tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post900225241378474262..comments2024-03-28T02:21:17.452-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: Intermediate Capacity PlanMelissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger188125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-47508674834497854002013-10-18T10:52:47.974-07:002013-10-18T10:52:47.974-07:00I don't know if it's necessarily intention...<i>I don't know if it's necessarily intentional bias (I'm willing to give you, Eden, the benefit of the doubt) but I think it's the way you answer to the other suggestions/proposals. Bottom line, your reponses tend to be a flat out NO. I think we'd rather all hear how it can work, not just that it can't work. <br />....<br /> Can your model be helpful in showing us the answer to that?</i><br /><br /><i> I was wondering if Eden might release her spreadsheet so that others could work through her models and possibly plug in their own numbers. this would increase transparency. Maybe data dork could do the same. I was thinking of building my own - they are time consuming to build but not hard to build if you do this sort of work. But I would rather not re-invent the wheel. </i><br /><br />I too would like to see and work with these models.<br /><br />The problem I'm having is that it's not just the inputs and assumptions; the reality is far too complex to expect perfect models. But they are a good starting point, and the ability to optimize for optimal (sorry, "better") outcomes is part of that. But most of all, the interpretation of the results.<br /><br />Eden, the results that your own models are giving tell me and other people here that the best option is to move APP out of HIMS next year, intact. It gives the most flexibility to spread the overcrowding more evenly, it allows for fewer buildings to be adversely affected by APP in the coming years, and removes the need for multiple schools to have 6th grade roll-ups (which no one wants). You're saying it flat out doesn't work, but we're interpreting the results very differently, and you've sent your message with a rather hardline attitude. I'm pretty sure that's why you're being accused of bias, regardless of your hard work (which I think most of us appreciate).<br /><br />One other thing I do want to bring up. You are relatively new to APP, and I <i>think</i> you have only elementary kid(s) at the moment. You haven't lived through threats, splits, moves, more threats, teachers being pushed out, teachers being purposely mixed between programs, etc. Year after year after year it's one thing after another, and middle school has a whole different set of problems than does elementary. At this stage in your "APP life" it's impossible for you (and many others) to understand how important it is to keep this program as intact as possible. Quite literally, the viability of the program in the coming years depends on it. If middle school splits, your kids will have a greatly reduced experience at that time (if APP even still exists, and yes I'm serious about this possibility). My kids will not be nearly as adversely affected as yours, and yet I'm fighting to keep the program alive for you and your kids' age peers.<br /><br />In spite of all the evidence that this would be best for APP, if this proposal adversely affected huge swaths of gen ed kids in the north end I would not push for it. But it <i>appears</i> that it's actually beneficial to <i>most</i> of the other buildings and populations as well. Heck, it even gives the possibility of keeping Pinehurst alive.<br /><br />Please consider sharing your models and/or looking at them with an open mind as to the interpretation of the results. Thanks.<br />dwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-124713298229180832013-10-18T10:26:29.348-07:002013-10-18T10:26:29.348-07:00North-end mom, I'll presume this was you, even...North-end mom, I'll presume this was you, even though there wasn't a name attached, so I'll quote you: <i>The John Marshall building was used as a Roosevelt 9th grade annex back in the 70's. I'm not advocating for it to become a 9th grade annex, but if it becomes a choice between HS in shifts and a 9th grade annex, then the annex doesn't sound so bad. It might be prudent to leave our options open, since Lincoln won't come online as a high school until 2019.</i><br /><br />To be sure, there are NO scenarios where John Marshall will be held aside for a Roosevelt Annex "just in case". In fact, there are no scenarios where JM will not be used immediately, period.<br /><br />With that in mind, placing APP at JM <i>intact</i> for the next couple years until either WP opens and/or the changes to APP identification and services become clear, is easily the best option for the most kids in the north end. <br /><br />It might seem selfish to fight to keep APP together, but this move will also help other buildings be <i>less</i> adversely affected over the next few years than other plans, which include these 6th grade roll-ups. It allows for the easiest balance of overcrowding (not perfect, but better balance), and more flexibility to make other changes over the next couple years because lets be honest, all the predictions and modeling in the world isn't going to be perfect. There are going to necessarily be some other adjustments over the next 3-4 years, and having APP in one building is going to make that easier.dwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-85756208462634831682013-10-18T05:15:07.393-07:002013-10-18T05:15:07.393-07:00@ Lynn
The John Marshall building was used as a Ro...@ Lynn<br />The John Marshall building was used as a Roosevelt 9th grade annex back in the 70's. I'm not advocating for it to become a 9th grade annex, but if it becomes a choice between HS in shifts and a 9th grade annex, then the annex doesn't sound so bad. It might be prudent to leave our options open, since Lincoln won't come online as a high school until 2019.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-72338823262701991952013-10-18T01:32:10.129-07:002013-10-18T01:32:10.129-07:00But what about the comprehensive high school exper...But what about the comprehensive high school experience?Lynnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-63750479709809239902013-10-17T21:10:51.327-07:002013-10-17T21:10:51.327-07:00@ Lynn
You wrote this:
"Could we backfill HIM...@ Lynn<br />You wrote this:<br />"Could we backfill HIMS with JAMS 6th grade students next year?" <br /><br />So you are suggesting that we go back to busing north-end kids to Hamilton...kind of like pre-NSAP?<br /><br />FYI. JAMS has an actual planning principal. I'm pretty sure she would like to plan an actual middle school, and not figure out how to use her students as filler for another middle school.<br /><br />Also, I haven't been following the argument to open John Marshall as a permanent APP site very closely, but I think it is possible that they might need the John Marshall building for a Roosevelt 9th grade annex again someday. <br /><br />- North-end MomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-81372083709589094022013-10-17T15:28:22.825-07:002013-10-17T15:28:22.825-07:00On 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 /><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 /><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 /><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 /><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?<br /><br />apparentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-35999753528536917402013-10-17T14:31:16.917-07:002013-10-17T14:31:16.917-07:00APP, Pinehurst and Cascade Parent Partnership at M...APP, Pinehurst and Cascade Parent Partnership at Marshall next year? Then move Pinehurst into the Old TC building when it's available. <br />Could we backfill HIMS with JAMS 6th grade students next year? (Assuming empty seats after moving APP out.)Lynnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-84116070309440506402013-10-17T14:10:09.233-07:002013-10-17T14:10:09.233-07:00As an option school parent, the APP stand alone si...As an option school parent, the APP stand alone site is a win in my mind as well. I do not want an option program placed w/APP to take up the "leftover" space in the building, to be squeezed smaller and smaller every year as APP grows. Not fair to have two programs in a building, one with guaranteed space and one with caps. Option momnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-39675672819904076442013-10-17T13:55:39.062-07:002013-10-17T13:55:39.062-07:00The single site APP actually benefits both APP and...The single site APP actually benefits both APP and GenEd kids so is a win-win.<br /><br />1. Regarding Bagley and Greenwood kids: Under this plan, they would be assigned a comprehensive school rather than the dreadful sixth grade roll-up, and they would be going with their classmates. So this plan is better for them. Families with kids already at Whitman could request reassignment for consistency within families.<br /><br />2. Regarding high school assignment: Assigment is based on address, not middle school placement. The Bagley/Greenwood kids would go to Ballard together (along with West Woodland and BF Day), so no change there.<br /><br />-uncertainAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-13074232916144778292013-10-17T13:36:39.964-07:002013-10-17T13:36:39.964-07:00Sigh. Look, my children, while very capable cognit...Sigh. Look, my children, while very capable cognitively, have challenges with social skills. One thinks very quickly, and is very impatient with others who do not. She gets extremely rude! Adults and teachers love her, kids who have been victims of her rudeness, not so much. With our others, we have bossiness, precociousness, extreme need to get their way, beliefs that they are always right. They do not work and play well with others without a lot of coaching and reminders. We have been working on these problems for years, and they are getting better, but slowly! The skills do not come naturally. Do I want them back in Gen Ed to be snappy and bossy to other kids? NO! But the reality is THERE IS NO ROOM, and NOT ENOUGH MONEY to build more schools. Everyone is going to be getting less than what is desired. We have to make do, unless we can miraculously find more seats. So unless one of the many gazillionaires who live here step up and donate 3-4 buildings suitable for schools in this next year, we must deal with the realities of less than desirable choices. I just think that we in APP, who are NOT working 2-3 jobs, or living in unsafe neighborhoods, would have more time and energy to deal with the challenges. So it is not cool for us to advocate for our program by suggesting that other communities get moved around and slotted in here and there so APP can have its own school and stay together. Greenwood, Bagley and Adams might not want to go to Hamilton. Adams, especially, is an arts based curriculum school. Those kids usually want Whitman and Ballard, which have excellent TV and film programs. And if they come to Hamilton, what happen to high school, when they are going to lose 80% of their friends who go to Roosevelt? I'm sure other schools also have concerns and preferences. It is very presumptuous to be making plans for their assignments. And to Dw, Lynn and any others who might wonder, we are fully prepared to deal with APP being removed fron Hamilton, we knew this could happen, as do the rest of you! There is no buyer's remorse here. <br /><br />CCAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-66192611162431607722013-10-17T13:36:37.153-07:002013-10-17T13:36:37.153-07:00Reopening 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 />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, thanks so much for reading, chiming in, and helping us out with the numbers, I really hope 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-85787456187928077722013-10-17T12:02:44.932-07:002013-10-17T12:02:44.932-07:00Wow! A wild ride indeed!
@North-end Mom, you sai...Wow! A wild ride indeed!<br /><br />@North-end Mom, you said to Eden: “You are giving the impression that implementing JAMS is as simple as assigning a few kids to a K-8, so that you can use the John Marshall building to house APP.”<br /><br />I might be mistaken (sorry, I didn’t have the time to re-read all of the posts) but I don’t think Eden is suggesting that APP go to John Marshall. On the contrary, she has been pretty clear that her simulations indicate the proposal to move all of the north APP middle school students to John Marshall is NOT the best solution, from a capacity standpoint.<br /><br />For those who feel Eden has a bias: I don’t know Eden personally, and I don’t want to speak for her, but it seems like she’s very open to sharing her output and methods. Would it be possible to set up a way for Eden to share more details? I’m not savvy enough to know whether what I’m suggesting is easy or oversteps the boundaries of what people feel comfortable doing, but it feels more productive than discounting everything Eden proposes just because there’s a perception of bias.<br /><br />Finally, I really appreciate all of the ideas and discussion here. I have an APP 6th grader at HIMS, and right now I am uncertain of the best solution. Well, maybe at this point it’s not a matter of finding the “best” solution, but instead, of finding the least worst solution? Sounds like all north end middle schoolers are going to be put in less-than-ideal situations (crowded, starting new schools, etc.). I have high hopes that the discussion here will illuminate a solution that will not make any one population bear a disproportionate amount of the pain. Thanks!<br /><br />jujubee<br />jujubeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-2455978735997247672013-10-17T10:53:46.254-07:002013-10-17T10:53:46.254-07:00I don't know if it's necessarily intention...I don't know if it's necessarily intentional bias (I'm willing to give you, Eden, the benefit of the doubt) but I think it's the way you answer to the other suggestions/proposals. Bottom line, your reponses tend to be a flat out NO. I think we'd rather all hear how it can work, not just that it can't work. I think we can all determine if there are too many IFs and conditions necessary for our preferred solution to work...Sea of Schools has a proposal that seems to have a lot of support. But, I'm not hearing how it can work or even necessarily why it can't work...only that the model says it doesn't. <br /><br />So, sticking with this latest idea, what needs to happen for it to work? Can your model be helpful in showing us the answer to that?<br /><br />kp <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-58971370001721167672013-10-17T09:46:30.112-07:002013-10-17T09:46:30.112-07:00wow, this thread is quite a wild ride, and after r...wow, this thread is quite a wild ride, and after reading through it, it does look like Eden is biased against moving APP out of HIMS. When modeling and throwing out numbers, the appearance of bias is important. I am glad to see data dork stepping in. I was wondering if Eden might release her spreadsheet so that others could work through her models and possibly plug in their own numbers. this would increase transparency. Maybe data dork could do the same. I was thinking of building my own - they are time consuming to build but not hard to build if you do this sort of work. But I would rather not re-invent the wheel. <br /><br />I feel strongly that APP needs a stand-alone school, co-housed with an option program, where there will be consistent teaching (no flipping between app and gened classes) and the program can stop competing with attendance area kids for space. Make the option attractive, and the program (once it has a building) will draw middle school students from overcrowded schools. none of the models consider this.<br /><br />NNE is a harder nut to crack than the rest of north Seattle.<br /><br />-uncertain<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-56859100314340848022013-10-17T07:28:57.209-07:002013-10-17T07:28:57.209-07:00Thank you for all the discussion yesterday and out...Thank you for all the discussion yesterday and out of pure exhaustion, I have to pull out of this thread. However, I hope that discussion around alternative proposals will continue and have passed my information and all your comments on to a new set of community members who seem ready to create an alternate plan to meet all student needs.<br /><br />Again, thank you! I really learned a lot from yesterday's discussion.Sea of Schoolsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-50278823725141746942013-10-17T05:28:46.703-07:002013-10-17T05:28:46.703-07:00@Eden
Just so we are clear.
I am in total agreeme...@Eden<br /><br />Just so we are clear.<br />I am in total agreement that there is NO room at Jane Addams to co-house JAMS, JA K-8 and APP. That scenario was presented last month, and frankly bombed. It required filling the entire JA parking lot with up to 23 portables and purchasing an expensive modular core space with bathrooms. <br /><br />The option of co-housing JA K-8 with JAMS, with no APP, was also presented last month by SPS, and was projected to require 15-17 portables plus modular core space. That is the equivalent of housing a school the size of John Rogers in the JA parking lot. Could it be done? Maybe. Is it appropriate? I don't think so.<br /><br />I understand that you are using last year's data, but you continue to ignore what others, including myself, have posted regarding growth at JA K-8. You also ignore the District's projections. <br /><br />The Oct. 1 2012 count for JA K-8 was 581. I'm assuming this is the number you continue to use in your analyses?<br /><br />Due, in part, to doubling their 6th grade class this year, enrollment has climbed at JA K-8 to somewhere around 760-780 students. It really did grow by almost 200 students! This number is reflected in SPS projections (Intermediate Capacity Management Plan), which have the program at 808 students for 2014-15 an 819 students in 2015-16. The enrollment is projected to climb as smaller classes are replaced by those at full program capacity. <br /><br />These projections do not take into consideration any students who may leave the JA K-8 program, and, as such represent a high-end enrollment scenario for JA K-8. SPS needs to consider the high-end projections when placing a program at an interim site, so I'm OK with them using these numbers for their projections.<br /><br />Earlier in this incredibly-long thread, Joe Wolf commented on how SPS calculated the projections for JAMS students. They do not use roll-ups from feeder pattern schools. They base their analyses on resident counts, because assignment is by address, not by feeder pattern. <br /><br />For instance, from the 2012-13 data, you can estimate that there are 40 students in 5th grade this year at John Rogers. On the surface, it appears that the John Rogers contribution to JAMS' 6th grade class will be only 40 students. <br /><br />If you dig a little deeper, you will find that a significant portion of 5th grade students who live in the John Rogers AA attend other attendance-area schools. I looked at this, and came up with over 90 5th graders hailing from the John Rogers attendance area. These kids will be assigned to JAMS, based upon their residence. <br /><br />Many of these John Rogers resident 5th graders currently attend schools which will most-likely feed into Eckstein, so they can try for a feeder pattern tiebreaker to Eckstein if they do not wish to attend JAMS. I don't know if SPS made any corrections for this in their projections. <br /><br />For those of us who will have a kid assigned to JAMS in the next couple of years, it is really annoying for you to continually post such low numbers in comparison to what SPS has projected for co-housing at Jane Addams. You are hundreds of kids low in your projections, and yet you continue to present these numbers as if they are based on reality, when, in fact, they are not. <br /><br />You are giving the impression that implementing JAMS is as simple as assigning a few kids to a K-8, so that you can use the John Marshall building to house APP. We want a proper comprehensive middle school for our kids, and since that is the default pathway in SPS, it really shouldn't be too much to ask.<br /><br />- North-end MomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-74826754050844373372013-10-17T00:58:25.201-07:002013-10-17T00:58:25.201-07:00OK DW--
I should be sleeping but I got pulled bac...OK DW--<br /><br />I should be sleeping but I got pulled back in. <br /><br />So, I moved Greenwood back into Whitman and left Bagely at HIMS The rest stays the same as before<br /><br />Eckstein: each year over from 2013to 2015 131, 171, and 188 respectively. that is ADITIONAL portables. It does drop in 2016<br /><br />HIMS: slightly over in 2016 (17), and climbs to 156 and 244 in 2017 and 2018. There is no room for portables at HIMS, so this is NOT workable. (and if it was possible to run HIMS over like this, then there is no justification for APP leaving in the first place.) <br /><br />JAMS: over in 2014 by 109 and in 2015 by 279<br /><br />Data dork, I'm certain you are super bright and run good numbers. I'm just actually focused on helping to find the best solution for the whole north end, not just APP. If they put JAK8 at JM, there is no space to put APP at JM too. <br /><br />If they don't, there will need to be many more portables at JAMS and Eckstein is still overcrowded beyond what the current portables manage. I don't think it is cool to add 6 more portables to Eckstein. Do you?<br /><br />Their proposed solution to the NNE capacity is to put JAK8 at JM and start JAMS next year.<br /><br />The numbers don't show that the all of "APP at JM until 2017" is a good solution. I'm sorry. I would rather there be a solution that could keep APP MS together at one site. <br /><br />EdenUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147954881410244096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-57069793159524936722013-10-16T23:45:40.714-07:002013-10-16T23:45:40.714-07:00By the way, please note, I said best balances FRL ...By the way, please note, I said best balances FRL not balances FRL. Given the location of the largest FRL populations, it is not possible to keep schools as neighborhood schools and also balance FRL.Data dorknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-88069020974567602762013-10-16T23:42:50.225-07:002013-10-16T23:42:50.225-07:00Some think my work is respected, too. :) I also ha...Some think my work is respected, too. :) I also have enormous respect for many other capacity and facility geeks who I've followed on this blog for years. <br /><br /> I've run my own models and have no skin in this game.<br /><br />Putting APP all at John Marshall then WPMS and changing a few feeder schools to Hamilton, works well, is the least disruptive for the gened/neighborhood kids (other than in the NNE) and best balances the FRL population if done thoughtfully. I wish there was a good solution for the NNE, but the capacity issues are too great. I don't feel the need to list specific schools since I believe SPS can handle that task if this plan seems viable to them. Data dorknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-18800510110657072902013-10-16T22:58:07.776-07:002013-10-16T22:58:07.776-07:00Eden,
You may not see this until morning, but I w...Eden,<br /><br />You may not see this until morning, but I want to put it out here asap.<br /><br />Your last comment at 10:10pm <i>For all the reasons I've explained, the idea of moving all of APP to JM and co-housing JAK8 with JAMS does NOT work from a capacity stand point. Bagley and Greenwood, either of them cause HIMS to go over capacity in a couple of years.</i><br /><br />Is inconsistent with the data you presented at 6:14pm<br /><i>HIMS: with in reason next year, but climbing over up to 400 over by 2018<br />JAMS: 200 over in 2015<br />Eckstein: 100-200 0ver for 2014-2016<br />Whitman: under by 200-400 from 2014 on </i><br /><br />If you use this last model, but pull just ONE school back from HIMS to Whitman (say Greenwood), that distributes things almost perfectly even if you use the same yearly ranges. This is what both Data Dork and I suggested, and I would really like to see that result set, spelled out just like this one.<br /><br />It should be easy to change one assumption and copy out the results, could you do that please? Thanks!dwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-18184822642753804222013-10-16T22:34:43.473-07:002013-10-16T22:34:43.473-07:00Reposting for anonymous who did not sign...not my ...Reposting for anonymous who did not sign...not my words exactly but akin to what I said earlier albeit more passionately and have to agree. <br /><br /> Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Wedgwood to JAMS?! Just stop. Stop making suggestions for other people's kids. A good portion of Wedgwood is out of the JAMS walk zone, but well within Eckstein's.<br /><br />kpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-80253704495395924572013-10-16T22:21:17.252-07:002013-10-16T22:21:17.252-07:00Sorry, North End Mom to respond to this:
"P...Sorry, North End Mom to respond to this:<br /><br />"Please clarify that you did your calculations based upon a co-housing arrangement of JA K-8 plus a two-year roll-up of JAMS, with John Rogers, Olympic Hills/Cedar Park and Olympic View in the feeder pattern. Of course all the proposed boundaries for those schools are different than they are currently, so I would imagine it would be difficult to model?"<br /><br />Yes, I modeled it exactly as SEA of Schools stated. I can't exactly state the magnitude of the impact of the boundary changes, but it is likely a relatively small impact because of the feeder school tie breaker. <br /><br />However, it could create a much bigger overage for HIMS than stated if now there are many more kids in attendance area that previously went to Whitman schools, AND not only do the actual kids with butts in seats from bagely and Greenwood feed in to HIMS, but so do a few hundred other kids. <br /><br />We could go on, but I need some sleep. thanks again for engaging in this discussion.<br /><br />EdenUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147954881410244096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-25496729502779951772013-10-16T22:10:06.034-07:002013-10-16T22:10:06.034-07:00SEA of Schools, Data Dork and North Seattle Mom--
...SEA of Schools, Data Dork and North Seattle Mom--<br /><br />I had to step out to do dinner and bed time, and it's late so please forgive the brevity.<br /><br />For all the reasons I've explained, the idea of moving all of APP to JM and co-housing JAK8 with JAMS does NOT work from a capacity stand point. Bagley and Greenwood, either of them cause HIMS to go over capacity in a couple of years. co-housing JAMS with JAk8 will result in not a couple of portables, but 400-600 kids will need to be housed in portables.<br /><br />And Yes, the model does not show growth. It is based simply on the butts that were in seats in 2012-13. The numbers I'm providing do not show any growth. Yes, JAK8 already has portables. Because they are already overloaded. And trying to put more MS kids there will mean more portables.<br /><br />Why don't these numbers match the districts projections? Because they do their projection analysis based on a different methodology. We don't have enough visibility into that methodology to either validate or invalidate. <br /><br />All we have done is take the REAL enrollment numbers from 2012-13 and move those kids into the respective middle schools. I've not mis-represented any of this, and the output is not biased. It just is what it is.<br /><br />My fast post about the results of the scenario that SEA provided is what it is. I'm sorry the output of the model does not match your ideal.<br /><br />Again, this is not back of the envelope scratches, and it isn't biased data. It simply models the scenario that is provided. <br /><br />I know you don't know me, and you aren't looking at the model and you don't know that my husband's work is highly regarded. But I do, and I personally wouldn't put something out that I didn't think was solidly based in fact.<br /><br />Thanks for the conversation, and discussion, and most of all the civility today!!!!!<br /><br />EdenUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147954881410244096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-66244293035180410442013-10-16T21:55:49.973-07:002013-10-16T21:55:49.973-07:00Wedgwood to JAMS?! Just stop. Stop making suggesti...Wedgwood to JAMS?! Just stop. Stop making suggestions for other people's kids. A good portion of Wedgwood is out of the JAMS walk zone, but well within Eckstein's.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-58268572792629239072013-10-16T21:50:53.805-07:002013-10-16T21:50:53.805-07:00Is returning to your neighborhood school really an...Is returning to your neighborhood school really an option after having been in APP? Wouldn't it be like repeating a grade? Just "pick up" high school math and science? Um, ok.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com