Saturday, January 18, 2014

Lake Washington School District Levy and Bond vote – OPINION PIECE

I have posted four detailed blog entries regarding the upcoming LWSD Levy and Bond issues for vote on February 11th, 2014.  They can be found here.


This chart gives just a few examples of how poorly the district has managed and planned for student capacity and growth over the last few years.  8 Elementary schools are “Over permanent capacity” and all but one school (Mann Elementary) has portables to house over-population of students.

Phase 1 of the modernization program that began in 1998 and lists completion in 2006 replaced or rebuilt Audubon, Franklin, Juanita, Lakeview, Mann, Rose Hill, Thoreau and Twain Elementary schools; Kirkland and Redmond Junior High Schools (now middle schools); and Redmond High School.

Phase 2 replaced or rebuilt Frost, Muir, Keller, Sandburg, Bell, and Rush Elementary schools; Rose Hill, Finn Hill and Northstar Middle School; and Lake Washington High School.

The current Bond and Levy issues affect the funding for what is called Phase 3 which includes building three new elementary schools, one new middle school, one new STEM school and an “International” school.  There are also many overlapping projects proposed that involve schools recently modernized or rebuilt by adding portables or additional structures to those buildings; namely, Lake Washington and Eastlake High Schools.

The bond will also replace 6 schools; Juanita High School, Kamiakin and Evergreen Middle schools and Kirk, Rockwell and Mead Elementary schools.

This is not the first time that projects have necessitated additional funding due to population issues in the District.  Redmond High School was originally built in 1964; demolished and rebuilt during the LWSD modernization process (Phase 2) in 2003.  An additional construction project was completed in 2012 and added 30,000 s.f. of space including an auxiliary gym addition, a classroom addition and two portable buildings.  Between that completion time of 2012 and today’s current date (January 2014) there have been an additional two portable classrooms added to the Redmond High School campus.  As mentioned here the 2003 construction cost was $50.5 million and the project in 2012 an additional $1.4 million.

Horace Mann Elementary (Phase 1) was destroyed and rebuilt with students attending classes in the new facilities Fall 2003.  It was built with no additional classrooms – in fact, two fewer classrooms than the original building accommodated.

Redmond Middle School – formerly Redmond Jr. High (Phase 1) presently has three portables on site after being demolished and rebuilt in 2002.

These are just three examples in my neighborhood alone of schools that have been rebuilt and are now over capacity within just 10 years of completion; yet the district states that their modernization program is to plan for 30 to 40 years per building usage.

Lake Washington High School was rebuilt under Phase 2; and students moved into the buildings in September 2011.  Under the proposed Bond funding, Lake Washington High School will be receiving an addition to the 2011 buildings.

For the purposes of planning, the District assumes that a new single-family home currently generates 0.3810 elementary students, 0.1170 middle school students, and 0.0950 senior high students, for a total of 0.593 school-age child per single family home.  New multi-family housing units currently generate an average of 0.0490 elementary student, 0.0140 middle school student, and 0.0160 senior high student for a total of 0.0790 school age child per multi-family home.

Granted, many residences in Redmond have no children; however the theory that there is, in total, less than 1 complete school-age child per single family home (average) in our district is absurd.  In our neighborhood of roughly 30 houses, I can round up at least 15 children that are school age; with another 10 or so children that are infant to four years old.  Many families have more than two children and there are a great number of families that share living spaces, which increases the number of school-age children in any given neighborhood or multi-family location.

It is beyond my comprehension that a district, so widely acknowledged as successful and competitive can have such poor planning, organizational and math skills that they find themselves constantly ‘begging’ for money from taxpayers in multiple attempts to make our children “future ready”.

I will not attempt to admit that I understand the budgeting and accounting processes of our district or many of the governmental agencies that fund our educational system.  I have not reviewed or scrutinized the general or other funds and accounts that the district maintains.  I am only offering an opinion on what seems to be an unending cycle of inattention to detail and lack of planning for the future.

And so, once again the district wants the taxpayer to foot the bill for yet more incompetence and lack of planning so they can construct more buildings that will be over capacity in less than one-third of their life cycle.  I wonder how the Lake Washington School District plans to educate the children of the 20,000 residents that will be moving into all the new construction projects showing up all over the city of Redmond; not to mention Kirkland and other cities in the district boundaries.

Vote NO on February 11th for the Levy and Bond issues.  Over-crowding of our schools is not the only problem to be addressed here.  Perhaps the District should take their own motto into consideration and make all of our school buildings “future ready”.

Monday, January 13, 2014

LWSD Levy Information – Post #4

Lake Washington School District Levy and Bond Issues -- 
Voting Date:  February 11, 2014

This is the fourth in a series of posts regarding the upcoming Levy and Bond issues for February, 2014.  First three posts can be found here.

Q. When do you do replace a building and when do you modernize? How is the decision made?

A. The district’s modernization program, started in 1998, reviews school buildings on a 30 to 40 year cycle. The State offers some potential construction funding assistance for the modernization of school facilities on a 30-year cycle, though it only pays for a portion of some of the project components. Before designing a project, each building goes through a study to determine whether it will be modernized through major renovation or whether it is more appropriate to build “new-in-lieu” of modernization, i.e., a replacement building. That determination is made based on a careful review of the costs of the different options as well as whether or not the site has space for a replacement of the existing building. Renovating an old building to bring it up to current safety and educational standards can be as costly or more costly than a brand new building.

Q. Why do you need portables? Why do schools sometimes open with portables?

A. Portable classrooms are part of the District plan to address changes in demographics and programming needs. They provide flexibility in handling changing school populations. School enrollment changes as neighborhood demographics change. We do not want to overbuild, asking taxpayers for money to pay for classrooms that may remain empty for many years. We also do not want to under build, causing overcrowding and the use of too many portables.

Q:  If the bond/levy measures are passed, when would construction begin for each of the schools?  Can you give me a bit more information on the process that occurs AFTER a measure is passed?  For instance, are the boundaries re-lined before the school building committee is formed?  Before the plans are drawn?  Or after the school is built?

A:  After a measure is passed, construction planning begins in earnest. Planning would start first for those schools planned to open first, with design and permitting work that takes significant amounts of time. 

With regard to boundaries, I can only speak to the last time a new school was built, which was Carson Elementary in Sammamish. That boundary committee started its work one year before the school opened. The committee met, surveyed the community on their interests and developed options during the fall. Community feedback was sought on the options, and a final option was recommended to the board, which it approved. The goal was to complete work before kindergarten registration in early February so families would know where to register. That goal was met. If the bond passes, I expect we would have a goal of completing any boundary changes by the end of January 2016, for boundaries that would go into effect for the fall of 2016, allowing kindergarten registration to take place as usual in February.

If what you are asking is whether we take potential enrollment growth in a specific area into account before designing the school, we look at the capacity that will be needed according to projections in the entire learning community (all of Redmond, in the case of the two proposed new elementary schools) and design the school(s) to add the needed capacity. The boundary process then strives to equitably divide the total numbers of students, current and projected, between currently existing schools and those being built. 


Q:  You mentioned in the email below that a High School takes three years to build.  What is the projected time frame for the Juanita project?  For the STEM project?  For the new elementary school(s)?  If memory served, Horace Mann was demolished and completed in a 2+ month summer span.  I don’t remember the exact time for Redmond Jr. High (now Middle School), but it seems it was a short time as well between demolishing and building/occupancy.

A:  Here’s a link to the bond measure detail chart on the website, which includes the project completion dates for all projects.

It takes much, much longer than 2+ months to build an elementary school: demolishing the old school is done over the summer but building the new school on the site takes longer, and there is permitting, planning and site preparation work to be done before that can happen. Thus, the first new elementary schools if the bond passes are scheduled to open in the fall of 2016. For building a new school on a new site, the site preparation work is much more involved and takes longer.


Q:  If buildings are intended to be used for 30-40 years; shouldn’t the size projections for new buildings calculate growth based on the same time frame?  My reference point for this is again, Redmond High School, which was rebuilt and over occupancy (based on portable buildings) within two years.  And Horace Mann was rebuilt with the same or fewer classrooms as its predecessor building; even though there were several housing developments that could have fallen within the boundaries at the time for that school.  It wasn’t until after Mann was built that the boundaries were shrunk yet again and the schools “closed”.  Redmond Middle School was over capacity within just a few years as well as they now have three or 4 portables.  

A: Size decisions for schools do look at growth based on projections. We know that projecting for 8-10 years can be reasonably accurate: many of the students who will be in our schools in that time frame have already entered our elementary schools and we have some knowledge of upcoming development. The farther out you go from that time frame, the less accurate the predictions. We do plan for up to four portables on a site to ensure flexibility: if our projections are wrong or other space needs arise, we have the additional space. Projections cannot, for example, take into account how many of the students who show up may have particular special program (ELL, special education, for example) needs that require the use of additional classrooms or space for services for a small number of students. Those needs can vary considerably each year and will affect how many classrooms are available for general education classes.

Keep in mind also that neighborhoods do go through demographic trends as families that move in to new neighborhoods together see their students through school and then tend to remain in the neighborhood for some time. The school age population is not a steady number once housing has been built but rather tends to go in waves. We saw that in Kirkland as the school age population fell in the last decade and we had empty classrooms that have now filled up as older couples sold their homes to young families. If we do not use portables to provide the flexibility of extra space, then we do need to build to the highest possible number, which would mean even more empty classrooms for longer periods of time that we have to pay to heat and clean when we hit the low side of the demographic wave. We believe it is more fiscally responsible to take the approach we have.


Q:  The district had to have had plans or discussions to change the class pattern from K-6 et al to K-5 et al quite a few years prior; which should have been reflected in the new school buildings and projects in the pipeline.  It certainly should have been in the planning process of Redmond High School because it’s been less than two years since the addition and we’ve just recently added the fourth portable.  

A:  That planning was indeed involved. However, there are a number of factors affecting Redmond High School’s size. As noted above, changes in special program needs can have an impact on numbers of classrooms available for general education classes. In addition, we heard very clearly from the community that they did not want high schools over 2000 students. We chose to add a Choice high school, the STEM school, expecting it to draw students from Redmond High, rather than add on enough classrooms to grow Redmond High well over that number. As a new school, the STEM School has been ramping up its attendance, starting with just freshmen and sophomores last year and adding juniors this year. Since it is not yet at full capacity, it is not yet drawing its maximum number of students from the Redmond attendance area. Next year, with the addition of a senior class, we should be pretty close.

We also have students at Redmond High who are on variances from Eastlake. Students from the Eastlake attendance area who attend Evergreen Middle or who are in the Quest program at Redmond Middle have tended to ask for those variances. While those variances were automatically granted in the past, starting last year, they are no longer automatically granted. And we added a full-time Quest class at Evergreen Middle this year, which kept some Evergreen students at their home school rather than sending them to Redmond Middle for that program. 

So there are a number of factors that have and will affect the total number of students attending Redmond High. It’s not as simple as just predicting the enrollment from the neighborhoods slated to go to Redmond High. Special programs, choice schools and variance patterns all have a part to play.

Calculating School Capacity 

School capacity is based on a “Standard of Service” defined in the district Capital Facilities Plan.

At elementary schools, we use this formula:   Total number of classrooms (including portables) minus the number of classrooms used for specific programs or subjects (computer labs, art / science rooms, Special Education self-contained, etc.) times 23 students (average class size K-5) per classroom plus 12 students per Special Education self-contained classroom.

At secondary schools, there is also a percentage of classroom usage since teachers normally get one period for planning and generally have done their planning in their classroom. In our newer schools, however, separate small teacher planning spaces have been added so that classrooms can be used for more of the time. 

So for secondary, the formula is: Total number of classrooms (including portables) minus classrooms used for special programs times 70% (older buildings) or 83% (new buildings) times 30 students at middle school and 32 students at high school plus 12 students per Special Education self-contained classroom.

Of course, depending on the mix of students and programs, this estimate may not match the reality. An elementary school that has many students in grades one and two where we keep class sizes smaller might need more classrooms than an elementary school that has many students in grades four and five, for example.





1 Information provided by Kathryn M. Reith, APR Communications Director, LWSD
2 Information from LWSD.org website http://www.lwsd.org/News/News-and-Announcements/Pages/Lake-Washington-school-board-proposes-levy-and-bond-measures.aspx
3 Information from LWSD.org website http://www.lwsd.org/News/2014-Levy-and-Bond/Pages/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx
4 Information from LWSD.org website http://www.lwsd.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/News/Levy-Bond-2014/2014-Levy-and-Bond-Options-Presentation.pdf

LWSD website information regarding the Levy & Bond Issue:  http://www.lwsd.org/News/2014-Levy-and-Bond/Pages/default.aspx

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Lake Washington School District 2014 Levy and Bond Issues (Pt. 3)



For Part 1 see here
For Part 2 see here

There are two Levy proposals and one Bond proposal on the ballot for February, 2014.


Neither state nor Federal money is available for the bulk of capital costs, like buying computers or renovating buildings.  In the meantime, the district is responsible for raising its own money to provide 21st century learning tools and protect the taxpayer's investment in our school buildings through proper long-term maintenance and upkeep.1


Levy #1    Educational Programs and Operations Levy


Levy #2    Capital Projects Levy  Replaces an expiring levy to fund both facility and technology projects.   


Bond Measure    $755 million to build new schools needed to accommodate growth and to modernize existing schools.  The new schools are needed based on the district's projections of enrollment grow of 4,200 students over the next four years.2


The Bond funds for modernization would replace three schools in Kirkland (Juanita HS, Kamiakin MS and Kirk Elementary), two in Redmond (Evergreen MS and Rockwell Elementary) and Mead Elementary in Sammamish.


Over the next eight years, the bond will enable the district to build NEW schools and space for students:



  • Three new elementary schools
  • One middle school
  • Additions to Lake Washington and Eastlake High Schools
  • A STEM-focused high school on the west side of the district
  • An international-focused high school on the east side of the district

Juanita Pool


The bond measure does not include funding to replace the Juanita High School pool;  however the scope of the Juanita High School modernization project does include replacement of the current field house and theater.  Money could be dedicated from leftover Phase 2 modernization program to partner with cities or other organizations to build a new community pool.  It is estimated that $10 to $12 million will remain once all school projects are completed.  If the bond does not pass all money left from the 2006 bond would be needed to provide solutions to overcrowded schools.


Q:  How does the District plan for new facilities, capacity and student population growth?


The District maintains an annually updated 6-year Capital Facilities Plan that looks at demographics, enrollment projections and programming to help determine potential capacity needs.  Capacity needs determine additional space needs at existing schools and, possibly new schools based on established capacity standards.  Annual assessment of the condition of all school buildings is conducted as part of the District's Asset Preservation Program.  In addition, the District is involved in continuous life cycle planning.  This planning informs planned maintenance and levy measures in order to help ensure uninterrupted building operation.  Criteria and standards for building and site systems have been developed to efficiently leverage resources while at the same time meeting the priorities and mission of the District.3


Q:  What will happen if the measures do not pass?


The school board will make specific decisions based on what funding is available.  When faced with cuts, the classroom is always the district's priority.  However, without the EP&O Levy (Levy #1), the district's budget would be $49 million smaller.  That reduction would have a significant impact on district programs and services.  If the Capital Projects Levy (#2) does not pass, the district would not be able to replace technology equipment that breaks or wears out.  It would not be able to renew licenses to research databases that students use.  It would not be able to replace outdated equipment.  It would only make major building repairs in emergencies and that funding would have to come from the general operating fund.  


If the bond measure does not pass, schools will become overcrowded, the use of portables will increase and school boundaries will likely be changed.  No schools will be modernized.








Student Population projections

Projections reflect what the populations will be from the neighborhoods within current school boundaries. In some cases, the projections are viewed from a regional perspective since the boundaries will change with the additions of new schools, for whom the boundaries will have to be set.1  


The District carefully tracks development, births, and other factors that affect enrollment projections; including planned developments, how many students come out of which type of development and in what area of the district.  King County births are also tracked and how many children will likely end up in LWSD schools in kindergarten in 5 years' time.


There is also tracking of current student population and likely retention rates through each grade.  In September 2012, the District counted 25,309 students.  In September 2013, just one year later the District there were 26,089 students in our schools.  That's an increase of 780 students in just one year.


The District's enrollment projections have been historically very accurate.  Since 2000, all projections have been within 3% of actual enrollment, with most projections accurate to + or - 2%.3


Q:  How do Impact fees for Single family and Multi-family residences figure into the bond/levy totals?

Impact fees have paid for land for the school buildings to be built on. They also pay to help house students until the buildings are built – paying for portables, for example, that we need since the students in new developments arrive when houses are sold whether we have new school space for them or not. You may be interested in the page posted on funding for new schools on the district website - http://www.lwsd.org/News/2014-Levy-and-Bond/Pages/Funding-for-New-Schools.aspx.


Q:  How does the District calculate residency for multi-family units?  I have read that there is a calculation method that averages how many children reside in a SF or MF residence.  I’m curious because there are a preponderance of multi-children households that reside in apartments and other MF units around the crowded Redmond Elementary school; but the majority of housing around Rockwell is single-family housing. 

A:  On the funding for new schools web page there is also a link to the district’s Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan. Here’s a paragraph from that plan:

Developments that are near completion, or have been completed, over the last five years are used to forecast (see Appendix D) the number of students who will attend our schools from future developments. District wide statistics show that new single-family homes currently generate 0.3810 elementary student, 0.1170 middle school student, and 0.0950 senior high student, for a total of 0.593 school-age child per single family home (see Appendix B). New multi-family housing units currently generate an average of 0.0490 elementary student, 0.0140 middle school student, and 0.0160 senior high student for a total of 0.0790 school age child per multi-family home (see Appendix C). Historically, the district has seen student growth accelerate in developments after five years. The student generation factors (see Appendix D) were used to forecast the number of students expected from these developments.

Remember that these factors are used for estimating how many students will come out of new development. Students who are already in our schools are included in the “cohort survival” calculations, i.e., how many students we expect in a class as it moves through the grades from kindergarten on. Kindergarten calculations are based on an expected share of King County births. The student generation numbers referenced above are used in determining how many students to expect from new development. While there may be quite a few students living in existing apartments around Redmond Elementary, many of the new downtown apartments in Redmond are generating very few students.

Student Achievement Data 
  • Post-High School 79% of our students enroll in college or other post-secondary education immediately following high school
  • High School 94% of our students graduate on-time earning 22 credits and meeting or exceeding the state standards in reading and writing
  • Middle School 88% of our 7th graders meet or exceed state standards in reading and writing; 81% meet or exceed state standards in math
  • Elementary School 85% of our 4th graders meet or exceed state standards in reading; 80% meet or exceed state standards in writing and math



Lake Washington School District is ranked 247 out of 295 districts in the state in revenue per pupil for 2011-12:

·       $9,205 Lake Washington
·       $9,084 Issaquah
·       $9,721 Northshore
·       $10,349 Bellevue

1        Information provided by Kathryn M. Reith, APR                  Communications Director, LWSD
3          Information from LWSD.org website http://www.lwsd.org/News/2014-Levy-and-Bond/Pages/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx

Information provided by Kathryn M. Reith, APR         Communications Director, LWSD
Emphasis mine

LWSD website information regarding the Levy & Bond Issue:  http://www.lwsd.org/News/2014-Levy-and-Bond/Pages/default.aspx