Community Boundary Feedback Summary
December 13, 2016
Concern
Response
Fractures historic mason boundary splitting them in half
Separating children during adolescence years adversely affects friendships and academic success.
Sherman is the only school split 50/50 by THIS boundary change going from 85/15. No one Some Sherman students already go to Truman. Other schools were also else has the after effect.
impacted in the same way. The boundary revisions will split the following school boundaries between middle schools: Wainwright/Whittier (56/44), Fawcett (58/42), Sheridan (51/49), Grant (92/8), Jefferson (94/6), Downing (57/43), Edison (85/15), Franklin (81/16/6), Lowell (69/31), and Sherman (56/44).
These relationships will hopefully lead to life long friendships, positive growth, and ultimately successful children and adults.
The District charged the committee with preparing proposals that To keep the existing Mason boundary will not add pressure to Mason with the additional Sherman student enrollment of 71 children. Especially when Mason has 803 current balanced enrollment between schools where necessary. Without the proposed adjustment, Mason would be over capacity and Truman would students attending and this number is greatly reduced with the reopening of the Hunt be far below capacity leading to inequities of programming.
middle school.
Safety
There are no safe walking routes
The Director of Transportation says this portion of Sherman will get transportation to Truman. Please seriously consider that instead of being viewed in a positive light, which the school Change is difficult and we understand the frustrations expressed by district should be, you are now being cast as the big bad bully trying to force our families to impacted families. The district will work hard to ensure that the transition
do something none of us want to do. You preach anti‐bullying policies (HIB*). Please set a to a new building will be a positive experience for all impacted students.
good example for our children and follow them.
Page 1 of 5
Community Boundary Feedback Summary
December 13, 2016
Concern
Response
Communication
Committee provided inadequate time for concerns from community.
The committee process was published and communicated over 5 months. There were four opportunities for public commentary and feedback to be expressed; and there was feedback provided by individuals beyond those who were directly impacted. We did not deviate from our planned feedback opportunities, and even added additional meetings when the need arose. The 2021‐22 proposal from the committee was announced publicly four days before the committee's public hearing, which was not ideal. However, between that time and the board's action, the community provided significant commentary for reconsideration by the committee, superintendent, and school board.
The boundary committee has not been transparent with our community. Parents were not adequately notified of this significant shift in the boundaries. Our process was approved by the Board in April, was published on the District website, was covered in two newspaper articles, was communicated through school messenger, peachjar, members of the public were solicited to participate in the process and open public meetings were held to discuss impacts.
Last minute boundary change with no communication to the community.
Sherman area was one of the last changes to be voted on by the committee but it was not last‐minute. The committee worked through an iterative process of trying different combinations of movements in an effort to effectively meet the charge set by the board.
Incorrect boundary maps effecting children still show on TPS website causing confusion.
Maps are up to date and have been updated as the committee's work and recommendations have progressed.
Sherman families should have been better notified of the change.
We reached out directly to families of impacted students for the 2017‐18 area. When Sherman families indicated that they were not aware of changes, we reached out to hold a special meeting and provided peachjar communications and school messenger notifications to families attending Sherman.
Our community has not been provided with adequate time to share concerns with the The feedback opportunities were not meant to be heard by the Board. Committee and School Board. Please note that the public comment period only lasted three The process outlined by the board was that feedback would be accepted throughout the process of boundary committee work and would be days after this proposed change; without distributed communication of the change.
integrated in that work. Public meetings were held to provide the opportunity for this feedback. Page 2 of 5
Community Boundary Feedback Summary
December 13, 2016
Concern
Response
There was never an official email sent to Sherman parents by the committee to inform us of Notification was sent to all families in the District outlining the process. the boundary change affecting the Sherman student body. There was never an email sent The District offered one additional feedback meeting and the opportunity st
to attend the school board meeting on November 21st. Notification of by the committee to inform parents there was a meeting on the 21 to voice concerns. I find it troubling that the meeting for the community was during business hours which would this meeting was made through school messenger and sent through peachjar. The meeting was an attempt to hear from families that couldn't reduce the amount of voices that could be heard due to work schedules.
make a 6 p.m. board meeting downtown. This boundary change also took place during the Thanksgiving holiday when school was out The first notification from Sherman families occurred around November and parents were less likely to communicate with each other.
16th. The week of Thanksgiving was the first available time we could plan for a meeting to be held. Truman Sherman Elementary is the only school being torn in half with this boundary proposal, and I Sherman is not the only shift that will split school enrollment between do not see a reason for it to happen, unless the committee is trying to use the Sherman middle schools as it relates to this boundary adjustment or our current boundary practice. The committee's focus was solely to balance children to bolster test scores for Truman to increase funding. enrollments between schools and set a boundary for the 2021‐22 year. Test scores were not a factor that was considered when making boundary adjustments, and there is no way we could predict what future test scores for this would look like to make these kinds of assumptions.
No parent wants their child to switch to a school that is underperforming. Truman is not an underperforming school. Families make decisions on the school that their child will attend based on various reasons which include school performance. Tacoma is committed to providing a world class education to all of its students.
Truman is ranked lower than Mason by greatschools.org, schooldigger.com as well as the th OSPI Washington State Report Card. In fact when you review the progression of the 6
grade class test scores through their development into 8th grade there is a startling fact that they perform worse each year. In Truman as we follow the progression of the same class th
th th
from 6 through 8 , we see the SBA ELA scores go from 76.8% in 6 grade (2013), to 66.9% in 7th grade (2014), and 60.8% in 8 th grade (2015). This is the same for SBA MATH scores starting at 69.5% in 6th grade (2013), 50.9% in 7 th grade (2014), then testing at 39.9% in 8th grade (2015). These results are why I am living in a boundary to send my children to Mason.
Page 3 of 5
Community Boundary Feedback Summary
December 13, 2016
Concern
Response
Tacoma School District is responsible for the education of all students. The redrawn catchments should rezone those currently in zones with similar test scores to Truman, or pull children from schools with lower test scores than Truman (such as Jason Our responsibility is to balance enrollments. Test scores are not a factor in Lee, Stewart and Gray Middle Schools), and NOT pull kids from Mason to Truman. drawing boundary lines.
Representation
No one represented our neighborhood voice in the committee.
Boundary committee members were solicited District wide, and were initially open to middle school families. We then opened the committee to elementary families as well. It is impossible that every neighborhood would have a representative on the committee. School communities were represented both by a principal of the school community and parents of that community. Public meetings were held for any other input.
Committee
One person commented that they wanted to vote whichever way would get them home the The meeting on November 30th, attended by a number of impacted fastest and not require another meeting. Another committee member commented that the families, was held specifically to address the concerns raised by Sherman issue shouldn’t be revisited because other communities didn’t express any concerns with area families. The committee spent 15‐20 minutes reading the comments their decisions. In both cases, there was a clear lack of consideration for the community that had been received and then worked through a variety of proposals to being impacted and any acknowledgement that a large voice of opposition deserves to be identify if there were a better option than their current recommendation. heard and their opinions considered regardless of how other communities responded to the The committee spoke openly about their opinions based on the decisions. It was almost as if they had a punitive opinion for communities of active parents. experience of participating in the committee work. This participation included reviewing maps, understanding the board defined objectives, and hours of discussion about the impacts changes would have to various communities.
Committee members asking questions and seeking clarification about the When I view online how this proposal has been managed I note the incorrect boundary work that they were processing, in a public environment, is a normal part maps effecting our children still show on the Tacoma Public Schools website. When th
of the process and doesn't indicate that the committee wasn't committed community members attended the November 30 , meeting we saw that many of the Committee members were confused about various options and continued to ask for clarity or was unprepared. and guidance regarding what details and data was included within each plan. I also noticed that the gentleman responsible for statistics in this Committee stated that he only brought 2/3 of relevant data points for the final options under consideration. I am confident that the Committee did not have all of the associated details available for review and discussion. Page 4 of 5
Community Boundary Feedback Summary
December 13, 2016
Concern
Response
At the last committee meeting there were 5 options on the table, yet it honestly seemed like The committee reviewed all four of the proposal options presented at the the group had no intention to consider any of them and that the entire meeting was just lip last meeting and the figures associated with each. Some made less sense service for us concerned parents. than others, and so they quickly eliminated those which obviously wouldn't produce compliance with the board committee charge.
In addition, another member spent majority of the meeting buried in their cell phone. Assuming positive intent, there were no committee members that didn't offer their perspective or participate in the process. Sometimes people have family emergencies to attend to.
Requested remedy
Consider providing the Sherman students living in the impacted area priority selection to Choice options will be available to all students. District policy and the attend Mason Middle School as a Choice Enrollment school.
committee's transition recommendations allow for some families to receive priority status based on certain circumstances.
Other
While we were house hunting, we exclusively sought a home that was in the Mason Middle The District has a responsibility to all students of the District and to draw School catchment, to ensure our children would attend Mason
boundaries that provide sound educational opportunities to those students. No school boundary is guaranteed in perpetuity, and the District, by policy, has an obligation to adjust them when warranted.
Changing the historic Mason boundary will force children from the same family into different schools. There have been documented negative effects on children when siblings are split up. By redrawing the historic Mason boundary line, the value and desirability of homes diminish. This decision would negatively affect the real estate value of a significant population. This is not a matter of snobbery. It boils down to homeowners mortgage's. It appears that the boundary division would ban children from lower income families from attending Mason, which is located in the more affluent community of Proctor. This would potentially create economic segregation. Page 5 of 5
The District will honor our choice policy regarding this.
Home values are not a consideration in the District's boundary adjustment Policy 3130. In most other school districts, by policy, children must attend their neighborhood school. However, in Tacoma Public Schools, parents can choose to send their child to any school with space available. The hardline connections between a family's address and school assignment in other school districts isn't as prevalent in Tacoma.
We are not aware of how this may ban children from lower‐income families from attending Mason. Free and reduced lunch factors were considered as part of the boundary adjustment plan and there were no anticipated major impacts to Mason ‐ pre‐adjustment free & reduced lunch percentage (32.8%) and post‐adjustment free & reduced lunch percentage (31.4%).