A lot of families are awfully anxious as they await tomorrow’s release of the Seattle School District’s new assignment plan, one which intends to assign the majority of students to their neighborhood schools, with fewer options and less flexibility than we currently enjoy.
Will many of my friends here in SE Seattle, whose children are comfortably on an academic track they thought would guarantee them a slot at Garfield, happily accept an assignment to Rainier Beach? I don’t think so. Likewise, on the even more contentious issue of middle schools, an assignment to Aki Kurose in its present form would be the equivalent of a one-way ticket out of the district.
Criticize me all you want for stating the obvious, but that’s just the way it is.
I’m on the record as a passionate proponent of neighborhood schools, but I’ve been equally vocal in criticizing the lack of equity within the district. And with schools increasingly relying on PTSA money to fund things that used to be considered part of basic education (tutors, teaching assistants, art, music, physical education, books, equipment, field trips, etc.), the disparity between the educational haves and have nots can only grow wider.
At some schools in more affluent neighborhoods, PTSA’s raise more than $1,000 per student a year to pay for services the district and state can no longer afford to provide, while some schools in poorer and working class neighborhoods have no PTSA at all. This unofficial and unspoken “PTSA Levy” amounts to a not-so-secret tuition system that only exacerbates the inherent demographic disparity.
A few years back when we toured the TOPS K-8 program in the hopes of securing our daughter a desirable academic home for middle school (she got in for 4th grade, but we ultimately declined), the PTSA representative wasn’t shy about making his expectations clear. TOPS would give our children the equivalent of a private school education we were told (and in my opinion, oversold), and those of us who could afford that type of tuition were expected to pony up accordingly. Of course, there’s no enforcement mechanism, but there are parents at some schools who routinely write four and even five figure checks, while during our seven years at Graham Hill we where happy if we raised better than $50 a student.
No doubt Seattle would be better off with a neighborhood school system that would be more convenient to parents, provide much greater continuity to students, and save the district millions of dollars in transportation and other costs. But attempting to address the assignment issue before meaningfully addressing the equity issue, virtually assures that the current level of disparity between schools will only grow worse, while the district’s seemingly inexorable march toward resegregation will continue apace.
So here’s hoping the new assignment plan is about much more than just saving money.
If the poll cited yesterday by Danny Westneat is right, then I-1033 will pass, and state funding for basic education will fall off a cliff in the years ahead and today’s schools will look like “the good old days.”
One of the things I-1033, if it passes, will do is raise property taxes. That’s because, as state education funding shrinks, more of the costs for basic education will have to come from voter-approved special levies.
Of course, voters sometimes refuse to approve levies. Where that happens on a regular basis, families will flee from districts with poor quality schools, and home values in those areas will drop like a rock.
So, people will have a choice between paying higher property taxes or falling home values.
Nearly half the state budget goes to K-12 education. There’s no way you can handcuff state spending growth without impacting state support for basic education. Over time, an ever higher proportion of school funding will come from special levies, and that means property taxes will continually and inexorably rise.
We’re on pins and needles about the school assignment plan as well. One possible outcome is not going to sit well with us at all.
In an environment where state/local funding is very tight, how would you address the inequity? Forbid PTSA fundraising? Share PTSA fundraising equally across all schools? Up the city/state funding of schools without PTSA funding and lower it for schools who can raise their own money?
I know the easy thing to say is “put more money into all schools”, but given that isn’t going to happen in the near future, what is the answer? I agree with Goldy that this inequity is a huge issue for the Seattle schools, one that needs to be addressed.
Roger @2,
Actually, most districts do pass their levies, and most districts are at or near their statutory cap that limits their levy to a fixed percent of total state and federal funding (24% for most districts, grandfathered in at as high as 32% for Seattle and a handful of other districts.)
That means that as state funding declines, local property taxes here in Seattle will decline too, as the district will have to lower its levy amount accordingly.
@5 Well, there’s always this to fall back on.
http://platteriver.unk.edu/pics/OneRoomSchool.jpg
If we go to a system of neighborhood schools getting neighborhood kids, I can only assume certain families will further vote with their dollars and move to districts where they can get the best education they can afford, for their kids. To get a decent, safe education for my kid, I will move if I need too.
Wonder how much housing prices and demographics will change because of this?
Would you with kids in public school move districts?
@5, now if we could just photoshop 800 students in front of that 1 room school house.
Goldy
My sympathies.
A good place to start changing this is with HONESTY.
The idea that all schools can be equal is foolish.
Genetics may mean that all kinds of humans start out equal, at least on the average. Nonethe3less, neighborhoods differ .. not only in parental cash but in family structures, ethnic identity, etc.
When we moved to Cap Hiil, we intended for our kids to go to school at an Asian majority school because we thought that would be good for their breadth as Jewish Americans. Of course as part of “deseg” that school died.
If neighborhood schools are to thrive at the elementary level, then the District needs to either centralize high schools or offer open enrollment.
The alternative is inane.. No one is going to willingly send their kids to a bad school whether “bad” reflects bad funding or a local culuture that does not celebrate learning.
Some will. the ones who don’t care, don’t know better or don’t have the resources to care. If you cannot afford to move, you are stuck with what you get.
@7 Or….more families will choose to explore private alternatives. Catholic school enrollment has been rising lately, despite the current state of the economy, and I suspect that’s true for other places like University Prep. There’s a certain irony, of course, in that while in the past, busing drove “white flight” to private schools and out of the city, the return to “neighborhood school” assignments seems to be doing the same thing.
Hi Goldy.
My kid a senior in highschool. He just moved in with me. We enrolled him. He’s assigned to Rainier Beach. We live in Greenwood. The daily metro bus commute would be at least 1 hour (both ways), but I’m sure traffic would make it worse. (It took me 45 minutes by car.)
We visited Rainier Beach. I kinda liked it. The building is in better shape than Nathan Hale (my son’s first pick). The staff we met were switched on. But traveling opposite corners of the district just isn’t practical.
Our solution is Running Start. My son’s taking classes at North Seattle CC. He likes it.
I haven’t followed school district issues much. So I don’t know the challenges Seattle faces. (I’ve heard there’s a problem with the funding model that can only be fixed by Olympia.) I don’t know what the fixes are.
But I do support neighborhood schools. Schools should be vibrant centers for their communities. My principal friends opened up his school after hours for local activities (boy scouts, user groups, socials, etc.) That’s exactly the right answer.
And I also enthusiastically support equality. I don’t know why north end schools have a waiting list while south end schools don’t. But it means something’s wrong. Could be money, administration, legacy, whatever. I really don’t care what the cause is. Parents obviously feel like their kids should be going to north end schools. That’s a raw deal for the south end parents and students. And it mystifies me why these chronic problems are allowed to persist.
Cheers, Jason
I’ve mentioned this before….
A few years back a Bellevue high school had a PTSA “auction” to raise funds for the school. One of the items being auctioned was supplied by the school itself – reserved parking at a preferable spot near one of the school entrances. There might have been more than one spot autioned, I don’t recall – I lost my link to the news story, and the Times and P.I. index can’t seem to find the story anymore.
Anyway, the “winners” of the auction were the parents who “donated” thousands of dollars (tax deductable) so their little precious son or daughter could safely park their BMW (or Lexus, of Infinity, etc.) without having to arrive early or jockey with the “little people” for the available parking spaces.
School and PTSA officials defended the auction, pointing out that all the students would benefit (presumably in an equal fashion) from the money raised. But none addressed the fact that public facilities (school parking slots) were being sold off to the highest bidder.
One of the things such auctions can do is give the school a competative advantage over other schools, in science classes and equipment, sports team funding, etc. For example, one eastside high school had private donars giving the football coach more than his regular salary to encourage him to stay at the school and to concentrate on the football team. Other schools have to make do with paying the football coach a regular salary supplied by the district. Remember that these advantages – whether in the classroom or on the football field – translate eventually into greater educational and employment opportunities. In a merit-based competition, students from the more advantaged schools will have a greater opportunity to not only get into high-ranking colleges and universities, but they will also have a better chance of getting merit scholarships, as well. Each advantage keeps piling upon the next, giving those in the better-funded schools an almost insurmountable advantage over their less fortunate counterparts.
Yet it is every attempt to level this playing field equally that enrages the right-wing: whether it is in the manner in which schools are assigned, variable weighted income-tax rates, HOV lanes which they can’t buy a private permit to access, or fully funded public schools. If they don’t get preferred benefits under a public facility or program, then they will try to kill it.
#13.
good posting. If they don’t get preferred benefits under a public facility or program, then they will try to kill it. It does seem like that. Seems like a good reworking of “Everyone is equal, but the right wingers should be more equal than others.”
@2
The OFM has K-12 spending listed as 21.1%.
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/tables/fig506.asp
It has been nearly five years since i retired from education, and i have no idea where i may have put some of the research (either storage in WA or CA??) about voting patterns for public education. But i do remember that, across the board, people feel good about funding public education, regardless of whether they have children or not (even if they never had kids and are fixed-income seniors). That is a good sign in a climate of 1033 and yet another era of disastrous economic times.
However, this support cannot be sustained if the political will and cultural climate for good public education is dismantled both at the neighborhood and regional levels. There is only one job available for every six people seeking work (those that are actively unemployed with benefits or recently lost benefits) and one job for no less than 18 people not working at all. School is a fundamental part of the economy simply because it provides day care (taxpayer funded babysitting) for those that can and do work (as well as employing tens of thousands in the state). Making it more difficult for parents to rely on neighborhood schooling (kids being able to get themselves to and from school without increasing the potential for mischief) makes it more difficult for neighborhoods to proffer consistent support for the tax burden of education. This disconnection is part of the yes voting for I-1033.
@13 “Yet it is every attempt to level this playing field equally that enrages the right-wing…”
It seems nowadays, everything enrages the right wing. That’s just…how they roll.
rhp6033 @ 13
Auctioning off the parking spots. Classic.
I attended Bellevue High School, aka “Hot Tub High”. I could totally see that happening. Might as well been Beverly Hills. It’s a whole different world.
Funding is huge important. But it’s not the only advantage. Middle class parents do different things with their kids.
That’s why I’m so excited about Harlem Child Zone Project, and the Baby College in particular.
I don’t remember the back story. But there’s this dude who asked “Why don’t inner city kids have the same level of achievement as middle class kids?” He kept asking until he got actionable answers. He (they) then took those findings and started teaching parents in Harlem the child raising strategies used by middle class parents.
This kind of thing is fucking great. It’s fundamentally humanistic. It’s optimistic. It shows that we can learn from each other. It makes “parenting technology” widely available. Etc. I love everything about it.
The book Whatever It Takes is on my to do list. There’s so many fads in education. It’s nauseating. Well, now we have actual real life success to learn from and copy.
In the Catholic school our kids attended, one affluent family put in the successful bid every year for such a parking spot. Being as Dad made a lot of money, the Mom didn’t have a paying job, so she used that parking space when she spent nearly every school day working her butt off for free helping run the place. There weren’t many objections.
@13 “Yet it is every attempt to level this playing field equally that enrages the right-wing”
Of course! First of all, Republicans intensely dislike competition — whether in business, getting into good schools, etc. — and do everything in their power to eliminate it. Nothing like monopoly to guarantee success! Secondly, they want to live in a world where their money will entrench their progeny in a permanent position of financial and social superiority. Hell, they’d bring back inherited nobility, if they could! What Republicans don’t believe in is getting ahead on merit because that’s too much work.
@15 That pie chart is for combined state and local spending. The most recent breakdown of the state budget that I saw was about 45% for K-12.
This bold announcement will give parents almost a year to organize and get busy improving their neighborhood schools. It has happened before and will happen again. Nothing improves a school like the sharp eyes and leadership of parents concerned not only for their own children but for all children in the school. Instead of escaping, model a commitment to making the school better for everyone. Parents, teachers, principals, and community working together will get it done! It is more convenient in our neighborhoods.
@22 There ya go. It’s pretty much agreed that one of the most important ingredients in any successful school system is parental involvement. It this latest hoo-rah leads to more of that, it’s a good thing. Not that there shouldn’t be a better way…
@23…excellent point artfart. THAT is the one fact that the tax/spenders never seem to understand. We can throw billions at the problem, but if parents arent involved, then its just a waste of time and money.
Isn’t Screwing Kids Rape????
SJ has a theory .. whnever the Left and thge Right find common cause, WATCH OUT! The left tried to dictate WHERE everyone’s kids wouod go to school. The right responded by defunding urban districts. Who got screwed the kids.
racist @ 24
It’s not about the amount. I’m willing to pay twice as much in taxes if I thought it was worthwhile.
Just saying “parental involvement” without a plan is a dodge (not actionable). Of course parents should be involved. But you can’t browbeat people into compliance.
That’s why Harlem Child Project is so exciting. They teach parents how to better raise their kids. This is “parenting technology” that can benefit all parents.
The history of the program could be a case study in the diffusion of innovations. The program started small, with just a handful of parents. Like all new ideas, it was met with skepticism. Then parents outside of the program see the kids whose parents in Baby College are more successful make the decision to sign up. Over time, nearly every single parent with small kids is in the program (no one wants to be left out).
No coercion, no nanny state, no top-down paternalistic preaching, it’s all voluntary. The program relies on each parent’s desire for their child to succeed. Parents will do what’s best if they are shown the way.
What’s new about Baby College is that it works. Proven effectiveness is very popular in the reality-based community.
@26
I agree.
While I strongly support the idea of focus on the parents, liberals are unrealistic when we force different kinds of kids into the same schools. Segregation by skin color was inane, forced integration across ethnic and financial barriers is abusive.
It seems to me that any fair answer needs to maximize choice, even if the means charter schools and a state wide tax to support open enrollment.
I know that this will create problems .. what do you do with schools for the kids who are left over? these are likely to be kids from broken homes or homes where kids are an accidental complication of life. It is all to easy to say train the parents, but unless the parent is willing to choose the school, he or she is not going to be willing to participate in parent training.
Choice, is a necessity.
Just to clarify, those in the APP track will not have any changes in the new student assignment plan:
http://www.seattleschools.org/.....n.html#al7
Change is hard and scary. But it’s also inevitable. It’s clear that the current Seattle public system works pretty well for folks like me, who work hard to research schools, finagle to get my kids into what I perceive are “the best” schools for them, volunteer as I can (we are a two career family) and give lots of money to the schools my kids attend. It doesn’t work as well for low income kids or non-english speakers. I figure “folks like me” are going to figure out a way to make any system work. I’m willing to role up my sleeves and try something new if others believe it will help those who don’t have all that my family has. I don’t intend to be a “back seat driver” and take cheap shots at the new plan. I intend to give it a few years and see how it goes before I start evaluating how it’s doing.
By assignment-each school shall have at least ONE Transgender student. If one isn’t available a student, selected at random, shall be designated Transgender.
There is a lot of hypocrisy here…many are advocating all kinds of action and social engineering…but when people (who are not necessarily wealthy) do their OWN engineering and donate “too much” to their schools or go the private route or move (or commute) to suburban schools, they are “elitist”or “separatist” or are “Republicans” or are callow, self-centered, social climbing materialists…any actions to IMPROVE one’s situation is viewed in the same way that one might view the actions of a corrupt, fascist, South American general or dictator, or something.
It’s good to remember that “taking action” can be a disaster….recall that John Sanford cut way back on north/south bussing in the 1990’s when minorities, who were bussed around, DID WORSE than did their peers who stayed home in their “ghetto schools!”
Concerning “Diversity”…my kid went through elementary school at Graham Hill..aside from the annual, one night, Diversity party, there was NO mingling…whites hung with whites, people of color with same, middle class stuck with middle class and Montessori/traditional classes and teachers were indifferent or even hostile towards one another!
Seattle is now looking at a “Ten Year Plan” (lots of luck with that) so it’s difficult for many families above about the 2nd grade, to get too emotionally involved it’s already too late for them! You only get a VERY few years to do right for your kid… nobody is going to passively put that job in the hands of an incompetent, broke and politically disastrous Seattle school system!
It’s tiresome hearing people whine about things would be better if certain people would “just lower their standards and be less ambitious…” Gee, that might really increase everybody’s self-esteem.
It’s a fact that 78% of humans have an average IQ OR LOWER!!…that puts a LOT of the heavy lifting on the upper 20%.
I gotta love the kids, but all the left-wing bickering and lack of funds and the impossible calculus of drawing delicate, nuanced boundary lines will cause such a battle that poor supe Maria G-J will prob. be outta here in a cuppla more years!
Oh-one more thing on SPS “quality” and self-esteem…it’s astonishing that Seattle schools even floated this trial balloon regarding making a “D” grade passing and allowing sports participation…
From Tuesday’s SeaTimes…..
“Clearly we want to increase incentives for students to excel, but I don’t know that a GPA requirement is going to do that/”
THIS is supposed to encourage parents to put up with weird boundary assignments…??
Rat’s Wife…actually, people will have about 6 months to deal with this. Open enrollment begins on March 1. Schools will be having tours starting in January (or maybe they won’t bother with this now that many kids will be automatically assigned). The “Option” schools will almost certainly have tours and marketing to the public.
Most of the “option schools” are already popular (TOPS, The Center School, etc.), but Cleveland will be offering a brand-new (and not-yet-developed) school-wide program—STEM (Science/technology). It will be very difficult for prospective families to determine if the program is is a good fit for their child since it doesn’t exist in anything more than name right now and has no track record.
And, the District is now saying they will need to spend $40 million of the money in the upcoming BEX levy to REOPEN 5 schools they closed within the last few years. This plan depends on that levy passing (not a sure-thing given the economy, the anti-tax climate AND the general distrust in the competence of the District), so everything could change drastically once this is determined.
This is an extremely important issue that affects everyone in the city whether they have children or not. If people and businesses believe that Seattle has an inferior school system (or pockets that have inferior schools), they will reconsider locating in the city, and as another blogger noted, housing property values could be negatively impacted. Housing is already less valuable in the southend (even those homes with lake and mountain views); it will only go lower if people believe their children will be stuck in inferior schools.