideally located for families both northeast and northwest.<br /><br />In the long term, a reopened John Marshall Middle School is large enough to include all of the north Seattle MS APP cohort, even accepting the wildly inflated and unsupported number increase projected by SPS (which the board should treat with more than a grain of salt). The revised decision is now being made to maintain the north Seattle ES APP cohort intact at Wilson-Pacific, seemingly meeting with popular approval as evidenced by these threads. SPS will win corresponding popular support for keeping MS APP intact at a revived John Marshall Middle School and thus relieving MS capacity pressure elsewhere throughout all north Seattle neighborhoods.<br /><br />While moving all of north Seattle MS APP to the reopened John Marshall Middle School makes perfect sense as a permanent solution, by keeping the entire cohort and ideally teaching staff intact it would also make sense even as an interim solution in the event that any later move should ever occur. For example, to Wilson-Pacific MS, although SPS staff are not pointing in that direction, nor does there seem to be a continued unified chorus on these threads identifying an intact MS WP cohort as a realistic likelihood since the revised ES WP choice was announced. Yet starting John Marshall Middle School as a (brand?) new (in fact reopened!) comprehensive middle school including the intact APP cohort does not foreclose any such continuing deliberations; rather at a very minimum it buys the district as many years of time as it needs to do this right.<br /><br />Once the necessary decision to reopen John Mashall Middle School now as a comprehensive middle school including APP is made, many if not most of the neighborhood capacity issues raised in these threads will be significantly relieved or sometimes eliminated; and like ES APP the MS APP program will flourish into the future without needless splitting.<br /><br />Because this proposal includes an interim solution within the permanent solution, it is also posted on the current Intermediate Capacity Plan thread. From that revealing thread, Eden and others, thank you for all your hard work modelling these numbers, as evidenced by your after midnight post, but can we all please do this one more time on the revised assumption that John Marshall Middle School is reopened now as a comprehensive middle school including an intact north Seattle APP?<br /><br />Joe Wolf, also from that open thread, thanks so much for reading, chiming in, and helping us out with the numbers, I really hope you and other SPS capacity planners are still reading this, and will bring this proposal to reopen John Marshall Middle School as its own new fully comprehensive MS with you to the work session this afternoon and beyond, and that you will eventually present it as the favored option to the board.apparentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-81048949650396713802013-10-17T11:01:37.019-07:002013-10-17T11:01:37.019-07:00I think that is a good idea. Move leadership from...I think that is a good idea. Move leadership from Ecstein (the principal and music department?) to the new JAMS and aim to split the schools evenly by geography or feeder schools. I think this would make many of the families feel better and help the school to get off the ground running. Susannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-17681050667195792312013-10-17T09:07:29.295-07:002013-10-17T09:07:29.295-07:00What if they moved the head of the music departmen...What if they moved the head of the music department out of Hamilton with all of app to JM? Would people move then?<br /><br /><br />-music momAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-45055471659294749082013-10-17T08:25:13.551-07:002013-10-17T08:25:13.551-07:00"it's too complex to be throughly thought..."it's too complex to be throughly thought out" - I agree Catherine. There will be no perfect plan but there are way to many moving parts here. <br /><br />North Seattle Mom, is also right. I think moving Julie B and also David Elliot at Queen Anne Elementary sent a signal to those communities that the district was sincere in getting it right.<br /><br />Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12588239576000641336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-4566002624892174332013-10-17T06:17:10.626-07:002013-10-17T06:17:10.626-07:00There is a third option to either roll up or hard ...There is a third option to either roll up or hard split. <br /><br />Find someone who is really really important to the over-full school and give them a great incentive to move to the new school. <br /><br />In the case of Eckstein, if the principal, head of the music department, head of the math department or something like that were to go to the new school, then there are families that would follow for that leadership. Leadership matters. <br /><br />When Julie B moved to TM from Lowell, that one move gave families and teachers lots of confidence that it would all work out.<br /><br />Who is the leader at Eckstein that could convince families and teachers that moving to JAMS is good for everyone. <br /><br />- north seattle momAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-22927354221711771822013-10-16T23:14:24.911-07:002013-10-16T23:14:24.911-07:00I think the plan is a disaster on two fronts - fir...I think the plan is a disaster on two fronts - first - it's too complex to be throughly thought out and will have affects not anticipated and need tuning in timeframes that aren't possible. Secondly, it feels like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. A district spokesperson is quoted "There are too many students and not enough seats," Sorry... I forgot the name. So... it doesn't really matter where seats are created... current schools, or shuffled locations. Why go through the pain of 95% of these shuffles. <br /><br />Here's my suggestion - source totally different portables (they're available, other districts use them,, this one just can't source their way out of a paper bag). Portables... with windows... and heaters that both work and don't wake the neighbors up at 3am (and disrupt class during the day)... and good lighting, and connect them to a central bathroom pod (these are available and in the scheme of this mess, not that expensive to plumb). Add portable farms to solve 95% of these space issues. Then.. adjust carefully the 5% that can't be fixed this way. And build what needs to be built. Sure some central service areas will have to be more creatively used - but with the packaged lunches the kids get now... perhaps K-1 should stay in their classrooms for lunch. Or do what they did for baby boomers - 4 lunch periods at some schools. It can be done - and frankly I think with a lot better results than plan 1 or plan 2. <br /><br />Also, any district staffer and board member who was around for the right sizing fiasco, led by corporate interests I should add, must retire. This boundary mess is a symptom. They're notoriously bad with numbers, and with a math equation this complex.. okay it's really algebra... they're doomed to fail this test too.Catherinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-26126919664978776332013-10-16T22:58:39.833-07:002013-10-16T22:58:39.833-07:00Thanks for your post, uncertain. Who knew that op...Thanks for your post, uncertain. Who knew that opening a new middle school (which should be a good think overall, right?) would be so difficult! No easy answers. You may be right that a complete separation is best. The bigger the JAMS attendance area, the easier the separation would be. As it is, I fear the group is too small, and kids leaving Eckstein for JAMS will be among a very small minority. If 1/3 of the kids were leaving together, it wouldn't feel so sad. (I think that's why some impacted families would agree that all of APP should leave HIMS together -- at least the entire cohort would be together!) <br /><br />Wishing for a magic solution here . . .<br /><br />--hopefulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-21220239825178555122013-10-16T22:36:12.519-07:002013-10-16T22:36:12.519-07:00@hopeful - sorry. I feel like I've read people...@hopeful - sorry. I feel like I've read people saying that of course they think the roll-up is bad but something's got to be done, but don't take my kid out of their school. I took it out on you. not ok. really, angry at the district for not seeing this coming and planning ahead.<br /><br />I do think that creating an entire JAMS 6/7/8 by moving kids from Eckstein ends up being a better solution because of the district resources that travel with those kids. Opening JAMS with more kids and kids across all grades, will mean enough resources and students onsite to become a comprehensive middle school. And moving a larger group will lessens their hardship. Seems the schools could have some joint events (even joint graduation) to lessen the sting of having to move 8th grade students out. <br /><br />-uncertainAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-44235364517925978422013-10-16T21:56:01.092-07:002013-10-16T21:56:01.092-07:00Uncertain - I'm not sure if you are criticizin...Uncertain - I'm not sure if you are criticizing what I wrote or just expressing anger generally. I didn't mean to imply that a roll up is ok as long as it's not my kid. I don't like them for any kid, but with a brand new middle schools (JAMS), it's either roll-up, or pull kids out of existing programs, right? (I can't think of a third option - can you?) I think both ideas are terrible, and as between both evils, I would usually chose pulling out all kids (all grades) to start the new school - hands down. However, in this case, there is a very unusual opportunity for a roll-up to occur alongside an existing middle school program - JAK8. In this unusual case, I think a roll-up is not as terrible as it would otherwise be. I could live with it if it were my kid. I have a lot of respect for the JAK8 program and know several middle schoolers there who are thriving and whose families love it there, so do I think it is terrible to consider JAMS attendance area kids attending middle school alongside those K8 kids? No, I don't. It would all be in how those two programs combine for certain things (music, sports, etc) or don't. <br /><br />You are entitled to your own opinion, of course. I'm no expert here, and there is no ideal outcome. I was just expressing my opinion. If you feel strongly that it would be better to pull all JAMS kids out of Eckstein at once, then I hope you express that view.<br /><br />Hoping we can all steer clear of personal attacks here. <br /><br /><br />--hopefulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-58093879854528403062013-10-16T21:23:34.844-07:002013-10-16T21:23:34.844-07:00It's not that the elementary schools within a ...It's not that the elementary schools within a middle school area all have the same instruction - it's that with a feeder pattern the middle schools needs to harmonize across fewer different elementary school.<br /><br />One other interesting tid-bit. I never realized there is an issue about enrollment size, and what a big problem it is to have a building with excess capacity. Each enrolled student brings money to the school, so if you have a big school without a lot of students the school is missing out on resources that would come with the additional students. Not only is there money, there is staff associated with school size. For example, once you get past 400 (?) the school gets both a principal and an associated principal. This is the problem for BF Day. They need a somewhat bigger boundary to fill and bring money for more programs. I wish BF Day reps had gotten a chance to speak tonight. <br /><br />-uncertain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-430367644063909102013-10-16T21:08:44.973-07:002013-10-16T21:08:44.973-07:00Uncertain, that is interesting. I never knew why t...Uncertain, that is interesting. I never knew why they used the feeder school pattern. The odd thing is that would mean each school in the feeder area would have similar instruction and curriculum. I can't imagine that being much different than geographic boundaries. Oh well, weird, not probably working out as expected, but interesting info.<br /><br />I don't know why they don't get rid of guaranteed assignment. You could be in a sort of cluster based on address with a guarantee of, say, 1 of 2 schools. Distance could be tie breaker.Clnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-39751473180498245822013-10-16T20:37:44.410-07:002013-10-16T20:37:44.410-07:00@hopeful - the only way a roll-up *might* seem pal...@hopeful - the only way a roll-up *might* seem palatable if it is *not your kid* being rolled up. No way to the roll ups. They are such a bad idea, I don't think they'll actually happen. <br /><br />Yanking a kid out of school. Tearing a kid out of school. Well, if you are splitting a school, and you bring a big enough cohort, everyone suffers, but everyone has a friend too. It's hard, but it's not hard like - your kid doesn't have a comprehensive middle school experience hard. The era of grandfathering may be over. The problems are too big. We can't all share in the pain *except for my kid*. <br /><br />Regarding geographic splits for middle school just like high school: apparently that is difficult because it makes it hard to pitch instruction correctly when kids are coming from different schools. What that tells you is that different schools are doing different things - different text books etc. If instruction was consistent across Seattle schools then use of geographic boundaries rather than middle school feeders wouldn't be an issue. (Heck, all this wrangling over schools wouldn't be an issue.) Geographic boundaries will exacerbate the problem of sending a school with (potentially) few friends for schools near middle school boundaries.<br /><br />-uncertainAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-83056373151911188722013-10-16T20:30:42.884-07:002013-10-16T20:30:42.884-07:00JM,
No need for the hateful rhetoric, really. And...JM,<br /><br />No need for the hateful rhetoric, really. And I am unclear what you or the Lincoln community did for my kids' class. This all seems to be up to the winds of politics downtown. Don't make it sound like you were out banging a drum or that the school rallied around a cause. Most parents didn't even know what was happening. We're all being screwed over - but I think my kids' class has had enough. Happy to help you argue for more support for the roll up. I guess I wish I had the low moral fiber to anonymously slam people on a blog, but I guess I'm just not made that way. <br /><br />I really hope it works out for your family.<br /><br />6th grade Hawk parentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-9187443628623569872013-10-16T20:11:53.840-07:002013-10-16T20:11:53.840-07:00Hopeful, I actually can't take credit for this...Hopeful, I actually can't take credit for this, it is from a fellow NE elementary and HIMS APP parent "Sea of Schools". I agree it seems like a good proposal, and to 6th Grade hawk parent, I am right there with you except that my child is currently in 7th Grade APP so would, under this plan be spilt off for the final middle school year. Not ideal, but if an annex couldn't work and a community of learners with similar needs could be established at John Marshall and HIMS by next year. I am all for it. <br /><br />HIMS 7th Grade FamilyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-78381979167693416712013-10-16T19:56:12.323-07:002013-10-16T19:56:12.323-07:00To HIMS 7th grade family - I like your suggestion ...To HIMS 7th grade family - I like your suggestion as it applies to APP, JAMS, and JAK8. (I don't know enough about the other schools involved to speak one way or the other as to how your plan impacts them.) I hate roll ups, and I also hate tearing kids away from existing programs (thinking of the JAMS kids here), but the roll up is palatable if done alongside the K8 so there would be a solid body of middle schoolers on-site. I think it's the best idea. My one tweak would be that APP 6/7/8 should stay at Lincoln/annex to HIMS if at all possible (rather than interim at John Marshall). Interim at John Marshall as second choice. But keep 6/7/8 together for sure. <br /><br />Thanks for your thoughtful proposal.<br />--hopefulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-24212681476440657132013-10-16T19:41:38.626-07:002013-10-16T19:41:38.626-07:006th grade hawk parent, your kid is only at Hamilto...6th grade hawk parent, your kid is only at Hamilton since the APP @ Lincoln community fought hard last year for you to not be subjected to a roll-up at John Marshall. So, now that we fought hard for you, you'll just leave our kids to languish? I wish I had had a low enough moral fiber to have petitioned for your kid starting the roll-up last year so mine would have benefited, but I wasn't made that way. <br /><br />I'm glad you benefited from the community. I imagine we will make it through without your support. JMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-18451361604952132672013-10-16T19:01:55.809-07:002013-10-16T19:01:55.809-07:00As the parent of an APP 6th grader at HIMS, I say ...As the parent of an APP 6th grader at HIMS, I say no to pulling them all out. This class has had enough transition. Everyone else in the district gets to grandfather in to their school - that is for good reason, and it applies even to unpopular APP kids. There is a reason you finish out at the school. I'm sorry that the next class will have pain, but that pain should be mitigated by the district sweetening the pot of the rollup, not on the backs of the current HIMS 6th and 7th graders, just so that the 6th graders have older kids with them. There is no advantage to the older kids. I hate that it has come to this - class against class, program against program. but this class has been split in 1st grade, then moved, then had all sorts of uncertainty - until the end of JUNE when we finally got the letter from Banda they were going to HIMS. Enough is enough. Let them stay at HIMS. Share the pain.<br />6th grade Hawk parentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-76714672688507613922013-10-16T18:49:37.820-07:002013-10-16T18:49:37.820-07:00When APP North kids were moved from Washington it ...When APP North kids were moved from Washington it was as a sizable 6-7-8 with APP experienced teachers. There was no grandfathering. Thus, a stable nucleus was in place to establish a new site for the program.<br /><br />All these various roll-up and multi-split proposals are very bad for the kids!<br /><br />The sixth-grade academy idea is not good for APP kids, or WP kids or JAMS kids. It is not a comprehensive experience and doesn't provide an experience like a kid going to a normal middle school like Eckstein or Mercer would get, with languages, sports, music, etc. This is not equity.<br /><br />Reject the roll-up. Move as an entire founder population of 6-7-8 with the teachers that know the kids and the APP curriculum.<br /><br />open earsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-31613713680996349212013-10-16T17:47:30.550-07:002013-10-16T17:47:30.550-07:00Reposting this proposal from another thread (from ...Reposting this proposal from another thread (from poster Sea of Schools)<br /><br />Even though I am in the group with an APP 6th grader subjected to the spilt and the move, keeping any portion of APP at HIMS is a bad capacity decision and continues a bad practice of having so many programs housed at a single building. And as another commenter mentioned above, flipping teachers from general ed to APP and vice versa as was the case for many this year does not help stability and the development of a stable program. Having an APP site elsewhere will help HIMS serve Language Immersion and the neighborhood far better than it is currently able to. <br /><br />For the NE, the JAMS middle school roll up is a terrible mistake as no 7th and 8th graders are likely to opt out and if they do, they will come to a one classroom per grade "comprehensive" school. While some portables would be required, a blended MS approach could be used to a point until JA K-8 moves out in 2016 and all grades are established at JAMS.<br /><br />This proposal would also eliminate the Wilson-Pacific roll up for ALL students. <br /><br />Under my proposal for North End assignment feeder patterns (incorporating most suggestions given here):<br /><br />Next Year-2014<br />-Move all HIMS APP to John Marshall (Grades 6, 7, and 8)<br />-Move Bagley and Greenwood Elementary (as proposed in Round 1) to HIMS Service Area, filling some of the available capacity, increased language immersion numbers will account for the empty space in the long term.<br />-Begin roll up of JAMS alongside JA K-8 onsite with John Rogers, Cedar Park/Olympic Hills, and Olympic View (proposed area). No 7th and 8th grade option, you could join the K-8 however.<br />-Broadview Thomson K-8 would be reassigned back to Whitman AA with no impact<br />-Temporarily hold Northgate Elementary, Sacajawea, and Wedgwood in current feeder patterns until 2016.<br /><br />2015-2016<br />-Continue to roll up of JAMS with Grade 7 added<br /><br />2016-2017 School Year<br />-Move JA K-8 to new site at Pinehurst<br />-Establish stand-alone site for JAMS in Grades 6, 7, and 8 (integrate Sacajawea, Northgate, and Wedgwood-if needed to JAMS)<br /><br />2017-2018 School Year<br />-Open the Wilson-Pacific Middle School site (determine if an all APP move is the correct choice at that time and determine if additional space is available for another program)<br /><br />If you have any other questions or comments, please comment! I would like to circulate this proposal among the entire north end staff and family communities, to see if it is viable for implementation.<br /><br />HIMS 7th Grade FamilyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-4586754972198180482013-10-16T17:33:02.438-07:002013-10-16T17:33:02.438-07:00Agree. Split Eckstein to start JAMS. My child woul...Agree. Split Eckstein to start JAMS. My child would be yanked out but he'll be better off without the impossibly overcrowded halls and windowless bug-infested portables. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com