27 Replies to "School boundary vote planned this week; petition asks delay"

• Elliott November 15, 2009 (8:45 pm)

  The last thing we need is for the uncertainty to drag on longer.

• ZS November 15, 2009 (9:43 pm)

  Agreed Elliott, why on Earth should we “delay” this, anyone who has concerns has had plenty of time to request changes and a lot of revisions have been made to that effect. No need for more delays.

  ZS

• delridge November 15, 2009 (10:54 pm)

  What is the rush? These are assignments for NEXT school year. The fact is that all of the public process was done on the previous lines which didn’t have such a dramatic line separating wealth in West Seattle.

  We need to urge Steve Sundquist to favor delaying this vote so that all parents can be heard.

• DP November 15, 2009 (11:16 pm)

  Plenty of time? The original changes didn’t affect us at all. The revised changes which we received in the mail yesterday have changed our school. We face the prospect of a kindergartener and a first-grader in different schools next year. SPS shouldn’t pretend that they are incorporating public concerns into the process if they are not willing to actually do so.

• Flintick November 16, 2009 (4:41 am)

  Sign this petition! West Seattle is about to get stuck with a very regressive boundary for middle school and high school attendance areas. This was a last minute change, and it is bad. If you have not been in the loop, you will be shocked!

• selfish November 16, 2009 (4:48 am)

  I like the new map. Works for me. My kids get to go in their neighborhood. Wasn’t that the objective keep kids in their neighborhoods? The “dramatic line separating wealth” complain is just a smoke screen for some parents’ dissatisfaction with the school their kids were assigned to. It’s just a dramatic phrase that leaves an impression that somehow these parents are not as selfish, and they ‘re actually fighting for some higher social good. Which is not of course true. The real estate prices are what creates a dramatic line separating wealth. Why should my kids have to go to a school tens miles away from home because of that? Let’s raise taxes to subsidies real estate prices in order to create a diversified neighborhoods.

• jocie p November 16, 2009 (8:27 am)

  Drag on? Really? I received my new map AFTER the meetings last week and I also face the prospect of my kindergartener and first-grader attending different schools. The map they sent provided very little detail and the only way I knew about the slight change (2 blocks) was by going on-line. This entire process has been too rushed, poorly planned and unfair – think about those who cannot read or have no access to the web. I now have no recourse and they vote on Wednesday.

• it's time November 16, 2009 (9:26 am)

  Vote! Vote! Vote~! Put it to bed NOW!

• VBD November 16, 2009 (9:58 am)

  To Selfish: Have you even looked at the maps? The issue of kids going to a school near their home is important, and is the main reason why I think the new maps stink. With the current proposal, kids just blocks from Sealth/Denny will be forced to go miles north.

  Also, I’m not against it for the reason you suggest. My kid will go to the same school regardless. I want what’s best for the schools and the kids, not just what’s best for me.

  We need to get this right, not just get it done.

• jbar November 16, 2009 (10:32 am)

  We are blocks from Chief Sealth, walking distance, and as our luck would have it, our kids would go to WSHS. After years in private school, we were looking forward to the possibility of having our kids attend HS in our neighborhood at CSHS, and have been following the develpment and progress of the IB program. I agree with VBD. The new assignment plan stinks. And from what I can tell, it doesn’t do a good job blending the socio-economic diversity that we have in W. Seattle. I’m very disappointed.

• selfish November 16, 2009 (10:57 am)

  To VBD:

  I was only having a problem with people giving diversity and wealth separation excuses for their dislike of the maps. I don’t like having kids travel far and beyond in a name of diversity and social equality. How do we create diverse neighborhood without involving the kids? The kids should be able to attend the school in their neighborhood. It’s easier on the kids, the parents and it’s also good for the environment.

• tiffany November 16, 2009 (11:02 am)

  Please don’t ruin it for my children Susan. I want them to go to Sanislo and not Highland Park. It means SO much to me! I’m between Kenyon and Holden and as the map stands right now they’re in Sanslo…. please!

• steve November 16, 2009 (11:22 am)

  Yeah, but my kids are assigned to W Seattle Elementary and are just blocks from Denny and Sealth too-so why should my kids be offered up to be sent to Madison and W Seattle High so that the Gatewood kids can have Denny/Sealth? I’m sorry that Gatewood which was originally assigned to Denny/Sealth is no longer and I think it’s unfair that it was sprung on the Gatewood families, but it really makes me angry that the Gatewood parents think it’s ok to pit the 2 elementary schools against each other. Are my W Seattle Elem. kids less important than the Gatewood Elem. kids?

• Joe November 16, 2009 (11:29 am)

  It seems clear that child proximity is not the main factor determining where these map lines are being drawn… It’s pretty shameful the way all that waterfront real estate is getting lumped in to the West Seattle area.

• western November 16, 2009 (6:13 pm)

  I agree that the district has not given enough time to properly comment and have meaningful input in this process.

  Some WS parents have submitted a new amendment proposal to the School Board members which is related to many of the issues raised here-

  It would just be a change to the middle and high school boundary and assignments (NOT to the elementary assignments), basically swapping the two major “No Walk” zones shown on the high school maps on the distirct’s website, so that the south end kids currently on a Gatewood/Madison/WSHS path could actually walk to their assigned neighborhood school (to Denny/Sealth), and the the more populated north end of WS Elemenatary area, caught in the middle between schools (and actually within the WSHS walk zone) would go to Madison/WSHS.

  This would correct the extreme imbalance (built into the current maps) in both the district’s projected enrollment (35% cuts for both Madison & WSHS), as well as keeping more diversity in all of our West Seattle schools and also create two more walking zone areas.

  Yes, it’s a trade-off to not have some of the elementary kids feed all the way from K-12, but that is not one of the Student Assingment Plan’s goals. More importantly, Denny students will be aligned with Sealth, and together with balanced enrollment in all our secondary schools and as much diversity as possible, we can strive for the goal of having two sets of strong and challenging schools that students will want to attend.

• Yeah Me November 16, 2009 (6:22 pm)

  I went to the original meetings and sent in lots of feedback based on what they originally proposed — even though they told us at the meeting that the map WOULD change and be posted on November 3. I am completely happy with the changes — why should we have to go through the process AGAIN?

  You should have come to the original meeting and provided your input during the feedback time frame. I can only assume that it wasn’t until AFTER the changes that you were effected and therefore suddenly want to JUMP INTO THE PROCESS!

  This has been going on for months! Why complain now?

• VBD November 16, 2009 (7:51 pm)

  The truth is, “Yeah Me”, is that the original plan was better to many people, and there was no reason to complain. The revised plan is awful, and the huge outcry against it is evidence of that.

  Those of you who are attempting use the “get on with it” argument are being short sighted. Why accept the worst option just because we are getting tired of the topic? Isn’t this a little more important than that?

  Have some guts and put in the effort required to get it right.

• Kris November 16, 2009 (8:02 pm)

  This assignment plan gets a big fat F! Here is my grading on the nine points the district claims they used as guidelines.

  Proximity of students to schools D-
  Student (district) has failed geometry, and appears to be unable to find the shortest distance between two points.

  Safe walk zones F
  Student displays poor judgement. Poor understanding of geography and velocity (as in, speeding cars).

  Efficiency of school bus routing … D- The word “efficiency” appears to be missing from student’s vocabulary. Is it better for little Johnny to walk 5 minutes, or take a bus or car two miles?

  Metro transportation routes …. C-
  Apparently unable to read a bus timetable. Has apparently never had to transfer from one Metro route to another.

  Demographics, including changes in enrollment D
  Requires remedial math. If we close one school, and add two Kindergarten classes at two other schools, isn’t that equal? Much worse than current plan. Prima facie case closed.

  Physical barriers (water, etc.) F
  Plays too many video games – if the Mario bros can jump off cliffs and hop over barriers, why can’t kids in “real life”?

  Balanced target enrollment – middle school Everyday math skills lacking. If one school has 4 schools feeding to it and one school has 6, which school is more disadvantaged by this situation? It’s a rhetorical question, btw.

  Availability of Open Choice seats … F
  This must be a Singapore math question, because the student just doesn’t seem to get it.

• Oliver November 16, 2009 (9:01 pm)

  I have been watching this process for a long time since I have a child who will start kindergarten in 2010.

  Here are some facts about the process, for those who now claim that this is somehow rushed or that more time is need:

  The district approved the basic framework for the revised assignment plan over two years ago on June 20, 2007. It was updated on August 23, 2007 and the school board has regularly held meetings regarding the assignment plan since then. The board’s work history is here: http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/archive/boardwork.html

  Many community meetings have been held since 2008. http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/archive/engagement.html

  On April 14th of this year, the district published a revised outline of the timeline for making the final decisions, which is right on track.

  On June 2nd, the district had a news conference describing the plan and further process. The video has been on the district’s website since then.

  This has not been a rushed process and there has been more than ample opportunity to comment in a meaningful way. WSB has frequently published many ways in which you can provide your comments to district officials.

  In response to the question about what is the rush, now is the time that parents have to make decisions for next fall. Applications to private schools are due and shortly after the holidays parents will have to tour schools and determine whether to apply for the “open” seats (if any). I would like to make those decisions by knowing what the variables actually are.

• EAO November 16, 2009 (9:10 pm)

  I posted this a few weeks ago, but think it’s worth to post again.

  My biggest concern with the recent district re-boundering in the “unbalance” it creates within West Seattle. I recently read a book titled, “Hope and Despair in the American City: Why There Are No Bad Schools in Raleigh” by Gerald Grant. One way Raleigh has been able to achieve good schools across the board is by creating socio-economically “balanced” schools. A “balanced” school is considered a school that has 40% or less of their students qualify for free and reduced lunch. When schools become “unbalanced” changes are made to maintain that ratio. Still 80% of the students in the district go to their neighborhood school and several “option/magnet” schools are available to provide additional choice.

  Given the most recent proposed re-boundering, we now have the 4 schools with the LOWEST F&RL percentages in WS feeding to the same middle school and high school (Madison/WS) while the schools with the 5 HIGHEST F&RL percentages feeding to Denny/Sealth. Studies have shown that when middle income students are in classrooms with lower-income students (as long as it’s not disproportionate) the middle income students do not perform any different than if they were in a class with all middle income students, but when lower income students are in classrooms with middle income students they preform better than if they were in a class with a majority of lower income students. If we want to create the strongest community we can, I don’t think the balancing issue can be ignored.

• Susan McLain November 16, 2009 (9:35 pm)

  For me, this issue is not about where my address will land with respect to attendance areas. Our home is not near a boundary, and will stay in the same area regardless. Further, I support the District’s move toward neighborhood schools.

  I believe the West Seattle public was offered a very short amount of time to review the new middle/high school area boundary which is very different from previous versions. I received a mail copy of the new middle/high school attendance area on November 8, with only 10 days until the final scheduled vote.

  I was dismayed at the new boundary for middle/high school partly because it differs dramatically from previous versions. Further, information from the U.S. census, School District and the Seattle Times all show a shocking divide between the two middle/high school attendance areas in West Seattle: one populated by relative affluence; the other by relative poverty. I don’t believe this imbalance was intentional by the District, but it will have major consequences for our schools and for our West Seattle community.

  There are several ideas for resolving this problem. I believe the middle/high school boundary should not gerrymander as it does in the current proposal. Personally, I believe the line should be drawn roughly east-west as it is for other high school attendance areas. I realize this would possibly “split” three elementary cohorts (Gatewood, West Seattle, Sanislo) rather than keep those cohorts together through grade 12. ‘But it would better meet the goal of sending kids to their local middle/high schools, and it would better meet the goal of balanced school populations. Remember, no where else in the City is the District contemplating keeping cohorts together from kindergarten through grade 12.

  Realistically, we won’t be able to revisit these boundaries for a long time because families will be making life decisions based on the attendance areas. I understand there will always be population differences between the two middle/high school attendance areas, but we can do better than the current proposal. The decision about the middle/high school attendance area boundaries should be the best decision for our schools and our community for many years to come.

• Herman November 17, 2009 (12:12 am)

  The new maps are great. Now I don’t have to send my kids miles away from my neighborhood just to participate in a social experiment. If there’s inequality in our city, let’s ask the adults to solve it, don’t lay it on my little boys.

• VBD November 17, 2009 (8:18 am)

  Herman, that’s the point. Nobody’s kids should be forced to do that. The current proposal makes kids move around even more now than the previous one. Kids living across the street from Roxhill will be assigned to Arbor Heights. Kids just blocks from Denny will be assigned to Madison. There are many arbitrary jogs down the middle of streets that will break up neighborhoods.

  The map should represent some of the geographic and practical neighborhood separations, and split the school boundaries where they keep kids close to schools, but also provide an equitable distribution of district resources.

  Unfortunately, as the population distribution in the region has changed, the locations of the schools hasn’t. The closure of Fairmount and the old pathfinder campus caused a big gap in the school distribution. If those schools were still open they would certainly have been assigned to the north. Now the kids in those areas are, in part, being sent to West Seattle, Gatewood, and the new Pathfinder.
  I just think we can get much better than what we’ve been handed.

• yumpears November 17, 2009 (8:36 am)

  I think the amendment mentioned by western seems reasonable. I hope it gets some traction with the board.

• swimcat November 17, 2009 (10:30 am)

  I have a toddler and didn’t even get anything in the mail regarding the school boundary changes- I found out about all of these changes from reading WSB. I’m pretty unhappy with this new map, because we are 1/2 mile from Denny/CSHS and our child will have to go 3+ miles away to Madison/WSHS. This MAKES NO SENSE!!!

  I am not able to attend any evening meetings unfortunately- who can we write to voice our opinions? Is it too late? I’ve never been particularly concerned because we were always in the Denny/CSHS area so this is not a pleasant surprise that it has changed.

• WSB November 17, 2009 (10:35 am)

  Hey all – a) I will have a new item about all this within the next few hours, as the proposed amendments (so far) are attached to the board agenda now in the school board system. As of very very early this morning, the only proposed West Seattle amendment involved a “notch” between the Alki and Lafayette attendance areas getting straightened out now.
  .
  To swimcat’s point, no, it’s not too late to e-mail board members. And if you can attend a MORNING meeting – WS board rep Steve Sundquist has one more community chat before the vote – tomorrow morning, 10 am, Delridge Library. (We discovered recently that he lists most – though not all – of his community appearances on the right sidebar of his personal website:
  http://www.sundquist4schools.com/
  )
  .
  Board members’ contact info is here:
  http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/contact.xml
  .
  But Sundquist also stressed, e-mail the official box for feedback on the maps:
  newassign@seattleschools.org

• GenHillOne November 17, 2009 (10:39 am)

  I still believe that if distance was really the priority, a math teacher should have given them a compass to start the mapping process :(
  –
  Since Pathfinder is an alternative school, should it even be in the “neighborhood school” count? Would removing it be helpful for distribution? Especially with the recent move, how many of its students actually live in the reference area now? They may not have been in the Genessee neighborhood either. How are other Seattle alternative schools being addressed in the plan? Aside from the location, it seems like some students stay through 8th, others only 5th, so how does that uncertainty affect middle/high school numbers? More questions than answers for me I guess, lol.

Sorry, comment time is over.