Report from the Boundary Task Force
[This writeup was submitted by a parent who was at the task force meeting yesterday.]
I went to the task force meeting yesterday. We are fortunate to have very engaged and knowledgeable parent representation on the task force. Most north end principals and about half the south end principals were there. First they discussed the new maps, G, H, and I. G and I are identical in the northend. There was discussion about transportation in H in the Ballard area, and some questions about whether these maps were representative of growth happening now at different rates in different places since they used numbers of current 9th-12th grade residents. The principals talked a lot at this stage about a magic number of 1200 students to have a full comprehensive school. These maps and the direction of the board and staff appeared to be to align middle and high school boundaries to have more continuity in the k-12 pathway. This obviously creates some boundaries very close to high schools, but just one got moved, the change area in the north of Wedgwood. Parents and principals asked about doing this in two stages- one to fill Lincoln, one to right size other boundaries, or grandfathering where possible to allow kids to finish programs. Or just only geosplitting where necessary. Principals in particular advocated that it is very difficult for kids to move midstream when they have begun programs which have very concrete sequences, that there are real consequences to moving them. Staff said they prefer to treat all families across the district the same, so that one group doesn't complain that another is treated differently, and perhaps it is better if pain is just all around the district, so the ones who "have to" get moved(to fill Lincoln) don't feel alone. In the vote, H was the clear favorite, with the addendum of north Wedgwood moving back to Hale, for walkability and to keep it at 1200.
Some task force members brought up the possibility of school choice, that with breathing room in schools people should be able to make choices again, such as students who live 3 blocks from a school but are in a different boundary. This is in tension, to me, with the idea that schools should not go below 1200, and so I am not sure how much choice there will end up being. Staff didn't really engage in that question.
Then the conversation moved to the south end, specifically around Cleveland. I want to mention that everyone in the meeting was very concerned about appearing on the blogs, and so there was some pressure in the room, but I was very impressed with everyone's dedication, and I hope they see themselves as portrayed positively. But most especially the Cleveland representatives, who seemed to have built such a thoughtful school and community. Their school is 868 students with a capped waitlist, and it is hard for them to provide services with a small school. The district would like to consider making it an attendance area school for stability for Cleveland as well as surrounding area schools. Someone asked if they'd be able to provide a robust experience if it was attendance vs option, given that in that facility the very largest it could get was 930 students(well shy of the 1200 number discussed in the first hour). The admin seemed not to consider that a huge stumbling point. They were concerned that codifying lines around Cleveland, since it is already a desirable school, would accelerate the gentrification already happening in that neighborhood compared to some parts of RBHS.
At this point the discussion moved to HCC, and Ted Howard talked about his experience having HCC in the building and how the neighborhood has changed, that he's tried lots of things but it's just hard to serve kids coming in at a 4th grade through college level. I know he catches a lot of flak on here, but yesterday, at least, he seemed like he was just struggling with serving all the kids in his school, and that it was really crowded right now. Most of the principals at this point talked about the difficulty of serving kids at lots of different levels, especially if there are just a few of them in a school. The Franklin principal's executive director brought up that she thought having just a few HCC kids might mess up the tone of the 9th grade academies, since everybody usually takes the same thing, but these kids come in needing different classes. The Hale principal disagreed that kids need different classes, said that she serves HCC kids having them be in her academies(and retake classes), "maybe not their rigor, but other things." The group asked for data from Advanced Learning in order to make a recommendation around south end boundaries, because Garfield's boundaries change based on what happens to HCC.
47 comments:
Thanks very much for that summary. I will say that it sounds like most principals (and this has also been our experience in HCC) are unable to provide effective AL services....at all. If there are too few HCC students it is too hard. If there are too many HCC students it is too hard. How then, will this be translated to MTSS in the classroom and providing AL services at each school? I feel sorry for parents with young kids entering the system with future AL needs. There appears to be no will to provide AL services in the district administration.
-Parent
I thought the APP program was placed at Garfield in 1979. Why is Ted Howard, who has only been principal there since 2004, credited with such a long view regarding "how the neighborhood has changed" and the difficulties in handling the breadth of students at the school. Seems more like either: 1) he came to Garfield with an agenda, or 2) he is in way over his head. Sorry to say that but that is my opinion.
NewPrincipalsPlease
I'm very grateful for this summary. Thanks for taking the time to attend the meeting.
I have a 7th grader in HCC and a senior at Garfield. I am concerned that HS planning will focus on the North End, and that the needs of South End HCC students will receive short shrift because their numbers are smaller. My 7th grader's reference HS is Franklin. I would never disparage Franklin; it seems to be a well-run school and I know many kids who've gone there/are currently going there and are doing well, have attended selective colleges, etc. All the same, if my 7th grader were required to attend Franklin, it's very difficult to see how they will have access to coursework (particularly AP offerings), and music, at all similar to what my 12th grader has had access to at Garfield. Learning of the comments the Franklin principal made at the meeting reinforces my concern. I don't want my student to have to repeat classwork.
This is troubling. I don't know if this issue is at all on the radar screen as the process goes forward, because the focus seems so heavily on North End boundary issues.
Ruthie
@Ruthie, I really encourage you to go out to Dir. Betty Patu's community meeting this Sat. She represents district 7 which includes Franklin.
Ben
NewPrincipalsPlease, I'm not defending any particular comment or policy, but, FWIW, Ted Howard himself graduated from Garfield in, I believe, about 1985.
Ben - I will try to get to Patu's meeting, though I've never interacted with her. Do you know her views on HCC? I don't believe any of the current HCC pathway schools are in her district, are they?
Ruthie
@Rutie, I don't know where she stands on this issue which is why having parents go out and respectfully talk about their situations and viewpoints is really important especially as a constituent.
I have a particular slant on all the Directors which I'm not sure is a majority view so I don't know how much faith you should put in my opinions but I respect Dir. Patu and I think she has tended to vote on the right side of critical issues.
@ Ruthie, thanks for speaking up. While the high school boundary issue is naturally more focused on the north-end (given the Lincoln reopening), HCC parents are also paying attention to the possibility of a district-wide elimination of the HCC pathway for high school and share your concerns that it would likely decrease access to AP classes for HC students--in the north and south alike. It's not a north vs. south issue--it's an HCC-wide issue. Most HCC parents seem to think that AP offerings at Ballard and Roosevelt might get a boost under such a plan and thus might be sufficient, but worry over Nathan Hale's sparse offerings and the uncertainty around Lincoln's future offerings will, I think, help them to think more broadly than the just the few lucky schools. That's not to say that we'll emerge with an optimal solution, but I just wanted to point out that you (and the south end) are not alone in these concerns, and that HCC parents aren't advocating for north-end-only solutions to these issues.
At the same time, we need more south end HCC parents to speak up about the inequity they will face re: AP offerings if the district decides to keep everyone at neighborhood schools. Please encourage your fellow south-end HCC parents to be outspoken with these concerns, as it seems like district wants to just steamroll this through...
Thank you for the summary. Is the Hale principal's sentiment indicative of the AL approach of SPS going forward? Students should not have to retake classes they've already passed. While the approach may appeal to many families, students should also have a pathway that allows them access to more rigor. It's isn't necessarily about getting into this college or that college, but about not placing a ceiling on student learning because of one's personal beliefs about how students should be served.
I have a Ballard reference area kid and am very concerned for changes in high school pathways. They might end up offering more AP than other schools. But maybe the district rations AP classes & sections for equity...ex max 2-3 per school!
I also do not think Ballard and Roosevelt will serve our students as well as Ingraham or Garfield has done. HCC Kids will ALSO be split amongst Lincoln as well in the north end, & likely many will flee to private schools. My understanding is Ingraham would no longer offer a pathway either if pathways are eliminated. The result will be a thinning out of the cohort all around.
I truly hope Roosevelt & Ballard reference area HCC parents will stand with all other HCC parents across the district. Hope they will advocate against program dismantling of HCC pathways, under the guise of "providing more advanced learning opportunities".
-solidarity
I think the district also needs to make clear how many HCC qualified/enrolled will be projected for each school. The maps show this data for students moving I believe, but not total for school. Boundary shifts and Lincoln opening will really change Roosevelt and Ballard & current AP offerings as well. For example, map H has near 1000 kids moving out of Ballard from Queen Ann & Magnolia. That is half the school. I bet many of those kids take AP classes. Who knows what will be offered as far as AP classes after boundaries shift.
-more data
Has there been any mention of one more school coming online downtown or at fort Lawton, or are those possibilities too far off?
Thank you so much for this information! I was so sorry to have missed this meeting. Does anyone know when the next meeting is scheduled? It would help to know how solid these last versions were from the perspectives of the folks there. Are "G" "H" "I" the latest versions, and all the others now obsolete? It looks like SPS is trying to preserve the K-12 continuity with the boundary just north of view ridge moving from 85th north. In the last summary above from the meeting it seemed that Version "H" was most palatable, but with potential shifting of the north wedgwood territory - did it seem to include the entire section north of 85th going back to Hale, or just the very most norther parts, north of 95th?
Thanks much
Question to the parent who reported on the meeting.
"Staff said they prefer to treat all families across the district the same, so that one group doesn't complain that another is treated differently, and perhaps it is better if pain is just all around the district, so the ones who "have to" get moved(to fill Lincoln) don't feel alone." What did staff mean? Were they saying that they want to move 10th-12th out of their current school and into Lincoln?
Thanks so much for reporting!
G Parent
Sorry, but that's an asinine statement from staff--that if some students must suffer, we should make sure they all do? Interesting take on equity. Are they suggesting that EVERY student be moved? You know, to share the pain? Hmm, they should probably move teachers and principals, too, since it wouldn't be fair if that group got treated differently, right? And staff, why should that group stay where they are? How about we just scrap the whole enrollment/choice process and play a ginormous game of musical chairs, where everyone runs around and stands on different school markers and when the music stops we see where you land and hey, that's your new school/worksite?
idiotic ideas
Does anyone know if they expect boundaries to be finalized, as well as program placement prior to 2018 open enrollment? If not, what is the program decision timeline?
-data
Guiding Principles (May 18, 2017, Task Force mtg)
* Ground decisions in data.
• Create boundaries that reflect equitable access to
services and programs.
• Maximize walkability.
• Enable cost-effective transportation standards.
• Maintain key features of New Student Assignment
Plan (e.g. opportunities for creating diversity within
boundaries, choice, option schools, feeder patterns)
• Minimize disruptions by aligning new boundaries with
current attendance area boundaries when feasible.
• Be mindful of fiscal impact (costs and savings).
• Be responsive to family input to the extent feasible
As maps keep HCC in neighborhood schools, sounds like they did not maintain a key feature of assignment plan....feeder patterns? Or was this only referring to middle school to high school feeder patterns?
Also, if these maps and all this work to date assumes HCC staying in neighborhood schools (no longer cohort/pathway) what are the chances of parents being able to advocate to keep the pathways? They want to have boundaries finalized before open enrollment in 2018.
It seems to me the district has been very sneaky and the boundary task force should have been able to look at map options that also include current program pathways. They made assumptions with these maps that they could dissolve program pathways.
Is there a vote on program placement or has there been an executive decision on eliminating the hcc pathway with no due process? It seems like a done deal and they're just lining up selective qualitative feedback by screening/manipulating the survey process.
Shinanigans
Not directly on topic, but of interest, I'm sure.
Good news, although not fully confirmed, from Rick's community meeting today. He said that he believes for HS that the 3x5 is dead and it will be likely 7 periods!
I was at the meeting and confirm most of what Ben described. One item that warrants a bit of elaboration was the comment from Ted Howard about the wide range of skill levels: kids entering HCC pathway at Garfield don't come from one school pathway. Rather, to elaborate in my own words, they enter from private schools, from district-wide middles schools, some have probably just tested into HCC and some (I believe?) enter HCC at Garfield from within the school boundaries and maybe not from a previous HCC program. So, even HCC kids enter with a wide disparity, differentiated from which school they have come from. That means even just HCC is hard to consistently maintain, compounding the challenge of serving the other kids with wildly disparate learning levels.
I also want to add that school principals reminded the task force that moving around students and cohorts and pathways disrupts hiring and maintaining teaching staffs as well. They take it very seriously.
On this message board is a sense of anxiety that a decision has already been made about eliminating the HCC pathways. As an outsider at this meeting, that does not appear to be the case. Certainly something on the table, but no decision in place.
The "H" with modifications to the Hale/Roosevelt changes is going forward.
As an outsider, it appears decisions are grounded on data, but not to a huge extent. There are so many ways to use data and while I don't know Ashley Davies personally, she didn't seem super enthusiastic about more data reports than necessary. She posted a hiring notice for an enrollment planning analyst. Probably someone they should have in place by now. These discussion are being driven by discussion and advocacy as much as anything, and if your interest isn't sitting at the table, it might get overlooked.
On students entering HCC at Garfield from multiple pathways, only students who were enrolled in HCC during the 8th grade are enrolled at Garfield. There are other students at Garfield taking advanced classes but they live in the attendance area and are not in HCC.
Thanks to those who have reported on meetings!
Scenario H projects Lincoln at 1427, with a (theoretical) right-size capacity of 1600. Am I correct that all these estimates are based on current pathways, since the district has yet to make program placement decisions? In other words, the 1427 projection for Lincoln seems to based on the fact that many north-end HC students attend Ingraham or Garfield instead of their neighborhood HS, and these estimates only include students currently in the neighborhood school areas being shifted. That means that if the district were to eliminate the HCC pathways, Lincoln would suddenly have even more students. And since it seems unlikely that the school can really accommodate 1600 as planned, option H sounds like it could be pretty dang tight.
And why are they working with such a low capacity number for Ingraham? Aren't they adding 500 seats in 2019, the year the maps are for?
unclear
Unclear, 1427 is the number of SPS 9-12 grade students who lived within the proposed boundary of Lincoln last year. It includes kids who went to Ballard, Roosevelt, Ingraham and Garfield. If they didn't count the 9th-12th graders "receiving HCC" who lived within the proposed Lincoln boundary last year, the number would be lower by 132 students.
Also I don't know what they mean by "receiving HCC" in the context of 9th-12th grade, since HCC ends after a student follows a pathway out of 8th grade. At that point it's just a critical mass of students so they can offer appropriate level courses. I guess it means kids who followed the pathway to Garfield. I don't know if it also includes kids at Ingraham. And I have the same question, why use 2016 capacity number for Ingraham but a 2019 capacity number for Lincoln in the same table?
Here's the change area map that shows that "receiving HCC" count:
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/task_forces/high_school_boundary_task_force/September_28_2017/2017_Lincoln_ScenarioH_CA_District.pdf
counting
Thanks @counting. Maybe in this context "receiving HCC" means they opted for Garfield or Ingraham? If that's the case, it looks like they are building the boundaries with the assumption that pathways will be eliminated.
Unclear
"If that's the case, it looks like they are building the boundaries with the assumption that pathways will be eliminated."
@unclear- Yes that is how parents to whom I have spoken read these maps and H map which will go forward as a recommendation.
@Cristina Key-- This is why parents are under the impression they have assumed they will end HCC pathway schools. Map H the recommended map assumes HCC are in neighborhood schools. There is not an option map going forward that keeps the pathway intact. The "enrollment staff" is making an assumption of ending a the HCC pathways, a component of an academic program.
- parent
Coming in late to this discussion and trying to get up to speed. Is this true?:
There is a map "H" that uses as its basis NO HCC HIGH SCHOOL PATHWAY SCHOOL(S)
This map is the official recommendation of staff
Therefore the board will be ending HCC high school pathway if they vote to approve these boundaries?
Thanks-
MSP
@ MSP, apparently the SAP (school assignment plan) update will go to the board before the high school boundary issue will, and the pathway decision will need to be addressed in the SAP. But obviously the SAP, the HCC pathways, and high school boundaries are all closely intertwined, and the leading option for HS boundaries seems to be based on sending HS HCC students to their neighborhood schools, so it appears, at least, that this is where staff are heading... Did they come up with any maps that retain the current GHS pathway, or that split part of the pathway to Lincoln? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. And the community meetings on these issues are right before--or even after!--the date they are supposed to introduce this to the board, so it seems clear they are making decisions based on their own notions and not input from families.
Shammy McShamface
Maps G and I show a surplus of 600 seats at Lincoln and 500 at Ingraham (using 2016 numbers and counting the addition). So even though they didn't say as much, G & I don't necessarily end the pathway, there's room for it to continue at Lincoln with the Ingraham option. But it sounds like they have selected H, with no community input.
counting
Just to clarify, the *Task Force* selected H to work with.
from the SPS Website:
High School Boundary recommendations will be introduced at the SAP open house meetings listed above *(October/November dates) and staff will collect feedback from families, students and staff. Recommended High School Boundaries will be introduced to the Board on *Jan. 3, 2018*, and it is anticipated that the Board will take action on Jan. 17, 2018. New high school boundaries will go into effect 2019-20.
* annotations mine.
So, there will be community input before everything becomes official.
I have been using the online "thought exchange " and it has been interesting.
Everybody who is participating in the discussion of expanding HCC in any way should get involved with Washington's Paramount Duty, our local lobbying organization that's trying to get schools adequately funded.
Anything short of slashing HCC altogether is going to require a lot of $$$. Get involved with budget talks, folks.
@Cristina Key--Although the current budget situation is terrible for Seattle and many districts, I don't believe advanced learning budget from the state was cut. In fact, I had read the state budget actually allocated additional state funding specific to advanced learning. As protected by state law, I don't think advanced learning can be entirely eliminated from our district like you are suggesting. But I agree parents all need to get involved with Paramount Duty.
- B
During Thursday’s meeting task force members decided they liked “Scenario H” with one slight modification they have named “Scenario H-2”...The Task Force will hold one more meeting, and potentially two more, where they will discuss Southeast High School Boundaries and high school Highly Capable Cohort (HCC) pathways.
HCC is actually free to the district, Cristina. They get money for testing and bussing, and that is all the district provides. It's idealogy, not budget, threatening it. It would be more expensive to offer advanced options at every high school if they dispersed the pathway, but cynically I am afraid the district's response to that would just be to offer fewer advanced classes.
NJP
It's not "free," but the district gets categorical funding from the state, based on 2% of enrollment. It probably covers testing and salaries for AL, but that's about it. There's little money to have any sort of program beyond cohorting the students. I think there is additional funding for transportation.
I think the state increased HC $ to more like 5% this year.
@Christina Key, how on earth does slashing HCC save money? The state pays for transportation and testing, and the kids don't have a special curriculum or get anything extra.
If anything, it would raise costs. For example, if they dismantle the HS pathway, they won't have critical mass for AP classes at many schools and will need to provide them even if they aren't full. Or if they got rid of HCC in earlier grades, think of all the extra MTSS services they'd need to provide in regular classes.
As to your earlier comment that Ted Howard said HCC is hard to maintain because kids enter at different levels, I don't know what he's talking about. They don't get special classes in high school, so what is there to maintain? If a kid new to SPS HCC is at a somewhat different level than a kid coming from WMS and those are both different than a kid coming from JAMS, what does it really matter since they are all funneled into basic 9th grade classes? If an HCC kid isn't ready for honors or AP classes in future years, they can opt out, counselors can discourage them, etc. My point is, OF COURSE kids enter at different levels, regardless of the grade, but how does that really have anything to do with supposed challenges maintaining HS HCC? It sounds like a Ted Howard excuse to me.
Shammy
MTSS offers nothing for students working ahead of the year's benchmark goals. Once you've met the year's learning goals, you literally go sit in the broom closet and wait for the end of the year. Maybe with some worksheets. Or a book.
"The Hale principal disagreed that kids need different classes, said that she serves HCC kids having them be in her academies(and retake classes)"
The Hale principal is most interested in using her position to push her personal vision of "social justice". Imagine if the solution for some other group of students (low income or minority) was to have them repeat classes.
Lincoln meeting tonight, 6:30-8:00 @HIMS.
Curriculum night at JAMS tonight so impossible to attend the Lincoln meeting. : (
This is probably a good time to remind everyone that the Lincoln meeting is on 10/3 or 10/12
http://discussapp.blogspot.com/2017/09/lincoln-hs-planning-meeting-now-on-oct.html
Whether Lincoln is an HCC pathway or not, they will end up serving HC-identified students. Will someone please ask Principal Medsker how Lincoln will provide access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction for these students in each grade level (including 9th grade), since the Legislature has said this is part a basic education for them?
can't attend
Wagering they will claim PBL is "enhanced instruction" and students can "go deeper" for accelerated learning opportunities.
Map Options H/H2 indicate there would be an estimated 200 HCC-eligible students at Lincoln. That's a lot of HC-identified students for a school that looks like it's headed toward a more Hale-like model. Maybe it would be helpful to put together a document that shows the current relationship between HC-identified students in each school zone and the number of AP classes offered and/or taken. You know, to show that correlation between supply of HC students and demand or AP classes. That might make it abundantly clear that the Nathan Hale model, which may work for the school's current demographics (few HC-identified students), is NOT a good fit for the Lincoln area demographics (many HC-identified students).
can't attend
@can;t attend-- "NOT a good fit for the Lincoln area demographics (many HC-identified students)."
If you look at how many HCC eligible and HCC enrolled students would move to Lincoln from Ballard & Roosevelt, it is approx 320 HCC eligible/enrolled. So 320 out of the total 1427, except some would go to private school, maybe Ingraham if still a pathway etc.
The maps are not helpful in providing other totals for HCC, as Lincoln is the only new school. It only shows those moving. We don't know from these maps how many HCC eligible/enrolled would be in each area/school, other than Lincoln.
-numbers
@numbers, I'm not sure we are meant to count Receiving HCC and HCC eligible as different students for a total of 320. I interpreted this to mean of the 188 HCC eligible students, 132 of them are currently "receiving HCC," whatever that means at high school (I think it means they followed the pathway to Garfield or Ingraham).
As far as the other totals, you can see the number of HCC students at Garfield or Ingraham per attendance area last year here on p 32: http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/17-18%20agendas/20170909/20170909_Retreat_Agenda_Packet.pdf
And you can see the 2015-16 building HC totals here:
http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/Friday%20Memos/2015-16/January%2015/20160115_FridayMemo_HC%20DATA%20as%20of%201.4.16_withsource%20(3).pdf
counting
So extrapolating from that file with the Jan 2016 estimate of HC head counts at different buildings, it looks like:
For the class that will be in 9th grade in 2019 there were 135 HC students south of the cut and 325 north of the cut.
For the class that will be in 10th grade in 2019 there were 141 HC students south of the cut and 303 north of the cut
For the class that will be in 11th grade in 2019 there were 104 HC students south of the cut and 235 north of the cut
For the class that will be in 12th grade in 2019 there were 92 HC students south of the cut and 182 north of the cut
So, that kind of is a lot of students. Wherever they send them, it's definitely going to have an impact on enrollment. It also appears that, given a choice, very, very close to zero HC students choose to attend WSHS, CSIHS, Franklin, Cleveland, Hale, or Beach. So, that's not a good sign for just sending them all back to their assignment area schools.
I don't see how the district can figure out what the SAP boundaries will be without first making a decision about where this 8.9% of the student population is going to go to school. Whether it's at their assignment zone school or GHS, IHS or some other unknown site or combination... I'm pretty sure 8.9% of the student population is going to impact the enrollment numbers.
Post a Comment