Comments on: In the news: HS focus options questioned

By: Wacky Mommy

Wacky Mommy — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:19:23 +0000

i can’t watch, it’s like, “Ouchie, my eyes!! Where do I put my eyes?” Carrie, I swear, if I wasn’t so tired i’d go all Mystery Science Theater 3000 with you on this meeting.

By: Steve Rawley

Steve Rawley — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:18:57 +0000

Carrie and all: I started a new thread to discuss tonight's SB meeting.... this thread's getting a little long.

By: Carrie Adams

Carrie Adams — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:40:59 +0000

Anyone watching the board meeting? It would be hilarious if kid’s lives weren’t involved.

If this was the board chair’s post it would be titled “High School Focus Options Questioned – Please Don’t Ask Any Questions”

By: Zarwen

Zarwen — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:40:04 +0000

I still think it’s really about freeing properties to sell. PCC has been trying to get Jefferson for years, and now we hear Warner-Pacific wants to buy Franklin. And Kaiser Permanente is interested too!

If you read everything that PPS has been putting out, it’s a long stream of disingenuousness—at the end of the day, you can’t improve high schools until you improve the schools that feed into them. That is where the real mess lies, and that is what both PPS and the Board have been studiously avoiding for the past five years!

I certainly agree that the Community Resolution is not perfect, and I definitely do not agree with everything in it, but what I don’t see is any other group stepping up and saying NO to closures.

By: getrowdy

getrowdy — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:25:49 +0000

I can’t see school boundaries changing all that much when the school board seems to be stressing this ” no more than a twenty minute commute to school” concept. They’ll obviously have to change boundaries if a school( or schools )close, and they might do some minor tweeking to make it look like they’re diversifying our high schools but, overall, there will be little change here, in my opinion. And you’ll always find that ” unusual circumstances ” clause in PPS’s transfer policy…it’s a way for them to still do certain people certain favors and still be able to cover their _sses in case somethings ever questioned.

By: JD

JD — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:53:08 +0000

I think the Close the Gap resolution is an excellent starting point. I don’t view it as solving all the problems with transfers and boundaries but it is the first step in keeping all our neighborhood schools open. If the board doesn’t close any schools, transfers and boundaries will still need to be addressed. As I understand it, the transfer issue is very convoluted with NCLB and focus schools in the mix. I can understand why that issue wasn’t tackled.

Another interesting point I read somewhere else was that the closures are not only about re-setting the NCLB clocks but also to create swing schools for the high schools. Does this sound familiar?

By: Zarwen

Zarwen — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:06:22 +0000

Well, my belief is that “new boundary considerations” will not be necessary if transfers are curtailed or eliminated. Our host, Steve Rawley, did a post some time ago reporting how many children of HS age live in each cluster. The numbers are surprisingly close given the economic and geographic disparities around town.

As for the rest, I am not a spokesperson for closethegap, so I am sorry I am unable to answer.

By: Susan

Susan — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:58:42 +0000

Also troubling is the deletion of almost all language regarding the necessity for new boundary considerations. Follow the money…?

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:09:40 +0000

Zarwen, I read through that section (8e, correct?). It mentions those “specific circumstances”, but does not state that those are the only transfers that would be permitted. In fact, the crucial wording in the original document: “Transfers between community schools will be limited. . .,” was excised. Also, the goal of “balanced” enrollment was eliminated (leaving “stable”). Overall, the section supports rather than contradicts pilbooster’s position.

The Close The Gap group does make a good case for keeping schools open. However, in order to close the achievement gap, you need to close the enrollment gap, and CtG does not offer a credible plan for how to make this happen.

By: pilbooster

pilbooster — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:04:35 +0000

Zarwen, I see your point.

The close the gap resolution did not strike all the limiting transfer language from the PPS resolution but did eliminate this passage:

“Transfers between community schools will be limited, in order to prevent a return to the enrollment and program imbalances of the current system. ”

So I am now confused as to what they are actually intending. Why would they strike this language if they support limiting transfers?