Comments on: Mt. Baker Neighbors Concerned New Student Assignment Plan Will Divide Community

By: Tom T

Tom T — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:32:45 +0000

so the south end wants more low income housing, poverty and bad schools?

By: laurel

laurel — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:53:34 +0000

Why do white people have a problem with the school boards redistricting? Why should the white enclave of Mount Baker be held together? The north end has less low income housing and poverty – go there if you want better schools – you can’t have it all.

By: Eric Brown

Eric Brown — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:47:43 +0000

I respect the opinions of those thinking this is only about school quality – of course that is important and both Leschi and Muir should have solid programs, maybe both Spectrum and APP – but this is a much bigger issue. There has been increasing momentum in the past few years to rally Mt. Baker families around the neighborhood public school. To that end, more and more families are choosing John Muir over private school. Children and their families are walking to school, meeting at the park, gathering at the community club. This has been a vision many years in the making and is finally coming to fruition. Mt. Baker families are coming together and building a strong sense of neighborhood and community for confronting crime, pedestrian safety, traffic and schools.

Additionally, John Muir is .5 miles from my house and a 10 minute walk for my children. Leschi elementary is over twice as far away – 1.5 miles at least a 45 minute walk, we recently walked the route and timed it. The bottom line is, this plan is bad for the neighborhood and my children will not be able to walk to Leschi Elementary. This is true for every child who lives close to the new southern boundary for Leschi Elementary and Northern boundary for John Muir in Mt. Baker. These kids will now be bused to school. This plan is not in the best interest of my children’s health, the health of Mt. Baker children, our neighborhood, or keeping a green community.

By: mimi_t_b

mimi_t_b — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:44:25 +0000

Living in the deep south (south Beacon Hill) the situation when my kids were high school age was great. They both got to go to Garfield, one because Music was important to him, the second because his brother went there. They both had a very positive experience in that school.
It didn’t bother us that they had to take city buses, we felt that was enlarging their horizons. Not sure I like the new policies though.

By: C

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:42:06 +0000

Whenever the Seattle School District comes out with “a plan” I feel very distrustful because they do not disclose the decision making process. In this case, what is the demographic data that led to the boundary maps. What are the anticipated numbers for each school vs capacity. Etc., etc., etc. They only talk in very general terms (Excellence for all). They also do not detail how they plan to help make a failing school more successful (Rainier Beach High School). It’s impossible to hold someone accountable if you don’t know what they are doing.

I can look at the proposed boundary maps, and, except for my little corner of the world, not have a clue as to whether it’s a good plan or not. If I looked at a boundary map and saw that my friends’s/neighbor’s children, living a couple of blocks away, are not going to the same school as my kids, I might come to the conclusion that it’s a bad plan.

I don’t think we should be criticizing each other for our dismay at the boundary map. I think we should be holding SPS accountable on their decision making process, and demand that they tell us EXACTLY what that decision-making process is.

By: Angie

Angie — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:34:22 +0000

Anonymous, if you haven’t heard about a push for better schools in the South End, it’s because you haven’t been listening. For several years at least!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:01:05 +0000

Do you think we get bad schools in the south end because some push for low-income housing? Or do bad schools in the south end cause low-income housing? I hear push for low-income housing but I do not hear a push for better schools or for better paying jobs in the South end.

By: JvA

JvA — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:57:44 +0000

What’s the alternative here? Is John Muir big enough to guarantee spots for all the kids in the entire Mt. Baker neighborhood as shown in that map? It doesn’t seem like it.

By: craig

craig — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:20:55 +0000

The quickest way to raise test scores (so the Administration looks good) is to shift higher achievers from one school to another. It’s the dilution factor.

Check out the 5th grade Science Scores

(Muir vs. Leschi)
3rd Grade WASL Reading (66.1%/50.0%)
3rd Grade WASL Math (64.5%/47.1%)
4th Grade WASL Reading (75.0%/50%)
4th Grade WASL Writing (79.5%/43.2)
4th Grade WASL Math (64.3%/31.8%)
5th Grade WASL Reading (80.4%/55.0%)
5th Grade WASL Math (58.8%/52.5%)
5th Grade WASL Science (56.9% /22.5%)

It’s not neighborhood schools the the Board wants…it’s PR.

By: pds

pds — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:14:57 +0000

I’d also like to add that many families in and south of Mt. Baker would prefer to be a part of the Central area because that means their kids would feed to Washington and then on to Garfield. They’d much prefer that to the John Muir, Mercer, Franklin feeder pattern.

This might be a case of “be careful what you wish for”. While you might prefer John Muir to Leschi, families in your area would want the opposite at the middle and high school levels.

This again isn’t about “community”! It’s about getting the best school in your area. Just ‘fess up!