7 October 2002
Joseph Olfchefske,
Superintendent
June Rimmer, Chief Academic
Officer
Seattle Public Schools
The John Stanford Center for
Educational Excellence
2445 3rd Ave.
South
Seattle, WA 98134
Subject: Review of School Assignment Policies & Issues Related to Distance Tiebreaker Rule
Dear Mr. Olfchefske and Dr.
Rimmer:
I am writing to you concerning the current annual review
of school assignment policies for the Seattle School District and the proposal
to implement a distance tiebreaker across all Seattle schools, including the
alternative schools that have been traditionally exempt from this policy. I have deep interest in the issues involved
in this decision and the process by which changes are recommended and
effected. My wife, Dr. Pamela Van
Dalfsen, and I are parents of two students at TOPS, one a second grader and one
a kindergartner. Professionally, I am a
child clinical psychologist in private practice and have had the opportunity to
work with children and their parents at Coho/NOMS (now Salmon Bay), Summit
K-12, AE-2, and Orca. In my work as a
part-time lecturer in the University of Washington College of Education, I have
had my graduate students visit TOPS, NOMS, Nova, Summit K-12 (as well as many
other programs, such as The Center School and The Seattle Girls’ School). I have visited these schools as well and
have had the chance to talk with students, parents, and staff about what makes
these programs unique.
I am
writing because I believe that the School Board, as a result of your urging, is
about to make rash decisions concerning the assignment policies that will
dramatically alter the future of Seattle’s alternative schools in order to
address a significant, and yet confined, problem with school assignment in the
North Capitol Hill, Eastlake, and Roanoke neighborhoods. I believe that any decision that is likely
to be reached as a result of this rushed, two-month process will be flawed and
ultimately seriously undermine the District’s efforts to provide world-class
education to the children of Seattle. I
am aware of the need to be succinct in raising these issues, and yet their
complexity belies a simple, quick description or solution. I want to first outline several questions
that I feel neither you nor the School Board have adequately addressed, and
that deserve accurate, complete answers prior to any change in District school
assignment policies. I then want to
propose an alternative approach that will allow for adequate time for
consideration of these issues.
1. Why has the North Capitol Hill/Eastlake area not had a
reference school? How long has this
been true? What other areas in Seattle
lack reference schools? Clearly, parents in the Eastlake/North
Capitol Hill areas have been shocked by the absence of a reference school,
according to media reports (e.g., Seattle Times, September 24, 2002). How did this happen? How many other neighborhoods are in a
similar state (and potentially subject to the same difficulties)?
2. How does the District track demographic changes and
how successful have staff been in detecting shifts in the number of school-age
children? I have been told that a few years ago when
the Accelerated Progress Program was being moved to Lowell Elementary School,
one of the District’s demographer’s publicly stated that fewer and fewer
children would be living in Capitol Hill.
This prediction was obviously terribly wrong. What new policies should be implemented to do a better job
with this critical task?
3. What will be the impact on Alternative School programs
in the district if the geographic tie breaker is implemented? Your
enrollment experts should be able to provide models of what changes in
ethnicity, economic status, and geographic residence are likely to result from
various changes in assignment rules.
What do these look like? How do
these fit with the philosophical and moral goals of our District? Seattle has had alternative schools for
thirty-five years now that are open to families in the whole or large portions
of the district, and these proposed assignment rule changes could drastically
alter, and possibly lead to the demise, of these programs.
Faculty and staff at each of these programs should also be consulted about the impact of the proposed changes on their continued interest in working in such alternative programs and in the Seattle District more generally. Many teachers have devoted their professional careers to developing and nurturing these alternative programs. If these are seriously harmed by these proposed changes, the impact on these educators will be large, I believe. Given the difficulties these public educators already face, I doubt many of them will stay around to participate in the gradual dismantling of the programs they have worked to build.
4. Given the recent emphasis on maintaining diversity in
Seattle schools, in spite of some recent court decisions, how do these
enrollment policy changes fit with such goals? It has been
impossible for me to discern so far how this policy change can do anything but
increase the homogeneity of our schools.
Has the goal for Seattle schools to reflect our world and not just our
neighborhood been forgotten in considering this issue? I hope not! The most recent data I have seen in newspapers concerning the
impact of last year’s changes in assignment policies indicated a sharp increase
in ethnic homogenization at Ballard High School. Your proposed changes would seem to point in the same direction. Do we believe what you said six months ago
or what you are proposing to do at this point?
5. Issues such as the cost of transporting students have
been mentioned as part of the rationale for supporting this assignment policy
change. What is the cost of
transporting students to these alternative programs? How is this different from costs for students attending other
schools? Given that the state
pays part of transportation costs for students living more than a mile from
their school, how does state funding interact with district funding in this
picture? It is my understanding that
TOPS students cost, on average, $3.00 per day to transport. Given the cost of transportation in the
Puget Sound region, this seems quite reasonable. Are there problems in other schools that need to be addressed
specifically? What other approaches
have other districts utilized in order to reduce transportation costs other
than simply resorting to neighborhood schools?
Have any of these options been considered or tried? If so, which ones? If not, why not? Let’s
not throw out the baby if our real goal is simply to change the bath water.
6. What efforts have been expended to solicit input and
specific plans from the schools in the Central Cluster to help resolve the
“crisis” there? With the increase in private funding at
McGilvra, Montlake, and Stevens Schools, there has been a clear reduction in
class size, beginning in kindergarten.
(Of course, the extra funds from Initiative 728 gave helped in this
regard as well.) These extra monies
have resulted, I believe, in decreased capacity for these schools (though
enhanced attractiveness for those families lucky enough to be admitted). What responsibility does each of these
schools have in solving this enrollment problem? TOPS already has class sizes that are close to the maximum
allowed, and the facility is at capacity.
TOPS should not shoulder the full burden of solving this problem (by the
implementation of the geographic tiebreaker).
These other programs must step up and do their parts. It is only fair and equitable.
7. What alternatives have been considered other than
changing this enrollment policy to address this problem? From
what you have shared with the public, your approach to resolving this problem
lacks the input from the community that is essential to long-term
effectiveness, and it does not consider alternative approaches that might
effectively deal with both short- and longer-term problems.
At this point I recommend the following:
I appreciate your consideration of the ideas in my
letter. I realize that you are
receiving much correspondence at this point concerning these issues and hope
that this one adds something different and helpful to your consideration of
this complex matter. My wife and I will
continue to work in our children’s classrooms and participate in a variety of
ways to support their school community.
I hope that the decisions you make this fall concerning assignment and
enrollment policies will continue to encourage parents’ participation in and
commitment to our Seattle Public Schools.
Sincerely,
Email: wduncan@abcdseattle.com
Cc: Seattle School Board; Clara Scott,
Principal, TOPS; TOPS Site Council