A TOPS Parent’s Response to the “Geographic Preference” Proposal

10/2/02

To: The Seattle School Board:

Nancy Waldman, President
Steve Brown, Vice President
Mary Bass
Jan Kumasaka
Dick Lilly
Barbara Peterson
Barbara Schaad-Lamphere

cc: Joseph Olchefske, Superintendent

From: Steven Magasis, a TOPS parent (206.784.9980)

I’m a parent of two TOPS students, a 5th grader and a 1st grader; both started at TOPS when they were in kindergarten. Our family loves being part of the TOPS program, and I’d like to try and explain why.

I’m also one of more than one hundred TOPS parents (that I know of) who are currently working to help the Seattle School Board to find creative solutions, and to look at the big picture when you address neighborhood school assignment questions.

I ask you to reject the current “Geographic Preference” proposal, and support the existing TOPS program, or alternate proposals which are less disruptive to TOPS.

Some TOPS parents are here tonight, many have already written to you, and more will be making their thoughts known to you, and others in the community, in the coming days. Having talked to many of these parents, I know that you will be presented with compelling arguments in support of the existing TOPS program. You’ll hear about the value of that system in contributing to diversity, and in supporting underserved neighborhoods city-wide. My wife and I agree with our fellow TOPS parents, and support these views.

I’ve also read some of the draft evaluations being prepared by TOPS supporters, assessing the current school system’s needs and resources, and advancing alternatives to the “Geographic Preference” proposal. Many of these evaluations and proposals seem reasonable and feasible (though I haven’t yet reached my own conclusions on precisely which of these I find most convincing). In the coming weeks I intend to sit down, sort through these alternate proposals, and decide upon which I support. As must each of you.

Here are some additional points to consider as you go through this process:

(over)

Points to consider:

· Fairness: As a “self-selected” alternative program, the TOPS Philosophy itself (parents/teachers/administrators working together) must largely be credited with the outstanding success of TOPS students’ academic performance. We’ve planted, protected, and nurtured this tree through the fat and the thin years. Does the School Board now intend to take its fruit and simply hand it to others? That’s unfair, and it’s demoralizing to all those who are actually responsible for the success of TOPS and similar programs throughout Seattle schools.
TOPS works. Don’t fix it. (And don’t punish those who’ve helped build it).

· Cost: Administration of a school system obviously demands attention to costs, and the responsibility for a fair distribution of resources. Apparently one of the negative economic aspects being associated with TOPS’s city-wide coverage is reported to be “increased transportation costs”. Without arguing the accuracy of that point, I’d simply ask a related question, “Has the board calculated the positive economic aspects of the TOPS program?”.

Go into TOPS at any hour of any school day, and you are likely to find dozens of dedicated parents providing hundreds of (unpaid) hours of support to the hard-working TOPS teachers and staff. Go on a TOPS field-trip, and ask one of the teachers about the willingness of TOPS parents to support each other by ensuring that all students can participate in all activities, regardless of their family’s ability to pay at any given time. Go to Roger’s Field and find out how much TOPS parents contributed to making it a safe and fun place for all kids. Get the numbers. Compare them to the average traditional school in Seattle.

We know the educational value of the TOPS philosophy and its effect on the education of our kids… look at the test scores, and at our kids when they work and play together. But what is the economic value to the School District of having a program comprised of self-selected, motivated families, dedicated to volunteering and working together? I don’t know… but hadn’t somebody better calculate that value before you take any action that threatens to destroy such a program? Don’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg. (It just might be harder to replace than you think).

A strong system is one that’s flexible, and doesn’t impose standardization for its own sake. In your efforts to support a single neighborhood, beware of any action that might destroy another existing community: TOPS.

Look cluster-wide for a solution, and let’s all work together to meet the needs; not just of one neighborhood, but of the broader school system. Certainly in this effort, TOPS needs to take on our fair share of the burden. I believe that the TOPS program, as it is, has proven its value, and that we can participate in a solution. Rather than disrupt the thriving TOPS community, let us instead help the Board to find similar success on a wider scale. Thanks for your consideration.