In case it’s fallen off your radar — the Seattle School Board‘s final vote on the Denny-Sealth project is four days away, at the board’s next regular meeting on Wednesday night. The agenda for the meeting is now posted online (including information as always on how to sign up to speak at the meeting – you can call starting Monday); find it here. There are two items on the agenda regarding Denny-Sealth:Read More

President Steve Fischer of the Westwood Neighborhood Council, which organized last Tuesday’s panel-discussion meeting at CSHS (WSB text/video coverage here), sent the list of audience questions that remained when time ran out. As promised, he has forwarded them to the district to request answers online the same way they answered questions (here) from their 2/4 meeting at CSHS. Here’s the list (reading it, we see there is one toward the end that we can answer, as it involves WSB):Read More

34TH DISTRICT DEMOCRATS’ RESOLUTION: A comment under our report from last night mentioned the 34th DDs voted last night to support the Westwood Neighborhood Council and Denny/Sealth school staff in pursuing an “authentic” public process. We received a copy of the resolution this morning; you can see it here.

SPEAKING OF PUBLIC PROCESS: West Seattle’s school-board rep Steve Sundquist asked district staffers last night about reported discrepancies and omissions in the information that’s posted on the district website as answers to the public questions from last week’s meeting. District staff acknowledged some “confusion.” One point of ongoing dispute/confusion that was not addressed clearly last night — board member Harium Martin-Morris wanted clarification about the oft-repeated complaint that the language on the ballot did not mention the shared campus. He didn’t get a complete answer to that during the public meeting we observed last night (and it’s not fully answered in the district Q/A, either; see Question 14 under Pink Room on this page); fellow members Sherry Carr and Peter Maier talked again about the pamphlet mailed to all 45,000-ish households with Seattle Public Schools students, which did talk about the shared campus, but what was left out was the indisputable fact – whether or not you think it matters – that the actual text seen in the official King County Voters’ Pamphlet by voters casting ballots in the February 2007 election (direct link here) explaining what the money would go for, was this:

Section 2. Authorization of Construction and Modernization Improvements. The District shall modernize and expand its school facilities through the following programs:
(1) Middle /K-8 school improvements including full renovation of Hamilton, and replacement of South Shore and Denny.
(2) High School improvements including renovation of Chief Sealth and Nathan Hale, addition at Ingraham and modernization of Rainier Beach Career and Technology facilities.
(3) Infrastructure improvements for water piping, indoor air quality and synthetic sports turf, including contributions to Hiawatha Playfield with Seattle Parks for conversion to synthetic turf.
(4) Technology equipment and training.

On the ballot itself, before checking approve or reject, voters saw this:

The Board of Directors of Seattle School District No. 1 adopted Resolution No. 2006/07-3 concerning this proposition for bonds. This proposition approves a program to renovate or replace four high schools, two middle schools and one K-8 school and make other capital improvements, to issue $490,000,000 in general obligation bonds with a maximum term of seven years; and to levy excess property taxes to repay the bonds and to replace the expiring capital levy, not to exceed $81,666,667 annually for six years.

Just for the record, since this keeps coming up. There certainly was coverage, on our site and elsewhere, before the election, talking about the shared campus — but the official voters’ pamphlet and the actual ballot did not include that point, as project critics frequently note.

UPDATE #1: As has been the case for the past several meetings, the public-comment period at the start of the meeting was dominated by testimony from merged-campus opponents. The board’s in a brief break now, with what’s been described as a “presentation” and “discussion” yet to come on items including the formal introduction of the superintendent’s recommendation that the board approve Option 2. More to come; it’s live on cable channel 26. UPDATE #2, ADDED 9:55 PM: The Denny-Sealth presentation/discussion took more than an hour and a half. Read More

Click To Play

Click for a few seconds of video panning across the full 150-plus crowd at the Chief Sealth High School cafeteria last night for the last district-presented meeting in West Seattle before the School Board makes its decision on the intensely debated Denny/Sealth construction project’s future.

That’s a photo by WSB contributing photojournalist Matt Durham, showing parent Gail McElligott at the meeting. What was seen – lots of PowerPoint slides – and what wasn’t heard – answers to audience questions – dominated the night. See most of the slides for yourself (since the district didn’t promise they’d be up online any time soon), and more, ahead:Read More

Much longer report to come. But here are the bullet points from the meeting in the CSHS cafeteria:
–Meeting lasted 2 1/2 hours.
–Big turnout; at least 150 people. School Board president Cheryl Chow and superintendent Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson were there for a while at the start; West Seattle’s School Board rep Steve Sundquist, of course, stayed for the duration.
–District Power Point presentation featured lots of sales points for Options 1 and 2 (current version, current version plus $10 million extra Sealth work) and the barest of bones for Option 3 (rebuilding Denny on its current site, doing the bare minimum of required safety improvements for Sealth).
–Lots of audience questions, zero answers. Audience was broken into 4 groups to ask questions for half an hour; the questions were written down by facilitators; audience was reconvened so that each group’s questions could be read to the entire audience. The answers? The district will try its best to get them posted online before the Westwood Neighborhood Council’s Denny/Sealth meeting on Feb. 12, one day before the district’s recommended option is “introduced” to the school board. Much more to come, including the presentation details, some of the audience questions, video, photos.

Last reminder: tonight is the last official Seattle Public Schools-sponsored meeting expected in West Seattle before school board members vote on whether to go ahead with the Denny/Sealth project as is, or change it to one of two other options — “Option 2” with extra money for more Chief Sealth High School renovation work, “Option 3” with a new Denny Middle School being built on its current site instead of next to Sealth. All three options are to be shown and explained tonight — a “gallery walk” with one-on-one viewing starting at 6:30 pm, presentation @ 7, Q/A expected to start @ 7:30, Chief Sealth HS Library. Also this afternoon, we have additional information about who’s on the panel for the Westwood Neighborhood Council-sponsored meeting Feb. 12, one day before a project “recommendation” is introduced to the school board. Here’s the full text of the WNC’s new announcement:Read More

In our ongoing quest to publish as much information and as many perspectives as possible on the Denny/Sealth project, as a final decision gets closer, we had wondered here why supporters didn’t seem to be speaking out publicly. Tonight, in comments on this post below, a Denny teacher supporting the co-located campus has spoken out – the school’s music director – and especially considering not everyone reads the comment sections, we wanted to highlight it here:

Over the past year that I have had the opportunity to work on the BEX committee, I have had numerous talks with Mr. Clark, the Denny principal regarding this project and the ongoing debate surrounding it. I know for a fact that Mr. Clark supports option 2, the “adjoined” campus, because he sincerely believes option 2 is what is best for kids. (I posted his letter on this subject in my previous comment and I have the attachment if anyone would like it forwarded to them).

Having listened to everything for the past year and having consistently participated on the BEX committee, I tend to agree that an adjoined campus is in the best interest of our students. I say adjoined and not combined because I believe that “adjoined” is a more accurate description of what has actually been proposed and I have spoken to a lot of kids (and some adults) who have misconceived notions about what was actually proposed. The only “combined” part of the campus, where the students would be regularly encountering one another, is our music department, which is largely combined already with students from Denny going to Sealth for orchestra and choir, and Sealth students coming up to Denny for steel drums.

In a recent survey of the Denny staff (January 30, 2008) 63% of the Denny staff supported or somewhat supported what is being referred to as Option 2, the adjoined campus. 22% were supportive or somewhat supportive of separate campuses, with the remaining 15% checking a box marked neutral. The Denny homeroom representatives, in their most recent meeting saw the district’s budget comparison of Options 2 and 3, including the list of upgrades to be performed to Sealth under the two plans, and saw the drawings that have been done so far of the adjoined campus. They listened to the input of their student represenative to the BEX committee, and discussed the pros and cons of having the middle school next door to the high school. After much back and forth, the Denny homeroom representatives issued a unanimous statement in favor of the adjoined campus. They are working with the administration on plans for grade level assemblies to occur next week, to present the information to the Denny students as a whole and to do a survey to invite their input. I think this is particularly relevant because, although the vast majority of the high school students will never have to attend school in the adjoined campus, the middle school students are the ones who will ultimately have to live with whatever is decided. Although I am personally of the opinion that adults, not students, should be making decisions about what is best for kids, if we are going to consider student opinion, the middle school students support for the adjoined campus should be given special consideration and weight.

As for me personally, I support the adjoined campus because I believe it affords us with an opportunity to build a 6-12th grade “nest” around these students, to create the framework for collaboration and sequential instruction, to foster mentoring and tutoring programs between the two schools, to support the development of specialized programs for both middle and high school students, to support the maintenance of students’ relationships with positive adult figures from their middle school experience, and to work together as a community to address the real challenges faced by many of our students. While there are undoubtedly going to be challenges that come along with any change, it is clear that we need to do something to help the many kids who are falling through the gaps, for example students dropping out of school. To the extent that we can create continuity and a sense of community for these kids, it is a good thing.

One of the primary concerns I have heard expressed with this project has been a reported danger of mixing the student populations. Personally, I think the risks are being overblown. In all the pleas for evidence to support the academic benefits, has anyone presented any real evidence that bringing a middle school and a high school in close proximity will bring about the doomsday I hear so many predicting? I student taught at Chinook M.S. and Tyee H.S. in the Highline district (two schools separated by a parking lot), and I was never aware of any issues there. Is there any data to suggest that this has worked out disastrously in the many other places where this has been tried? Or, are we just assuming the worst of our students?

Personally, I would argue that adjoining these two campuses has the opportunity to actually improve the security situation as it will enable the teachers and administrators to make concrete plans for how to move students around safely, and will put directly in our face the mixing, that is already occurring, and that our two block distance has previously allowed us to ignore. Furthermore, my understanding is that as with any new project being completed now, we will have security cameras and access points with ID card readers.

Students live up or down to the expectations of the adults in their lives. If we believe in them, educate them, and demand that they live up to high behavioral standards, they will. If we are convinced they can’t, they won’t. Up until last year, Denny and Sealth students rode the same school busses to school every day with next to no incidents (and this was under the supervision of a bus driver who was watching the road). Today, the students still manage to commingle safely on the streets coming to and from school and in the after school hours at the community center and the Westwood Shopping Center.

The students at this adjoined campus will not be mixed. They will have separate schools and separate facilities, including a completely divided lunchroom facility. It is not a “combined” school, but two schools adjoined.

Having been on the design committee, I had the opportunity to travel with the group that went to New York and Boston. My observation from the visits at the schools in New York and Boston was that the kids we saw in those schools were excelling, despite the fact that those buildings were not designed with the 6-12 environment in mind. In those schools, middle and high school students shared a single building, sometimes with just a sign and a door separating high school classes from middle school ones. In at least two of the three schools we visited, over 90% of the graduating classes were accepted into colleges and universities, and none of the students I spoke to expressed any issues about having middle schoolers and high schoolers near each other. While I have heard my colleagues make the case that those are different kids and a different situation, I am convinced that our kids are every bit as good and as capable as the kids in New York, Boston and anywhere else. If kids in other schools can excel in the difficult environment of multiple ages in a single building, I know our kids can excel in a well-planned environment where they will not be sharing one building, but a large campus with separate facilities for middle and high school programs.

Thanks for taking the time to hear me out. I am convinced that as a community we can not only make this work, but we can ultimately realize all the potential benefits of better curriculum alignment, increased collaboration, improved programming, and greater continuity from middle school to high school. For these reasons, I strongly support Option 2.

Marcus J. Pimpleton
Music Director, Denny Middle School
Director, Seattle Schools All-City Band
Denny/Sealth Alumnus

Again, this originally appeared in the comment thread below this post, where the same author earlier posted a previously circulated letter from Denny’s principal Jeff Clark (a letter from Sealth principal John Boyd was circulated last week). WSB archives of Denny/Sealth coverage are here, including reminders about tomorrow night’s meeting @ CSHS.

Now that the school district has set its Sealth-Denny community meeting for Monday 2/4 (flyer), the Westwood Neighborhood Council has moved its previously planned forum from 2/5 to 2/12 (the night before the School Board considers whatever becomes the district’s recommended option). Here’s the official news release just sent out by WNC president Steve Fischer:Read More

At least one community-group mailing list that we are on has just received a letter from the principal of Chief Sealth High School, John Boyd, in which he writes, “I feel like I cannot remain silent regarding my feelings about this issue any longer,” adding that he is “weighing the merits of options two and three” — two is the current project plus at least $5 million additional improvements to CSHS, three is a Denny rebuild on its existing site, with Sealth still getting some improvements. Here’s the letter as it was distributed; or if you have trouble with PDFs, here’s the text:Read More

Quick headline (more to come) from tonight’s joint meeting of the Delridge and Southwest District Councils: The Westwood Neighborhood Council announced it’s set the date for its next community meeting on the Denny-Sealth project — Feb. 6 Feb. 5, Southwest Community Center CSHS Commons. (THURSDAY NIGHT UPDATE: WNC says it had to change the date to Feb. 5 after getting word today that school board rep Steve Sundquist couldn’t make 2/6.)