If you’ve been following reader comments underneath the call for signing petitions, surveys or meeting announcements, you can see how much Seattle Public School’s new Student Assignment Plan has already impacted our neighborhood. But many would agree that the question of sibling “grandfathering”–allowing younger siblings of children currently enrolled in school to attend the same school despite the changes in boundaries– is the one issue that seems to be the most important. This is true not only for Wallingford, but for neighborhoods citywide. Reader KMattiani summed it up best: “The school board should allow for the grandfathering of siblings. I think that is where our energy should be spent. This whole SAP is pitting neighbors against each other and I think it stinks.”
Keep Our Kids Together! is a petition in circulation that focuses on the sibling issue, and has gained a lot of traction district-wide. Rather than honing in on one specific boundary, it focuses on the one issue that’s on the forefront of everyone’s mind.
The changes to the existing school boundaries are a major source of contention and a sore spot even among neighbors living within blocks of one another. The real bugaboo behind this is that any change will never make everyone happy; but it’s a shame that an issue like this can bring about such divisiveness within our community. Looking at the heart of the issue, it seems many would agree–keeping siblings together is the primary concern.
I was at the meeting on Saturday with the two board members – and my understanding on the sibling issue was this – if and only if new schools are approved, they think there will be enough extra seats to accomodate sibling grand-fathering in. But they can’t make that a policy until the new schools are approved and number of seats firmly identified. They really seemed to get the pain on sibling splitting and my guess do everything they can to help there.
Hi Jay,
I saw you there (I was sitting in the front when you received resounding applause for being “the survey guy”…good job!) I agree. And, in my notes from the meeting, Sherry Carr did say that it was something every Board member wanted to have happen…it was just a matter of meeting obligations (i.e. making sure there were enough seats for sibs and kids within the new boundaries). My husband was at a meeting for B.F. Day the other week and Director Carr thought that the sibling question should “break even” (i.e. two people that want to go to Lowell b/c their sibs are there, would give up their seats at Green Lake, etc…)
I sincerely hope this passes for all of our families.
I recognize that I am probably opening up a can of (unpopular) worms here, and I say this as the mother of two children who are not yet in elementary school. I understand that having children at different schools can be a difficulty for families. And yet, there are going to be times in which, inevitably, your children are in different schools. Mine are three years apart, so if they attend the same elementary school it will only be for 3 years. Our time and attention are going to be divided while our youngest is in preschool and our oldest in elementary school, and then again while the youngest is in elementary school and the oldest in middle school, etc. Having kids at different schools is a reality for most of us at some point and I doubt it is going to singlehandedly ruin a family’s life. For some families it may actually improve things, for example the younger children will never be compared (favorably or unfavorably) with the oldest.
If siblings are grandfathered in, for how long do you expect the school district to be responsible for this? What about families whose children are 5 years apart and will only attend elementary school together for one year? What about families that aren’t finished having children yet? Should the third, fourth and fifth children (who aren’t even born yet) be grandfathered in because that family currently has a kindergardener? Is the school district responsible for busing children to the old school for the next 10 years? How is that going to help them save money?
As for the sentiments that I’ve been reading out in which some people are bent out of shape that they are no longer in the Stanford reference area, I just wonder if we have been living in the same neighborhood! Even our real estate agent told us when we moved to Wallingford that while Stanford was technically our reference school, there were no guarantees, even though we are about half a mile from Stanford. Two years ago, families on the other side of our street were accepted to Stanford while families on our side of the street were not. While the families on our side of the street were unhappy, it did not pit neighbor against neighbor. We all knew that no one knew who was actually going to get into Stanford. At least with this new plan the ambiguity and stress of the choice process will be removed. As with any change, people are going to resent it and run the gamut of emotions, but we are all capable of adjusting to the new boundaries and we can all make the choice to not be angry at our neighbors about it. The budget stuff sucks and changes have to be made. And any school is North Seattle is a decent school. If we were talking about South Seattle, then I concede we might have something to complain about.