Why empty seats are a good thing for Seattle Schools
With many Seattle children opting out of public schools, you need extra seats in the schools they might attend. Another reason: to make school choice meaningful.
Seattle Public Schools’ current Facilities Master Plan says the district has about 8,000 more “seats” than needed for today’s enrollment. The district, the local committee formed to advise the district after its financial crisis under Joseph Olchefske, a more recent consultant report by the Council of Great City Schools, and the state auditor all think this is a bad thing. It is not.
All these committees and studies make the same error — one that, once recognized, should give pause to anyone thinking about closing schools. The mistake they make is this: All their conclusions are based on Seattle Public Schools’ actual enrollment. None of these analyses looked at how many school-age children actually LIVE in Seattle and WHERE they live. This bias in the analysis, a holdover in district thinking from three decades of various levels of desegregation busing when kids could be moved pretty much anywhere seats were available, explains why, while scrambling to close schools to save money, the district is also hammered by overcrowding in many areas north of downtown.
There are various estimates for the number of resident school-age kids north of downtown who do not attend SPS, ranging from 30 to 40 percent. It’s a lot of kids. Even at 20 percent it’s on the order of 5,000, the equivalent of six or seven large elementaries, one middle, and one high school. The same phenomenon likely occurs in the other middle and upper middle class areas of the city along Lake Washington and in the northern and view neighborhoods in West Seattle.
Without an inventory of unused seats the district doesn’t have anywhere to put these kids if they decide to enroll. It’s something of a Catch-22. Families react to the competition for seats and uncertainty about where their kids will go to school, particularly as they graduate to middle and high school, by choosing private school. This is clearly seen at high school. In Magnolia, Queen Anne, Ballard and the central North End there are way more high school age youngsters than seats at Ballard High, their closest school. No matter what elementary they start in, these families remain uncertain about where their kids will go to high school right through the school choice process at the end of eighth grade. Fortunately, to help solve this particular problem, the district is considering reopening Lincoln High School.
Clearly, positioning the district to maintain and increase “market share” is one reason for being careful to maintain excess capacity. Another is school choice. How much choice the district will offer in whatever student assignment plan is chosen (sometime in mid- or late-2009) is still uncertain. But the district can’t offer real choice unless there are real classroom places for families who want their kids to move from one school to another. Without destination seats, the whole thing is a sham where a few families may win big but the vast majority lose.
Actually, without considerable churn in the elementary school clusters, it would be easier to see that the system is pretty close to that situation now. Consider that what often happens is like this: A student from school A chooses school B and gets a place because a student from B wanted to attend C and a family with a child in C really liked the kindergarten teacher in A, making a place for the kid from B — and so forth throughout the district. Perceived quality differences among elementary schools are either subjective or, where real, represent a failure by the district (as a result of larger system problems) to provide effective administration, teachers, and money. One result is that the most desirable (and real) options, mostly K-8s, are notably oversubscribed.
Still another consequence of failing to base school-closure and program-location decisions on resident rather than just enrolled children and where they live is depressingly manifest in Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson’s proposed closure and program-relocation plan. The Rainier Beach High School building remains half empty despite the academic enhancements being purchased by the district’s Southeast Initiative to attract students. Goodloe-Johnson and her staff propose to fill Rainier Beach by moving the Summit K-12 student population at least 12 miles (as the crow flies) from the North End.
Why not just fill Rainier Beach with resident youngsters, many of whom have transferred north, adding to crowding there?
To answer that question, the district needs a student assignment plan. Maybe that plan will require kids to attend school where they live, allowing transfers only for specific reasons such as low-income family status, and only when space exists at the receiving school because it has more seats (deliberately, since schools haven’t been closed) than the resident population needs. Maybe the new plan will be relatively toothless in that regard, much like the current plan.
Comments:
Posted Mon, Dec 1, 11:37 a.m. inappropriate
This is just musical chairs, with a booby prize (relocation or closure) for the school or programme that's worst dressed and doesnt have the voice or the elbows to claim a seat when the music stops!
Close RBHS if its failing, rather than move in the entire Summit community in an effort to save it and the expensive facilities...
Close near empty south end schools, and spend the money on expanding capacity in the north - where the population will continue to grow with the increase in low income family housing availability...
And that north end school population will continue to grow over the coming years - have you tried to get quality centre-based daycare in the north end for your baby recently? There is none... a lack of daycare places now means there'll be a proportionate shortage of elementary school seats over the next five years...
And if there arent enough spaces in the north, north end parents will probably look to Shoreline as their next best option - probably their best option actually, given how well resourced Shoreline schools are compared to SPS, and they'll take their state and federal dollars with them.
Close/merge some contemporary north end schools that are under capacity, such as Olympic Hills and Northgate, rather than picking on the alternative/non-traditional programmes and moving or closing them... did you know that of the 7 buildings slated for closure, 5 house non-traditional programmes? 8 of the 9 proposed programme relocations are non-traditional schools (TT Minor Montessori is technically not an "alternative" school). The only truly new programme is a traditional elementary (Thornton Creek is just growing), and 3 of the 5 discontinued programme are non-traditional. Aren't there some traditional schools with low test scores and failing buildings? Nowhere in the Board's checklist is "non-traditional programme" a criteria for closure.
AS1 and Summit provide a very real choice in education and support one of the most diverse and also most disadvantaged school populations in the city - compare the ethnicity, household and free lunch demographics of these schools to almost all other schools and you will understand this point.
AS1 and Summit need to be left intact to continue to provide their own very special, particular style of education to the communities who want and need them. The 'mainstream' gets enough and has sufficient other opportunities without stealing school seats and dollars from those who are already underserved.
Posted Mon, Dec 1, 12:34 p.m. inappropriate
WOW!!! just imagine if the SPS had shown some interest in effective math curricula. How many students would still be attending school in the SPS?
When the district ignores the National Math Advisory Panel recommendations and the State Math Standards to follow the Everyday Math pacing plan is it any wonder that the district is under enrolled?
Perhaps that is why the Administration and the Board make so many decisions that alienate the public ... they just do not want to handle more than 45,000 students.
Thanks for the article,
Dan Dempsey
Posted Mon, Dec 1, 1:17 p.m. inappropriate
Great article Dick! I've been saying exactly the same thing on blogs and to the school board. The District needs to get its assignment plan in order first while simultaneously beefing up the curriculum at all schools so there is at least some sense of equity in quality and quantity of curriculum and course offerings. As southend residents, we left SPS for middle school and would return in a heartbeat for high school if there was a comprehensive offering similar to Roosevelt in our area.
Posted Mon, Dec 1, 3:03 p.m. inappropriate
The Seward Park/Mount Baker communities are full of families. If the Seattle School District would build successful programs down there (ex. Orca Elementary) they would have schools bursting at the seams with neighborhood kids of all demographics. Most parents I know are desperate for some quality k-8 programs in the central and south regions.
Posted Mon, Dec 1, 3:36 p.m. inappropriate
I strongly disagree with your proposal to take away school choice and just force families to send their kids to their neighborhood school. If the school board adopts this proposal, there will be a number of families, like ours, who will opt out of the school district and go to private school. You can't force a family to send their kids to a particular school. I work full time - so I need a school with a good on-site before/after school program. Our local school's before/after care is mediocre at best and I will not send my child there. Because I work, the school bus option doesn't work - so I need a school that is not too far from my home/work commute. Taking away choice means cramming a one-size fits all solution down everyone's throats.
Posted Mon, Dec 1, 7:21 p.m. inappropriate
Good article and excellent points. I agree; the cart before the horse in closing schools before finishing the assignment plan (and seeing how it plays out for a year or two). Not counting or even trying to attract back kids who don't attend SPS is problematic. The economy is poor and there may (or may not) be people who can no longer afford private school.
Problem really is - the district is literally drowning in backlogged maintenance and is desperate to close down as many buildings as possible especially, of course, the worst ones. (I will note that this juncture that they claimed that BEX III was addressing the worst buildings or the ones with the most safety problems and this list clearly proves that wasn't true.)
The new preliminary assignment plan DOES NOT assign students to a high school. You have a sort of "reference" high school but you are free to go to any high school you like if there is room. Problem is there will not be room at most popular high schools but if the district gives the transportation (via Metro)you'll likely still see students exodus from the south end to Ingraham and Hale if only for safety concerns. That means, the City needs to help more.
Posted Mon, Dec 1, 7:23 p.m. inappropriate
There are already hundreds of families (maybe more) opting out of SPS because the current system allows some schools to flourish while others flounder. The point is to get the District to create desirable schools in all neighborhoods. Right now it's just catch as catch can. Quality neighborhood schools with a scattering of alternatives throughout each quadrant should give enough choice for those who need something other than what their neighborhood school can provide. A good school is made up of a variety of elements: great principals, quality teachers, and a large group of families with the time and ability to supplement the school when local and state funding fall short. These families exist all over Seattle, but the current choice system causes many of them to forgo their less than excellent neighborhood school for the more desirable ones. Eventually, the schools are stacked one way or the other and the cycle just continues until you have schools that are failing academically and/or so under enrolled that it is not cost effective to keep them open while others are stuffed to the rafters.
Posted Tue, Dec 2, 8:37 a.m. inappropriate
The following comment was sent to the editor from Stuart Glascock:
Thank you for your thoughtful columns in Crosscut about the proposed school closures. Your unique perspective on the matters certainly gives you extra credibility. As it happens, I share some of your perspective - I was an education writer for daily newspapers in two states for about 10 years. I was active in the Education Writers Association and SPJ and won numerous education reporting awards from various journalism and education groups. I never thought I'd find myself in the back of a school board room with a bunch of other angry parents holding up signs.
I live in West Seattle and my child attends Arbor Heights elementary, which is targeted for closure under the current proposal. We think it is a very bad idea. As a longtime education observer, I always believed parent involvement in neighborhood schools was the key to well-functioning schools. That is why I sent my child to my local, within-walking-distance neighborhood school. Seattle Public Schools, on one hand, says they value neighborhood schools. On the other hand, they want to evict and destroy a strong neighborhood program. Under the proposal, we wouldn't even have a reference school; Arbor Heights kids would scatter to five different schools.
When I asked Board Member Steve Sundquist why Arbor Heights was targeted, all he could tell me was that another program (Pathfinder alternative K-8) needed the building. --Stuart Glascock
Posted Tue, Dec 2, 8:48 p.m. inappropriate
This next letter to the editor comes from a group of parents at T.T. Minor School:
On November 25th, The Seattle School District Superintendent announced the proposal to close a number of schools in our District. TT Minor was one of those schools. For those of us who have children at TT Minor this was not a surprise, just another example of the lack of support this school has received from our District.
TT Minor is a neighborhood school. A high proportion of the students at TT Minor are African-American and low-income, which reflects the historic population of the community. Over 85% of the children at TT Minor qualify for free or subsidized lunches. Some children at TT Minor have already been shuffled around by the school district after the closure of Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary three years ago. These same children are now facing another transition to a new elementary school. How sad, and yet unsurprising, that it is these children, the ones most in need of consistent structure and support, are the ones being asked, once again, to move and start over somewhere else.
The School District has shown a distinct lack of planning for how to make these transitions smooth for the families that could be affected in all of the school closure scenarios. To date there is no specific information about how TT Minor students will be moved or what accommodations will made to ensure their academic success through this transition. In fact, it is clear that the majority of the District’s "fixes" are ledger based, and give little or no thought for how our communities will be affected. A "We'll just send 'em somewhere else and worry about it later" attitude was pervasive throughout the recommendation meeting. For example, there has been no realistic proposal about how they plan to integrate a co-ed APP program into Thurgood Marshall, a school where the classes are gender separated.
TT Minor has all of the right pieces in place to become a great local school and a regional draw. Our neighborhood is rapidly gentrifying and we have been working to recruit new neighbors through a dual-track program of Montessori and traditional instruction. We are located in a popular neighborhood where birth rates indicate we have more children coming up to school age that other areas of Seattle. In moving the Montessori program, dispersing the traditional program, breaking up the current staff, volunteers, and other excellent programs such as our chess club, it will be "start all over again" again. If history is any guide, it will be a long time before the Central Area has another shot at having an excellent elementary school.
It is evident that the District has an agenda to shut down this historic, perfectly located, and very special school. Over the last six to eight years there have been multiple attempts at shutdown, and over an even greater period the building has been allowed to fall into disrepair while other facilities have received improvement. The children who attend TT Minor have had their resources cut to the point of neglect: the roof leaks, bathrooms are outdated, there is no running water in any of the classrooms, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders have no access to a restroom or water fountains on their floor, staff turnover is fast and furious, there is no vice-principal position at the school and only a part-time librarian, part-time art teacher, and very few extra-curricula activities offered. And yet the school continues to improve its test scores, maintain a tournament-winning chess club and trophy-winning band, and continues to garner support from within its community. We have a charismatic, enthusiastic and dedicated new Principal, and the Montessori program at TT Minor has waiting lists to rival the most over-subscribed schools in the District.
After hearing the District’s proposal it's apparent that the people who actually care about our schools, our communities, and our children are us, the families who live here, and the families who choose to send their children to TT Minor from other areas.
Clearly the folks from the Center for Educational Excellence, with their "Excellence for All" motto have a bureaucratic need to make bureaucratic choices. However, what this community and our children need are consistent, centrally located programs. We need to be able to trust in our public school system and believe that the District are really working for us and driven by the needs of our children and the future of our communities. As a community we need to work with the Seattle School District to develop TT Minor into the school we all know it has the potential to be. Budgets do need to be managed, but it's time to stop doing more of what hasn't worked so far, and to start looking at new solutions and sources of support.
TT Minor MUST stay open. We MUST stay engaged. The alternative will be more fleeing from our central area public schools to schools in the north and to private schools for those who can. Basically, it means more of the same. Change is in the air. Let's make it happen.
There will be a community meeting at TT Minor School on the evening of December 15th with representatives from the Seattle School District. We would like to encourage our neighbors and fellow community members to attend this meeting and help us in the fight to keep TT Minor open.
- Parents of TT Minor Elementary School
Posted Wed, Dec 3, 12:29 a.m. inappropriate
And I, as the parent of a kindergartener at AS#1, say 'ditto' for us, to all the comments contained in the letter from TT Minor parents, above...
Our visionary small school (which paved the way for all the other alternative schools in the Seattle area) has been around for almost 40 years - not because of support from the District, but in spite of its lack of understanding, its antagonism, disrespect, disinterest, neglect and repeated attempts to close us down...
Every Superintendent since Forbes Bottomley (with the exception of Stanford), has tried to close us down or force us into co-location. Its become legendary in the school - the attempt usually comes in the new incumbent's second year - we call it their Rite of Passage...
Our building has been allowed to run down, we have few amenities and extras to offer our kids... we dont take the WASL - which practically everyone in the State thinks is a sham anyway, but doesnt have the nerve to refuse, and which the new Superintendent of Instruction says he's going to scrap - and we pay the price by being classified at NCLB Stage 4 (which will probably also change with the new Obama administration), despite it being our legal right to make that choice....
Our internal assessment of our students, using reputable testing methods, shows they are doing very well, and we meet all of the Alternative Schools' checklist, but that information is never disseminated by the District to the public...
Our enrolment numbers have been taking a dive since 2004, coinciding with more attempts to close us down.... which parent, wanting stability for their child, wants to enrol in a school that is repeatedly targetted for closure?
Enrolment Centre staff speak disparagingly of the school, and at District kindergarten fairs, we are placed out of our geographic area rather than with other north end schools or with other alternatives... parents from other areas are interested in us for their kids but dont want the commute, while local parents never find out about us... many people think AS#1 closed down years ago already!
We have a small school population that is very diverse and in need of a lot of support - see our FRL figures, ethnic and socio-economic make-up. We have a large special education population. Despite our lack of funding, we have a free all day kindergarten programme, which pushes up our per pupil cost, which the District then hits us around the head with, claiming we are too expensive to keep open....
These issues are equity issues - the Board has a stated policy commitment to alternative education, but it does nothing to support alternative education in our school. The proposed co-location of Summit will kill it, Thornton Creek is more mainstream than alternative and is full already, the other alternative schools are also full - there is nowhere else for our children to go, if the AS#1 programme is disbanded and our building is closed or commandeered for other programmes...
And what hypocrisy that would be - run AS#1 out of the Pinehurst building, claiming the building is unfit for (alternative) student occupation, and then move in some other programme....
Posted Wed, Dec 3, 1:26 p.m. inappropriate
This letter to the editor comes from Geri Hamai, former principal of Bryant Elementary:
Thank you for writing this article to enlighten school officials, and the public, about better planning for student enrollment in SPS.
I am a former SPS school principal (Bryant Elem.) who often brought similar concerns to the district when enrollment was projected, in February, at budget time.
I live in the north end of Seattle, and witnessed many young couples, with children, moving into homes near Green Lake and Wedgwood in 1999. I was told by those making projections that it couldn't be so, because the price of homes was too high for new families to live in Seattle. For five years I pointed out that young couples are both working and are starting out at higher salaries nowadays and CAN afford homes in Seattle; no one seemed to want to consider it. Now, my neighbors are trying to find seats for their children!
Regarding school closures, I can't help but notice that many alternative programs seem to be targeted for a move or closure, except Coho, also once known as 'AE 4'.
It is no secret that the alternative schools have given the school district headaches. Most of them have stood up to the district regarding the efficacy of the WASL for their populations, except, I believe, Coho. All three alternative schools (AS1, AE2 and sometimes Pathfinder) have a history of just standing up to the district and being obnoxious and rude, except Coho. Could these proposals be a tool used to get rid of them? I wonder if 'school choice' for the alternative learner is being targeted in general.
When I served as a Head teacher and as principal at Bryant (1996-2002), a significant part of my time, and my teachers' and parents' time, was devoted to building community relationships to support the school. When a school is moved, that hard-earned local area support is lost. This must be devastating for the communities of schools up for closure. Especially for the alternative schools.
It is curious that some of the top criteria for the school closure proposal was test scores and the 'condition of the building'. During my time employed by SPS (1993-2002), the district had a history of poor maintenance just about everywhere, so it seems the criteria of the 'condition of the building' can apply at many school buildings, not only the alternative schools. What stands out is the lack of primary consideration for the people, particularly the children who must be shuffled around. As you mentioned, expecting Summit K-12 to attend Rainier Beach HS, 12 miles away as the crow flies, well, I just don't see it happening.
I supervised teacher interns at Rainier Beach HS in 2002-03. I noticed Rainier Beach had wonderful, dedicated staff and teachers. The custodians kept it clean and bright. But, a place for kindergarten kids, it is not. The Rainier Beach students are like any other group of teens: they need their space! I always felt safe there, but I wouldn't expect my elementary-aged child to have the knowledge required to observe the boundaries I did. I think the rivalries between Renton and Rainier Beach are still there, too, which is a negative safety perception for parents choosing a school for K-12.
I look forward to reading more of your insightful thoughts in the pages of our papers!
--Geri Hamai
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 9:05 p.m. inappropriate
Most People I know have given up on Seattle Public Schools in the same way that Bill & Melinda Gates gave up on them. The administration & leadership has been a mess for years. Most of my neighbors are pulling their families out of public schools and going private; another subset is moving east where they have better programs and fewer issues with crime.
South Seattle Scarlett Letter