Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 01:15:51 -0700

I am dismayed and disappointed with the proposed elementary school assignment changes the Seattle School Board is considering. I am most concerned about the drastic effects these changes will have on TOPS. But I am even more worried that these changes appear to be the start of an emphasis on neighborhood schools that will radically alter the current assignment policies to the detriment of most of the students in the District.

The present proposal calls for the designation of TOPS as a reference school for the north part of Capital Hill and the establishment of distance as a tie-breaker when the choices of prospective students exceed the available spaces. In addition, half of the kindergarten assignment spaces remaining after sibling assignments have been satisfied are to be reserved for this new reference neighborhood. These features are designed to benefit the north Capital Hill community who claims to be underserved by the District. Please note that these changes will apply to no other school in the District. Only one neighborhood will be granted special opportunity at one school.

One of the major alternative aspects of TOPS is the wide geographic diversity of the students. Under the current enrollment policy, TOPS attracts students from more than half of the school clusters in the city. The radical policy change proposed will slash this geographic diversity in time making TOPS predominantly a north Capital Hill school (and the exclusion of the northwest cluster from TOPS will accelerate this trend). I can easily see a naturally developing neighborhood chauvinism replacing TOPS's present city-wide, inclusive culture, a culture that values all of our neighborhoods and sees difference as positive.

I understand that the present proposal is prompted by the disappointment of a number of north Capital Hill families in being "denied" placement at TOPS. TOPS is, admittedly, an attractive school due to its academic and social successes as well as its alternative approach to education. It is sought after by parents all over the city. Many of the parents from north Capital Hill were not happy with assignment to another Capital Hill school and are now demanding special access to TOPS. I am dismayed that their disappointment warrants consideration not offered to other neighborhoods. Many other families failed to get in to TOPS and had to settle for less-attractive schools. However, they are not being offered special enrollment rights. They are not seeking a change in the rules to benefit themselves to the exclusion of all others. They played by the rules and accepted the outcome even if it was not what they had hoped. They recognized that TOPS is highly desired and that not everyone who chooses TOPS gets TOPS.

But in all of this, the major issue is, I believe, being ignored. To be blunt, the District has a number of good and highly-sought-after schools. It has a number of mediocre schools. And, unfortunately, it has far too many poor schools that few parents prefer. The north Capital Hill parents are not satisfied with assignment to schools they view as belonging to the latter categories. They demand only the first category and expect their demand to be honored by enrollment in a desired alternative school that happens to be located in their neighborhood. It is obvious to me that were TOPS a poorly-performing school, the north Capital Hill parents would not seek enrollment there and, if assigned to TOPS contrary to their wishes, would demand special consideration for enrollment elsewhere. In other words, the issue is absolutely not neighborhood schools. Rather, the issue is quality schools.

As the philosopher John Rawls illuminates, in a fair social system, all justifiable inequalities must be for the benefit of the least well off. This certainly should apply to the assignment of scarce spaces in preferred schools. At least the present lottery system is procedurally fair. But the proposed reservation of spaces for those already socially advantaged (as is the case for the typical north Capital Hill resident) is not simply inequitable treatment, it is inequality for the benefit of the most well off. A just policy would give special consideration for TOPS enrollment to families in, say, Holly Park.

To return to the central issue, the problem is not with the enrollment policy for the alternative elementaries in general or TOPS in particular. It is really not even the lack of neighborhood school spaces on north Capital Hill. The problem is that too many Seattle schools are doing badly, so badly that those who can want out of them. This is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for the students. It is not acceptable for their parents. It is not acceptable for our community.

Altering the enrollment rules for TOPS will not improve this problem. The new rules will change TOPS, if not immediately, eventually. These changes will lead to the loss of much of what is distinctive about TOPS. They will transform TOPS from a city-wide alternative school to a limited neighborhood school. They will lessen the educational options available in Seattle. I urge you, I implore you, do not support these proposed changes. But more than that, I demand that you rededicate yourself to the improvement of all of our schools with special attention to those most in need of help. It is your responsibility to see that "achievement for every student" is a reality and not just a slogan.

George Goodall third grade parent