One potential and likely possibility is that the next version of the plan moves forward with no reference to HCC pathways in it at all. That would be a reversion to the staff's first plan and there was one vote during the process where the directors almost all expressed support for that view. Dir Geary would very much like that to happen.
However, the further discussion at the end of the meeting and the Operations Meeting the next day gives a bit of hope. At that meeting, Dir. Mack asked the staff to come up with boundary plans linked to program placement evaluating:
- A 4 pathway option: Garfield/Ballard/Roosevelt/West Seattle
- A 2 pathway option Garfield/Lincoln.
Dir. Burke asked in addition for:
HC Pathways:
N: Ingraham
SE: Garfield
SW: West Seattle
( Note: a pathway doesn't presume programming. Sending an additional several hundred students to Ingraham doesn't necessarily mean they would need to be IB.)
IB Pathways:
N: Ingraham
SE: Rainier Beach
SW: Sealth
(IBX as option based on local demand and student readiness)
Dual Language Pathway:
N: HIMS to Lincoln
Timelines:
The new maps will be discussed at a meeting of the high school boundaries task force on December 14th.
The BAR on boundaries will be introduced at the January 3rd board meeting,
There will be a work session on January 10th
The final vote is scheduled for January 13th.
Open enrollment begins on February 5th and runs through the 16th.
Looking at the previous votes there is barely a 4 directory majority to be had for these alternatives. The key swing vote is probably Betty Patu. Now that Franklin is off the table she may be more amenable to arguments for continuation.
Given these time frames, the holidays and the completely new scenarios there is no way to do adequate community outreach. So another potential possibility is the dates are pushed back even if that means beyond open enrollment.
Nevertheless. Its key in the next few weeks that folks who are concerned reach out to the board and make their case.
7 comments:
Thank you! This is all mind boggling for those of us who are two busy to keep track of the details. Seems to boil down to these difficult conflicting priorities:
Provide ample access to appropriate coursework: cut budget due to lack of funding support from state/Feds
HC peer group: other advanced/high achieving students also need access to broad selection of advanced courses
Students wanting AP classes and science early in HS career: a few Principals not willing to adapt choice era programs to meet needs of HC and Spectrum students
Equity: Equality
State mandates for HC protections: SPS equity warriors mandates for optics changes
I’m sure there’s more. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. From what I can tell, HC students living in the outskirts are about to be royally screwed and everyone else will adapt to a watered down version of what Garfield has provided, but enjoy having close proximity to home and maybe more time for whole child extra curriculars since they won’t have the commute to deal with.
Competing Interests
Theory and broad numbers aren't very helpful absent any granular supply and demand analysis. In theory, many people would agree that advanced coursework should be available at all high schools, but what will actually happen in practice?
I'd like to see a comparison chart of each high school by staff of how many AP courses are currently offered at each school and an estimate of how that will change based on the two scenarios. What classes will be eliminated due to not enough students to fil the class? How many students are currently switching to Running Start because the classes they need are full or not offered and how is that likely to change under the two options? An analysis might illuminate whether standardization of AP course offerings across schools is the underlying goal regardless of demand with RS as the relief valve.
/M
Burke's proposal as Ingraham as the only north end pathway is not comparable to what would be offered at Garfield or W Seattle. IB leaves no time for anything other than IB, has rigid requirements and it would completely not be appropriate to make it the only north end HC option.
KJ
While I think that making Lincoln a north end pathway for HC may make sense for entering 9th graders & the long run, I have concerns about current HC 8th graders being moved/given the option to move from Roosevelt & Ballard to Lincoln in 2019 for 10th.
This is the group that has been split multiple times and to Eaglestaff etc. We have no idea how many will choose to stay or go & many are stating they would not move in 10th grade.
This leaves Lincoln, Ballard & Roosevelt all spread very thin for this particular age group as far as HC peers and likely AP classes.
Boundaries will shift and I believe BHS would lose QA and Magnolia which would likely also change AP offerings at BHS.
Right now we have to remember that BHS & RHS are somewhat working for HC kids as there is a cap on Ingraham & BHS & RHS have gotten overflow of HC. But if Lincoln is added to the mix who knows. Then a few go here and there for this group and there is not enough anywhere.
LS
Does anyone know if the 4 pathway option of Garfield/Ballard/Roosevelt/West Seattle still has Lincoln HC kids going to Garfield? I'm assuming this map is intended to show the pathways that received the "aye" votes from Geary and Pinkham. At the same time, I'm surprised that they want to continue sending any north-end HC to Garfield. Wondering if anyone can clarify. Thanks!
-SAB
i like burke's consideration of the ihs as a hc pathway as well as ib and ibx. any plan that gets rid of a north to south pathway to ghs would get my vote. and i echo the fhs shouldn't be a pathway but in two years that would be fine. i don't think patu gets all of this.
I want to share that I clarified with enrollment planning that Lincoln would not move or open with HC 10th graders in the Lincoln scenario. They will make the clarification at tommorow's task force meeting.
LS
Post a Comment