tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post6128024011594004007..comments2024-03-28T02:21:17.452-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: New BEX IV ScenarioMelissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-82831036587383926432018-05-07T02:07:04.505-07:002018-05-07T02:07:04.505-07:00The physician will work together with you to creat...The physician will work together with you to create a sustainable treatment plan that supports you on the path of wellness. <b><a href="http://greenleafhealthcare.org/naturopathicprimary-care/" rel="nofollow">IV therapy Seattle </a> </b>nickmiddleton010https://www.blogger.com/profile/16701534760902792410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-74519653164423549152012-04-30T11:29:29.812-07:002012-04-30T11:29:29.812-07:00JA Parent, I didn't mean to disparage JA's...JA Parent, I didn't mean to disparage JA's program, I think it's a great one. I'm just saying that could be why they're thinking you guys will be OK in a smaller building, since your numbers aren't exploding.<br /><br />-Incoming ParentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-79893721528818453082012-04-27T12:17:08.672-07:002012-04-27T12:17:08.672-07:00By the way, South End Parent, when the general edu...By the way, South End Parent, when the general education program at Thurgood Marshall is just one class per grade, with whom will the teachers collaborate? With whom will they share their assessment of student work? Will all of the students in that program have the same classmates for six years? Is 120 students enough of a critical mass to form a professional learning community?Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-9787388818193261292012-04-27T12:14:30.895-07:002012-04-27T12:14:30.895-07:00Wow, South End Parent. Do you think I have horns a...Wow, South End Parent. Do you think I have horns and a tail?<br /><br />In my "rush to kick the diverse gen ed program out of thurgood". Nice way to characterize it. Was there a rush to kick APP out of Lowell, the school that had been theirs for fifteen years? I don't remember you characterizing it that way. Please remind me.<br /><br />Try this: there is a problem. I'm looking for a solution. I'm looking for the most acceptable and least disruptive solution.<br /><br />Some people are denying that there's a problem. Are you one of them?<br /><br />Some people are looking for a solution which is less disruptive for a few students even if it is more disruptive for three times as many other students. Are you one of them?<br /><br />So your proposal is that the PEACE academy leaves. Okay. Then what do we do when families in the Thurgood Marshall attendance area actually start accepting the default assignment to the school - or do you think that there are only 120 school-age students living in that attendance area?Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-45585599733025308812012-04-27T09:27:23.162-07:002012-04-27T09:27:23.162-07:00Charlie -- in your rush to kick the diverse gen ed...Charlie -- in your rush to kick the diverse gen ed program out of thurgood, you are ignoring the fact that there are currently 3 populations at Thurgood. The 25 student PEACE academy (not neighborhood kids but they deserve a good, stable centrally located home) currently occupies 4 full classrooms plus a therapy room. Reducing Thurgood to just 2 programs by relocating the PEACE academy would provide room for over 100 more general ed and APP students without kicking out any neighborhood kids or redrawing of boundaries. It is troubling that the district ignored concerns expressed 4 years ago that Thurgood would be overcrowded with 3 programs. More thoughtful planning would have co-housed 2 programs <br />at thurgood Marshall and not 3. It seems you want to get rid of cohousing at thurgood instead of figuring out ways to keep a good thing going. <br />- south end parentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-78434138098856818182012-04-27T08:35:20.502-07:002012-04-27T08:35:20.502-07:00@JA Parent:
I completely agree that the Cedar Par...@JA Parent:<br /><br />I completely agree that the Cedar Park move will overall be a good thing. I question the district's ability and will to follow through with it, though. In two months we've heard of around four proposals. They need to publicly commit to this latest one. In writing.Another JA Parentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-21906245453508402312012-04-27T08:08:52.485-07:002012-04-27T08:08:52.485-07:00Charlie, how many APP kids from the McClure cluste...Charlie, how many APP kids from the McClure cluster will that be? Also given it's DeBell's voter base, do you think it's possible to send these kids South? Presently, L @ L and Hamilton is a lot closer commute and thus easier to be part of the community than TM and Washington given the mess downtown construction is these days. <br /><br />mag momAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-82293555287126298862012-04-27T07:42:43.294-07:002012-04-27T07:42:43.294-07:00Enrollment numbers for Lowell are difficult to und...Enrollment numbers for Lowell are difficult to understand because they are sometimes for "Lowell at Lincoln", sometimes for "Lowell-Capitol Hill", and sometimes for all of Lowell, combining the two campuses.<br /><br />This is still regarded by the district as one school in two locations.<br /><br />I have been told that the enrollment at Lowell at Lincoln this year is 431 and that the projected enrollment for Lowell at Lincoln next year is something like 480. This is, of course, just a projection.<br /><br />Let's remember also that APP students from the McClure service area are now assigned to Lowell at Lincoln, the northern part of the program, instead of Thurgood Marshall in the southern part of the program. If the District had an interest in balancing the cohorts, they would re-direct the McClure service area students to the southern location.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-89824899041472925952012-04-27T07:07:51.464-07:002012-04-27T07:07:51.464-07:00Splitting north-end elementary APP into two cohort...Splitting north-end elementary APP into two cohorts would not slow the growth of the program but speed it. With two locations the assigned school would be closer to students' homes and more eligible students would participate thanks to the proximity.<br /><br />Any talk of splitting the program into two cohorts, each co-housed with an option program presumes the availability of a building for this co-housed school to occupy. <b>There are no such buildings.</b> There is no existing option program in a building with 250 available seats. This solution requires the creation of a new school and a new option program. The two best spots for such schools would be the new school building proposed for Wilson in the northwest and the new school building proposed for the Thornton Creek campus in the northeast. The District needs the new Thornton Creek building as an attendance area school. Right now they have 300 students from that overcrowded area leaving it to go to school. They do not want to bring them back to take up seats that they need for other students from that area.<br /><br />The suggestion that Wilson could be the location for the northeast and that SLU (if any such school is built) or Magnolia (the only other available site - at a cost of over $20 million) would work for the northwest could only be made by someone who never had to stop for the Ballard bridge.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-41277818719326520812012-04-27T06:53:01.813-07:002012-04-27T06:53:01.813-07:00Co-housing is not a zero sum game asked: "Cha...Co-housing is not a zero sum game asked: "<i>Charlie - why do you say Wilson pacific is the only possible building for APP north - Lowell at Lincoln?</i>"<br /><br />Because there literally are no other acceptable options. There is no other building with the right size and location for a one-school solution. Lincoln and John Marshall are needed as interim locations for the next five years and then Lincoln will be needed as a high school. And a two-school solution would require finding two buildings - one in the northeast and one in the northwest - of the right size and location. While Wilson could be the school for the northwest, there is no space available in the northeast. I suppose that a Magnolia/Wilson plan is theoretically possible, but it is a terrible solution while using just Wilson is a much better one.<br /><br />Your proposal won't work. Count the butts and seats. The APP students from the McClure and Hamilton service areas at the SLU school is a much smaller cohort than the APP students from the Whitman, Pacific, Eckstein, and Addams service areas that you would gather together in Wilson. Certainly not half and half.<br /><br />APP south may be happy with the co-housing model at Thurgood Marshall but it is completely unsustainable. The school is already adding two portables and there aren't any attendance area students there. They are on the exact same path as Lowell. The exact same capacity crisis is coming.<br /><br />Do I really think the district would allow APP to kick out the low income minority kids from a school named after Thurgood Marshall to make room exclusively for APP kids? Yes, I do. There is no other option. Should the District move 300 kids out of the building and leave it empty (see Lowell) or should the District move 100 kids out of the building and leave it full? If the goal is to disrupt the least number of students then it is the general education population that should leave - especially since they have access to a large number of available seats nearby. You can play racist and classist games by dividing them between APP and "low income minority kids", but they are all kids.<br /><br />I'm not resistant to considering the co-housing model. It would take a school with a capacity of at least 700 and it would have to be with an option program rather than an attendance area program. It might be able to work with a smaller building if the co-housed program were one that can operate with less than a full size cohort because they can form a learning community with APP. This would be a Spectrum program or a Montessori program. There are no suitable buildings for such a co-housing situation.<br /><br /><br />Co-housing is not a zero sum game wrote: "<i>Thurgood Marshall can hold 2 co-housed groups.</i>"<br /><br />No. It can't. That statement is simply false. They are adding portables for next year and will soon explode.<br /><br />I assure you that the ALPTF is not being "quick to kick out the general education classrooms". The Task Force has made no such decision. We haven't even discussed the idea. I assure you that the ALPTF has considered the benefits of co-housing. We would love to do it, but it simply isn't on the menu. We cannot place programs without buildings and there are no such buildings.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-50659036374678763832012-04-27T06:19:06.400-07:002012-04-27T06:19:06.400-07:00Lori - no one said L@L had 550 this year. Two peo...Lori - no one said L@L had 550 this year. Two people used Lowell PTA's own taking points to say Lowell has been predicting 550 for next year, not this year. This prediction was posted on lowell's web site for a long time in its talking points, and this document was distributed widely to the parents and others in the district as talking points for the BEX 4 meetings. 425 still sounds low for this year - sounds like you were guessing based on low assumptions for average class size. The numbers are out and the Lowell PTA could easily provide this year's numbers and next year's.<br />-- SPS parentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-10776198343113105172012-04-27T00:43:38.707-07:002012-04-27T00:43:38.707-07:00Hi Jan,
To clarify, the concern from many at Arbor...Hi Jan,<br />To clarify, the concern from many at Arbor Heights Elementary is not the idea that the school will be rebuilt--it's the timeline of when they are proposing to do so--not opening until 2018. (although in the first round of BEX options did not include AH at all in one of the 3 options but that's another story). Regarding this current scenario in West Seattle, an AH rebuild would come *after* opening Fairmont Park in 2014, a rebuild of Genesee Hill for Schmitz Park in 2015, and opening Hughes in 2016. My issue is strictly with the fact that considering the dire condition of the AH building now, that a rebuild can not wait until 2018.<br /><br />I know I don't want to move Arbor Heights to the interim site at Boren (let alone co-house 2 elementary schools at Boren as was suggested in a previous comment in regards to having AH and STEM there together). As we wait for a rebuild. Our wish would be:<br />1. AH rebuilt by 2015<br />2. Remain in our current building while the new building is constructed adjacent to it.<br /><br />I hope that helps clarify what my concerns for Arbor Heights here were.<br /><br />I was reading Charlie's comment about "students without classrooms" to be talking only about students *in West Seattle schools* specifically, not APP or in other areas. Not sure if I misunderstood as he said...<br /><br />"I know that the building at Arbor Heights is dreadful, but the District needs to take care of students who have no classroom before they take care of students who have a crappy one. The students with no classroom have first dibs on the interim space at Boren." <br /><br />AHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-31060793553342794472012-04-26T23:19:07.730-07:002012-04-26T23:19:07.730-07:00About K enrollment at the K-8 schools, Jane Addams...About K enrollment at the K-8 schools, Jane Addams has 3 K classrooms while TOPS, Pathfinder, and Salmon Bay all have only 2. Additionally, JA is only 2 years old while the others are much more established. JA has an excellent program, and is becoming known as a desirable school.<br /><br />I think the move will be good for us. There is mention of building our own outdoor environmental learning center & greenhouse. The parent community is hugely involved and everyone works hard to make this a quality school (ie. lots of volunteer hours).<br /><br />JA parentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-64197665869154511932012-04-26T23:14:37.994-07:002012-04-26T23:14:37.994-07:00Lowell Watcher and SPS Parent, I'm a L@L paren...Lowell Watcher and SPS Parent, I'm a L@L parent who is trying to follow the issues closely. I'm not sure why people think that there are 550 students there this year, which is what someone claimed earlier in the thread and I was trying to clarify.<br /><br />There are in fact 17 APP classrooms at L@L this year, and each has 20-some kids in it. <br /><br />I didn't say 425 was the precise number, but it's in that ballpark given the number of classes and the number of kids per class. Some classes have 23-24 kids, while others have 26-28. No class that I know of has more than 30 kids in it. <br /><br />Someone calling themselves "co-housing" said that L@L has 550 kids this year with more coming next year. That's just not true. There are not 550 kids there this year. And, as families heard this week, there will not be 550 kids there next year either. It sounds like there won't even be 500 kids next year. I trust the source of the latest numbers, and I know it's a lot lower than what was originally projected. <br /><br />I'm sorry if I caused confusion. At the end of the day, the take-home message is that none of us know how many APP kids there will be in 2017 when/if the program moves into a new building at Wilson Pacific. Claims that the program will be too big to fit into a 650-student building 5 years from now seem premature to me.Lorihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777580098975083499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-71678879698072982022012-04-26T23:10:31.252-07:002012-04-26T23:10:31.252-07:00As a north end app parent, I would never say what ...As a north end app parent, I would never say what is best for south app. As a general app parent, however, I would support what they say is best for their population and help them fight for it when it comes time. Regardless if it's what we have or not.Dorisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-76553016735943994782012-04-26T22:46:04.919-07:002012-04-26T22:46:04.919-07:00I have had some thoughts rattling around about a
L...I have had some thoughts rattling around about a<br />L this. One is that if you look at the wait list data for this year, Jane Addams has a wait list for kindergarten of only 13 kids, compared with a wait list of 62 at TOPS, 54 at Salmon Bay, 45 at Pathfinder, and 34 at South Shore (so, comparing it with other K-8s). People aren't choosing JA at the rate that they are choosing other option schools. Maybe the district looked at that data and decided JA doesn't need the amount of space they have now and their needs can be met in a smaller building?<br /><br />I am not super jazzed about SLU either, but I have an idea for it: put the entire APP cohort back together in the SLU building. I was in the APP program as a kid back when it was IPP and it was at Madrona, and back then we had all sorts of problems with it being cohoused. So, put the APP program solely in its own building, centrally located, with easy access to museums and other enrichment stuff, and voila, APP in SLU. And if they ever do have enough kids living downtown to need a building, which I doubt (how many 3 bedroom condos/apartments are there downtown for under a million bucks?) then they have one...but in the meantime, Wilson Pacific can be used to help with crowding up north, and APP gets reunited in a central location. Plus, it goes with the theme of putting everything back like it was before the last round of closures. Short of that, an SLU building is a total boondoggle in my opinion.<br /><br />I also don't get the plan to leave Thorton Creek in that tiny building that they have already outgrown, while the neighborhood kids get a brand new building on the same site. TC is already half in portables, they deserve a building that meets their needs. How u fair will it seem to the kids in that program to watch a new building being out up on their campus while they walk into their portables?<br /><br />One thought about North Beach: if it gets expanded, I would expect the to absorb some of the Broadview-Thomson reference area--the rich part by the water--which means B-T would have more space...for when Charlie's nightmare of half the North APP cohort going to BT and half at Lowell comes to fruition.<br /><br />The good news is, my kid got into Queen Anne and they will probably get an addition...about the time his younger sister is in first grade there.<br /><br />-Incoming ParentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-63227427558769313522012-04-26T22:17:12.275-07:002012-04-26T22:17:12.275-07:00Lori --
Lowell's "Talking points around ...Lori -- <br />Lowell's "Talking points around capacity and APP" sent to Lowell families and posted on the PTA web site prior to the BEX 4 public meetings says, "Lowell is expected to have 550 students next year." If enrollment really came in 70 kids lower than projections, that is a huge difference, particularly since by April Lowell knew how many kids tested in & toured. If as you claim L@L only has 425 kids this year. (sounds low) and they were projecting 550 kids as recently as early April, that is a 30% projected annual increase - huge even by Lowell standards. <br />-- SPS parentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-27721779126048711832012-04-26T21:25:44.455-07:002012-04-26T21:25:44.455-07:00Lori - L@L has been projecting 550 for next year f...Lori - L@L has been projecting 550 for next year for several months now. Perhaps you have the latest enrollment figures issued last week and they are a full 70 kids lower than projections -- that is quite a big swing. <br />-- Lowell watcherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-32829715513147454252012-04-26T21:19:45.619-07:002012-04-26T21:19:45.619-07:00I am confused, AH. I totally agree with you that A...I am confused, AH. I totally agree with you that Arbor Heights needs to be redone, but I thought that WAS in the plan. Is there a plan that leaves Arbor Heights in its current condition? <br /><br />The students "without a classroom" are the northend APP kids, who were co-housed at Lowell (against everyone's better advice, but MGJ made it a policy to NOT listen to folks who actually knew anything) with a neighborhood. Within 2 years, although it had been APP's "home" for more than a decade, the Lowell building booted APP out. They are now "temporarily" at Lincoln -- but with nowhere, NOwhere as a permanent home, either to go to or return to. They will never fit back into Lowell, unless the neighborhood program left, which it will never be asked to do to make room for APP (especially since it is not even the right part of town for the northend kids). To make room in the first place for the attendance area program, MGJ had already broken apart the program, sending the south end kids to TM (while ignoring all the promises made in the process, like the one for a written, tested curriculum), and leaving the "silliness" of a northend program south of the ship canal. Now that they are actually NORTH of the canal, it is going to be even more absurd to try to "relocate" them south again -- but, of course, there is nowhere for them to go, on a permanent basis, in the north end. <br /><br />All kids in schools being completely torn down and redone (which is what Arbor Heights seems to need, right?) spend a year or two at an "interim site." Mine did the trek from the CD to Lincoln for 2 years while Garfield was being rebuilt, as did the Roosevelt and Ballard kids before them. Isn't that all Charlie is talking about? What am I missing?Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09923777229601243321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-63981654779803034292012-04-26T20:14:18.747-07:002012-04-26T20:14:18.747-07:00.."co-housing at new SLU school"
Look, ....."co-housing at new SLU school"<br /><br />Look, APP is not going to continue to be this movable feast. Eventually co-housed schools (if there are 2 north and 2 south) will outgrow their buildings and then where? Split them again? <br /><br />I ask you - who wants to co-house with APP? A forced marriage is not the way to do it.Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12588239576000641336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-23728904765525523732012-04-26T19:47:03.534-07:002012-04-26T19:47:03.534-07:00Regarding Arbor Heights and BEX IV, I understand t...Regarding Arbor Heights and BEX IV, I understand that SPS is approaching the options planning with the first priority of dealing with capacity issues as the number one priority. However, health and safety should not have to take a second seat to capacity. SPS needs to deal with capacity and health and safety simultaneously. <br /><br />Overcrowded schools are a major problem, no question. But who are the "students without a classroom" that Charlie is referring to?? As uncomfortable and unacceptable as over-crowding in certain west Seattle schools is, there are not public school students that are sitting on the sidewalk without a placement in their reference school. There are however students at Arbor Heights Elementary sitting everyday in a school with mold, water that is not potable, exposed and frayed pipe insulation, portable classrooms with poor ventilation, deteriorated asbestos, and standing water beneath. A failing boiler that is in such bad shape that classrooms are in the low 50's in the winter, and blinds that are so broken and inadequate that if the school went on lockdown can't even cover the windows to follow protocol.<br /><br />Charlie wrote about the re-build of Genessee Hill for Schmitz Park happening earlier in the timeline so that Schmitz Park would not have to use the interim site at Boren. But then writes that it is worth discussion for Arbor Heights to be housed at the interim site at Boren, and even co-housed with another elementary at that interim site. Why?? What in the world is going on here?? This is unacceptable to me. <br /><br />I am a mom of two fantastic children. Arbor Heights is our neighborhood school, and that's where I want both my kids to be--in Public school, in my neighborhood. Isn't this the goal? Isn't this what I am supposed to want? SPS is losing neighborhood kids left and right in Arbor Heights because of the condition of the building. We should be spending our time advocating for a better math curriculum, up-to-date technology, special programs, and enrichments. Yet here we are having to expend our energy advocating for the most basic need: a safe and heathy building. Advocating for a priority re-build of a school that is undeniably, unequivocally, and extensively documented to be one of the worst buildings in the entire Seattle school district.<br /><br />AHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-68832268293182960262012-04-26T18:11:10.647-07:002012-04-26T18:11:10.647-07:00Cont'd:
All in all, while population growth ca...Cont'd:<br />All in all, while population growth can always cause pressure, I think that co-housing with any other program that cannot be totally controlled (in terms of population) is hazardous for <br />APP, as the District (and many non-APP families) bear the program such ill-will. And, if it is an option spectrum program -- even the ability to control size may be insufficient, given the animus of many families towards APP.<br /><br />If the District really wanted to take pressure off APP, they would reinvigorate Spectrum as a viable, attractive model that produces significant acceleration for spectrum qualified students in a number of north-end schools. THAT, I think, would allow many families who do not want their "gifted" children separated from their neighborhood schools to keep them there -- while taking the growth pressure off of APP and giving accelerated families a greater range of choices. But I am not holding my breath.<br /><br />I am curious, though. If you were going to "cohouse" APP in the north end -- how would you propose to do it? Which schools would you co-house with? Partly, I am concerned that even now, the rigor of APP may be being compromised by wildly high staff turnover the past few years at Lowell, combined with the split from TM and the district's utter failure to keep its promises on curriculum. I am concerned that further splitting the program will continue to isolate the teachers attempting to ramp up their work with a unique population with very different learning styles and needs, and will degrade the quality of the teaching that goes on. (I confess, though -- this is all speculative. I have no concrete evidence (other than an indication that fewer of these kids qualify for some of the most rigorous private schools -- such as Lakeside -- than qualified a few years back, and even that is sort of hearsay).Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09923777229601243321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-78030869928474604472012-04-26T18:10:51.753-07:002012-04-26T18:10:51.753-07:00Cohousing is not a game:
Hmm. Good points, all. ...Cohousing is not a game:<br /><br />Hmm. Good points, all. Here are my thoughts (but I defer to both you and Charlie, who seem much more deft with these numbers:<br /><br />1. Control of numbers: APP is odd here, in that a number of things go into the possible number of qualified and attending kids. First, while in once sense, admission to the "program" is guaranteed -- they can play (and have in the past played) with qualification threshold. This doesn't seem to be the thread to debate whether the bar should be higher, lower, is just right, or should be calculated on different tests. But -- there is that, if the numbers get too out of hand. From my perspective, I am most concerned that the "group of kids" (however you define them) for whom giftedness truly means that they cannot be reasonably served in a regular/differentiated program -- and who need a cohort of similarly gifted kids in order to learn well -- get that. I will defer to others on what that group is -- I only know it DOES exist, as I have seen with my own eyes some of those kids fail in regular classes and thrive in APP. (And I concur that SOME of them seem to do great in other places -- but not all of them, and we owe ALL of them a shot at reaching their potential).<br /><br />Setting aside tinkering with the admissions criteria, the other two factors for SNAPP seem to be:<br />(2) negative effects of fiddling with/dismantling Spectrum programs that have served some APP qualified kids well in the past and allowed them to attend neighborhood schools, and (3) moving the program north -- so that a chunk of kids whose parents simply refused to bus them to Lowell (and either kept them in local Spectrum programs, or went private, or homeschooled, or whatever) now choose to send them to APP north. To the extent that these things have put pressure on the growth of the population -- they are finite. If 40% of north APP kids went to Lowell (I am making up numbers here, to argue the point), and now 75% go to L@L, because it is more accessible -- I don't know whether a move to Wilson Pacific will hold that number, or move it slightly up or down. But at some point, SNAPP will have captured all of the increase that there is to be captured by a north move (the rest are parents who still want the local neighborhood school, or a private school -- and are not inclined to make a switch based on the program's migration north. <br /><br />cont'dJanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09923777229601243321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-74085930375573315582012-04-26T17:57:44.593-07:002012-04-26T17:57:44.593-07:00From 425 to 480 is two+ classes, that's still ...From 425 to 480 is two+ classes, that's still over 10% growth. My guess is that the uncertainty around its location after next year was enough to convince some families to stay where they are. Hey, maybe that's how they can control the numbers...<br /><br />observerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-3983236006173723782012-04-26T17:45:24.603-07:002012-04-26T17:45:24.603-07:00co-housing wrote, "APP North is already 550 k...co-housing wrote, "APP North is already 550 kids and growing for next year..."<br /><br />Actually, Lowell@Lincoln has about 425 kids this year, give or take a few. There are 17 classes with roughly 25-26 kids/class.<br /><br />And, surprisingly, the latest number that I've heard for next year puts enrollment at around 480 students, much lower than the earlier projections. Over one hundred families toured, but if the latest number is accurate, not very many opted in for next year.Lorihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777580098975083499noreply@blogger.com