The new Seattle School boundary maps have been released with several changes affecting Ballard families. The most-anticipated change is the boundary for Ballard High School (see new map): the northern line remains NW 85th St., but the eastern line has shifted from Aurora Ave. to Greenwood Ave. — and a section around Green Lake has been moved to Roosevelt High.
The new map is above. The old map is below.
“The changes reflect balancing capacity at north‐end schools, preserving capacity at Ballard to accommodate a projected increase in student enrollment, and enabling more students to walk to Roosevelt,” Seattle Schools explained in this .pdf document posted this evening. “Changes requested but unable to be made include extending the northern boundary beyond NW 85th St., because it would have put Ballard over its functional capacity.”
There’s also a small change to the boundaries for both Whittier Elementary School and Whitman Middle School (see new map). The new map is above, the old map is below. The southern boundary, including for Loyal Heights Elementary, has been shifted just a bit.
“The changes reflect community desires to have the Whittier attendance area reflect more closely its surrounding neighborhoods and enable more students to walk to elementary schools within this attendance area,” Seattle Schools said. “The changes also reflect more recent 2009‐10 data; the proposed boundaries for this attendance area were based on older 2008‐09 data available at the time. These data show an increase in the growth for the Greenwood, Loyal Heights, and Whittier attendance area; boundaries were adjusted to accommodate this growth.” Let us know your reactions in comments below…
October 14th: Ballard residents speak out about boundary maps
i was expecting the 85th border to go a little north to be honest….
Thank you Supreme Court! Sanity has returned.
I, for one, welcome our new Queen Anne and Magnolia overlords.
Good thing I was planning on sending my kids to private school! Stupid to force my child to be bused 4 miles when Ballard is within walking distance.
Real question is why is there no discussion of opening a new school in the Queen Anne/Magnolia/South Lake Union area? Oh yeah, I forgot that this is Seattle – the city that can't seem to plan more than 6 months into the future!
Thank God for private schools and not having to deal with silly Public School systems.
If they want to open another school, they'll have to close one somewhere else. There just aren't enough students in the long term to open another school. We don't have to like it, but that's the way it is, unless vast numbers of students show up from private school. If you want to try to make a trade between Lincoln (currently an interim site) and another high school in West or South Seattle, go for it.
Sitting in the Board meeting, it sounds like the District staff assumed that the whole boundary from Puget Sound to Greenwood would have to move north in lockstep, rather than moving some areas north and leaving others at 85th. If there's not space to move the whole boundary north, you could at least transfer North Beach, the area most affected by transportation to Ingraham.
If you want to get North Beach placed into the Ballard zone, you should sign the petition here: http://www.gopetition.com/online/31858.html
With enough outcry, there may be some changes made.
Did the West Woodland southern cutoff drop too? It looks like it on the map…
yes, God loves private schools and he created them for you.
Whooops – the new map just knocked us out of our previous reference school boundary. Makes me glad our daughter doesn't have a younger sibling because it'd be a pain to have the kids assigned to two different schools. Otherwise, the school whose reference area we are now in is a perfectly fine school too. It's just going to be hard for families with two kids who may not be able to grandfather younger siblings into the same school. I hope they do grandfather in younger siblings but I'm not confident they will.
Based on feedback that Whittier folks have already been vocal about, they are going to fight really hard to get the (new and improved!) Southern border extended to 65th. I also think the district will agree to grandfather in for the first 1-3 years. No proof for these premonitions. Just positive thinking.
Whereas I think it is hard to make a legal case about school boundaries. I think grandfathering is probably actionable. I expect the SPS lawyers to step in and inject a bit of common sense into the school board.
For SPS to expect that two siblings would be forced to go to two seperate grade schools is ridiculous.
Well, it may be ridiculous, but it certainly has happened in the past. Back in the busing days Seattle schools used to be divided K-3, 4-6, 7-8, and 9-12. My brother and I were just far enough in age that we never attended the same school.
Glad they moved that little NE Greenlake portion out of Ballard. It didn't make sense to have just that small corner in Ballard. Moving the eastern boundary to Greenwood was a good move.
Actually we'd send our kid to a secular school.
And we should ensure that it doesn't happen in the future. While it may not be life and death two have small children at different schools, it really is simply unnecessary. It serves no purpose except to make the lives of some parents more difficult.
I would be in support of a new lawsuit against the Seattle Public Schools for the current map. I think many would agree that the current map is simply an attempt to get affluent (white?) students to attend Ballard.
SCOTUS previously struck down the SPS attempt to get racial diversity via tiebreaker. Now they can strike down SPS's attempt to get economic homogeneity via boundary maps.
On the wrong side of 85th I assume? How about this, I'll sell my house to you south of 85th and we can see how quickly your opinion changes.
My opinion wouldn't change at all. I'm not sure why you'd come to such an odd assumption that it would. And why would I want to buy your house? At the end of the day a lawsuit, private school, and home schooling are all more feasible options than moving to attend a specific high school.
And note, if I did move, why wouldn't I move closer to Ingraham than to Ballard HS? Although if I did move up North by Ingraham the new maps would probably assign me to West Seattle HS.
A total lottery system would be preferable in that all students would have no inherent advantage over other students in where they went to school — and thus their commute.
“total lottery system would be preferable”
Preferable to you, you mean, because you are on the wrong side of the line.
Hey, if I was on the wrong side of the line, like you, I would try to suggest that 'community schools' are racist.
Can you argue against the fact that a total lottery system is less discriminatory than pseudo-community schools? I'm sure you won't take up this argument seriously. So I guess we all have our day in our court :-)
No, but a lottery is pretty much the most costly and least efficient way to assign a school. I thought we were done trying to assign schools based on integration and potential discrimination? What makes sending kids to schools that are near them (albeit, not necessarily the very closest, because that doesn't always work based on the location of our schools) “pseudo?” I think it just makes sense period.
Because Ingraham is on the very northern border of our city limits, the boundary for its enrollment simply has to be lower than everyone would like. I don't understand why people don't understand that? Can you not read a map?
You won't have your day in court; your claims are ridiculous and exactly what is wrong with Seattle: a senseless combination of NIMBYism and PC nonsense. You want things to work in your favor and will use a false charge like discrimination to try and get your way.
And btw, what motive does SPS have to make Ballard more “white” or “affluent.” That doesn't make any sense.
And the cause of action would arise under what federal statute?
Really, now, what you have to remember is that the District's discretionary power to adopt an assignment policy is almost boundless. The District could assign everyone to schools completely at random without violating any provision of state or federal law. The problem with the racial tiebreaker was that it based assignment decisions explicitly (and individually) upon race, which is a “suspect classification” under Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause analysis.
So, when the District adopts a neighborhood assignment policy, you'll have to show how that policy violates some similar federal legal norm if you're going to set that aside on Equal Protection or other grounds. What possible legal norm could it violate? No school district has ever been found to violate the Equal Protection Clause simply by assigning kids to neighborhood schools unless the District had a prior history of de jure segregation and the policy was found to be an attempt to resegregate.
Even if the policy were an attempt to “get economic homogeneity” as you suggest (and that would be a very difficult–most likely impossible– proposition to prove), that wouldn't clearly violate any federal constitutional standard, and since federal law otherwise doesn't generally reach the question of student assignment, you'd find yourself in U.S. District Court without a shred of an argument in which to clothe yourself. That's not a good place to be; it can be expensive both to get there and to get out.
…and you're the one arguing for a “total lottery” system elsewhere in this thread….go figure…
How is it discriminatory? Last time I checked, anyone can buy a house in BHS boundries.
So students as far south as Denny go to Ballard but students living on 86th can't? Something is wrong with this picture.
“At the end of the day a lawsuit, private school, and home schooling are all more feasible options than moving to attend a specific high school”
Litigation often takes years usually and is very expensive. Not sure moving wouldn't be a more financially feasible (and timely) option…
Not convinced playing the litigation card is a good idea…
Well, since QA and Magnolia have no high school, they had to put those kids somewhere, and they've put them at Ballard. So now Ballard doesn't have room for any kids north of 85th. I still think they should've put Magnolia at Ballard and QA at Garfield, but it seems to be too late for that now. Michael DeBell told us at one of the feedback meetings that that was the plan for a while, but then they made Cleveland an option school so had to draw Garfield's boundaries further south, thus having no room for the QA kids.
Sad to think many of my kids friends will not be going to high school with them. Such an important time for the kids to feel safe and supported by close friends.
I understand that the idea of attending your reference school is a hard one to swallow and is upsetting because it eliminates the choice and chance from the previous scheme. However, this was the way it was when I attended public school in Houston. You had to attend your zoned school. Perhaps time is the only thing that will make all of us settle into this?
It's not really such a new idea here…it just seems that way because we've had an intervening 30+ years of madness. When I attended Seattle schools, we were assigned to our schools strictly by location, and I went to Queen Anne High School because I lived in Magnolia. Now that there is no Queen Anne High School, the only logical place to assign Magnolia is Ballard High School, and that's what this plan does. The people who are north of the line in Ballard get, as their consolation prize, something we in Magnolia have not had for many years: a dependable assignment to a school which is reasonably nearby. I understand why they're upset, of course; but their problem arises from the District's poor facilities planning, not from poor map-drawing in the current assignment process.
We have chosen to do activites in Ballard to be a part of the community. Now our children won't be with those friends and support systems that we cherish.
I don't think people are upset that they have to attend their reference school, they are upset that their reference school is now 3-4 miles away from where they live, while the school that is much closer to them is now designated for people who live in another neighborhood.
Point 1: Actually, a lottery is the MOST efficient way to assign a school. In fact our current system has a lottery, and the cost of having any lottery at all is equivalent to the cost of having a lottery for 10% of the population. And that cost is certainly a lot less then re-evaluating boundaries to satisfy population density changes.
Point 2: Ingraham being located in a horrible spot hardly constitutes justification for the commutes. That would be like me saying that those in Queen Anne all have to go to Garfield although it would be overcrowded, because Garfield's location is in one of the most dense parts of Seattle… just look at the map.
Furthermore, you can easily construct a map that minimizes the distance traveled (and commute times based on current and future estimates — with greater weight given to more immediate estimates). This was not done. What was done is the input was taken from Magnolia and Queen Anne.
Point 3: We'll see about our day in court.
Point 4: What mtive does SPS have to make Ballard more white or affluent? Really, you have to ask that question? Apparently you don't live in the Ballard/Queen Anne/Magnolia area nor have talked to several of the residents who have said almost exactly those words with respect to what they'd like to see happen to BHS. And if you do live there… go ask your neighbors. Lastly, isn't what's good for the goose?
And anyone can play golf at Augusta National… or at least that's what the law says — and so do their spokespeople, so it has to be true.
It's good to have friends attending the same school as you but then it's also good to have friends on the “outside” that are not privy to the goings-on in a specific school.
Community can be found and created anywhere—even here via this forum. It's crazy!
I don't mean to preach. Just trying to be positive.
Thanks for considering my financial well-being. Trust me, that's not a problem. I think there is a reasonable case and I have found some that agree.
The EPC is always fascinating… and some of the writings, such as Kennedy's, have found a way to consistently miss the point. In any case, I think when we look at the dissemenation of burdens and benefits, applied by the gov't (in this case SPS), the story should become pretty clear.
I guess we'll simply have to see. And if I am left bare in USDC, I'll be there happily :-)
Note, I'm only arguing that total lottery system is preferable to the current proposed system. There are several systems that I think would be preferable to a lottery system too. Unfortunately Seattle has found a way to build what is quite possibly one of the worst systems I've seen since colored/white schools (only slight exaggeration).
When people moved into North Beach and Blue Ridge, there was never any guarantee their kids would go to Ballard HS. Under the system that was in place for 30+ years, they could have just as easily ended up anywhere else in the city.
Why should the district carve out one special, affluent section and send those kids to Ballard HS, while sending kids from the less-affluent areas just a few blocks away, near Swanson's and Small Faces, to Ingraham?
Well, I used to practice federal civil rights law…I've been out of that for a few years, and admittedly am not fully up on current case law, but I'd be awfully surprised to see a challenge to this plan succeed. Of course, I have been surprised before; one can never know without trying.
The trick is that most equal protection claims require something in the way of an actual prohibited motive, which would be hard to demonstrate here. The classic way to demonstrate it, in school assignment, was through a history of explicit, intentional segregation, followed by a series of actions designed to allow the results of segregation to survive the abolition of explicitly segregationist policies. There was at least one case years ago, for example, where an “open choice” policy was struck down on the basis that it was merely a way to enable all of the white kids to pick the historically white school while all of the black kids, not wishing to be harassed, likewise picked the historically black school. If there hadn't been a history of segregation, though, coupled with a completely segregated result, it would have been a tough case to make.
Here, you've got a District whose every impulse seems to be to the opposite; in fact, now that the Supreme Court has frightened them out of taking “race” as such into account, they've started using free-and-reduced-lunch populations as a sort of proxy for what they now call “diversity.” So, there's no history of de jure segregation; there's a history of efforts to bring about more even racial mixing in the schools than neighborhood assignment alone would cause (including, today, the reservation of 10% of functional capacity for “open choice” space); and there's a facially neutral policy of neighborhood assignment going into effect. Now, perhaps somewhere beneath all of that is the segregationist smoking gun, but if so, it's pretty thoroughly concealed. And if the accusation is merely that the District is trying to achieve economic homogeneity instead of racial segregation…well, that doesn't implicate a suspect classification, and it's hard to win a rational-basis scrutiny case.
Mostly, I am glad to be out of litigation…
Oh yes, Ballard, Seattle's Country Club neighborhood.
When all else fails, scream racism I guess.
“I'm only arguing that total lottery system is preferable to the current proposed system.”
Preferable to who? No one I know in ballard liked that system. Tell me who wants their kids bused all over town?
Well it would be interesting to pick your brain at some point in time. :-)
In any case, I think what we have here is defacto segregation that exists in the city. The district's previous acts were in fact an attempt to counter the defacto segregation that existed, and still exists.
The current policy simply reaffirms the defacto segregation in the city through school “neighborhood” boundaries.
And I do realize that financial wealth (fairly close to SES) was struck down as a suspect class by SCOTUS. But I think that with a slightly different set of justices, this would very much be worth revisiting.
KSG, do you have any actual evidence of housing discrimination or are u just being a knee-jerk?
And where are the mobs demanding a lottery system?
Good luck with your law suit, you're going to need it.
Thanks KSG, you're the reason why SPS fails so many people, black and white.
I suppose it depends precisely on what one means by “de facto segregation.” If by that is meant nothing more than that we have different racial mixes at different schools, we certainly do have de facto segregation, but so do all school systems, to a greater or lesser degree.
The problem, I think, is that while there is a certain amount of “de facto” segregation, in the case of Seattle that segregation has always flowed naturally from housing patterns. As far as I have been able to tell (and no, I never did personally litigate school desegregation cases, so I don't have any personal experience of them), it has never been the case that de facto segregation has been sufficient to establish a constitutional violation, without more. Specifically that “more” needs to be, I think, something bearing on the de facto segregation being the product of a scheme or design rather than being incidental and unplanned. In other words, while segregation need not be imposed by rule to violate the constitution, it must flow from something more than the mere incidental results of some otherwise neutral policy such as neighborhood assignment. If you're looking for an analogy to use, probably what would fit fairly well would be something like the idea from Monell v. New York of a “policy, custom, or practice having the force of law”–the significance of that in Monell is just to determine municipal, as opposed to individual, liability, but it's sort of applicable here as what you're trying to do is establish what sort of intent can be imputed to a municipal agency. But I think that the policy, custom or practice would need to have been established with an unequal eye and administered by an unequal hand, akin to the Chinese Laundry cases–it's not enough to say that a facially neutral policy results in disparate outcomes if there's no bad intent in the adoption or implementation.
Racial desegregation, when ordered by courts, always was based first upon a finding that segregationist practices had caused an injury for which a remedy now needed to be crafted. There never has been, in our legal tradition, a concept that racial balance was in and of itself something people had a right to; rather, the idea was that policies designed to cause racial separation were something which people had a right to be free from, and that a policy of racial balancing, through busing or otherwise, was a suitable remedy.
Anyway–it's all rather fussy stuff. My sense of it is that this is not an area where there's a whole lot of fresh ground to plow right now, as the tendency of the Court in recent years has been to back down from supervision of state-run programs in education, prisons, et cetera. Certainly what the Court seems to be saying these days, as evidenced by the Seattle Schools decision, is that strict scrutiny will be applied to attempts to achieve racial balance in the absence of a federally-ordered remedial framework, and one has to suppose that the District has to be given a wide berth within which to do its work without being accused either of doing too much to achieve racial balance or too little.
AFAIK, Ballard never had a total lottery system. They previously had an open choice system with lottery as a component of a tie-breaker.
All they've really done is reduced open choice to 10% of a schools population and otherwise force you to attend a specific school (if you want to be in the SPS system).
And you're right, my wording was inaccurate. I said “preferable” when I should have said “fair”. The current system is not very “fair”, but as you point out, if you're getting over on the system you actually “prefer” for the system to NOT be fair.
The part about SPS failing so many people… that I can not disagree with.
The part about me being the reason… given how consistently SPS screws up almost everything it touches — you give me too much credit. I guess my saving grace is that I was not educated here :-)
I am kinda curious though… why do you think I'm the reason that SPS is so horrible?
Why? Because you treat our kids and their education as political pawns in your false belief that busing kids all around Seattle will help minority kids succeed. Well, after 30 yrs, the results speak for themselves.
They still have an open choice system…you can choose to live anywhere in the city near a school you want your kids to go to.
“Actually, a lottery is the MOST efficient way to assign a school”
Utter nonsense. It means more buses, more cars on the roads, less opportunities for parents to help out in their kids school.
Living near a school doesn't mean your kids will attend that school. SPS can draw the border anywhere they like. They can draw the border for BHS in South Seattle. That should be one of the lessons you take away from this. You can live miles away from a school and be assigned to it. You can live walking distance from one school, and still be forced to bus.
The real takeway is you should never assume that based on where you live you will be able to attend any given school.
Actually Idle I believe in quite the opposite. We should attemtp to minimize student disruption. BUT at the same time we should NOT minimze student disruption for one group at the cost of another. And in particular it disturbs me when we minimize disruption for the affluent at the cost of the poor. I know that tends to be the way the world works (and Seattle is certainly no exception), but I do still think its wrong.
Of course your position appears to be “screw the less affluent, I got mine”. Which I guess is a fine position, but I do think its hypocritical to blame the plight of SPS on others with your attitude.
Yes, it is all rather fussy. That's why each side has counsel. We'll just have to see how it plays out.
“Living near a school doesn't mean your kids will attend that school.”
Seriously are you delusional? For the past 30 yrs they've bused kids all over town. It's over. Give it up. And yes, if you live near a school, chances are your kids will go to that school. Maybe you haven't looked at the new map.
Yes, I can certainly understand. Although Olympic Manor and Crown Hill are in the same boat, it's clear North Beach is more special. I mean Olypmic Manor, doesn't even have beach access! And Crown Hill, we'll don't get me started, all that crime and those other 'people'. Yes, North Beach is the only area that should be included north of 85th. Everyone please sign this petition, I'm sure the school board will listen.
KSG, can you explain your Point 1: re: lottery cost? Assigning 10% of the seats to lottery is vastly different from having 100 % of the seats be lottery. Some of those 100% may be from nearby homes (so they can walk, bike etc) but if it's a lottery, isn't there an equal chance that lots or most or a high number of seats go to anyone from all over the city? Then we're bussing more (or issuing more Metro passes, whatever) and I don't see how that would cost less.
Maybe I'm missing something?
I have looked at the new map and it's exactly what I said. It's a map constructed to benefit the wealthy in Queen Anne, Magnolia, and West Seattle. The less affluent — prepare to be screwed by SPS again.
I'm sure you love it. Congratulations. The rich win again. Of course these things do have consequences.
So tell me Mindy how you would feel if your “zoned” school was 2+ miles away and the school 4 blocks from your house was no longer a possibility for your kids? Meanwhile the kids around the corner get to go to that close school? It makes no sense, but it's par for the course for SPS… which is the reason why so many families will eventually bite the bullet and opt for private HS. The zones should be created by a radius around the school, but that would still not address the whole HS issue since QA and Magnolia don't have anything near them.
KKP, when PhinneyNotBallard made the post about the efficiency/cost of assigning the schools I thought he was referring literally to the cost of the assignment. Not the ongoing cost of implementing the assignment. That is the actual cost of building the maps out versus the random mapping of student/household to school, and not the cost of metro passes and such.
The implementation of a lottery based system will likely be more expensive than one based on boundary maps (although it would obviously be possible to construct a map such that the expected cost of a random lottery would be less than the map — but I view those as degenerate cases).
Actually, in Houston 2 miles away was considered nearby. But you'd have to be from a larger city to appreciate that. Moving up here I have adjusted to the idea of walkability, because you just didn't do such a thing in Houston.
The scenario you outline does suck. But boundaries must be drawn somewhere. And if it's not you that's going to be upset, it's going to be someone else. I agree that as for SPS' decision-making and direction–I can't say I'm impressed.
I'll get you a tissue..
Make that a box of tissues…
The way to address proximity would not be to do a radius around the school–that's what's been done, and it was a disaster because it treated some people very unfairly by leaving them out of any school's radius. The way to do it is by drawing lines that bisect the space between schools. The problem, once you've done that (and the District did it, as part of its analysis–it's called a school's “near area”) is that there are far too many people in Ballard High School's near area. Once barriers are taken into account, it gets worse–a small piece of southern QA is nearer to Garfield, but it's not really reasonable to expect people to be forced to commute through downtown at rush hour, and that pushes QA north, either to Ballard or Roosevelt.
Basically what it comes down to is this: people in the Ballard High School near area to the north have a reasonable alternative, while people in the near area to the south do not, and the way the map was drawn reflects that.
That's a stated reason, but the data doesn't bear this out. The time on metro from south QA during rush hour is longer than to Garfield HS during rush hour. And this doesn't take into some of the huge variances with the Ballard bridge.
So here you can have people from South QA go to Garfield and students walking distance from BHS walk to school (where there's basically zero variance, and little effect on traffic, and probably a health benefit for the students). Or send students from South QA to Ballard, with roughly the same commute time, and force students to spend an additional hour on metro buses.
The math doesn't add up. But the politics sure do. And at the end of the day politics and influence always wins.
Well, if politics and influence always win, Ballard residents must have a lot more than Queen Anne and Magnolia, since Ballard residents have won every round of this fight up to the present. In fact, it's fair to say that if politics and influence always win, Queen Anne and Magnolia must have less in the way of influence and political sway than any other part of town, because we've been singled out for harsh and unfair treatment under the assignment plan for years, and this is the first time we're getting anything remotely like a fair deal.
There is always the possibility that this is being done because the way it was being done was a train wreck, and the District began to recognize that it was. There is always the possibility that somebody thought it would be good to treat all neighborhoods equally instead of singling out a few for unfavorable treatment.
I think the idea that the school board is much motivated by political power and whatnot is just incorrect; there's very little glory in being a school board member. More likely what we have are people who are trying to do what they think is right; whether you agree with their feelings on that or not, it's hard for me to believe that there's much in the way of ill motive under the surface.
I admit I don't know the history of SPS and the old school assignments. I do know that since I've been here and have talked to current and ex-school board members I've heard comments like “it's really not up to us, ask the parents in Magnolia”.
Now maybe it's the case that Magnolia had very little clout 30 years ago, but maybe with gentrification things have changed quite a bit. Because certainly it appears that they have the controlling hand now. Maybe it's the case this is meant to redress past wrongs done to the QA/Magnolia area. No idea.
And I'm surprised to hear you say that it's hard for you believe that there's not much ill motive under the surface. I haven't been in Seattle very long, but I have been involved in education for a while. One thing I've learned is that while school boards are often strongly swayed by the influential (as are most elected bodies). The influential are the loudest, most likely to vote, and have the most resources.
I should state that I don't “blame” the affluent. That's how they got to where they are. Do you think Dick Cheney becomes VP by being a nice guy? But at the same time, I'm going to call it how it happens, and attempt to use the weapons in the arsenal to counter. Usually its fruitless, as you yourself have pointed out. The barrier to entry to get into the game is high, much less winning the game. Nevertheless, you gotta try.
“Racial desegregation, when ordered by courts, always was based first upon a finding that segregationist practices had caused an injury for which a remedy now needed to be crafted.”
The above reminds me that if you look at the records, large areas of Seattle, including some Ballard neighborhoods such as Sunset Hill, did once have restrictive covenants that excluded most non-whites (not to mention Jews). See http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/segregated.htm. “No part of said property hereby conveyed shall ever be used or occupied by any Hebrew or by any person of the Ethiopian, Malay or any Asiatic Race.”
If anybody on the Board defers the question of a new QA/Magnolia area school to the residents of QA and Magnolia, that's pretty shady on their part–we have no power to build or fund such a school, and that power rests entirely with the District, which has disregarded our cries for help for decades.
I do think that there's no ill motive going on here. Now, of course, if one defines the “influential” as the set of people who most influence the board, then the board responds to the influential–but that's just a sort of circularity of definition. If by “influential” is meant those who have money, or some such thing, I don't see much evidence of this board kowtowing to anybody on that basis.
While admittedly I haven't studied the issue closely, I do think that litigation here is almost certain to fail. The problem for anyone seeking to challenge the plan is that increasingly, federal courts have demanded that claims of improper motive be backed by something that's fairly directly probative of intent, not just by inferring motive from outcome. If I were still in practice, and somebody brought this to me, I'd be unlikely to want to run the Rule 11 risk unless I were shown some pretty solid evidence that impermissible motives could be shown. Of course, there's always someone who will do any danged thing if he gets a retainer up front–watch out for those guys. Federal civil rights litigation is a complex specialty and definitely not a good place for someone without specifically relevant experience.
Ethel, take a look at the boundary map for Chief and West Seattle HS. Now take a look at the 1960s negro population map. Does anything look curious to you about it?
I think many will be surprised when this all gets played out.
This is just offensive. Do you actually know anyone who lives in Magnolia? Spent any time there? Regular people live there. I know lots and lots of them. If M/QA residents had this alleged influence of which you speak, don't you think we would have asserted it before now instead of in school assignment limbo for all these years? We have no more of a controlling hand then you do. I don't know who you are speaking with but it would be prudent to diversify your sources and do some proper research before lobbing such inflammatory accusations of “defacto racism” and some sort of conspiracy between school board members and “the affluent” hatched by M/QA parents to stick it to Ballard residents and get “their” school.
We pay taxes just like you (presumabley) do (although, probably more, but that just plays into your “here come the affluent” argument) and have as much a right to a closely located school as you do. Or as anyone does.
I'm w. Magnoleum. I don't think there are ill motives of school board members here. I think it's data driven. They drew the lines the best they could. No matter where you draw the line, or when you apply the assignment policy, someone, somewhere is not going to be happy.
This is just offensive. Do you actually know anyone who lives in Magnolia? Spent any time there? Regular people live there. I know lots and lots of them. If M/QA residents had this alleged influence of which you speak, don't you think we would have asserted it before now instead of in school assignment limbo for all these years? We have no more of a controlling hand then you do. I don't know who you are speaking with but it would be prudent to diversify your sources and do some proper research before lobbing such inflammatory accusations of “defacto racism” and some sort of conspiracy between school board members and “the affluent” hatched by M/QA parents to stick it to Ballard residents and get “their” school.
We pay taxes just like you (presumabley) do (although, probably more, but that just plays into your “here come the affluent” argument) and have as much a right to a closely located school as you do. Or as anyone does.
I'm w. Magnoleum. I don't think there are ill motives of school board members here. I think it's data driven. They drew the lines the best they could. No matter where you draw the line, or when you apply the assignment policy, someone, somewhere is not going to be happy.
See, it's all Bush and Cheney's fault!
Ethel: it's true, indeed, that there used to be widespread use of racial covenants. However, those have not been enforceable since 1948 when the US Supreme Court decided Shelley v. Kraemer. We've had 61 years of real estate transactions since.
It should also be noted that while it's historically interesting, and while it might explain some of the historical development patterns, it's not something one can lay at the door of the School District, which had no power to adopt or enforce those covenants even before 1948. When you're proceeding in a federal lawsuit against a municipal agency like the District under the civil rights statutes, it's the agency's own actions that are under scrutiny, not the actions of the broader society.
It is still the case, of course, that a policy which was designed for the purpose of segregating the District along racial lines would be unconstitutional; but a policy which merely results in variable racial imbalances around the District as an incidental result of neighborhood patterns is not only facially, but actually, neutral, and isn't going to provide anyone a cause of action under the civil rights laws.
The District itself seemed to be confused on this point, once upon a time; when it began to do “integration” busing, part of the rationale offered was that this was necessary in order to prevent the District from being sued over racial imbalances. In reality this could not have been much more than a thin pretext for what the District did, because the District, having never had a segregated system to begin with, was not likely to lose such a suit.
This paragraph from Mag:
“It is still the case, of course, that a policy which was designed for the purpose of segregating the District along racial lines would be unconstitutional; but a policy which merely results in variable racial imbalances around the District as an incidental result of neighborhood patterns is not only facially, but actually, neutral, and isn't going to provide anyone a cause of action under the civil rights laws. “
I believe speaks to the fundamental difference he and I have. I believe (a) that the boundary maps are drawn specifically to exclude certain groups from certain schools and (b) I don't think the de facto segregation that created the current housing situation exists in isolation. This was all done with a wink and a nod.
Now I will say that I don't think the majority of M/QA folks are racist. But even among those that aren't you'll get some surprising responses to questions. For example, I asked one about attending Garfield rather than BHS. Someone a tad more clever would have given the answer that Mag gave (“traffic, yada, yada, yada”). The answer I got was “Ballard is a better school.” My response was, “Really? Everything seems to indicate quite the opposite”. Their response, “That's how it is now. But after our maps go into play Garfield won't be good.” (or something to the effect). Unfortunately, she wised up and wouldn't clarify what she meant about Garfield not being good after the maps.
That's pretty rich. The QA parents didn't want to go to an “inferior” school and since they have a ton of political power, they had the boundary set to make sure to include them in BHS.
If some or all of the QA kids went to Garfield the border could have been moved up to 100th and very few people would be complaining. The problem is that the people who would be complaining are the QA parents with huge amounts of political clout.
“a small piece of southern QA is nearer to Garfield, but it's not really reasonable to expect people to be forced to commute through downtown at rush hour”
But it is reasonable to expect Ballard kids to spend an hour+ on the bus to go up to Ingraham when they can walk to BHS in minutes!
Hold on a second, I have to wipe the hypocrisy that is dripping down from your post.
Well, don't forget to wipe yourself while you're at it.
It really is not reasonable to expect people to send their 15-year-olds on through-downtown rush hour commutes. That much, I think, is obvious. District staff have treated the downtown zone, in this plan, as the obstacle that it ought to be treated as.
Nobody denies that on the face of it, a person who lives just north of 85th and who wants to go to Ballard High School seems to have a reasonable case. The problem is of course that the District has to serve everyone equitably, not just those who happen to live on one particular side of a school that has an oversized natural service area. Magnolia and Queen Anne have gotten screwed in this process for years, and when I hear input from Ballard parents on the subject most of it, frankly, comes across as “let's continue to screw Magnolia and Queen Anne so that we can have what we want.” There is no reasonable alternative view being offered. I'm surprised that someone from Ballard hasn't tried to take the position that QA should be assigned to Roosevelt–that would be much more reasonable than the silly idea that kids should commute through downtown morning rush. But, then, I am not hearing a lot of acknowledgement from people north of the canal that the QA/Magnolia problem needs to be solved at all, so why should there be constructive suggestions?
This “political clout” thing is getting a bit silly. Can we stop, now? Queen Anne and Magnolia have been treated like we weren't even part of Seattle for so long, I can't remember when we last got a fair shake from the Board. If we have all this clout, where was it for the last 30 years?
Please explain to me how 7:40 and 2:40 are rush hour times?
Also, please don't misrepresent my position. I have no problem with Magnolia student going to BHS. They have no high school and BHS is the best choice for them. What I do have a problem with is a large number of QA students who are closer or equi-distant to Garfield going to BHS, pushing kids from a 15 minute commute to an hour plus.
Please stop implying that I am saying anything about Magnolia. I am not. I am talking about QA and why they do not go to Garfield.
I have no idea about anyone's political power, honestly. I will say that QA High School has been closed for 25 years. If you knowingly and willingly live in an area with no high school, you will displace neighborhood kids wherever you are assigned. Can you blame the neighborhood for being upset?
My big concern with Ingraham is safety. Ironically, from my house my kid can get to Nathan Hale, Roosevelt, Garfield, The Center School, and NOVA on one Metro Bus ride. And of course walk to Ballard in 20 minutes. To get to Ingraham, however, takes two busses and a 20 minute wait on 85th and Aurora at 7:15 in the morning. It's this that makes me want to tear my hair out. It is unacceptable that kids will have to do this to attend their mandatory assigned high school.
I don't disagree w/ that !! : )
There have been tons of constructive proposals. Most of them end with South Queen Anne not going to Ballard, but it's not as if they're going to Hale. It's just that if all of Magnolia and Queen Anne don't go to Ballard then it's not constructive.
A simple solution is to simply keep “Open Choice” with lottery as the tiebreaker. That's it. Those that want to attend BHS all have an equal chance at going regardless of where they live. That's fair to QA residents and Ballard residents, and South Seattle residents if they wish to make that commute.
Another option is to get rid of the option schools altogether. Move to a standardized curriculum, and minimize commutes for students.
I think vouchers would be another very reasonable option, but I know that's a whole 'nother tale.
In any case, there are other options. The most straightforward is to move a tail of SQA to Garfield. But alas the issue is not downtown traffic, but it's that they don't want to go to the “new” Garfield.
I'm not being sassy, but KSG do you have a child in public schools? You've mentioned that you haven't been in Seattle that long, and perhaps the open choice term belies it's reality. The recent “open choice” systema is based on clusters w/ a reference school, with a transportation factor in there too at the Elem and Middle school levels. There are kids that can choose another school out of cluster, but by and large they stay within the cluster, at the Elementary and Middle school level it works well. Those school more or less function as neighborhood schools.
At high school, students could choose any school they wanted. If more students applied to a school then there were spots available, then SDS applied the following tie breakers: 1. sibling, 2. racial integration (before the lawsuit; diversity afterwards I think); 3. DISTANCE (also known as the “concentric circles”) and then 4. lottery. So it wasn't really an open choice system at all. Or, more accurately, it was open choice if you lived nearby, but not so much if you fell outside of the circle. (Magnolia, Queen Ann, Downtown, Belltown, (now Lake Union) and Laurlhurst all fell outside ANY circle….) (NOTE: the district redrew these circles every year (or few years), so even if you fell w/in the circle one year, it was no guarantee that you'd be in the circle the next).
I'm sorry you ran across a Magnolia parent who seems to have tarred your opinion of us all and left you with the impression that Garfield isn't a good school (now or in the future). I'm not niave enough to think there's not thinkers like that our there (in Magnolia, or in any other neighborhood) but one parent does not a neighborhood consensus make. Most parents I know just don't want their kids taking a Metro bus to Pioneer Square in the early hours of the morning and waiting for their transfer for up to 30 or more minutes to take another bus to their High School.
And we want a predictable assignment path for our children, like most other neighborhoods have had for years.
After all the talk about the north boundary, our neighborhood really got a the short end of the stick. We live a block east of Phinney Ave, just off N 65th St. The last minute east boundary change has turned a 15 block walk down 65th for my son into a long metro ride, with at least one transfer, to Roosevelt. Metro buses only run east-west at N 45th St and N 85th St, with no option in-between. And we live closer to Ballard HS than anyone on the north boundary. This new boundary cuts Phinney Ridge right in half. Does this make sense?
I don't have a child in public school, but I am a parent. I don't think you have to have a child in public school to be concerned. Although I will say that this debacle does make it clearer in my mind that we need vouchers.
I will say that I am familiar with the old choice model that Seattle used. And I agree, it was a terrible plan. Note that in my “open choice” the tiebreaker is simply lottery. In this case M/QA are not disadvantaged beyond the standard fact that they're not close to any school.
Regarding the Metro, the parents in North Seattle have the same concern.
No kid in the schools? Wow, what a surprise.
But I agree with you on vouchers, so we can choose any school in the city of Seattle, public or private.
Gentrification in Magnolia? Wow, you are new to town.
The reason QA and Magnolia got screwed for 30 yrs was because they were seen as white and rich, therefore without rights to the ultra-leftists who until recently ran the SPS, and have thankfully been tossed out. The QA and Magnolia kids were thrown on the BBQ of political correctness which is why so many went private, decimating SPS enrollment numbers.
SPS is only now treating all neighborhoods equally.
“do some proper research before lobbing such inflammatory accusations of “defacto racism”
You don't need actual evidence to charge 'defacto racism', you simply need to throw the incendiary charge out there and hope your opposition will buckle.
This is the truth.
Doesn't fit into the prevailing entitlement/victim mentality of those on this thread, but true nonetheless.
Then you can certainly understand why the existing system was so terrible for families on QA and Magnolia. Not being a close distance to any school, our kids got placed last, filling in gaps in schools left by those who lived nearer. Our kids' classes got broken into many, many pieces, with kids being scattered to the four winds, rather than into the same one or two schools. You are lucky, there are only two schools that all those kids in your community will be sent to, and they know it years in advance. Our kids got scattered all across the city, and found out only after your kids got their choice.
Now are you really, really sad, for what our kids went through for the past 10+ years?
It was a terrible system. I don't think anyone here is stating otherwise. If it wasn't poised to be reworked since I've been here I'd be out in front of that too.
Of course the M/QA parents seem very pleased with an equally terrible system that they've been able to put together. I guess nothing is better than inflicting harm on other families now, since you had to endure it, right?
Ah, QA and Magnolia have gotten the school board back to their rightful rulers. Those that know the proper pecking order of society. I know I hate those darn leftists who act like they don't know that I'm clearly more important than the rest of you… just look at where I live.
The great thing is that now the decimation of the school system will effect poorer people who can't spend $10-$20k/year at Seattle Prep Academy Harvard Feeder. Instead will probably just see higher drop out rates. But of course that will be easily explainable. Poor kids are dumber, hence will drop out more often. They deserve it.
As Freddie put it, thank goodness for our new overlords…
I attended Seattle Public Schools back in the 1960s and 1970s, just as the attempts to get away from neighborhood schools were taking shape. I was lucky enough to be just a year or two ahead of the grade where the aggressive busing plans kicked in, so at my time, we had basically what this plan provides: neighborhood schools, but with a substantial open choice availability as well so that people could in most cases go wherever they wanted if they didn't want their neighborhood schools.
Those were great days for the Seattle Public Schools, and the advent of busing just about destroyed the District. The quality of education, District-wide, was simply better then, and it will be better again. The idea that neighborhood schools will bring about the end of the world is a bit much–most cities do this and haven't seen the Four Horsemen quite yet, and Seattle's finest days in education were those days before social engineering took priority over educational service delivery.
Nothing in this plan is about inflicting harm upon anybody. But part of this plan is to stop inflicting harm upon the QA and Magnolia communities (as well as other smaller enclaves around the city which have suffered likewise). We have already seen at the elementary school level (where something more like a neighborhood school system has already been in place for a while) how important the restoration of neighborhood assignments is, and now we finally have the chance to do it at the high school level. This is not being done to give one part of town an advantage over another; it is finally putting us all on an even footing.
A little research shows that those weren't great days for Seattle Schools. Well actually they were great for some — the well to do whites in Seattle. But not so hot times for everyone else.
I think the trend here is obvious. When affluent whites can do things around neighborhoods that are “incidentally segregated” by some unexplainable cosmic phenomena then things are “fair”.
The reason why busing came about at all was that whites went to the good schools and blacks the horrible ones. Whites effectively protected that, even after the end of legal segregation by things like neighborhood boundaries. I do think that busing is problematic. But I think its completely disengenious to pretend that the neighborhood plan doesn't put the poor and minorities at an even greater disadvantage than they already are.
And while a neighborhood-based program is problematic in of itself. What made this program in Seattle especially bad is that the boundaries were drawn in many cases to exaggerate the already segregated city. It was if someone said, “Sure Seattle is segregated… so my challenge is if you can make the schools even MORE segregated than the city”.
This is so far from even-footing that its laughable. And that's even ignoring the Ballard/QA border issue. You can also look at places like Chief vs West Seattle to see how absurd the boundaries are.
Magnoleum, “your group” won this round. Bask in it a bit. No one knows who you are. You don't need to pretend that this is good for everyone. It's clearly not. A lawsuit may not make a dent in this status quo, but at least it may draw a little light on it.
Well, you're right that I don't need to pretend that it's good for everyone. No need for pretending; it's an excellent plan. And if you knew anything about the boundary process you'd know what's up with Chief Sealth and West Seattle–it's all about Sealth's colocation with Denny Middle school, and the elementary/middle school feeder pattern, not some nefarious racist scheme.
The boundaries were drawn to exaggerate segregation? Really? Have you met any of the District staff responsible for these boundaries? Have you talked to the Board members who formulated the assignment plan and who are about to vote on these maps? If what you're saying is true, there are a LOT of black people (as well as Asians and other minorities) on the Board and on staff who are completely on board with the wicked plot to segregate Seattle schools and screw all the minorities. Funny, that. I'd have thought they'd probably be against something like that.
Or is it just possible that this is a case of lots of people of all sorts of backgrounds trying in a completely sincere way to do the best job of assigning kids to schools? Oh, no, no, no, no, it couldn't be that. Where would be the fun? Where would the conspiracy be? Where would we get to call people racists? No, couldn't be that. No joy in that at all.
The wealthy white people in QA that you think have engineered this send their kids to private school. They don't care about who goes to Ballard HS, because they have no intention of using it. Some care about the elementary school boundaries, because those are deemed acceptable, but anyone with enough money gets out by middle school.
Honestly, people – why don't you spend your energies improving the schools? Have you not noticed that they stink?
I understand your concern about the metro mess. Magnolia students have been dealing with long bus rides down south and up north for many, many years with transfers and long wait times. It wasn't safe for them and I don't think it's now safe for your child.
I have heard Michael DeBell (sp?) speak before and he talked about how it made sense for the district to move to using Metro when they started. Now, Metro charges so much for a bus pass that it is to the point that using our own yellow school busses is starting to make sense again.
I encourage you, and others like you, to pursue this now. Demand school buses to pick up your child so that they are safe!
“And if you knew anything about the boundary process you'd know what's up with Chief Sealth and West Seattle–it's all about Sealth's colocation with Denny Middle school, and the elementary/middle school feeder pattern, not some nefarious racist scheme. “
I love how these incidental patterns all seem to look like ridiculous racial divides. Wow, that's convenient for you Magnoleum.
“Have you talked to the Board members who formulated the assignment plan and who are about to vote on these maps?”
I have. Some frankly seem to pass this on the M/QA parents (as a previous post states). Probably the most influential, the president, has his district being M/QA (with a part of Ballard) and of course his monthly meetings are located in Magnolia. I've never seen him even seem to indicate that this issue matters at all to him. Not even a token “I understand this is not ideal”.
I wish I could believe that this was a sincere effort to get children to the best school. Everything points to that not being the case. And one thing I've learned over and over again, is that racism and classism (which is a major component here too, not just race) is that purveyors of it in business and government don't put up “Whites Only” signs (anymore). It almost always takes place in things like how the lines are drawn or new sentencing guidelines or patrol allocations or tax policy.
“The wealthy white people in QA that you think have engineered this send their kids to private school. They don't care about who goes to Ballard HS, because they have no intention of using it”
I've heard quite the opposite. But lets hope you're right.
“Honestly, people – why don't you spend your energies improving the schools? Have you not noticed that they stink?”
Improving schools w/o school board support is extremely difficult. I do agree that Seattle schools stink (for a city of this size they're just horrible). What I think you will see with this new plan is that BHS will become the shining star of the school system. Garfield and Ingraham will quickly go down the tubes. And this will all be done with the full approval and cooperation of the school board.
I think the best thing parents can do to help our schools is demand vouchers.
I agree with you, that change doesn't make sense. The border should be Aurora like it was before. The only part that needed to change was the area north of Green Lake.
That said, it's not true that Phinney is closer than 85th. The north and west boundaries to BHS are the same: 0.87 miles. In other words, both boundaries are less than a mile, i.e. walking distance.
KSG.. If you are such an advocate for public schools and are so concerened about the welfare of all schools, then certainly you can see that filing a lawsuit will waste thousands of dollars (perhaps millions of dollars if it goes anywhere).
I didn't agree w/ the other lawsuit and I don't agree w/ your threatened one. While the Plaintiff's can probably get pro bono counsel, the district cannot and it's an incredible waste of dollars that are truly needed in the classroom.
You don't have kids in public schools (per your earlier post) – not sure if that means your children are too young, or too old or if they are in private school.
True advocates for public schools get in there and do something locally. You could volunteer at one of those schools you are so concerned is being mistreated or the victim of the segregation.
Community/ parent involvement has a huge impact on school success.