Seattle School Board’s transition talk: Will siblings stay together?

Meeting last night for the first time in the new year, the Seattle School Board took on some of the remaining details of the transition to the new Student Assignment Plan; here are the highlights. The issue many parents have been watching closely involves “sibling grandfathering” – if a child currently attends a school different from the “neighborhood” one to which they’d be assigned otherwise, they are grandfathered to stay through its highest grade, but what about a younger sibling entering school this fall (or maybe beyond) – will they be able to attend their sibling’s school? A group of concerned parents rallied before the meeting last night; among them, West Seattle’s Fiona Preedy, who has been active on the issue. She sent around a summary last night of what happened from her viewpoint; we asked for permission to share it:

About a dozen West Seattle parents joined me at a rally tonight, at the John Stanford Center, regarding grandfathering younger siblings. There were a few reporters at the rally, notably, KPLU and King 5, with their cameras’ filming the children with signs, and there was a spot on King 5 at 11 p.m. The broadcast of the meeting will be repeated on the Education channel and you can watch online.

After a few speakers about the sibling issue, (superintendent) Dr. (Maria) Goodloe-Johnson did speak to the sibling families and stated that they are concerned and they do want to help. She gave the guarantee that if younger siblings can not get in the older sib’s school, the older sib is guaranteed a spot in the reference area school, which is in the transition plan. This is rationalized by the ability to spread those students over 5 grades, rather than the concentration in kindergarten. They are calling this a safety net.

For siblings of students with special needs, they are definitely grandfathering in. Steve Sundquist asked that the placement of Spectrum at Madison and Arbor Heights, specifically to ease the load on Lafayette, be sped up to the upcoming year. He also made reference to investigating grandfathering Spectrum siblings.

Several directors strongly urged Dr. (Tracy) Libros to speed up the modeling for school capacity, as surveys and enrollments come in, so they can identify schools where there will be no problem or, on the other hand, where there will be problems. They seemed noticeably concerned over the families’ stress. Regardless of their concern, it still seems the chances of getting the plan past one year are nil. However, if this year’s enrollment goes well, they will begin in the fall to make the next year’s plan early and might even be able to do a two year plan.

Dr. Libros did have a power point about the timeline for enrollment. They’ve extended early enrollment until Jan. 15, then open enrollment will be in March. With the “safety net”, you have through Sept. 30 to decide to move your older sibling to your reference area school with your kindergartener, so if nothing happens to get you in, you don’t have to make an early decision to hold your place.

A lot of the power will be directed to the principals and staff at the schools, so be nice to your principal!

Steve Sundquist will have another meeting at Delridge Library on Saturday, January 16, 1 to 2:30, so come with your questions and comments.

Other reports from last night: Here’s the KING5 coverage and the KPLU report that Fiona mentioned; A partial update from the community site saveseattleschools.blogspot.com is here. That site also points to this helpful link if you want to tour a school before assignments are finalized – here’s the list of open houses citywide.

14 Replies to "Seattle School Board's transition talk: Will siblings stay together?"

  • Fiona January 7, 2010 (8:04 am)

    Please visit KeepOurKidsTogether.org for more info on the subject of sibling grandfathering, it’s the link that WSB provided in the text to concerned parents. Thanks!

  • Que January 7, 2010 (8:34 am)

    Thanks Fiona for your great work on this! Your work on this makes a big difference for all of us!

  • Carrie Ann January 7, 2010 (9:47 am)

    As a parent with a child in Kindergarten in a non-reference school, and another who will be entering in two years, I will definitely check out the site and see what I can do. Thank you!

  • sealocks January 7, 2010 (1:30 pm)

    Thank you for being a voice on this issue. My youngest won’t enter school for another 3 years and her sibling will be in 3rd grade at that point. The eldest is definitely in the right place for her and we want them in the same school!

  • AJ January 7, 2010 (4:02 pm)

    when I was a kid in 1962 my folks had at one point had three kids in elementary, JR and HS at three schools. Not sure why this is such a big issue. These were three different schools. Why is this weird now?

  • (required) January 7, 2010 (10:11 pm)

    I take issue with what “AJ” has written, and I also think siblings should be allowed to attend with their “grandfathered” siblings.

    AJ, no one else seems to be saying the proposal is “weird.” Problematic, yes. A “big issue,” yes again. But “weird”?

    AJ, I think you’re coming from a much different perspective, a 48 year-old perspective. That 48 year figure strikes me, because I think a lot has changed in those 48 years, and I suspect the things that have changed are things that you just might not be fully cognizant of. Your memories of 48 years ago may still be fresh 48 years later, but ask yourself to compare how it was then with how it is now. Not how you think it might still be now, but how it REALLY is now.

    For starters, did BOTH your parents drive you each to and from school, AJ? How far away were the schools foryou and your siblings? Were all the schools pretty good? You see, some moms (and dads) today actually drive the kids today, AND they also work, and in some cases, they work more than one job. Now, was that the case with your folks? Heck, did they even drive you to school?

    Also consider the quality of the schools 48 years ago versus today. Maybe the schools back 48 years ago were all “OK.” But today, they’re markedly different. For example, Roxhill’s test scores were noticeably lousy. One prominent Seattle newspaper survey showed that Roxhill was ranked among the worst of all the schools in the entire City of Seattle — “well below average.” True or not, that was what the survey said, and it was based on real test scores. Roxhill also didn’t have programs Lafayette had. Nor were the schools surrounded by homes of equal values — but does that matter? Or is it just a coincidence that Lafayette and the school near the beach, Alki (where property values also happen to be much higher) both ranked at least “average”? AJ, you may not have seen these differences. Today’s parents who think this is a “big issue” do, however.

    You want to know what’s such a “big issue,” AJ? Here’s one. Just a year ago, under the old superintendent, Roxhill was slated for closure. Today, under new superintendent Maria Goodloe Johnson — who is paid over $200,000 a year and could send her kids wherever she wants — she now wants to mandate all kids near Roxhill go there. Even if those families who moved into that neighborhood knowing they could send their kids to the better schools with the better programs and the better test scores. Those families bough less expensive homes they could afford near Westwood village. They relied on the fact that they could choose their school when they moved in to that neighborhood. But now, the new superintendent is essentially telling those families, “you’re screwed!” She’s telling those families, the rules are changing mid-game, and for no good reason. She’s forcing kids and families into schools they never chose, and in some cases, into schools that the seattle Public Schools wanted to shut down and sell just one administration ago.

    AJ, do you see that this is a “big issue”?

    The most important thing to note is that if the limited population of siblings were allowed to go were their “grandfathered” siblings go, it wouldn’t be a big deal. That population is finite and shrinking every year. As kids matriculate, that population will continue to shrink each year until it becomes zero. Then it won’t even be an issue any more. So the schools could still implement their new attendance plan without any issue even while respecting the existing families’ plans and expectations at the same time.

    So why doesn’t the school system just allow siblings in? I don’t know. There really is not any reason for not allowing it — other than almost fascist And in the end, I don’t think Goodloe Johnson has any real reasons other than “I want to see it happen.” Now, to me, THAT’s weird.

  • Dano January 7, 2010 (10:41 pm)

    Just a thought for consideration: At what point does class size become a negative factor for parents that want all of this “grandfathering?”
    I teach at Lafayette, and we are just busting at the seams… I have even heard some Seattle families who worked desperatly to get into a particular school, complain bitterly about the class sizes once they got in!!!… In some ways, I can understand the tension… but I really believe that having a child in any public school brings with it a certain responsibility….. to work with that particular school’s community to make the school the best it can be. This is more than just donating cold hard cash….. It involves volunteering, networking with businesses, participating in the building decision making, attending school events, conferences, school board meetings, etc…. It is the human resource that enhances a school’s environment….. We should never forget that schools are ever-changing, LIVE places….They can improve or degrade depending on the efforts of their communities. Again, just posing a reflection.

  • Pam January 8, 2010 (10:37 am)

    I thought it was hilarious when I clicked on the link to view the highlights of the District’s plan and a blank page showed up!!! What does that tell you??

  • WSB January 8, 2010 (10:49 am)

    Hi, Pam – I just checked the link again and it opens a PDF. Check your browser configuration, maybe? The district unfortunately relies heavily on PDFs rather than translating documents to web pages that don’t rely on another program to open the docs … TR

  • luckymom30 January 8, 2010 (10:50 am)

    Wait a minute! I take great offense to your comments that Roxhill is a “bad” school. That is the whole problem and the reason we are all in this mess! Parents like you (Arbor Heights?) believe that Roxhill is a poor choice, is it because of attitudes like yours? Is it because of the miniority population that don’t dress, act and speak like you? I am so fed up with this mind-set. We choose Roxhill over Arbor Heights because it offers great educational opportunities that Arbor Heights does not, our child has thrived at Roxhill and would have been under-challenged and bored to tears at Arbor Heights being that they teach at the class levele and Roxhill teachers teach at the child’s individual level. Our child’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade teachers all attended on their own time classes to better challeneg our child and many other children because they want each child to succeed and to be challenged.

    Here is a question for you, what constitutes a “good” school? Are you going to keep sending your child to schools that has the best test scores and the best neighborhood reputation and keep schools that test scores are lower and then whine because your child who does not live in the “better” school area is “forced” to attend a different school than the sibling? The parents who made these choices are the reason this mess is still a part of every families life.

    Are you proud of yourselves? My god, what will your child do when the day comes and mom and dad are not ther to point them in the direction of the “better” job”?

    I feel there is too much indifference between all Seattle Schools, there are opportunities given to families and children and not given to others basically based on the location of the school and the involvement of the parents. I do agree that Aj is out of line and out of touch, most families have to have 2 parents working these days and with other commitments, daycare, other children to raise, etc.. it is not anything like it was 48 years ago. We have a long way to go and I sincerely hope that we can all think about what is best for ALL children, regardless of which school they attend, of which neighborhood they live in and who their parents are. For parents afraid to have their child attend Roxhill, please do not inflict your sobbish attitude to our families and children of Roxhill. All our children will someday meet and work together but with your attitude of righteous we will continue to be separate unless you change your attitude and want the best for each and every child.

  • luckymom30 January 8, 2010 (11:09 am)

    Wait a minute! I take great exception to your comments that Roxhill is a poor school! It is a great school! With attitudes like yours that is why we are in the mess!

    With parents like you who have sent their children to out of their area schools in “avoid” a poor” school” and then whine because their children can not attend the same schools, I have very little sympathy! Your children and those of many other families are now paying the price for your ignorance or not sending your child to your area school. Who do you think your children will be working with someday? Picking only the “best” school” with the “best” test scores, what message are you sending to your child? There is far too much indifference in all Seattle Schools, more opportunities given to children who attend the “better” schools, in the “better” neighborhoods”. What do you think makes up a “best” performing school? Children who are all from different background learning together and from each other. Each and every child should be give the same opportunities regardless of wher they attend school, where they live and where their families from from.

  • Clifford January 9, 2010 (11:45 am)

    Actually, “(required)”, it was over three years ago that Roxhill appeared on a school closure list (2006-2007 school year). Are you possibly confusing Roxhill with Arbor Heights which was on the list of schools to be closed just this past year?

    Both of these schools were ultimately spared and allowed to remain open. It’s interesting to note that Roxhill’s effort to resist closure was characterized by a thoughtful, calm, and respectful effort by students, families, staff and the greater community. Their emphasis was solely on the many positive attributes of Roxhill. There were no attempts to create a media circus, no negative verbal attacks on neighboring schools, and no threats to offer up other area schools as “sacrificial lambs…on a platter” to the school district, as would happen two years later in response to the latest round of school closures.

    Former Superintendent Raj Manhas and board members were very impressed by what the Roxhill community had to say, and how it was said. Their (Mr. Manhas and several Directors) comments at the time were along the lines of “we didn’t know what a great school Roxhill is” and “we weren’t aware of how much this school means to this community.” These types of comments illustrated a District that was, and continues to be, out of touch with many of their own constituents (schools and communities).

    It’s also important to remember that Roxhill was initially not even slated to be closed in 2006-2007, only ending up the list of closures after underhanded and unethical last minute changes by the District to it’s established criteria. Schools rated much lower using the District’s own closure-related data were somehow removed from the list and Roxhill was added quite late in the process.

  • luckymom30 January 11, 2010 (12:52 pm)

    Clifford’s statement speaks the truth. Regardless as to how some people in the Arbor Heights Community feel about Roxhill and other area schools in the White Center area, the parents, students, teachers and staff at Roxhill know just how awesome is our school. To save their own butts Arbor Heights closed and relocated students and families Pathfinder, Cooper and added Roxhill to the list due to their belief that Roxhill is a poor performing school. Telling the District that hundreds of their students walk to school and it would detrimental to their students to force them to relocate or ride a school bus, when that is exactly what they forced Cooper & Pathfinder students to do.

    Then I read that Arbor Heights parents are upset that additional portables would be built on their campus because of the new Student Assignment force children who live across the street from Roxhill to attend Arbor Heights and distrupt their lives to make everything easier on Arbor Heights students and families. Why is it they feel so self-entitled and “special”?

  • SanisloParent January 30, 2010 (9:49 am)

    Dano:
    If you create a system that relies primarily on parental involvement for the quality of the education offered at individual schools, then schools in less affluent areas of the city will suffer.

    The new plan locks families into geographic areas and until all neighborhoods have equal economic diversity (unlikely in our lifetimes) the children of working class/lower middle class families can expect their neighborhood school to lack some of the resources schools like Lafayette enjoy. Not because their parents aren’t willing to get involved and not because they won’t give all that they have to give their kids the best opportunity, but because they don’t have the time after working their two jobs, and because they’re struggling to feed their kids and cannot contribute to the PTA fundraiser. So their kids don’t get the supplementary staff in their school – they don’t get the gym or art teacher – they don’t get the additional resources or field trips or any of the other stuff that makes for a really rounded educational experience. And that stinks.

    As far as I can tell, this plan takes us one step further down the path of privatization of the school system (the pay for K is another step in that direction). And it reinforces the underlying and pernicious philosophy that it’s OK to expect a better public education if you live in a more affluent area of town.

    If we really want “excellence for all,” why don’t we all work for a central PTA that then divides financial resources equally between all schools? It would be a start.

Sorry, comment time is over.