$56 million is Not Going to Improve Education

Do you really think that spending $56 million is going to improve education? 

The plan for most of  these funds is to build a replacement middle school for the SMS building so that it can become a Freshman Learning Center and to convert Mount Si High School "to allow for program improvements (such as adding a STEM program for an integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics instruction)."  The promise is that this plan "better supports student transitions to high school and will ultimately strengthen our high school programming to better prepare students for life after high school in the 21st Century." (source: District website)

If the district is serious about improving the lot of freshman, they can and should have been doing so for years, and they don't need a separate building to do it.   About five years ago, there was a committee formed at Mount Si to focus on improving the success of freshman.  Much of the recommendations from this committee and those from the Learning Improvement Team were to focus on improving study skills and to align curriculum. Do you know that they are still talking about this on those Friday afternoons when kids come home early?  Two years ago, this community was told that the new portables ($5.4 million of our tax money) would be used to focus on freshman.  Did you know that this lasted only one year, and now those classrooms hold a variety of subjects and students from all grades? (source: Master Schedule MSHS)  So, why should this community spend $48 million to build a replacement middle school so that this same management can experiment (again) on freshmen?  If management cannot handle a freshman pod of 12 classrooms, do you really think they can handle a freshman campus? And, there are many unanswered questions, particularly related to how much it will cost to run a Freshman Learning Center and how to transport students and teachers between the buildings.  

And with respect to the lucrative hint that the high school might incorporate STEM:  the proposed taxpayer paid enhancements include simply painting hallways to identify STEM classrooms.  And that improves education how?  If this district is serious about science and math education, they should have been improving it over the last 5 years instead of spending so much time on facilities planning and bond elections. The current results in the district prove that there are some very serious problems with student achievement in math, so it is hard to believe that this management could handle a STEM program. 

Student achievement in math has declined in many areas.  I compared the state assessment test scores (source: OSPI)  from 2005/6 to those from 2009/10 (the same period of time that management's attention has been focused on buildings).   The scores provide the following categories of results:  Total "meeting standard" (comprised of those who just "meet" the standard and those who "exceed" the standard) and the total "not meeting standard" (comprised of those who test just "below" standard and "well below" standard).   I looked at 4th, 7th and 10th grade results. 

The good news is that 7th grade math scores in 2009/10 show that 39% of students exceed the standard in math in comparison to 30% in 2005/6.  If you combine the just "meet" and "exceed" standard into the "meet" category,  the increase is from 64% to 74% over the same five year period.   That's the good news, even though it means that 26% of 7th grade students are still testing below standard. 

Part of the bad news is that 4th grade math results show a decrease in those who exceed standard from 37% to 32% over this period.  Combining 4th grade just "meet" and "exceed" results, the total declines from 70% to 68% during this time period.  And I am very disheartened to report that there is an increase in 4th grade students who tested "well below" standard from 10% to 13% over these five years. 

But where the rubber hits the road is in 10th grade.   This is where it starts to matter and where failing in math can impact career and college plans.   Over the time period of study there has been a very significant increase of students who test "well below" standard from 11% to 26%.  Let me repeat that - 26% of 10th grade high school students test "well below" standard on math.  That breaks my heart, because at this point in high school, there are not many ways a student can make up this math education.  Students don't even get these scores until the beginning of their junior year.  And, unfortunately, the total of students who "exceed standard" dropped from 28% to 22% over this period. Combined with those who just "meet" standard, the total of students who meet or exceed standard went down from 64% to 56% over this time period.  This is absolutely alarming to me. 

And, it is not just math education that has suffered over the last 5 years.   The percentage of 4th grade and 10th grade students who meet or exceed reading standards have dropped significantly (7% less 10th graders meet or exceed the reading standard, 8% less 4th graders meet or exceed the reading standard)  Shouldn't our schools be improving?  Who is monitoring this?

One of the school board members stated in a board meeting on March 5 (in support of the bond) "our schools are just getting better and better".  What?  Except for some improvements in middle schools,  our schools aren't even staying the same.  With respect to math and reading, our elementary and high schools are deteriorating.  We don't need buildings to fix this, and we don't need management's focus and attention to continue to be distracted by these facilities issues and fancy ideas like STEM.  First and foremost, we need a management (administration and school board) that is focused on what is happening in the classroom, is able to identify problems, and is capable of preparing and executing a real plan to improve education. 

Given the track record of this administration, why would we want to tax this community $56 million for them to use? 

Let's Balance the School Board Now

(Since the post below, Jeff Hogan, a District Administrator, has promised that the new boundaries would be developed in time for the candidate registration deadline, whether that be a May or a June deadline.  This is great news, and we should still monitor the process and attend the public hearing once the new sub-districts are proposed.)

Have you ever wondered about the school board?   Who can run?  When are the elections?  Well, this is a very interesting and important time with respect to the Snoqualmie Valley School board due to the extreme growth of Snoqualmie, the impact of the new census, and an upcoming election.   There is an urgent need for some action to balance the school board, and I hope this blog explains why. 

The school district is divided into five director districts.  Each director must reside in a separate district but is elected by and represents the district at-large.  The current 5 director districts are: 3 from the general North Bend area, 1 from Fall City, and 1 from Fall City/ Snoqualmie.  There are no Snoqualmie residents currently seated on the school board.    The districts, which are supposed to be balanced by population,  have not been redrawn for 10 years, and thus Snoqualmie, because of its growth, has been under-represented on the school board.

I am not an attorney, but,  as I read the state law, it requires that each district "periodically redistrict its governmental unit, based on population information from the most recent federal decennial census." (RCW 29A.76.010 (1)).  "Each district shall be as nearly equal in population as possible to each and every other such district... shall be as compact as possible...shall consist of geographically contiguous area...should not favor or disfavor any racial group or political party...shall coincide with recognized natural boundaries...and shall, to the extent possible, preserve existing communities of related and mutual interest." (RCW 29A.76.010 (4)). 

Although the school district is required to re-district because of the census, it is unclear to me whether they could have chosen to do so earlier.  The inequity has existed for most of the last 10 years, and I brought it up to the administration 6 years ago. 

The school district will be receiving its census data on March 15. The district has a legal obligation to complete its redistricting plan within 8 months of receiving the census data (RCW 29A.76.010).  This timeframe makes sense when dealing with political parties or with significantly diverse racial populations.  But for a school district, the work to re-district should take a matter of days for a recommendation  and  a couple of weeks to ensure adequate public hearing and approvals. 

This November, three of the five directors are up for election: two from Fall City (seats currently held by Dan Popp and Craig Husa) and one from the downtown North Bend area (seat currently held by Caroline Loudenback).   The deadline for submitting the new district descriptions in time for this election is May 7. This date is defined as 30 days before the first date that a candidate can file for  the primary or general election, which is June 6 (see RCW 29a.24.010 and King County's 2011 Elections Calendar at kingcounty.gov). 

Should the re-districting occur after May, the November elections would continue under the current director districts and  the three newly elected or re-elected directors (Fall City, Fall City/Snoqualmie seat, and  a North Bend seat) would continue in their positions until their terms expire (RCW 28A.343.350).   Unfortunately, a delay would allow the significant imbalance and under-representation of Snoqualmie residents to continue for another 4 years. 

Time is short.  If the plan must be in place by May 7 to be effective for the November election, and  it needs time for public comment,  it needs to be approved  by the school board in late March or early April.  The framework for this process should have been set up long before now, but our current school board directors were unaware of it until I brought it to their attention. 

I was curious about the imbalance, so in advance of the census data, I used, as proxy, the number of registered voters.  The census data will add children and unregistered voters.  But, to start, I prepared a rough estimate looking at the most recent numbers of registered voters by area.

The following shows the current director districts and their approximate number of registered voters in the district based upon my analysis:

District 1 - North Bend/Snoqualmie/Fall City - Hodgins                      3,541 registered voters

District 2- North Bend - Loudenback                                                    1,905 registered voters

District 3 -Fall City/Snoqualmie - Husa                                                  8,420 registered voters

District 4 -North Bend - Busby                                                             4,085 registered voters

District 5 - Fall City - Popp                                                                   2,209 registered voters

You can see the extreme imbalance in population, using registered voters as a proxy.  But I believe that there is also lack of compliance with the  state criteria of preserving "existing communities of related and mutual interest".  

We live in a very large geographically stretched school district, but we have  three very distinct "communities".  Ask anyone who lives here - they define themselves by their communities of Fall City, Snoqualmie and North Bend.  Two of our director districts cross over these communities.  Here are some very rough descriptions of the districts.  The maps and legal descriptions can be found on the district website.

District 1 - Hodgins - extends westward from Snoqualmie Pass north of the I-90 freeway and then extends north of the city limits of  North Bend.  It then crosses the North Fork river and  runs westward along (roughly) the north edge of the city of Snoqualmie.  It then includes the north side of the district property, north of the 202 and below the falls, all the way up to the roundabout at the 202 and the 203. It even goes up the 203 incorporating some of that area north of downtown Fall City.  So, this one district includes residents who come from all three of our very distinct "communities".  This district crosses some natural boundaries

District 2 - Loudenback  - is a compact district primarily comprised of citizens within the city limits of North Bend.

District 3 - Husa - is comprised of the entire city of Snoqualmie along with unincorporated parts above the historic downtown and in the mill pond area.  It then extends westward to Lake Alice, the Fish Hatchery Road area,  part of downtown Fall City and even the Aldarra area.  This district includes residents from two of our distinct "communities".  Fall City and Snoqualmie are geographically separated by both a canyon and the Falls and although Lake Alice looks close to Snoqualmie Ridge on a map, it is completely separated geographically by lack of roads between the two. 

District 4 - Busby - can be best described as that area of the district which is south of the I-90. 

District 5 - Popp - includes the remainder of the Fall City area not included in District 3. It  includes most of the Fall City downtown area, and all district property north and east of downtown  Fall  City.

The district legally can put this off for 8 months.  But don't you think that the "right thing" for them  to do is to prioritize this process so that the inequity of representation on the school board is corrected this spring?  That would allow for fair primary and general elections that will result in balanced representation on the school board.   Please join me in this plea.  Please write the school board or attend the next board meeting on March 10 and speak out about the need for immediate re-districting.