Analysis of Final Capacity Management Proposal

1
Analysis of Final Capacity Management Proposal

• Meg Diaz, 1/23/2009

2
Summary

• The final recommendations fail to save money,
  balance capacity or increase access and equity
  for any group of students. There is a risk of
  enlarging the shortfall in the general fund, of
  disrupting the educational continuity of more
  than 3,500 SPS students, and of ignoring bodies
  of students who are not receiving access and
  equity while reducing it for students who are.
• The districts guidelines are inconsistently
  followed, with some schools slated for closure
  that have nearly identical profiles to schools
  that are cited as worth duplicating. It should be
  possible for anyone with school information to
  estimate which schools, under the guidelines,
  might be slated for closure. This is not the
  case.
• Closures may need to happen, to ensure best
  educational delivery for the children in SPS.
  This plan carries extraordinary risks, both
  financial and academic, with little examination
  of those risks, and merely the hope that all will
  go well.

The final recommendations take poorly examined
risks with the districts children and money.
Unless significant amendments are made, the
Superintendents final recommendations should be
rejected.
3
Capacity Management Goals

• Through the implementation of the final
  recommendations, the districts ability to
  deliver an excellent education for every student
  will be strengthened by
• Finance and Operations Focusing the Districts
  resources on fewer facilities and programs in
  order to protect our long- term fiscal health.
• Capacity Improving the balance of classroom
  capacity according to projected enrollments in
  different parts of the city
• Equity and Access Moving or adding certain
  programs to improve equity and access within the
  District

These are ambitious goals. If the final
recommendations are implemented, they will fail
to achieve these goals. The risks are high, the
gains questionable.
4
Capacity Management Guidelines

• Geographic Need Does the area have a shortage or
  excess of empty seats?
• Building condition
• Cost per pupil- administrative costs of school
• Proximity- are there other schools nearby?
• Academic Performance- is the school in
  improvement, as defined by No Child Left Behind?

These appear to be sensible questions to use when
examining programs that may need to close or
move. The short timeline of this process has not
allowed for consistent application of the
guidelines.
5
Finance and Operations
6
General Fund Expenditures for Closures, Historic
and Projected

• In the last closure round, the district closed 5
  elementary schools and moved 743 students.
  General fund expenditures were 1.4-1.6M.
• In this proposal
• 5 programs and buildings will close.
• 4 programs will move.
• 3 programs will move and change.
• 1 school will be created from scratch.
• 9 design teams and a logistics team will support
  these changes. There was a single team in the
  last closure round.
• 3,562 students will be forced to move almost 5x
  as many as in the last round.
• Despite the significant increase in scale, and a
  higher cost environment, general fund
  expenditures are estimated only 20-30 higher
  than general fund costs from the last closure
  round.

There are reasonable questions about the cost
projections in the proposal. There are several
indicators that the general fund costs will be
higher than projected. The general fund analysis
does not address these issues in adequate detail.
7
General Fund Cost/Benefit Questions

• Staff and administration costs usually are the
  bulk of general fund savings in closures. Nova
  and SBOC programs will be co-housed with their
  own administrations, limiting savings. However, 5
  year savings for those two programs are projected
  at 3.4M.
• Old Hay may re-open as soon as 2010. 2010-14
  estimated savings from Old Hay should be broken
  out as provisional.
• A new school is proposed for the Addams building.
  Non-instructional costs are estimated at 575K.
  Summit, which was in the same building, is listed
  as having costs of 1.1M. Transportation for
  Summit was high, and could be a reason for a high
  savings estimate, but transportation was also
  shared with AS1.
• No cost estimate is made for a minimum of 11
  design teams, managed out of the Stanford Center.

4
3
2
1
The absence of provisional savings is not a
fatal flaw in the analysis. However, the total
lack of details raise questions that should be
addressed. Risks are not assessed.
8
Market Share

• In 1998-99, the district had 77 of market share
  vs. private schools. In 2006-07, the district had
  75 market share.
• To achieve the stated enrollment goals in the
  Excellence For All plan, the district needs some
  combination of
• Faster demographic growth than stated in the
  districts own demographic report from DeJong
• Regaining market share lost to private schools,
  which is generally lower from the central cluster
  moving north
• Sustained growth of out of market students, i.e.
  persistent negative net attrition

• Achieving the Excellence For All headcount growth
  goals requires
• Increasing market share to 78.7 by 2013 (using
  DeJong projected demographic trends) nearly
  four points higher than today, and nearly two
  points beyond 1999 share, OR
• Demographic growth of more than 2,000 students
  above the 2008 DeJong demographic report (more
  than 500 students above DeJongs best-case
  scenario), OR
• Negative attrition variances of more than 2,000
  students, i.e. importing more than 2,000 students
  net from out of district, OR
• Some combination of the above

The district has set extremely optimistic goals
for enrollment growth, going past even best-case
estimates. The closure proposal undermines these
goals by closing schools in high-growth areas,
straining capacity in areas with higher private
school enrollment which could see returning
students, and catalyzing higher gross attrition
among students affected by the proposed closures.
Seattle Public Schools Excellence For All plan
and Seattle Public Schools Demographic Outlook
2004-2014
9
Closure-Driven Attrition

• SPS enrollment has shrunk by 2,000 students in
  the last 10 years, indicating that there is no
  bounce back after a closure year. Net average
  attrition has run at an average of -1, or an
  average annual loss of over 450 students. A
  closure year is highly unlikely to have less
  attrition than the average.
• In 2002 and 2003, a birth bubble helped provide
  strong elementary growth in 2007 and 2008 that
  slightly altered the net attrition rate. The
  birth bubble is over. Overall elementary gains
  are likely to revert to normal levels.
• In 1998-99, the district had 77 of market share
  vs. private schools. In 2006-07, the district had
  75 market share.

Potential Revenue Loss Due to Attrition from
3,562 moved students, Sensitivity Analysis
5 year
2009-2010
2008-2009
Possible attrition range, adjusted for excess
above gross attrition of 10 (356 students)
At 10 attrition, no change to long-term gross
attrition rate
--
--
At 15 attrition, 178 additional students
(4,708,903)
(941,780)
At 20 attrition, 356 students
(9,412,524)
(1,888,505)

At 25 attrition, 535 students
(14,116,145)
(2,823,229)
At 30 attrition, 713 students
(18,819,766)
(3,763,953)
(4.7-18.8M) 5 year loss
(0.9-3.7M) annually

(2.6M)-11.5M
(0.64M)-2.1M
(1,460,134)
Estimated Savings, ranging between 10-25
attrition, retaining Old Hay as provisional
savings.
(8.7M)-5.4M
(1.8M)-.96M
(1,460,134)
Estimated Savings, ranging between 10-25
attrition, without Old Hay as savings
Closures drive up net attrition to the district.
Net attrition creates revenue loss. The current
recommendations continue to estimate even net
attrition at zero, ignoring long-term demographic
trends. Financial risk has been inadequately
assessed.
per student funding is from the National Center
for Education statistics, per pupil state funding
of 5,282 ONLY. Total per pupil revenue is listed
as 11,408- local and federal per pupil funding
is not included in the attrition sensitivity
analysis. Enrollment numbers from October
enrollment data, SPS. Public-private data from
district commissioned DeJONG report, 2/2008.
Average net attrition from Seattle Public
Schools Demographic Outlook 2004-2014 from SPS
Enrollment planning. Average attrition from
school closure approval to school closure for
2006-07 closings was gt30.
10
Compound Annual Growth Rate by Area of
Expenditure,2003-2007
Total expense growth outpaces revenue growth, as
the district has noted.
All expenditures 2.9 Compound Annual Growth Rate
Revenue growth 2.6 average increase
Central office costs are grossly out of line with
all other cost growth. To bring total
expenditures in line with revenue growth, an
additional 5.2M in central office cuts need to
be made. Instead, between December and January,
central office cuts were reduced from 5M to 4M.
Data source 1/30/2008 McKinsey Co report to
district, page 22. Teaching activities category
in this slide includes the 20M increase the
district made to make teaching salaries more
competitive. For district statement on growth and
teaching salaries 1/6/2009 Final Proposal, page
2. Central office includes core administration as
well as other centrally administered programs.
11
Comparing School Districts
The district has stated that revenue from the
state is not keeping pace with expenses, and that
we have too many buildings compared to similarly
sized districts.
Seattle has a similar number of buildings and
funding profile as other districts with similar
geographic areas and student populations.
Closures may be a necessary part of ensuring best
educational delivery, but in number of schools
Seattle is comparable to similar districts.
Enrollment data reflects 2004-05 levels, from
Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public
Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the
United States 2004-05 Statistical Analysis
Report, United States Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, 2008.
Revenue and of students in poverty is from 2005
levels, also from the National Center for
Education Statistics.
12
Capital Cost / Benefit Appendix to Proposal

• Capital savings are currently estimated at 33M.
  Savings have been inflated to account for rising
  labor costs capital costs have not.
• Savings appear to be optimistic, with only 47K
  in capital expenditure for the Jane Addams
  building, a building changing from a K-12 to a
  K-8 and a facility condition score of 50.53. No
  explanation is made for the low cost of
  improvements for instructional purposes.
• Old Hay is counted as capital savings, despite
  the fact the district may re-open it in the short
  term. At the least, it should only be counted as
  provisional savings.
• Capital savings are important, but do nothing to
  address our current budget shortfall, which is in
  the General Fund. Financial analysis of capital
  savings are helpful to have, but misleading to
  cite as part of the shortfall savings.

Savings are over-stated (because Old Hay is not
counted provisionally) and misleading capital
savings do not reduce the scope of the budget
crisis.
13
Capacity
14
Capacity BalancingFunctional Planning
Capacities
One of the goals of the final recommendations is
to address outstanding capacity issues. There are
too many seats in some areas, and not enough in
others, whether functional or planning capacity
numbers are applied.

• The district has acknowledged that a large
  portion of empty seats are at the high school
  level. Given the complexities involved, and the
  current short timeline, they are waiting to
  balance high school capacity.
• Functional capacity definition the target number
  of students per school based on each schools
  particular programs. Can change as programs move
  in and out of buildings. The analysis reflects
  current use but was intended to reflect current
  and potential use.
• Planning capacity definition high-level
  generalized possible enrollment for each
  building.

The current proposal does not substantively
change capacity imbalances, despite moving over
3,500 students. Adjusting functional capacity
does not solve the underlying problem, either.
page 3, Superintendents Update, December 3, 2008
15
Current Enrollment vs. Empty Seats, by
ClusterBEFORE proposed building closures.
Planning and functional capacity
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Proposed Building Closures
Ideally, a clusters share of district enrollment
will roughly align with its share of empty seats,
whether using functional or planning capacity.
Source SPS website enrollment data
16
Empty Seat ReductionChange in empty seats, by
cluster, comparing functional capacity and
planning capacity
Seat difference
13
375
459
567
584
81
222
150
208
The greatest total differences between functional
and planning capacities strongly aligns with over
and under-enrollment in clusters and masks both
crowding pressures and under-enrollment.
Source SPS website capacity data
17
Elementary Empty SeatsAnalysis of Adjustments to
Functional Capacity, using elementary schools as
an example
Areas already over capacity (101 average
utilization) had capacity increased...
while areas under-capacity (81 average
utilization) had capacities decreased
Empty Seats
Empty Seats
Capacity Change
51 QA/Magnolia
119 NW
-99 N
100 NE
-102 SE
-152 S
-77 W Seattle N
-1 W Seattle S
-168 Central
Elementary schools, as a group, remained close to
planning capacity. Closer examination of the
functional capacity adjustments indicates that
functional capacity seems to expand or contract
to suit the level of over- or under-enrollment by
cluster.
From the overview of functional capacity
analysis, posted to the SPS site 1/14/2009.
18
Projected Enrollment vs. Empty Seats, by
ClusterAFTER Final Proposal-implemented building
closures, fall 2008 capacity
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
Proposed Building Closures
Projected capacity shows little meaningful change
to the district capacity balance. Capacity
balancing has been pursued without setting a
basic range of capacity targets. 3,562 students
are moving for small gains in a plan that does
not have even a range of goals.
Enrollment projections include returning
students to schools as proposed in the 1/6/2009
final proposal, including the redrawing of the
Cooper reference area as Sanislo. NE capacity
includes the Addams building and the dispersal of
non-cluster Summit students. There are no current
publicly available projections for how students
would be assigned to the Addams building.
District-estimated returns varied from my
estimates (variation likely due to district
excluding non-residents. This assumption was
stated in Appendix I of the final proposal).
19
Access Equity
20
2008 Improvement Status of Seattle Elementary
Schools
TT Minor has a high student cost and a low
building score, but enrollment and academics are
steadier than in nearby schools. The district has
denied requests to expand TT Minors Montessori.
Cooper has steady enrollment gains and is not in
ANY step of improvement, but continues to be
proposed for closure.
The final proposal is deeply inconsistent in its
application of closure criteria.
NCLB Compliance Report 2008, Preliminary
Report from Washington OSPI (does not include
all elementary schools with improvement steps).
October enrollment data from Seattle Public
Schools, 1998-99 through 2008-09. Per-pupil cost
from Appendix 3 of 11/25/2008 proposal
21
School-Age Population Growth

• The current proposal has little alignment with
  districts own growth estimates with district
  enrollment projections exceeding best-case
  demographic growth.
• The Central cluster, with 2 buildings slated to
  close, has some of the strongest predicted
  growth, particularly near TT Minor

2/20/2008
Source 2/2008 DeJong Report to SPS
22
Elementary Spectrum Students, by Cluster
600 of the 861 children now enrolled in
elementary Spectrum programs are in the NW, N, NE
and QA/Magnolia clusters. Almost 800 Spectrum
qualified children are not enrolled in Spectrum.
Only 4 of APP-qualified children are not
enrolled in accelerated learning programs.
86
147
20
Students Served
193
0
65
29
75
246
The district is not managing issues of access and
equity when operating advanced learning programs
from multiple sites. Instead of repairing a clear
inequity for Spectrum, the district is dividing a
successful program and declaring that access and
equity have been increased.
Data sources SPS enrollment data, Appendix H of
the Superintendents final report
23
Advanced Learning Program Distribution
The NW cluster has as many advanced learning
programs as SE, S, West Seattle S, West Seattle N
and Central clusters combined.
of Advanced Learning Programs
2
4 (2 possible additional in new K-8)
2
0
1
2
7
2
4
Total number of advanced learning programs
The distribution of advanced learning programs
across the district is deeply inequitable.
Splitting an all-city draw, although highly
visible, does not correct this imbalance.
12/9/2008 presentation, page 39 the program
will include accelerated learning opportunities
24
Spectrum APP Opt-in Rates
In 2004-05, 2,018 elementary-aged children tested
for advanced learning. 584 qualified for APP and
1,159 qualified for Spectrum. 473 enrolled in APP
(81). 600 enrolled in Spectrum (52). 111
students chose not to enroll in APP 559 chose
not to enroll in Spectrum. Only 4 of all
APP-qualified children do not enroll in an
advanced learning program.
Spectrum programs and opt-in rates must be
improved to strengthen access and equity to
advanced learning programs. Splitting APP will
not improve access and equity for the hundreds of
Spectrum-qualified children who are not being
served, nor does it benefit the children in APP
programs.
West Seattle North and West Seattle South
clusters
25
Spectrum APP Diversity
Spectrum and APP have similar demographics.
Neither reflects the racial balance of elementary
students in Seattle. In the 2005-06 testing
cycle, the district identified 1,966 children for
testing (using test scores in the 87th or above
percentile range). Demographic results were very
similar to existing demographics in advanced
learning.
Access and equity are important issues. Changing
the location of a test-in program does not create
access or equity. Real solutions for these issues
may include a combination of change in testing
systems, incentives for school nominations and
outreach. None of these solutions are part of the
proposal.
May not add to 100 due to rounding.
26
Special Education at Lowell

• The district has stated that the co-housing of
  elementary APP and special education violates the
  law, but the IDEA mandate says that children with
  disabilities should be educated with children
  who are not disabled. APP children meet the
  definition of children who are not disabled.
• The district has failed to review each IEP to
  determine whether the current program at Lowell
  provides the least restrictive environment (LRE).
• None of the IEPs for special education children
  at Lowell require any inclusion in non-APP
  general education
• Little has been said about the symbiotic
  relationship between Lowells APP and special
  education programs. They are not simply co-housed
  programs. They are programs which enrich one
  another and benefit the children in both programs.

The co-housing of special education and APP
programs in a single building is not only in
compliance with the law, but beneficial for
children in both programs.
27
Impact by Cluster
28
Central Cluster Capacity Impact

• Central cluster capacity will be raised above
  that of north clusters with current issues of
  over-crowding, to 97 of functional capacity.
• The Central cluster has a lower market share of
  public school children than SPS as a whole (67
  in 2004). If, as the district now predicts, more
  students leave private school due to the
  recession, the Central cluster would see
  enrollment increases- just as its capacity would
  be significantly reduced
• More than 50 of all students forced to move will
  move in, out and through the Central cluster. The
  impact on the Central cluster is disproportionate
• DeJONG demographic reports commissioned by the
  Superintendent indicate that the Central cluster
  will be a hot-spot for school-aged population
  growth in the city between 2007-2012,
  particularly near TT Minor
• The board will have to reverse its own actions
  for APP and SBOC, reversing long-standing APP
  policy for unclear benefits and rescinding almost
  half the points of SBOCs 2006 contract with the
  district.

• Current Central cluster enrollment 6,784
• Current capacity (planning/functional) 86/90
• After Proposal
• Projected total enrollment 6,632
• Projected operating capacity 92/97
• Elementary capacity 87/90
• Middle School capacity 106/99.9
• Garfield capacity 103.5

The current proposal creates capacity problems
for the Central cluster
1assuming that the per student move cost is less
this time, which is highly unlikely , given
higher costs, complexity and staffing. This is
the lowest possible cost.
29
N and NE Cluster Impact
NE elementaries are experiencing significant
over-crowding, currently operating at 108 of
functional capacity. The proposal addresses this
issue. Forcing the closure of Summit will
aggravate capacity issues.

• The Addams building will be repurposed regardless
  of the outcome of the January 29th vote.
• No provision has been made for the Summit program
  if there is a vote to keep the program open
• It is fiscally irresponsible
• There are no savings in these clusters from
  building closures, only incremental savings from
  transportation reductions. Title I money that
  Summit brings (165K) will be lost.
• 50-160 children from Summit alone could leave the
  district (10-30 attrition range), considerably
  reducing any savings made by program closure
• It disregards the best interests of the children
  over 5 of students from 2 clusters are moving
  to create capacity, and no real provision has
  been made for Summit students.

Joint cluster current enrollment 9,302 Joint
cluster operating capacity 90.3 planning, 93.5
functional Joint cluster of all empty seats
11 Joint cluster of all enrollment
21.1 After Proposal Projected operating
capacity 88.4 planning, 91.6 functional 1
closed program
The plan for N NE is makes slight gains in
capacity at a financial loss, and sacrifices a
500 student program to do so.
30
West Seattle North Proposal Impact

• The redistribution of 180 Cooper West Seattle
  North students between West Seattle North and
  South will still leave elementary capacity at
  97-101 capacity
• 649 students will be forced to move 13 of
  cluster students
• Coopers enrollment has been bumpy, but has not
  seen a decade-long enrollment slide seen in other
  schools. It is not in any step of NCLB
  improvement. It does not appear to meet any
  closure guidelines.
• West Seattle North Cooper students will be
  reassigned to West Seattle South, limiting their
  access to advanced learning opportunities

• Total current enrollment 5,088
• Current operating capacity 82 planning, 90.4
  functional
• After Proposal
• Projected operating capacity 87.4
• Elementary capacity 97 planning, 101
  functional
• K-8 capacity 93.3 planning, 95 functional
• Middle capacity 101 planning, 100 functional
• HS capacity 70 planning, 86 functional

Overall cluster capacity will be strained, with
elementary and middle school capacity pushed to
the limit
31
SE Cluster Impact

• Possible revenue loss from departing students,
  adjusted for gross attrition 182K. The district
  has acknowledged that clusters near city borders
  often see higher attrition rates when programs
  are affected, so student loss may be higher.
• Concern from Van Asselt community about changing
  from a walk-to school to a regional school, which
  will be virtually next door to Wing Luke
• Costs for Van Asselt estimated at 343K
• Total general fund costs and revenue loss
  combined may run in excess of 525K
• Estimated closure savings 600K
• Van Asselt, housed in the AAA building, will be
  just 3 blocks away from Wing Luke elementary

Total current enrollment 3,683 Current operating
capacity 64 planning, 70 functional After
Proposal 1 building closure, 1 program
closed. Projected total enrollment
3,620 Projected operating capacity 69.7
planning, 75.5 functional
Changes in capacity utilization in the SE cluster
will not be substantive. Financial costs may
offset savings
32
Queen Anne/Magnolia Proposal Impact
The principles behind the Queen Anne section of
the proposal are sound, but the proposal fails to
address existing issues

• In May 2006, the district made a contract with
  SBOC with several significant points, which
  clearly district staff and the board felt was in
  the best interest of SBOC
• 3 of 7 points of a recently made contract will be
  violated to push forward a move to a sub-optimal
  location
• If SBOC moved from Old Hay, and do not move to a
  new building, the building will be renovated for
  them (Superintendent would like to rescind,
  although still eventually renovate)
• Co-housing with another program violates a
  contract made only 2 years ago
• The already planned creation/renovation of
  additional classrooms at Blaine and BF Day will
  temporarily alleviate cluster over-crowding. It
  may be possible to wait an additional year and
  find a mutually suitable site for SBOC.

Current operating capacity 92, planning and
functional Current elementary K-8 operating
capacity 109 planning, 103 functional After
Proposal Projected K-8elementary capacity
same Students forced to move 229 SBOC contracted
building renovation 10M Minimum loss 10M in
Capital Expenditure
The district should honor its contract with SBOC
by waiting an additional year, and finding SBOC a
new site as it undertakes high school capacity
issues.
33
West Seattle South Proposal Impact

• The proposal, as implemented, will raise
  operating capacity in the cluster due to forced
  re-assignment of many Cooper students who are in
  West Seattle North reference area to the West
  Seattle South reference area, as well as rising
  from returned students.
• Coopers reference area will become Sanislos
  but Sanislo is already full

Current operating capacity 74.8 planning, 76.6
functional Percent of all empty seats in
district 9 planning, 12 functional Cluster
enrollment as of total enrollment 6 After
Proposal Projected operating capacity 78
planning, 80 functional Percent of all empty
seats in district 10.6 planning, 14.6
functional
The cluster is largely unaffected by the current
proposal it remains underenrolled and lacks
access to advanced learning programs
34
NW Cluster Proposal Impact

• Cluster operates at 91.9 of capacity the same
  as QA/Magnolia
• After proposal implementation, cluster will
  operate at projected 95 capacity
• No solution has been found for Summit, should the
  program stay open. The dispersal of Summit
  students will aggravate capacity issues in the
  north clusters.

Current operating capacity 91.9 planning, 94.2
functional Percent of all empty seats in
district 8.1 planning, 8 functional Cluster
enrollment as of total enrollment 18.9 After
Proposal Projected operating capacity 95
planning, 97.4 functional Percent of empty seats
in district 6.7 planning, 5.2
functional Projected enrollment as of total
enrollment 19.5
The current proposal may aggravate existing
capacity problems in the NW. Costs may escalate
due to expensive resource distribution for middle
school APP students.
35
Program closures, programmatic changes,
consolidations moves
Summit K-12. Program closure. K-8 N and NE
cluster students remain in Addams building (200
students), out of cluster students returned
to home cluster (332 students). A vote to keep
Summit open will still leave them without a
school, as the decision to repurpose the Addams
building has already been made.
Lowell APP. Central, S, SE, and West Seattle
cluster students to Thurgood Marshall (294
students)
SBOC. Old Hay to close. Program moved to Meany
building to co-house with Nova (in violation of
2006 contract with school board). (248 students)
Meany. Program closure. Central students to
Washington. Other students re-assigned based
on home address. (419 students)
TT Minor. Building and program closure. K-3
Montessori to Leschi. Remaining students
re-assigned within Central cluster. (206 students)
EBOC. Program in Thurgood Marshall moved to
Gatzert (about 56 students)
Nova. Building closure. Students moved to Meany
building (312 students).
Washington APP. N, NE, NW and QA/Magnolia cluster
students to Hamilton (241 students)
Pathfinder. Building closure. Students moved to
Cooper (391 students)
Van Asselt. Building closure. Program moved to
AAA building (492 students)
Cooper. Program closure. Students re-assigned
based on home address. (300 students)
AAA. Program closure. SE cluster K-5 students
remain in building (73 students) other students
re-assigned based on home address (344
students).
Over 3,500 students are affected by this
proposal. Who does it benefit?
Special Education. (Meany, Lowell, and many other
locations). Student assignments and programs to
change.
Moved Moved and changed Closed
36
Additional Information and Data Sources
37
Reference Area Changes

• Reference area changes for the following schools
• TT Minor (Central cluster) reference area becomes
  the Lowell reference area
• Van Asselt and Wing Luke (SE) switch reference
  areas, although no current students would be
  re-assigned with this change
• Cooper (West Seattle North) reference area merges
  with Sanislo (West Seattle South)

38
Affected Students
Special education students are also being moved.
Those students are not accounted for in this
chart. Estimates of students remaining in
building are from Appendix H of the final report.
In the instance where I chose to use a different
number than was used in the appendix, I stated
the source of the number
39
Corrections

• In the preliminary report, I stated that 3,816
  students would move. The accurate number is
  3,562. I overstated by 254 kids. Ive tried to
  remain conservative with the numbers. This was an
  instance in which I over-stated my apologies for
  the error. A slide with a chart is included in
  this report, demonstrating how I arrived at
  3,562. I primarily used Appendix H, Demographic
  and Integration Effects, except in the case of
  AAA, in which I cited why I used my number of 85,
  instead of the districts number of 91.
  Hopefully, including the preceding chart offers a
  better model for transparent presentation of data
  and assumptions. The districts declaration that
  only 1,775 students would be affected by the
  proposal appears to count only students in
  programs that are dissolved, not the actual
  number of students forced to move. There are an
  additional 1,787 students forced to move they,
  too, are affected.
• It is important to note that when a currently
  operating school or program is split or closed,
  although some students may remain in the physical
  building, every single student and staff member
  in the building is enormously affected by the
  change.

40
Data Sources and Assumptions

• McKinsey Report, 1/30/2008, commissioned by the
  Seattle Public Schools.
• School Board Finance Committee School Closure
  Update, prepared by Holly Ferguson, released
  11/14/2007 and revised 12/4/2007. This paper
  provided information on the closure of 5
  elementary schools that were part of the last
  closure round, allowing for analysis of
  directly-affected students who left the district
  as a result of the closures (I did not provide
  data for total enrollment loss due to closures,
  corrected for average enrollment loss the
  percent of departing students remains
  conservative). Because of the Superintendents
  insistence that the closure process is better
  understood and more streamlined this time, I
  gave an estimate that the per-pupil move cost
  would be half as much as the range was in the
  last round of closures (2,699-3,727 per pupil).
  I believe that it will be at least as much per
  pupil, and probably more per pupil, since the
  complexity of virtually every move and closure is
  markedly increased. Data indicates that even if a
  highly optimistic view of financial impact is
  taken, virtually none of the proposed closures,
  moves or changes make sense. Closures can make
  sense for capacity, and to create full and
  thriving schools, but can also be very costly.
• 09-10 FY Budget Summary Gap presented by Don
  Kennedy, Chief Financial and Operations officer,
  December 3, 2008 School Board Meeting
• Districtwide Total Enrollment and Weighted
  Student Allocation, 2007-2008, Seattle Public
  Schools No author attributed. Located on website
  at http//www.seattleschools.org/area/finance/bud
  get/school.html. To be conservative, I used the
  base student allocation of 3,652 per pupil.
  This is probably about half of what the district
  receives in per-pupil revenue (based on
  discussions with OSPI employees).
• Seattle Public Schools Enrollment Projection
  Report Carolyn Staskiewicz, Vice President,
  REFP, DeJONG, Inc. Presented February 20,2008 to
  Seattle Public Schools.
• Excellence for All Focus Areas for 2008-09
  presentation for Board Work session, 10/29/2008.
  No author attributed.
• Capacity Planning and Management Phase I.
  Elementary Capacity Challenges for the 2009-10
  School Year for the clusters of Queen
  Anne/Magnolia and the North/Northeast/Northwest.
  Staff recommendations, revised 10/29/2008. No
  author attributed.
• School Board Action Report, 10/24/2008.
• Board Workshop on Capacity Management,
  10/29/2008.
• Advancing Excellence for All the Seattle School
  Board, 11/3/2008, The Seattle Times
• Directing the Superintendent to Evaluate
  Balancing Geographic Capacity Needs Across the
  District Resolution 2008/09-2. Seattle School
  Board.
• Guidelines for Building Closure
  Superintendents Report to the School Board,
  11/12/2008
• Capacity Management Superintendents
  Preliminary Recommendations on Building Closure
  and Program Relocation Maria Goodloe-Johnson,
  Seattle Public School, 11/25/2008. Appendix 3,
  Building Capacity and Enrollment provided the
  bulk of the capacity data.
• Seattle Public Schools Condition Survey
  3/27/2006 Meng Analysis.
• Superintendents Update School Board Meeting,
  12/3/2008
• Capacity Management Building Closures
  Presentation by Superintendent. School Board Work
  Shop sic, 12/9/2008.
• Seattle Public School changes will better serve
  all students by Maria Goodloe-Johnson, The
  Seattle Times, 12/22/2008
• 2008-09 Attendance patterns, available at
  http//www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/maps/
  08-09/attend0809.html
• Stakeholder Engagement Presentation to the
  Board of Directors, Seattle Public Schools by
  Pyramid Communications, 5/7/2008