West Seattle schools: Board rep McLaren decides not to try to delay new ‘option’ school at Boren after all

In an hour, West Seattle’s new school-board rep Marty McLaren holds her third and final community-conversation meeting before the board votes Wednesday on what to do to try to relieve school overcrowding next year – a process the district is calling “short-term capacity management.” As first reported here January 4th, McLaren had said that she planned to offer an amendment to delay the proposal to reopen the former Boren Junior High School as temporary home of a STEM – science, tech, engineering, math – focused “option” elementary. We’d been asking about the status of the amendment in recent days, and minutes ago, she sent this announcement she has decided not to pursue it:

Thank you to all the West Seattle (and other) people who have joined the dialogue about short term solutions for overcrowding in our elementary schools.

Decision to move forward with the STEM option proposal
Friday I made the decision not to go forward with my amendment to the current proposal: Thus, the Seattle School Board will vote next Wednesday, January 18th, on whether to open an elementary STEM option program at the Boren site, and in addition to add portables as needed in the Denny and Madison service areas for the 2012-13 school year.

Because many of you felt that there had not been adequate community discussion about the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) program recommendation, I had prepared an amendment which would have delayed placing a STEM program at Boren for a year, until 2013-14. I invited interested people to comment on this blog about their vision for West Seattle schools and the STEM option, and also invited people to attend one of three meetings (the final meeting of this series takes place this morning at 11 AM at the Delridge Library). However, after listening carefully, discussing the various angles, and looking at all the factors, when the Friday deadline came to post the amendment, I chose not to do it.

Deciding factors — concerns about going forward
As you know, this was a complex and difficult decision. Many West Seattle people have correctly pointed out that placing a STEM program at Boren does not begin to adequately address overcrowding in our elementary schools. It’s clear that we need a comprehensive mid- and long-range master plan for providing more neighborhood schools, and many people believe strongly that it’s premature to commit to a STEM option program before a feeder pattern for the program is determined and before the master plan is in place. However, there is simply not enough time to formulate such a plan before open enrollment begins on February 27th.

I share this concern about hasty action, and despite my enthusiasm for STEM, I had been fully prepared to carry my amendment forward and to ask other Directors to support me in delaying the Boren STEM program. However, on Thursday I learned details that I’d not previously understood about what monies would pay for the program, and what would happen to those monies if we delayed it for a year.

More factors — either/or opportunity
Basically, this is a one-time opportunity; it’s urgent for the district to place a program at Boren in order to maintain the building’s Occupancy status. Otherwise, re-opening the building when needed as an interim site will cost about five times more money. The Capital Budget funds which happen to be available for opening and refurbishing the building include startup costs for the first year of the program. These startup costs are available to whatever program is put in place, for the first year only, and would pay for equipment, books, etc. This creates a perfect opportunity to open a STEM program, which requires a sizable investment in technology. While other programs, such as Interagency, could be placed at Boren, the STEM program is the only one which would give some benefit to West Seattle and yet, as an option program, would not entail boundary commitments which would prematurely shape a master plan.

Holding to convictions vs. snatching the opportunity
To create positive change, good planning is essential; in my experience seizing opportunities is another vital ingredient for success. I’ve been urged to stick to my convictions and try to delay STEM at Boren until we have a master plan. However, it’s important to remember that delaying STEM will not hasten this planning. It would certainly be ideal to wait for a comprehensive plan, but if we do, we won’t have those startup funds, and investing in a STEM program at Boren in 2013 from our severely reduced operating monies would be extremely difficult. (The Operating Budget pays for day-to-day school costs; these funds are much more heavily encumbered than the Capital Budget funds available now.)

The opportunity: a model for strengthening math and science across the district?
Our very talented and innovative West Seattle Executive Director, Aurora Lora, has experience in opening a STEM school, and she is confident that we can offer an excellent STEM program in West Seattle in the fall. Visionary educators have expressed great enthusiasm for developing this STEM elementary program; in addition to offering a unique option, it could serve as an incubator and model for strengthening math and science across our West Seattle District. All of our elementary students could benefit greatly.

What about capacity?
In fact, the new program will ease some overcrowding; probably relatively little the first year, but likely a good deal in the second year. In the meantime, basic comprehensive planning will have been completed and by the fall of 2013 we should be moving ahead with opening at least one, and hopefully two, neighborhood schools in an interim site.

Risks of moving forward with STEM?
Many people, including me, are concerned that Seattle School District history will repeat itself; the exciting new program will come, and nothing else — that there may be no progress in addressing the clear needs and desires of the West Seattle community — to address overcrowding and to offer strong math, science, and literacy programs (in addition to PE, arts, and enrichment) in ALL OF OUR SCHOOLS, across the district.

West Seattle Preferences
In the very rich and heartfelt sharing which has happened in the last couple of weeks, over the blog and in our meetings, people have shown widespread agreement about several things: Overcrowding must be addressed, and not only in elementary schools.
We want vibrant neighborhood schools throughout West Seattle.
We want strong math and science programs in all our schools.

Where are we now?
I feel that we’ve accomplished very important community work in this dialogue: We’ve come together from the north, south, east, and west of West Seattle to address problems that are facing our children in their schools — overcrowding and, in many places, our desire for them to have greater success in math and science, for additional basic amenities, and for other enriching options.

As mentioned above, we share a belief that it is essential to have comprehensive planning to address capacity needs in a thoughtful way — a way that also includes program planning, such as decisions on what kind of emphasis new schools will have, choices among other approaches such as Language Immersion, Montessori, etc., and needs of Special Education students, for example. There is a deadline: To prepare for the 2013 Capital Levy proposal, (BEX IV Building Excellence IV — the fourth in a series over the last two decades), the planning must commence soon — in the next months.

Work to be done; Seattle Public Schools leadership and commitment
There are many questions which I will attempt to answer in another post. For now, I want to say that I have also discussed these issues in depth with staff. We are fortunate now to have many remarkably smart and talented cabinet-level district leaders, people of great integrity with a profound commitment to moving all of our schools forward. Along with dedicated staff in each school, I am confident that district leaders are focused on working collaboratively with us in this planning process.

Most of you know full well of the dedication, caring, talent, and energy of our children’s teachers as well as of the extended staff who support them. We continue to owe them all a tremendous debt of gratitude for devoting their lives to our children and their education. Working together with them, as a large community and in smaller, school- and neighborhood-based groups, we must carry the momentum of our neighborhood conversations forward. We can commit ourselves to working together enthusiastically towards stable, supportive, challenging and enriching classrooms for all of our students, in schools filled with the joy of teaching and learning.

McLaren’s meeting is at 11 am, Delridge Library (Brandon/Delridge), blocks from Boren. Wednesday’s school board meeting is at 6 pm, district HQ in SODO.

3:21 PM NOTE: Adding a photo of Boren to the top of this story. We covered McLaren’s meeting today and expect to write the story tonight, depending on whether we wind up covering wintry weather or not. More than 20 people attended.

41 Replies to "West Seattle schools: Board rep McLaren decides not to try to delay new 'option' school at Boren after all"

  • howie in seattle January 14, 2012 (10:09 am)

    Marty: I appreciate your thorough discussion of this issue. I feel you have been thoughtful, strategic and unafraid of changing your position once you received additional information.

  • kayo January 14, 2012 (10:29 am)

    So happy to hear this news. When boundaries do change and my family is impacted (which I have little doubt will happen), I am glad we will have another option available. I think this could really be a terrific school for the entire community.

  • GreatSoFar January 14, 2012 (10:59 am)

    I would just point out what a difference Ms McLaren’s thoughtful sharing has versus what WS got from Steve Sundquist….

  • Oliver January 14, 2012 (11:29 am)

    It takes a lot of courage in Seattle to be an elected official who can see a unique opportunity and make a decision despite the lack of clear community consensus. Our tradition of trying to make everyone happy has consistently thwarted attempts at progress in or schools, transportation, etc. While I have an elementary school student in a crowded school and am undecided about how I feel about stem at boren, I applaud Marty for not being a roadblock. We need to do something with our schools NOW, one bad school year can make a huge impact on a child’s feelings about school and ultimate success.

  • WSparent January 14, 2012 (11:58 am)

    I am very happy to see a reasoned decision coming out of someone on the school board. I appreciate the fact that she has been very transparent in her decision making process and that she is willing to change her mind as new facts are brought to light! I think, for all the reasons that she cited, that Marty is making the best decision that can be made at this point. From what I am hearing there is nothing else that would *really* alleviate crowding for next year – it really looks like some longer term planning is needed and it would be a shame to miss the opportunity for a STEM program when there are no better options. I also think another option school is really needed here in West Seattle. I am hopeful that with some good people at the helm that a STEM program could be a really positive choice for parents here in W.S.

  • a January 14, 2012 (12:25 pm)

    I have a child in kindergarten and absolutely hate SPS. I wish we had thought it out better and moved out of Seattle 3 years ago instead of buying our house in WS. Now we’re stuck here. And our child’s school will look like a trailer park with more portables. Maybe I should start playing the lottery so I can afford private or to move.

  • Heidi January 14, 2012 (1:45 pm)

    I think that’s an excellent option! Perhaps you’d consider moving the Spectrum program from Lafayette (which is overcrowded) to the Boren Building as well, reducing class sizes at Lafayette!

  • n.a. neighbor January 14, 2012 (1:45 pm)

    Allright, West Seattle, we need to roll up our sleeves and make sure this BEX thing passes and then roll up our sleeves again so that our community gets enough funding to get what it needs: more neighborhood schools, as Marty pointed out. We need to all join forces and be the squeakiest wheel the district ever heard. It’s too bad that we have to do this much work to solve a problem that the district created, but our kids are worth it. All of them, no matter which overcrowded, portable-clogged trailer park -er- school they go to – they’re all worth it.

  • Heidi January 14, 2012 (1:47 pm)

    Hey GreatSoFar: Like like like like like!

  • StringCheese January 14, 2012 (4:09 pm)

    Personally, I can’t wait to hear the details of the STEM program. Will this be the first STEM elementary program? They are going to need to be speedy on getting details to families if they want to generate interest. Do they have enthusiastic teachers lined up? Will they be getting a waiver from the horrible Everyday Math curriculum? Will it include advanced learning opportunities as well? So many questions and so little time for them to get the answers out there…

  • taprat January 14, 2012 (4:53 pm)

    A few points:

    ***

    The district needs to acknowledge that after thousands of man-hours, and community meetings, and bright minds trying to figure out the the so-called “short-term capacity issue”, the solution is… portables. Seems like a huge waste of time. The STEM proposal has nothing to do with addressing short-term capacity issues. Maybe STEM and capacity are completely unrelated, and meant to be so, but the district needs to acknowledge that.

    ***

    STEM might be cool. We just can’t know that now. There hasn’t been any planning done yet and no one really knows how it will work. Personally, I’m excited about it, but the district has a long way to go to prove to the public that it’s capable of executing anything well.

    ***

    The entire premise for Ms. McLaren’s change of heart is that she just found out two days that capital funds available for STEM would be lost if not used. How on earth could this have been new information just two days ago?! I know that it was just broken to the Lafayette elementary school community on that same day, and then we were asked to comment based on these entirely new facts. Isn’t that a fundamental piece of information? How could that have happened? Further, could that money have been used for an all-kindergarten program? How about a language immersion school? Does Ms. McLaren even know how it works? She didn’t seem to know the details as of two days ago.

    ***

    I have been in meetings with Ms. McLaren. I trust her to do what she truly believes is right. She’s clearly smart and there are certainly a lot of smart and dedicated people in the district. However, the way this has all come down just seems like more bungling, more of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, and more making decisions on a hope and a prayer rather than based on a reasoned decision-making process. I hope I’m wrong.

  • a January 14, 2012 (4:58 pm)

    WS needs neighborhood schools, not an option school! This is ridiculous.

  • GreatSoFar January 14, 2012 (7:09 pm)

    I would not put it past senior staff to “spin” new information to get at their desired result. They did this with MAP, they did this with (HAH) Teach for America.

    Capital funds are ALWAYS available to use for equipment, if it is an asset and can be depreciated. BTA III uses capital funds for technology, thus its name Buildings, Technology and Academics. Included in the latter is “textual materials adoption”. So, I wonder if BTA II or III money was used for Discovery Math? If so, this was done for existing schools in extant facilities. Does SPS intend on using Everyday Math for its “STEM” experiment (double HAH!)

  • Bird on a wire January 14, 2012 (7:45 pm)

    Taprat, great points. Thanks for explaining things so clearly. I wish the school board provided this type of information. I also wish there was more clarity on how a STEM theme was chosen and if the money can only be spent on a science-themed option school. Seems like a school focusing more on literacy (a la language immersion) makes more sense for elementary-aged children who need to develop fundamentals instead of a more narrow skill set.
    Having said all that, if STEM is our only option, I hope our community embraces it and tailors it to meet the needs of our student population.

  • Dan January 14, 2012 (8:34 pm)

    … I have read everything concerning this issue, and I attended several capacity meetings. What I’m realizing now, is that SPS has to put SOMETHING into Boren in order to AVOID updated codes, and expenses…. That is the WRONG reason to put a STEM program (or any other program, for that matter….) in that building…… And STILL, no acknowledgment from SPS that they screwed up when they closed schools to begin with.

  • tk January 14, 2012 (8:56 pm)

    “However, on Thursday I learned details that I’d not previously understood about what monies would pay for the program, and what would happen to those monies if we delayed it for a year.”
    …I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the timeline…
    On Mon. 9th, three days before, at Marty’s community meeting she specifically discussed the capital funds coming with the first year’s opening of a school. She was explaining the pros and cons of her amendment, of waiting a year, and explained that we might miss out on those funds. Someone also asked about the 2 year window of losing the city’s occupancy permit if the school wasn’t in use by next year, and Marty explained that another agency could occupy it instead, so that shouldn’t be a factor in a decision she said. But, my guess is that the district via Aurora Lora put pressure on Marty about the “loss” of capital funds, whereas their real concern is losing the Boren occupancy permit for future use. Yes, those capital funds would be lost for opening a STEM program at Boren next fall, but wouldn’t they still be available if the program opened anew at Fairmount Park (with much more reasearch & planning), along with a comprehensive mid & long term plan for West Seattle in place as well?
    The district said it would cost $3 million to open the stem at Boren. Is it worth it for approx. 80 students (as many of the the schools opening in Seattle have had in their first year recently). Will $3 million at Boren (with no long term plan in place) and 80 less students over all the overcrowded WS schools make a real difference?

  • Walnut January 14, 2012 (10:14 pm)

    I think what’s completely sad about the districts typical alwats late scapegoat argument (“we can’t lose our occupancy window”) is that it leaves our childrens’ buildings without code compliant fire sprinklers, fire alarm and seismic restraint systems. Whats the real cost of that, should an unfortunate event happen?
    Talk about tail wagging the dog.

  • Beachpup January 15, 2012 (2:17 am)

    … EXACTLY the point, Walnut. You hit the nail on the head. This is why the district cannot open either of the other closed buildings (Fairmont or Genesee…) this fall… because they have been unoccupied for more than 2 years. If a building maintains SOME type of occupancy it can be re-opened under the older codes…. But if it goes empty for two years, SPS is required to bring it up to the newer codes, standards, etc….
    Why are they not (at the very least) admitting that they really miscalculated when they closed those schools!?… No one seems to be holding them accountable for their communications…. And guess what?….. I bet they do it AGAIN!

  • Brian M. January 15, 2012 (8:14 am)

    While I appreciate Rep. McLaren’s candidness, this does not change the fact that she initially promised to her constituents an amendment to delay the opening of Boren. I hope that her experience will prevent her from making such statements in the future, only to flip-flop later on.

  • Carla Rogers January 15, 2012 (3:36 pm)

    I appreciate the thoughtful sharing of Ms. McClaren’s POV on this. I have always been shocked that Seattle does not have a long term plan for capacity. Given that Seattle was named no. 1 for tech jobs growth by Forbes – this problem is only going to grow as years pass. While an option school is great, and I’d consider it for my child, they must plan to build an additional school in West Seattle North. There are just too many children here and too few seats. Step 1, yes. Will be watching for step 2.

  • Carla Rogers January 15, 2012 (3:38 pm)

    I would also suggest to Brian M. that he look back at times in his career and life where he changed his mind on something when new information was available. If she promised, yes, that is bad but give our elected officials the opportunity to learn and make the best decision based on the information available. When I was 16 I didn’t think it was necessary to wear a seat belt….

  • Brian M. January 15, 2012 (3:51 pm)

    Ms. Rogers, Of course I have changed my mind at many points in my life. I have also learned that making promises that couldn’t be kept has caused disappointment, confusion, and in some rare cases, a loss of trust.

    I don’t think it is too much to ask for our elected officials not to make promises they cannot keep. As I said earlier, I appreciate Rep. McLaren’s candidness and thoughtful look at the issue. I am simply asking that she refrain from making “knee-jerk” promises in the future BEFORE she has all the facts before her.

  • whatsup2010me January 15, 2012 (5:14 pm)

    thank-you Ms MCLaren for making the hard decision to move forward with the option school at Boren. personally it will be great for my family to have a choice other than our neighborhood west seattle elementary school which is rated last in the state of washington. Even overcrowding looks better than WS elementary school for our five years old.

  • JS January 15, 2012 (7:12 pm)

    As much as I get frustrated with the District’s eagerness to avoid upgrading schools to current codes, and even more frustrated with the LOUSY planning that led to closing buildings we will need soon (or already need), the flip side is this is a happy problem. Most urban districts would kill to have more kids coming in the doors; here’s hoping (praying) we can handle it.

  • pjmanley January 16, 2012 (12:09 am)

    So, without doing anything about overcrowding, they punted until later on, hoping and praying STEM works miracles. It won’t, because it can’t. And they know it. But they get to say they tried, and that’s all that counts to the bureaucrats and politicians.

  • GreatsoFar January 16, 2012 (12:09 pm)

    To be quite clear, the push for a STEM Option originated from Schmitz Park and was brought before the FACMAC. The school board action report claims that parents raised this idea. Once Aurora Lora and others decided this was nifty, then staff can control what information they want the board to know. The report also says Boren is an “interim site” for this option. Does this mean that, in the near future, a closed school will be duded up and all the 1st and 2nd grade STEM scholars moved into a nice fresh building, while Delridge is left once again without a neighborhood school besides Sanislo?

    • WSB January 16, 2012 (1:29 pm)

      Marty – whose Saturday meeting I am going to write up later today/tonight, snow and a fire got in the way – asked to add the clarification that it is “interim,” and she reiterated that at the meeting – Boren’s longterm destiny with the district, as it stands now, remains as an interim site … so the STEM school would eventually wind up somewhere else … TR

  • GreatSoFar January 16, 2012 (3:02 pm)

    How about over at Schmitz Park?

  • MK January 16, 2012 (6:56 pm)

    I would like to clarify that the STEM option was not a Schmitz Park initiative but was proposed by FACMAC. FACMAC is composed of 32 members from all quadrants of the city and included parents, district personnel, and community members. I’m curious how many people have read the proposal for capacity on the Seattle Public Schools website which clearly lays out the reasoning behind the proposal. The meeting that Director McLaren had on Saturday cleared up a lot of misconceptions and rumors. I’m looking forward to reading the West Seattle Blog’s reporting of the meeting so that the facts can get out in the community. Pitting schools against each other does nothing to address the problem. Becoming part of the solution by staying involved in the intermediate and long-range planning will. The consensus among many of the attendees is that we need to work together as a West Seattle community for the good of all our schools.

  • tk January 16, 2012 (8:13 pm)

    Mk- Would you please post the link to the FACMAC report that you are referring to that lays out the STEM proposal? The surveys from the SPS Community meetings do not show any clear community support for any one program, much less STEM.
    Thanks!

  • GreatSoFar January 16, 2012 (10:42 pm)

    Well, take your pick. The board report says parents initiated STEM through FACMAC:

    http://bit.ly/wQvBVH

    FACMAC meeting notes on 11/10 says staff and principals wanted STEM:

    http://bit.ly/ym9m8N

    Then on Dec 2, Asst Supt for Operations, Pegi McEvoy apologizes to the FACMAC for giving the illusion that options presented at community meetings came from FACMAC:

    http://bit.ly/Afx25u

    These same notes state there was a “general preference was for the STEM program option or placing portables.” By no means resounding.

  • Alex January 17, 2012 (9:07 am)

    So… this is extremely disappointing.

    The so-called “short-term capacity” solution will do nothing to alleviate overcrowding. Instead, what precious money the District has to make progress will be used to fund a new non-core program.

    The only encouraging statement in Ms McLaren’s reasoning is “we should be moving ahead with opening at least one, and hopefully two, neighborhood schools in an interim site.”

    I cannot agree more. Many of us were arguing that that should happen now (or as soon as possible), rather than giving that money away to a dream.

    I will be holding Ms McLaren to this sentiment when it comes time to plan the next capital bond.

    However, I think it is extremely unlikely that the District will have enough peanut butter to spread around the whole city to fund two new schools in West Seattle. This new school will very likely find its way in the south end of West Seattle (“where there is so much need”), not the overcrowded Madison service area. Because… “well, West Seattle North has this great new STEM school that is really picking up speed.”

    I just now realized why people swear in blog posts.

  • MK January 17, 2012 (1:29 pm)

    Greatsofar,
    Could you please highlight in these documents where it says that the STEM proposal came from Schmitz Park. Thanks!

  • GreatSoFar January 17, 2012 (2:09 pm)

    That is from an inside source at JSCEE. Of course the documentation out there makes everything clear as mud. With this district, when things are muddy I know to believe the worst. You may not agree. But if this was an overwhelmingly excellent choice, then shouldn’t that be clear?

  • ArmsFolded January 18, 2012 (5:12 am)

    The option STEM program is cool, but doesn’t solve the more basic problem of overcrowding. As an option school it will draw from areas that aren’t overcrowded. The overcrowding problem didn’t get dealt with, again.

  • Delridge Neighbor January 19, 2012 (12:04 pm)

    I think the STEM option for Boren sounds great — particularly if it stays at Boren. The Boren location is easy for people all over West Seattle to access, which is one reason that it has been used as a transitional school for so many students. It may not solve all of the overcrowding problems, but an excellent program there would be able to draw from the whole peninsula.

  • concerned WS parent January 19, 2012 (5:19 pm)

    Why do we not make open Boren up as a neighborhood school and feed from existing Pathfinder and take new sign ups as well. This adds another neighborhood school with shorted busing and also allows for something like a STEM program to dual occupy! Lets use it appropriately and also help the neighborhoods.

  • GreatSoFar January 19, 2012 (11:46 pm)

    concerned WS Parent, I agree.

  • 365Stairs January 20, 2012 (2:00 pm)

    Sad that such an easy decision has been made so complex.

    Too many students
    Not enough space now?
    Review of assets – oh…we actually have plenty of empty city owned space available – NOT JUST available school property?

    Use the space.

    If it is not this simple…it should be.

    Oh…no budget available to use existing space? No capital to improve space?

    What do you need right now? Four walls, a roof, restrooms, dedicated teachers, pencils, paper, and books. The students will follow you. You will get your new schools later.

    No child left behind! Please remember this SPS leaders.

  • 365Stairs January 20, 2012 (2:11 pm)

    Unless anyone wants to respond that I’m oversimplifying the issue…what did they use to teach kids (our great & grandparents) in?

    They seemed to do ok…

    When the $$ is there again – you can improve…

    Just get back to basics and use what you have!

  • GreatSoFar January 21, 2012 (12:05 am)

    Okay 365Stairs, thanks for making me feel younger than you (although if you can do those stairs, I say “uncle”).

    Just keep in mind that the spaces from back in our day were not accessible.

    Unfortunately I see the kerfuffle in WS complicated by what the downtown JSCEE admins want to impose on us.

    We’re fortunately to have a usable “flex space” at Boren (until next fall, that is). The question is: should Boren be used to (re)create the neighborhood schools that belong to residents along the Delridge corridor? Or should it be used as a launching point for an anemic K-5 STEM option (never been done, and should it?) pushed by insiders and some WS-ites.

    Too bad politics is in play here while our children suffer in over-crowded schools with insufficient bathroom and lunchroom facilities. I know you don’t want us all to go back to our “bad ole days” in the outhouse.

Sorry, comment time is over.