West Seattleites air concerns about school assignment plan’s Year 2

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Seattle Public Schools managers said they were in the West Seattle High School commons Tuesday night to hear ideas from community members about how to continuing transitioning into the in-its-first-year Student Assignment Plan.

What they heard most loudly from the crowd of approximately 100 was that they needed to answer more questions before community members would be ready to offer suggestions.

The district expects the plan to be fully in place by 2015; it began this school year with policies mostly affecting the entering grades – kindergarten, sixth, ninth. But there were many concerns about the plan expressed as it was being debated and adopted, and the district promised early this year to listen to and consider those concerns when it came time to plot the next phase of the transition – which is what they’re doing now.

As Tuesday night’s meeting began, the district’s enrollment and planning manager, Dr. Tracy Libros, moved quickly through West Seattle-relevant parts of this PowerPoint, after declaring, “Nothing is decided at this point – the board and staff is totally open to (other ideas) (at this point)” – though they’ll be voting on a proposal soon after New Year’s, much the same way the controversial school-closure plan unfolded two years ago.

Then, district curriculum manager Cathy Thompson moderated a few audience questions, spoken and written, before declaring it was time for everyone to break into small groups and talk about ideas. One woman stood up and challenged that, saying she didn’t feel she had heard enough from the district officials to be able to thoroughly discuss the possibilities and brainstorm alternatives, so she wanted the Q/A period to go longer – and after she received a show of hands in support, Libros and Thompson agreed.

But we’re a bit ahead of ourselves. If you haven’t gone through the PowerPoint, key points of note included the issue of “many overcrowded elementary schools,” which the district blames in part to the decision to let new kindergarteners go to the same school as older siblings, even if it’s not their newly designated (as of this year) “attendance-area” school. Libros said that was not likely to be possible next year.

Libros also noted that one set of district projections from this year had turned out to be wrong: “We thought we would have declines, but instead we have more high school students this year” – both of West Seattle’s major public high schools have higher enrollment than expected, as do the two middle-only schools. Overall, Libros said, the district has more than 1,000 students above what was projected – though they are still working with last year’s projections that, by 2015, suggest Chief Sealth International High School will have a much-bigger student body than West Seattle High School (and the same for their respective feeder middle schools, Denny International and Madison), which was a source of consternation for many at the meeting.

Speaking of middle school, Libros says a change in transportation policies could be on the table for the second year of the Student Assignment Plan transition – right now they’ve designated everyone within 2 miles of a school as being in its “walk zone,” ineligible for school buses, and some parents have voiced concern about that, saying it’s potentially unsafe for some of the youngest middle schoolers to have to come all that way – especially if the route takes them across mega-busy streets like 35th SW.

Back to the potential enrollment imbalances for the secondary schools, one possibility in the presentation is one that West Seattle school board member Steve Sundquist proposed back before the original plan was approved early this year (see this story from January) – making the three elementaries that are somewhat across West Seattle’s midsection “dual feeders,” so that students from Gatewood, Sanislo, and West Seattle could choose the Madison/WSHS track or the Denny/Sealth track. (Later in the meeting, applause greeted one suggestion that all of West Seattle should be dual feeder.)

Also on the table – figuring out the feeder pattern for international schools (for example, right now in the West Seattle area of the district, which includes South Park, a Concord International student is not necessarily guaranteed the ability to move on to Denny and Chief Sealth International).

“What’s being done to address socioeconomic imbalance in West Seattle regarding the feeder patterns?” one attendee asked; Libros replied, “We are now in the process of redoing analyses based on actual data, as it’s happening now.”

Many questions focused on tiebreakers – how to decide between two students competing for one seat at a school; some of those may change, it was indicated.

And then came small-group discussion time; after about 20 minutes, each table sent a representative forward to make their key points.

First one wanted to address the attendance boundaries for Roxhill Elementary, given the fact – pointed out once the maps emerged early this year – “if you live across the street from Roxhill, you are going to get bused 14 blocks to Arbor heights. Consider the area between 30th and 35th (to add to the attendance area).”

Second was concerned about facility condition matching facility usage: “The feeder patterns adopted last year appear to result in a really poor use of recently remodeled secondary facilities like this beautiful (WSHS) building that would be extremely underused [if low enrollment projections by 2015 play out] … conversely, we have an elementary school like Schmitz Park that is way overused.” He suggested that new boundaries and more facility remodeling might be in order.

Third speaker addressed challenges at Lafayette Elementary, which currently has the highest elementary-student population in West Seattle, more than 500. It also has a boundary problem, she said, with students “two and a half blocks away who do not go to Lafayette, while kids from miles away get bused in.” Among her group’s suggestions – reopen an elementary school, change the boundary lines for north West Seattle, clarify the rules for “out of area” kids.

Others suggested reopening a school, too. And one speaker focused on the future projected discrepancy in enrollment between Denny/Sealth and Madison/WSHS, saying “supply and demand” seemed to be the biggest issue, with a southward migration now because those schools are more in demand. However, she suggested, “West Seattle is one big community and we should make middle schools and high schools open choice for all of West Seattle.” (That won big applause.)

Another speaker was more general – but also more pointed. “We like the idea of the new Student Assignment Plan, but not the poor implementation. We started planning our children’s education long ago, then (came) this new plan with little attention to grandfathering, little attention to what parents had been planning for years. We feel the district should pay more attention to this transition period and could have done a much-better job at maybe slowing down the transition, more grandfathering and flexibility – we feel like it moved too fast for parents to react.” (That too won a lot of applause.)

Once the table reports were presented, the meeting was over. Here’s what happens next, as had been explained toward the meeting’s start:

*Superintendent’s decisions will be made before ‘open enrollment’

*”Drop-in” meetings for more Q/A continue at district headquarters (here’s the list of dates/times)

*The school board will discuss the topic December 1st and 8th; the transition plan for next school year is ongoing, and “drafts will be posted online”

*A proposed final plan will be introduced January 5, then action will be scheduled January 19th

*Open enrollment is March 15-31; “individual assignment letters will be sent before then.”

20 Replies to "West Seattleites air concerns about school assignment plan's Year 2"

  • pam November 18, 2010 (7:50 am)

    thank you so much wsb for attending the meeting and getting this info to west seattle families!

  • Sharon K November 18, 2010 (8:02 am)

    Steve Sundquist & School District:
    .
    Yes, advocate to make the three elementaries that are across West Seattle’s midsection “dual feeders!

  • Que November 18, 2010 (8:06 am)

    Thank you very much TR for keeping us informed about this (and everything else) :-)

  • WS parent November 18, 2010 (10:28 am)

    The dual-feeder proposal does not solve the major concern of built-in enrollment imbalance (leading to program & services imbalance also), with 6 feeder schools going to Denny/Sealth and only four to Madison/WSHS. This year the traditional “North/South” migration did not happen as before, with 86% of the kids at Denny and 70% at Sealth accepting their default assignments (compared to 73% at Madison and only 49% this year at WSHS). The whole West Seattle assignment plan needs to change, not just temporary “tweeks”.

    Several community proposals came up at the West Seattle meeting which, when combined, might address some of the current critical issues and concerns about enrollment imbalance:
    •An “All-West Seattle” assignment area for our middle & high school students
    •A guaranteed West Seattle assignment in one of these two sets of schools
    •Use “distance” as a tie-breaker (except for Sanislo, which should have a direct International feeder leading to Denny & Sealth)

    By having an “All-West Seattle” assignment area, the artifical assignment map divisions between north & south WS, and between “east and west of 35th Ave” would be removed, and West Seattle would return to being one community again, defined by our penninsula and our water as our boundaries. The concept of having “neighborhood schools” would really exist, with most students able to go to their closest middle & high schools, but with the historical West Seattle option for “choice” still available for all WS families, not just those caught in the middle.

    One of the goals of an “All-West Seattle” plan would be for the ability to balance enrollment, providing equitable access to programs and services each year at both sets of our secondary schools. It would offer opportunities for school choice and foster diversity. It would support stronger family engagement with their schools. It would be easy to understand, provide predictability and continuity for families, and be feasible and cost effective to implement & to sustain over time. (These are actually all of the same goals adopted last year by the School Board from the new Student Assignment Plan)
    Please let the District and the School Board hear your voices for an equitable plan for all of West Seattle!

  • Clementine November 18, 2010 (10:49 am)

    I want to thank Tracy and the WSB for keeping those of us who could not attend the meeting, so very well informed.

    I’d also like to applaud the woman who asked not to be broken into those smaller groups until the group as a whole received more information.

  • WS parent November 18, 2010 (11:02 am)

    …oops- It is supposed to be Concord- as the International elementary school leading to Denny & Sealth-
    sorry about that!

  • Another WS parent November 18, 2010 (12:23 pm)

    What about the distribution of advanced learning schools? Only 2 elementary schools have Spectrum, but Lafayette is already so crowded. Can more schools incorporate ALO into their programs? If one kid gets moved for advanced learning, the younger sibling will likely have to attend a different school. That is difficult for families, PTA, etc.

  • kdg mom November 18, 2010 (12:53 pm)

    Thank you WSB for getting this information. In general I find this to be a very challenging time to have students entering the public schools. As a parent of early elementary students I am disappointed on so many levels. How completely irresponsible of the district to put in place a plan that is not complete or well thought out. If they did not have the information to make well-informed decisions about the final outcome AS WELL as the transition, then shame on them for putting something incomplete into action. Their whole intent was predictability and for families currently enrolled who have had their boundaries changed, siblings coming up, or entering advanced programs, there is anything BUT predictability! And based on these conversations, no predictability is in the future. In addition it seems that curriculum is all over the place. It is not predictable from school to school or from classroom to classroom. Get it together people! My kids don’t have the 6 years it takes to bring about true change! They are there NOW!

  • ws November 18, 2010 (5:59 pm)

    The three dual feeder idea might be great for those living in that area, but would discriminate against the rest of us. That would mean 7 of 10 West Seattle Elementary feeders have priority to the International and IB programs at Denny/Sealth. That would basically lock us “North Enders” out of those programs. Is that fair or equitable? Why a special privilege for only those three schools?

  • ww mom November 18, 2010 (7:07 pm)

    So funny to hear about north-end WS people complaining about equity in school assignments. South-end elementary choices are far behind the north-end schools. Roxhill and West Seattle were my options, so we opted for private school instead! Give the south end something to look forward to….quality public middle/high school. You get to enjoy LaFayette and Schmitz Park, we get to enjoy Denny/Sealth!

  • WS Mom November 18, 2010 (7:18 pm)

    If only 49% of families chose WSHS by default, then the district clearly needs to be addressing the reasons why. The questions about boundaries are interesting, but the quality/inequality of education (perceived or real) at the 2 West Seattle High Schools MUST BE ADDRESSED.

  • Bad data November 18, 2010 (8:54 pm)

    WS Parent and WS Mom, I think you are reading the data wrong. According to documents posted on the SPS website (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/implementation/WhereStudentsGoHS.pdf), more students living in the WSHS attendance area are opting to stay at WSHS, than students in the Sealth area opting to stay at Sealth, 53% vs. 45%. Madison also appears to be more popular than Denny; 64% of attendance area students opting to take their mandatory assignment vs. 54% at Denny (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/implementation/WhereStudentsgoMS.pdf). It looks to me like there is still more migration north than south.

  • WS parent November 18, 2010 (11:20 pm)

    Bad D.- We are looking at different tables & different data. I was referring to the % of the students actually at (attending) the school who accepted their default assignment at that school, and you are referrring to the % of students from the attendance area attending their school (many more students are in the Sealth area vs the WSHS area, so the % will be very different).

    Check out:
    http://www.seattleschools.org/area/implementation/NumberandPercentAA.pdf
    “Where Students Attend”
    on page 3- Who: Students at the School
    What: % who live in the attendance area
    On this table you will see the data I was referring to, i.e. 49% of 9th grade kids attending WSHS are actually from that reference area, vs 70% at Sealth accepting their default assignment to Sealth.

  • Bad data November 19, 2010 (11:00 am)

    WS parent, I’m not trying to pick on you, but the conclusions you are drawing from the data are incorrect. The 238 9th grade students enrolled at Sealth who live in the attendance area represent 70% of the 9th grade class at Sealth, but those same 238 students only represent 54% of the total 9th grade population living in the Sealth attendance area (and enrolled in an SPS school). Only 54% accepted their default assignment, not 70%.

    Personally, I think SPS is posting too much data, probably because they are always being accused of not being open enough. In this case the two sets of tables are slightly different and can be confusing unless you compare them side by side.

    • WSB November 19, 2010 (11:16 am)

      That was the conclusion I reached as well. But might I say, kudos to you all for wading through all that data, and yes, it is clearly confusing, to coin a phrase. While Sealth has a higher percentage of students living in its assignment area, WSHS had a higher percentage of assignment-area residents choosing to go to their assignment-area school … at least according to those two sets of numbers. One of these days I’ll find a quick-n-easy pie-chart program to use to try to help highlight some of this stuff, absent a staff artist … TR

  • Tim November 19, 2010 (3:00 pm)

    What percent of student age children living in WS attend SPS? Isn’t the percent for the city attending public school well below similar sized cities? Swapping a few boundries won’t solve that – the boundry thing may be the last straw for some, but it isn’t the only, or perhaps the main reason people are frustrated.

  • Lovely November 19, 2010 (4:18 pm)

    does anyone know what the Denny International program structure looks like? I know that Sealth’s program is one kids opt in, apply into and has limited capacity. Is it the same at the middleschool? How many kids actually can actually be a part of the program?

  • ws November 19, 2010 (9:50 pm)

    The sad thing about the MS/HS attendance is that if the district would have just balanced both sets of schools like they promised (5 elementaries feeding North and 5 elementaries feeding South) Denny/Sealth would have room for “Northies” who want the IB/International school ed., and Madison/WSHS would have room for the “Southies” who want a more traditional comprehensive public school education. That would have been a fabulous use of public resources and a true “win win” for students.

  • Jeff November 20, 2010 (7:50 am)

    “Dual feeders”? “Foster choice”? I’m not against those ideas at all but I have to point out: isn’t that exactly the situation we had before in the SSD, that the new plan was suppossed to eliminate?

    And why is the District using the WS penninsula as it’s test-bed for making neighborhood schools fight each other for survival, while North-end schools are geographically protected, and other South-end schools that are grossly under-enrolled and under-performing (RB, Cleveland) are given massive infusions of extra resources?

    Healthy competition is one thing, but this is another…

  • WSB November 20, 2010 (8:28 am)

    Re: the question from Lovely – since nobody else jumped in:
    .
    The “International” part of Denny and Sealth, and Concord Elementary too, is an entire-school philosophy. The district explains it here:
    .
    http://www.seattleschools.org/area/internationaled/policy.xml
    .

    That’s not to be confused with the “International Baccalaureate” program for 11th and 12th graders, which started at Sealth even before it became an “international school” – here’s the informational page:
    .
    http://www.seattleschools.org/schools/chiefsealth/ib.html
    .
    On that page, it’s stated that they are hopeful for at least 70% participation by juniors and seniors, eventually.
    .
    To the languages part of the “international school” philosophy, while covering stories at many West Seattle schools, private as well as public, we’re finding an increased amount of language-learning offerings, fwiw, and unique programs related to it – recently we covered the sister-city exchange program involving French language students at West Seattle High School:
    .
    https://westseattleblog.com/2010/11/west-seattle-high-schools-sister-city-visitors
    .
    –TR

Sorry, comment time is over.