Below is a Letter by Steve Hitch, LWSD parent and taxpayer explaining the Evergreen Middle School Boundary agreement that the School Board will be deciding on at next Monday's Board Meeting.
LETTER: I agree that the District posted information about 120 students affected, with more detail on 1/21, which seems kind of late in the game.
However, the district shared with us all that there would be impacts to Evergreen at the December 1 meeting. That meeting was announced to us all with direct email and opportunities to be added to mailing lists if we want to stay informed about the process.
The December 1 information was also posted to the website. It said 113 students would be affected in the feeder schools and that it would impact Evergreen. The numbers posted yesterday add a lot of clarifying detail based on the final recommendation that was formed based on community feedback. The numbers changed from 113 to 120 in their final proposal, but I don't think that change is significant. Calling that a "false process" with no notification is unfair criticism, in my book.
I get that not everyone pays attention, it is hard to stay on top of so many things going on. We are all very busy, but what more should the district do to announce these meetings then send a direct email to each student's parent (which they did), and post the information on their website (which they did)?
Also, "growing schools in areas that are less crowded" sounds easy, but there are limits at each building site. With the failed levy, there isn't money to remodel buildings, so we're stuck with portables. Portables can only be placed at sites that are big enough to accommodate them.
None of us are happy about the overcrowding. I am very frustrated about it. I think the district is doing their best to find ways to give our kids an education within the resource limitations that the voters (and our state legislators) have given us.
If someone wants to attend the board meeting to complain about the process, I hope they come prepared with specific ideas of how such a process could be improved.
If someone wants to complain about the recommendations that came from the process, I hope they come prepared with specific solutions. Something more than: "not in my backyard".
And I hope the district can share some more detail about all the analysis that has been done that has led to the recommendation and why other alternatives don't work, to satisfy those who are unhappy with the outcome.
LETTER: I agree that the District posted information about 120 students affected, with more detail on 1/21, which seems kind of late in the game.
However, the district shared with us all that there would be impacts to Evergreen at the December 1 meeting. That meeting was announced to us all with direct email and opportunities to be added to mailing lists if we want to stay informed about the process.
The December 1 information was also posted to the website. It said 113 students would be affected in the feeder schools and that it would impact Evergreen. The numbers posted yesterday add a lot of clarifying detail based on the final recommendation that was formed based on community feedback. The numbers changed from 113 to 120 in their final proposal, but I don't think that change is significant. Calling that a "false process" with no notification is unfair criticism, in my book.
I get that not everyone pays attention, it is hard to stay on top of so many things going on. We are all very busy, but what more should the district do to announce these meetings then send a direct email to each student's parent (which they did), and post the information on their website (which they did)?
Also, "growing schools in areas that are less crowded" sounds easy, but there are limits at each building site. With the failed levy, there isn't money to remodel buildings, so we're stuck with portables. Portables can only be placed at sites that are big enough to accommodate them.
None of us are happy about the overcrowding. I am very frustrated about it. I think the district is doing their best to find ways to give our kids an education within the resource limitations that the voters (and our state legislators) have given us.
If someone wants to attend the board meeting to complain about the process, I hope they come prepared with specific ideas of how such a process could be improved.
If someone wants to complain about the recommendations that came from the process, I hope they come prepared with specific solutions. Something more than: "not in my backyard".
And I hope the district can share some more detail about all the analysis that has been done that has led to the recommendation and why other alternatives don't work, to satisfy those who are unhappy with the outcome.
Steve is raising good points. There is no money for building new schools, and while the enrollment numbers are projected to increase, we have to find a way to live within our means. Also, portables can be installed only where there is enough space for them. These are facts, and we have to deal with them the best we can.
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind, how would Steve react if he found out that the final recommendations of the committee will increase the existing overcrowding at the school his children attend from 128% (presently) to 146% of nominal capacity, while at another school the student population is at 82% of nominal capacity? These are concrete examples, the overcrowded school being Evergreen, and the other one Rose Hill.
The critique from the public came in response to the final Scenarios 1 &2 for the Redmond Ridge community – and is driven by the fact that we can see much better options given the available resources. Input from the public has not changed much the direction towards favoring the incorporated areas, and there is little evidence the selection criteria that the public voted on were used responsibly.
The point is, the final recommendation was not made based on input from the public.
School capacities used in the study are based on present day classroom seating (i.e. including portables), and not based on the nominal permanent capacity for which all other facilities were sized. As result no differentiation was made between schools that are presently below their nominal capacity, and schools that already have portables to handle enrollment numbers far above their nominal capacity.
Evergreen Middle School already has 9 additional classes (portables), Rosa Parks Elementary has 10 additional classes (portables), yet these schools will receive additional student population through Scenarios 1 and 2, reaching 143% and 146% of nominal capacity respectively – while Rose Hill and Finn Hill remain below their nominal (permanent) capacity. Consider that the existing cafeteria, gym, recreation area, specialty classes, and facilities in general are sized for the nominal (permanent) capacity.
The fact that numbers pertaining to Evergreen (the hardest hit) student population were published only after pressure from the public, past the date when inputs were requested in the form of a survey, has not made the public feel better about the impartiality of the committee’s work.
Alternate proposals have already been made through a variety of venues – including by addressing directly the school board and the member of the committee:
- Making better use of the capacity available at Rose Hill and Finn Hill middle schools – whose present student populations are below their initial (nominal) permanent capacity – and would be able to accommodate the additional students without adding portables.
- Considering slightly longer rides for some students that already use the bus system, in order to attend Rose Hill or Finn Hill. The main impetus would be on overhauling the management of the transportation system which is less than satisfactory (presently there are not enough licensed bus drivers to service this year’s enrollment numbers).
These options will present the school board with a positive balance sheet (not having to pay for additional portables), money becoming available for facility improvements. Instead of impacting the lives of over 1900 students Rosa Parks and Evergreen, only a much smaller number of students (100-120) will see slightly longer bus rides.
Other, even better options may exist, and that is why we invite the committee and school board to postpone the decision making, re-open the process and engage the public in a transparent and cooperating way. The present process has failed the residents of Redmond Ridge.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIt must be nice for your kid(s) to attend a LWSD school with only two portables and are now just adding more. You don't have day to day, year after year experience about what a school day is like in a significantly crowded facility. Try sending your child to an elementary school such as Rosa Parks which has added 10 portables over the last 5 years and then to EMS with a proposed 13 portables then we can talk.
It is a FACT that the boundary committee (purposefully or not) camouflaged the impact at EMS by not publishing the enrollment projections like they did for Rose Hill and Kirkland. If you do not have a child already at EMS, you are probably unaware that the school is ALREADY severely over original building capacity with NINE portables and plans for four more. As provided to the public, the "Approximate number of current students moving from Redmond Middle feeder to Evergreen Middle
feeder: 120" is meaningless to many parents but the chart provided for Twain Middle School Feeder is clear. http://www.lwsd.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/News/2014-15-Boundary-Change/LWLC/Twain-Middle-Scenario-Descriptions.pdf
I get that because EMS is within unincorporated King County, more portables are allowed on the property. But just because King County will allow 13 portables at EMS, it doesn't mean LWSD should place them there. There are currently traffic, sewer and water issues as well as hallway, cafeteria, locker, sports, electives and transportation problems which will only get worse with the enrollment increase.
In an email, Kathryn Reith says, "We (LWSD) have to do the best we can with the buildings we have now." LWSD does not have the space at EMS. To accommodate the 120 additional students from RMS, approximately $2.5 million will be spent on portables and space reconfiguration. But there IS capacity at Rosa Hill. Over the next three years, LWSD projects that Rose Hill will be UNDER capacity by 192, 144 and 83 students. While not ideal, the space is there! There is also space at STEM which should be creatively used before money is spent at EMS!
Since the district announced last September that they would be holding Boundary Committee meetings, I have been trying to follow and participate in the process. The LWSD website announced that meetings would be held starting in October so I emailed and asked about times and locations because I wanted to attend and observe. I got this response: "The Boundary Committee is an internal staff working group. Its meetings are not open to the public." I requested a copy of the documents, maps and materials that had been distributed at the meetings as well as the minutes that had been taken and got a reply that under RCW 42.56.280 the information that I was requesting was exempt from a public records request. One has to ask what is going on when the public is excluded from advisory meetings and information requests are summarily denied. What were they discussing that they wanted to keep secret?
ReplyDeleteI attended the LWSD school board study session on November 17th to find out what the Boundary Committee had decided on. The meeting lasted 3 1/2 hours and the committee presented 9 scenarios for the Redmond Learning Community. At the input session held at Redmond High School in early December for RLC families, the committee introduced 3 new scenarios that were different from the 9 that had been presented in November. Following the input meeting, the maps were revised again and the 2 scenarios that are now online were presented on January 8. Both scenarios that they are now offering create significant travel burdens for many children and families. Further complicating the problem is the lack of adequate school bus capacity to transport students to their newly assigned and very distant schools - all in abominable morning traffic! Bus transportation apparently wasn't even considered. How will students get to school?
All of the proposed maps have only shown boundary changes for elementary schools. The effects on the middle schools are simply listed in the data tables as numbers of students moved without explaining which neighborhoods would be affected. Even now, I can't tell which students will be reassigned to Evergreen Middle School when the boundaries are changed.
Input from the community at the early stages of the process was impossible because we were excluded from even knowing what was going on. To suggest that we should show up at the next board meeting with specific suggestions is pointless. The board will say they are out of time because kindergarten registration is in February. They will vote for whatever plan is put in front of them - and will blame this mess on the voters, instead of on an obscure and secret planning process that is clearly not working.
Busing additional students to Rose Hill M.S. instead of Evergreen seems like a good idea when looking only at capacity constraints; however a community member has informed me that Rose Hill M.S. does not have the ability to handle the additional bus and car traffic to and from the school. Aparently and unfortunately the district didn't plan for adequate busing service when they remodernized Rose Hill M.S. Perhaps this is the reason the distict decided not to go with this scenario.
ReplyDeleteThe new Rose Hill Middle School was just rebuilt and opened in 2013 with a huge bus lane and a separate lane for cars.
ReplyDeleteThe problem at RHMS is that there are only 6 buses for 700 students and there are 80-90 students assigned to each bus. The buses were so full that students kept getting left at the bus stop in the morning. The kids who were able to get on the bus were crammed 3 to a seat and fell out of their seats when the bus turned the corner. A lot of parents started driving their kids to school. Yes, there are too many parents driving their kids to school, but that is the transportation department's fault because they haven't provided enough buses for students to get to school.
Simple solution -- add more bus routes to Rose Hill Middle School and the traffic problems will go away.
Bob, the school district and board may be unaware, but Evergreen also has a *significant* traffic and school-access issue. Traffic often backs up on 208th Ave NE to the Union Hill intersection. No turn lanes exist off 208th, and buses resort to honking to get around cars when attempting to access the school, not a safe situation.
ReplyDeleteTo make matters worse, many Evergreen parents have had to drive kids to school this year as the district has been unable to provide enough seats on already-crowded buses due to a shortage of qualified drivers. Once full, the buses literally drive by students waiting at bus stops. This situation is not likely to improve with a higher degree of overcrowding, and the district continues to be unsuccessful in finding enough licensed, qualified drivers. These parents who have no choice but to drive their kids to school further contribute to the already-hazardous traffic situation at Evergreen.
Even if there is space available, the district is reluctant to bus students from one learning community (high school area) to another learning community. Sending Redmond MS students to Rose Hill MS instead of Evergreen MS means the students will attend Lake Washington High instead of Redmond High in the future. For some reason this is not seen as optimal or preferred. Redmond and Lake Washington have similar test scores, so not sure what the issue is here.
ReplyDeleteIn general, moving students between learning communities is not optimal/preferred because it affects all the high school students in addition to the middle school students. Versus moving students within a learning community, which only affects middle school students.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in this situation, moving kids from Redmond to Lake Washington High is not optimal/preferred because LW High is already overenrolled and is continuing to grow. It also has a bunch of portables and is adding more.
There's also a problem at the elementary school level: Moving RMS kids to Rose Hill would also require moving RMS feeder kids to a Rose Hill feeder elementary school. There are three Rose Hill feeder elementary schools that border RMS's zone, and two of them (Rush and Audubon) are already over capacity themselves. The third (Rose Hill) *might* be a possibility, but its border with RMS's zone is the smallest of the three and so there could be some transportation issues there.
The district could also consider a split feeder pattern, where kids stay at their RMS feeder elementaries but feed into Rose Hill Middle, but it's been reluctant to add new split feeder patterns. Probably because it breaks up the community when some kids move on to one middle school and other kids move on to a different one.