Alternative Education Committee Minutes

April 25, 2005

John Stanford Center

4:00 – 6:00 PM

Members present: Elaine Packard (Chair), Lynn Beebe, David Dockendorf,

Holly Ferguson, Jim LaRiviere, David Marshak, John Miner, Barbara Moore,

Elaine Schmidt, Doug Selwyn, Cynthia Spencer, Sheri Touissant, Mikala Woodward

Interns: Patrice DeLaOssa, Adam Sher, Diane Solvang-Angell

Observers: Theresa Cardamone (parent, Nova, Interagency and AS#1)

1. Minutes of April 18: Approved

2. Check-ins

• Last week, the Chair visited Orca and met with its principal for two hours. He seemed to agree with the direction of our committee, for example on practices such as alternative assessment and shared decision-making.

• The Chair will continue to pursue conversations with School Board Directors about the work of the committee.
• It was reiterated that the Center for Re-Inventing Public Education at the University of Washington recently published a report on the per pupil costs for high school students in the Seattle School District. Many alternative schools are well within a normal range of average cost/student when “hidden costs” such as central office dollars are taken into account.
• The Chair asked for any feedback on the 16 data-point spreadsheet she had prepared of the alternative schools but received none.
• The Chair clarified that she reports directly to the School Board’s Executive Committee, not the Administration.

3. Discussion of Superintendent’s Recommendations

We spent the next hour discussing the Superintendent’s Recommendations on school closures/consolidations/re-purposing, student assignment and transportation. Questions were addressed to Holly Ferguson, Assistant General Counsel, who serves on this committee and the one that developed the Superintendent’s recommendations.

• It was clarified that the K-8 alternative schools and middle schools are grouped into regions not pods.
• In the plan, every K-5 has a fixed assignment (reference area) with opportunity to transfer within the pod when space is available.
• A committee member suggested that the recommended neighborhood assignment plan may be a return to racial and class segregation in the schools.
• Before the School Board’s vote on July 13, there will be a series of required public hearings on school closures. There will also be community and other meetings to better understand what is wanted—a time to offer suggestions. The meetings within individual communities may look different because each community has different needs. The Administration and the Board want to know what people think without any restriction on communication.
• What would happen if the School Board can’t meet its legal requirement to balance the budget? The state could take over the District but that is unlikely to happen.
• Athletics was cited as an example of a cut that was not made; but, if made, would have a domino effect on associated activities such as marching band, cheerleading, and produce staff cuts.
• The committee agreed that it is important that alternative schools not be treated as interchangeable. While they share commonalities, each has a unique identity.
• The committee was critical of the District for not notifying schools of the Superintendent’s recommendations prior to the School Board work session. Parents, staff and students of the affected schools were surprised, confused, and distressed. It was asked if, in the future, school communities will be informed as recommendations become firm.
• It was suggested that temporarily locating a school in one of the pending building closures, such as Marshall, might save more than installing electricity, plumbing, wiring for technology, etc. needed for portables.
• It was also stated that portables are an inferior educational setting—that this is an educational quality issue not being taken seriously.
• Are the Superintendent’s recommendations a whole systems or a sequential (i.e., disconnected) approach? If it is sequential, there is no way to know all of the other options and weigh them against each other. The questioner said it felt somewhat like “divide and conquer.”
• This plan will cause disruption for families and break up established, successful academic programs. It was hoped that the savings would not destroy the school system it is trying to save.
• Consequences of the newly recommended assignment change are different for north- and south-end schools. The current assignment plan has been devastating for south-end neighborhood schools, resulting in middleclass flight to north-end and alternative schools. Whatever we think of this change, one must acknowledge that the old policy did not result in racial/economic equity.
• Another member asked about the millions of dollars that might be lost if students flee to private schools. This has not been factored into the budget calculations.
• Had a coherent educational dialogue taken place as this proposal was developed? It seemed that the proposed plan was capacity-driven and not based on an educational rationale. Holly responded that the Teaching and Learning staff was directly involved in the planning process.
• Holly explained that the Superintendent made his recommendations based on a thorough analysis of each school, according to School Board direction. His committee worked many hours of overtime and on weekends to arrive at these recommendations from a system-wide perspective. It is the first step to begin discussions. His final recommendations will go before the Board on June 15. The final vote will be on July 13.
• Had the T.T. Minor program been declared a failure because it was slated for closure?
• Holly encouraged people to give additional input on the District’s website or through public hearings. Although she is not the communication channel for what our committee wants to discuss, she will take our questions to the Superintendent’s committee for answers. We can also direct our questions to the Board’s Policy and Legislative Committee. She suggested formalizing our input.
• One of our members whose school is slated for elimination expressed a desire to know more about the decision-making process. It would help both the students and staff to come to terms with why their school was not being continued. It did not reflect well on the system when the school’s staff had no answers for the students and there had been no opportunity to share thoughts with the Superintendent’s committee. It made it seem all the more obvious that there was no educational plan behind the proposal—that it was just a cost-savings approach.
• The socio-economic tiebreaker recommendation was a good step toward equity.
• Returning to neighborhood schools was a pre-bussing idea. The District was going backwards.
• Holly will clarify the reassignment policy with Nan Stavnshoj and email the response to committee members.
• Was the APP split going to dismantle the program? Holly clarified that it was a way to expand the program because there weren’t enough existing seats for APP.
• One member was upset that the boundaries were being redrawn for Martin Luther King students to attend Madrona but not to McGilvra.
• It was pointed out that middle class families of all races were affected by these changes and may move their children to private schools.
• One member pointed out that because feeder patterns were changing, it would cause problems for families with current 4th and 7th graders (because of staggered implementation dates—elem. 06-07, sec. 07-08).
• A visitor said it was shameful to publicly reveal the proposal without talking to the schools first. That caution should be taken not to regard this as a done deal. It is ludicrous to balance one budget line against another when one can wipe out the entire savings. AS#1 will stand behind the survival of all the alternative schools. There has been a complete disregard for communities.
• Our committee will stand behind T. T. Minor, Montlake, and MLK, and not just the alternative schools.
• Holly stressed that she understood the charge of this committee is to make recommendations not policy.
• Holly was praised for her forbearance, honesty, hard work and willingness to hear our positions.

4. Discussion of Policy Recommendation on Student Assignment

• The Chair stated that the purpose of this committee is to advocate for alternative schools by making policy recommendations and not by political lobbying.
• The Chair agreed to inquire about the rumor that televised School Board meetings will not include the public testimony part.
• There was general concern that the Enrollment Centers do not have enough correct information on alternative schools or that families were discouraged from attending alternative schools. The Enrollment Centers should strong strongly encourage families to visit prospective schools.
• Alternative schools need to preserve distinctiveness from each other, yet identify commonalities.
• An all-city draw often helps to attract a diversity of students. How can we make alternative schools more attractive to a more diverse set of students?
• Ideally, every alternative school should have all-city draw; although, one alternative school preferred to retain its limited draw.
• For now, we recommend that alternative schools maintain their existing draws because their climates and cultures originated from specific phenomena produced by those draws. Perhaps this small compromise in a policy recommendation is a more viable, marketable position. At this time, a good defense may be a better strategy than a good offense, given the current economic situation.
• Assignment to an alternative school should be based on first choice.
• Regarding transportation, if a family lives outside a region, they could furnish their own transportation. However, this thought was later countered with a concern for equity. It was suggested that free/reduced lunch students might be provided transportation or that school could handle its own transportation. We decided to separate our recommendations on student assignment from transportation.
• Choice is central to the idea of alternative education. Not just the choice of attending an alternative school but the choice of a particular alternative school to determine its mission, vision, culture and philosophy.
• Values and culture can get diluted if an alternative school is included in a neighborhood draw.
• Alternative schools believe in choice for all students throughout the district, but especially hold choice as the indispensable core value of an alternative school.
• Feeder patterns need our further attention.
• Many of the difficulties now found in alternative schools were caused by the same types of decisions that the Administration is now proposing.
• General concern was expressed that our recommendations may be used to create “standardized” alternative schools. The remedy is to stress the uniqueness of each school, using the shopping metaphor that “one size does not fill all.”

5. Future Action Steps

• We will meet on May 2 to start writing our recommendations.
• Homework is to begin writing your thoughts on policy.

6. Adjournment: 6:00 pm Meeting Schedule: May 16, May 23.

Respectfully submitted, Diane Solvang-Angell, Committee Intern