Activity Day

I’m not sure I understand the purpose of school anymore.  Today, my son is home from school (with my knowledge and approval) because it’s “Activity Day” due to EOC testing.  End of Course exams for freshman who didn’t pass the 8th grade math/Algebra 1 EOC or those students who took Biology or Geometry and need to pass the EOC for that course.  The students that don’t need to take these exams have Activity Day.

When my son attended the Activity Day last semester, he was hoping to get some finals study in, help with class issues, workshops or sheets to work on for classes he was struggling in.  Instead they played games and then had field day on the football field.  Clearly a good use of pre-finals time for students.

My son passed the 8th grade Math EOC in 8th grade.  He didn’t take Biology this year – it’s mostly a 10th grade class.  Currently his grade in 9th grade Algebra is a C-; in English a D and a C in French 1.  The other grades are A’s and B’s (Band, PE and Science).  He’s a freshman in High School.

Here is the schedule for EOC testing on Wednesday, June 4th:
(From the LWSD website )

Wednesday, June 4 

EOC Biology 

Students will be tested in classrooms. We will be on an alternate bell schedule. 

EOC Exam 7:30 – 10:24 

Lunch 10:30 – 11:00 

Tutorial/Finals Prep 11:06 – 12:30 

For students not testing, the library and Career Center will be open, 7:30 – 

12:00 

My heartburn with this is that’s it’s a waste of a school day just before finals.  Why not have the students who don’t need to take these tests in study hall or finals work-shops or; here’s a thought a regular learning day?

I know, those students who are testing will miss all the instruction for the one day and it gives the others an unfair advantage.  Well, that might be, but ACTIVITY DAY???

First of all, this is a Wednesday.  It’s already a short day in our District (LEAP Day – Learning Enhancement and Academic Planning).  Students are dismissed 1.5 hours earlier on every Wednesday in the district as a “teacher professional development day or a day of professional learning”.  Every.Wednesday. during the school year.  To make this work, the classes that are usually 50-55 minutes are reduced to 25 minutes.  Did I mention this was EVERY Wednesday in the school year?  EVERY level of school is included.

So, what are the teachers doing during the regular school hours (that they would usually be teaching classes) that they can’t hold regular classes?  Are there THAT many students in 9th grade math classes that the classrooms would be nearly empty?  Are there THAT many 8th graders that failed the 8th grade EOC?

I’ll renew my suggestion that instead of having a day that the students consider unnecessary, why not make it another regular school day but have them focus on studying for finals or working on class issues they haven’t understood or resolved yet?

And WHY wasn’t something sent home to the parents explaining this?  Allowing us the choice to opt out or ask questions?  How many students stayed home today because it was a waste of their time? According to my informal FB poll 5 parents kept their kids (9 total) home today (various grade levels) because of the lack of school classes.  During school hours.  On a school day.

Meanwhile, RHS is looking at changing the lunch schedule for the 2014-15 year to give students more time (30 minutes, once a week) to meet with teachers if they’re struggling.  They’re doing this because they want to reduce the almost 30% failure rate at the high school.  1 in 3 students are failing AT LEAST ONE course.  2500 (approximate) students at the school and roughly 800 of them are failing at least one course in a quarter.

But of course, let’s have them play games and have shortened class days because of testing.

Solutions

The April 22nd Bond measure doesn’t look like it will make the 60% approval it needs to pass.  Yes, I’m pleased, but instead of cheering “We Win!” or moaning “We Lose!” let’s come up with solutions to the problem instead of name calling or blaming the other side.

Using the assumption that the District still has access to the unused $10 million from the 2011 Bond for $65.4 million I have a few recommendations to offer.

Overcrowding in existing schools

To resolve the issue of overcrowding at Rockwell Elementary, I propose that the district replace the portables with building structures similar to the addition at RHS.  Rockwell is expecting enrollment of 723 students by the 2015-2016 school year with a capacity of 460 students in “regular” (non-portable) classrooms.  There are 5 portables on site (appendix A) with a total capacity of 115 students (that calculates to 23 student per portable capacity; although there can be as many as 30).

The “brick building” classroom addition at Redmond High School was built at approximately $800,000 (rounded up for simplification).  That building contained 14 classrooms in a two story building that could provide space for roughly 420 students. The cost of building a portable is roughly $400,000 (rounded up). A portable contains two classrooms and provides space for between 45 to 60 students.

For the cost of two portables, Rockwell could build one brick building similar to the RHS structure and have 14 classrooms ready for students.  Even if the neighborhood had height restrictions or capacity regulations (I’m not clear on these); the District could build a single story building with 5-7 classrooms and still financially be below the cost of 5 portables while using the same amount of space currently being used.  The District could then remove the additional portables from the site.

Cost to replace two portables with one 14 classroom building: $1 to $1.5 million (my estimation; includes permitting, etc.)  Using the 30 student/classroom calculation, this could increase the capacity of Rockwell from 460 to between 670 (7 classrooms) and 880 (14 classrooms).

This leaves approximately $8.5 million left to use for other building projects.  I recommend that the District use the above method to replace all portables with actual buildings in at minimum 5 schools that are overcrowded or in danger of overcrowding creating more permanent classrooms and removing the need for portables.

Modernization

It is true that Juanita, Rockwell and other older buildings are in need of “modernization”; we also need to look to the future and build additional buildings for incoming growth.   So, to that end, I recommend the District begin looking at each project individually and not as a block.  Taxpayers have voted with their checkbooks and decided against writing the District a “blank check” for use over several projects that are undefined, unplanned and vague.

Plans and property information should be provided BEFORE the bond funds are requested so that taxpayers can see what the money is going for directly. The District should provide plans with each project for each school that outlines number of classrooms, capacity limits, building layout and plans for over capacity during the 30-40 year building life.  If the project is acceptable, the bond measure would most likely be approved by the voters.

Planning ahead

Although schools should be safe, environmentally friendly and efficiently structured, it is also the District’s duty to use funds wisely and with long term plans in view.  The District has added two NEW buildings in twelve years – Rosa Parks and Rachel Carson Elementary schools, modernized many others and has seen an increase in 1,400 students in that same time period.  Plans for two more elementary schools were not begun until the 2010 bond request (which was rejected by voters).  Many of the ‘modernized’ buildings have been completed with the same number of classrooms as the original buildings, yet increased building square-footage.

The District has had the same information as the taxpayers from City councils regarding growth patterns, housing market and residency numbers.  They boast award-winning schools that are both impressive and environmentally friendly; take pride in above-standard test scores yet seem oblivious that more families would move here to take advantage of those award-winning schools.

District representatives have claimed that ‘generous’ variances are the reason for the wild fluctuations in school crowding; I recommend that variances be discontinued and that boundaries be tightened or widened depending on population/capacity needs.  

Representatives also stress that the change to four year high schools brought on the problems; then the District should have been more aggressive in planning in advance for the increased capacity needs of buildings, rather than holding the taxpayer hostage for more funds for undetermined projects or shoving “temporary classrooms” (portables) on existing sites.  Lake Washington High School modernization began in 2009; the District announced plans for the class restructuring in 2010.  Lake Washington High School opened in fall of 2011.  There was adequate time in that two year period to adjust construction to prepare for the increase in students that has now become a crisis.  This pattern of inattention has carried through in many of the building projects that were in process or have been completed since 2010.

The District repeats that the goal for our students is to make them “future ready”, yet spends hundreds of thousands on landscaping, esthetically pleasing buildings and futuristic designs.  Those stunning buildings and manicured grounds are not are not built to last for the 30 years of expansion and use they claim they are intended for.

Will any of these issues resolve the current overcrowding?  Are they realistic?  I am only offering a few solutions to a problem that seems to be on-going and far-reaching.

What solutions can you come up with?

Other links:  

Horace Mann Parent Meeting

Redmond Neighborhood Blog

Six Year Capital Facility Plan 

LWSD Bond issue -- VOTE ON OR BEFORE APRIL 22nd!!!

Another view of the construction bond measures for the past 15 years.  The board presentation (Page 41) lists the Bond funding requested and denied or approved since 1998.  (My chart below is a list of the $$ and schools the bonds represented).

Year Bond $$ Schools Pass/Fail
1998 160 million Elementary schools:  Audubon, Franklin, Juanita, Lakeview, Mann,
Rose Hill, Thoreau, Twain; Kirkland and Redmond Jr. High;
Redmond High School Pass

2006 $436 million Lake Washington HS, Finn Hill Jr. High, Rose Hill Jr. High,
International, Community, Bell Elementary, Frost Elementary,
Keller Elementary, Muir Elementary, Rush Elementary,
Sandburg Elementary, Carson Elementary Pass (used $424M)

2010 $234 million (Proposed two new elementary schools, Additions at Redmond
HS, Additions at Eastlake HS, new choice Middle School, Juanita
HS modernization) Fail

2011 $65.4 million Additions at Redmond HS, Additions at Eastlake HS, New STEM Pass
School

Feb. 2014 $755 million (Proposed three new elementary schools, one new Middle school,
Two new choice High Schools, additions at Lake Washington High
School, Juanita HS Modernization, Kamiakin Middle School, Kirk
Elementary, Mead Elementary, Rockwell Elementary.) Fail

April 2014 $404 million (Proposed three new elementary schools, one new Middle school,
One new choice High School, addition at Lake Washington High
School, Juanita HS Modernization.) April 22 Vote

2018 Proposed no information

2022 Proposed no information


Enrollment and school buildings listed in District Progress Reports http://www.lwsd.org/News/publications/Pages/Annual-Report.aspx

Year Enrollment Schools/Buildings Notes

2002-2003 23,476 48 schools LWSD had 25 Elementary Schools, 7 Jr. High Schools, 4 Sr. High Schools and 12 choice schools.

2003-2004 23,629 (increase of 153) 48 schools

2004-2005 Not listed 45 buildings References a planned elementary school in Redmond Ridge:

“The final school to be modernized under the 1998 Bond is Rose Hill Elementary, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. Construction began in late spring with a scheduled welcoming of students and staff in September 2006. The 54,000 square-foot building is designed to support the district’s current and future educational programs. Site 41, a new elementary school to open in Redmond Ridge, will begin construction in the summer of 2005 and open in the fall of 2006.”  This would be Rosa Parks Elementary.

2005-2006 24,332 (increase of 703) 48 schools There is a full page explanation of the “modernization” program for buildings;  (page 10).

2006-2007 23,696 (decrease of 636) 49 schools (completion of Rosa Parks)

2007-2008 23,722 (increase of 26) 49 schools

2008-2009 23,937 (increase of 215) 50 schools (Rachel Carson Elementary School) Construction began on new LWHS in 2009 and district considers shift to 4 year High School)

2009-2010 24,178 (increase of 241) 50 schools

2010-2011 24,330 (increase of 152) 50 schools LWHS and Finn Hill Jr. High opens fall 2011, Environment opens fall 2011; John Muir being constructed; Bell Elementary beginning modernization.

2011-2012 24,912 (increase of 582) 50 schools




So, to be clear, I am not “anti-school”, “anti-children” a “denier” or against the bond process in its entirety.  What I am is a proponent of fiscal responsibility and an obligation to actually do the math of school growth vs. building.  The district has steadily increased enrollment an average of 200 students 8 out of the past 9 years; yet they have only built two new schools in that time and have re-built (“modernized”) existing schools at current enrollment capacity in most cases.

In addition the District seems oblivious to the correlation between “award winning schools” and the current housing trend in the District’s geographical area for the last 10 years.

Yes, I get the connection between rejecting the bond issue and not having the money for building more schools.  But what is my assurance that the District will use those funds wisely to build for the future?

A few more answers on the April 22nd Bond measure

I'm always asking questions! From an email send Friday, April 4th to Kathryn Reith, Communications Director, LWSD.

Answers in italics:

I know it’s the Friday before spring break, but I have a couple more questions.

1)  How much is the special “election” voting costing the District?  What does a regular issue/vote cost (the one in February for instance) 

Election costs can vary based on how many other jurisdictions are running measures and how many issues are on the ballot.  A typical February election costs about $200,000.  We are able to split this cost between our capital fund and our general fund.  It is hard to estimate how much the April election will cost since we will be sharing the costs with King County who is also running a measure.

We run our levy elections in February because of the district's financial year and the state’s rules on levies. Keep in mind that levies are collected on a calendar year basis and the district's budget/financial year runs from September to August, essentially on a school year basis. You cannot run a levy measure for collection more than one year later. So a measure passed in 2014 must begin collection in 2015. If we ran the levies in November of 2013, collection must begin in 2014. But the 2013-14 budget was developed in the spring of 2013, approved by the board in August 2013 and put into effect in September of 2013. We must be sure of our funding before that budget starts: voting in November would mean we had already started the budget year without being sure of the 2014 part of the levy funding. Voting in February 2014 for a levy that begins in 2015 works well for the funding cycle. Budgeting for the 2014-15 school year starts in spring 2014 and the school board must approve that budget by August 2014. That allows levy funding for both 2014 and 2015 to be confirmed before the financial year begins. Unfortunately, that also means we sometimes are alone on the ballot, or share the ballot costs with one other entity.

2)  Can you give me a rundown of the building bonds over the past 15 years?  What I’m looking for is how much money per bond was requested, if it passed or failed, what schools/developments the $$ was used for in each case.

2006 modernization bond: $436 million, for modernization of Lake Washington High School, Finn Hill Jr. High, Rose Hill Jr. High, International Community School, Community School, and Bell, Frost, Keller, Muir, Rush and Sandburg Elementary Schools, plus construction of a new elementary school on the Sammamish plateau (now Carson Elementary). All these projects have been built. The district did not need the full $436 million requested so $12 billion in bonds were never sold. 

2010 modernization/new schools bond: $234 million: for two new elementary schools, additions at Redmond and Eastlake High Schools, new choice middle school, modernization of Juanita High School. This measure did not pass. 

2011 construction levy: $65.4 million 6-year construction levy for additions to Redmond High and Eastlake High and the new STEM School. Passed. All three projects are completed.

February 2014 bond: $755 million for three new elementary schools; one new middle school; two choice high schools (STEM school on the Juanita High School campus and an internationally-focused school on the east side of the district); additions at Lake Washington High School and Eastlake High School; modernization of Juanita High School, Kamiakin Middle School, and Kirk, Mead and Rockwell Elementary Schools. This measure did not pass.

April 2014 bond: $404 million, current ballot. For three new elementary schools, one new middle school, one choice high school (STEM high school on the Juanita High campus), an addition at Lake Washington High School and modernization of Juanita High School.

I’m going to post the answers/responses to my earlier questions on my blog today.  Thank you as always for answering my questions.

More responses and answers regarding Special Bond vote, April 22nd

Kathryn Reith, Communications Director at LWSD answered some of my questions about the upcoming Bond vote:


Kathryn, thanks for the emails keeping me (and others) updated. So, of course, I have questions.  

1) Currently I show there are 151 portables being used in the District at various schools.  How many are proposed to be added in the next few years until the proposed bond-funded buildings are complete?  If you could break it down by school, that would be great.

With the opening of several newly modernized schools this year, there are fewer portables since those schools opened with zero portables and portables were removed from their campuses. There were 148 classrooms in portables in use in 2012-13. (The 2013 capital facilities plan reported 140, but that did not count the 8 classrooms in four portables at Redmond High that were considered temporary. Those portables have since been added to the inventory.) Over the summer, 22 classrooms in portables were removed due to modernization at Bell, Community, Rush, ICS, Rose Hill Middle and Stella Schola. Two were added at Redmond Middle School. So there was a net reduction of classrooms in portables by 20 to 128 for 2013-14. 

Ten portables will be added this summer to accommodate the additional students coming in. There will be four added at Wilder, four at Mann and two at Redmond Elementary School. We do not have any plans for portables beyond those additions. Should the April bond fail, I expect that will change.

2) What is the “life” of a portable and what happens to them after they aren’t used any more.  For instance, the portables at the “old” Horace Mann; what happened to them?  

The reasonable life-cycle for a portable is approximately 30 years+.  Many of the LWSD portables are older than that.  

In regards to what happens to old portables or portables that are not needed.  There are several options:
i. If needed elsewhere in the district, portables might be moved to a different school.
ii. If not needed, the district follows the state requirement to surplus the assets.
1. The surplus process requires finding out if other districts/schools might have a need for the portables
2. If no other district/school has need nor wants the portables, then the district can have others bid to take them
3. In some cases portables are deemed to be not in good enough shape to offer to other districts/schools or have others bid on them.  In these cases, the portables are demolished.

3) How much of the proposed bond issue contains money for portables to get us by until the new schools are built?  What will be done with those portables when the new schools are built?

The proposed bond does not have any portables at all in it for handling capacity needs at schools until new schools are built.  If it turns out that portables are needed to house students for project phasing, then those portables would be incorporated into the budget for that project. As for what would happen to them after the school is built, see the answer above. 

4) What is the plan for the “leftover” $10million-ish referenced in this document?  

Good question. The school board has expressed interest, if the bond passes, in using some of it, perhaps $3 million, to partner with the city of Kirkland on a new indoor swimming pool. The pool at Juanita High School is at the end of its useful life and the school board believes that recreation facilities are the city’s responsibility but we do need access to a pool for high school swim team practices. (Kirkland is in fact in a planning process to add a pool now.) 

The board will have to make a decision on what to do with the rest of the money. If the bond passes, it could be used to begin the design and planning processes for those projects. If that means we don’t have to use all of the $404 million in bonds, we won’t sell all of them, which will save taxpayers money. If the bond fails to pass, the board may decide to use the money to help house all those students, through portables or some other means.

Note: in addition to the $10-12 million we may have left over from bond sales, we actually did not sell $12 million in bonds from the 2006 measure, which saves taxpayers the money to pay back the bonds and to pay interest on them. 

By the way, I saw your posting on your website and I’d like to provide information that answers some of the questions you posed there and correct some misinformation. Here is a link to the details on the bond measure, which was posted shortly after the measure was proposed :

It includes the building square feet and the number of students total capacity. 

Please also note that the STEM school currently has 436 students, not 300. Next year, it will add one more class of 150 students and be near its total capacity. 

Impact fees were used for portables at Rosa Parks Elementary School because the 2010 bond did not pass and the new Redmond Ridge East elementary school therefore was not built. Remember that when Rosa Parks was built, an entire classroom wing sat empty. Students eventually did come and the school more than filled up. Students do not arrive from developments in neat sets that can fill a new school and we have found that voters are reluctant to fund new schools when they don’t see the real evidence, i.e., actual students, that they are needed. In the meantime, portables are often the only option we have.

We have announced the sites for the two Redmond Elementary Schools. That information is in the district’s capital facility plan, which is posted on the district website here.   We have not announced the locations for the Kirkland elementary and the Redmond middle school because we have not purchased property yet, although we are trying to. We are not trying to hide anything: we simply don’t have anything to announce yet. 

Boundaries will be set for the entire Redmond Learning community in a public process if the measure passes. That is the standard procedure for our district and every other school district. 

The district asked for many of these projects in 2010 and was turned down by the community. We told the community the need would be coming. I find it ironic that the district is being accused of poor planning when the planning work was done, the community was told that more students were coming and the request was made but turned down. A small request for the most immediate needs was passed in 2011. It is now 2014, three years later, and the students the district predicted were coming are arriving in droves.

The Redmond High School portables were affected by a generous variance process that allowed many Eastlake students to attend Redmond High when it was not their home school. That policy has been changed and many Eastlake students who applied for a variance for next year were turned down. 

Paige, please do continue to send questions my way. I will get the answers to this set as soon as I can.

More updates on the upcoming April 22nd Bond vote for Lake Washington School District

Five Facts about Funding New Schools (from the LWSD website)

1. Bonds are the primary source of funds for new schools in Washington. 
2. Impact fees do not generate enough money to pay for new schools. 
3. State construction assistance amounts are limited.
4. The Eligible Square Feet used in the state funding formula does not reflect how districts really build and use schools.
5. The tax rate for new bonds is connected to when debt from past bonds is paid off.

Points I took from this:

The bottom line is that the district (in 2014) receives: 

$6,302 in impact fees for a new single family house
$207 for each unit in a multi-family building.

Most of the money the district has received from impact fees has been used for portables. Space is needed before new schools can be constructed and portable classrooms can provide that space in the meantime.


Read that last part again...MOST OF THE MONEY collected from impact fees has been used for PORTABLES!!!  At this time there are 151 portables on site in LWSD with more scheduled -- four to Horace Mann Elementary (to cover the overages at Rockwell) and two at Redmond Elementary.  I'm sure there are more, but those are at the two schools local to my area.


Susan Wilkins wrote an excellent piece for the Redmond Neighborhood Blog that details the challenges the District has created for itself by under-building new schools.

A Comparison of Old vs. New:

Horace Mann Elementary (rebuilt in 2003)
Cost to rebuild: $10,000,000
Old: 18 classrooms, 7 portables, 35,000 sq.ft.
New: 18 classrooms, no portables, 51,000 sq.ft.

Frost Elementary (rebuilt in 2009)
Cost to rebuild: $25,600,000
Old: 20 classrooms, 4 portables, 40,000 sq.ft.
New: 20 classrooms, no portables, 59,260 sq.ft.

Currently, the district depends on 91 portables at elementary schools, 45 portables at middle schools and 15 portables at high schools to house over 3000 students.  The proposed bond would build enough classroom space for only 3150 students - just barely enough to get the students who are in portables back into regular classrooms.  It will not add enough space for future students.

(Susan corrected her math to 3650 for classroom space in the proposed schools)

The district wants $33,000,000 to build each of the 3 new elementary schools ($100 million total).  They want $135,000,000 to tear down and rebuild Juanita High School.  They want us to approve $80,000,000 for a new middle school but after a year of planning, they still won't tell us where it will be.  


One of the problems as I see it is that the District has not planned well enough to take care of the projected 4000 students coming in the next 8 years (their numbers, not mine).  Dr. Pierce states in her message :

The following projects are part of the April 22 measure:

3 new elementary schools (two in Redmond and one in Kirkland);
1 new middle school in Redmond;
The re-build and expansion of Juanita High School in Kirkland;
The STEM focused high school on the Juanita High School campus in Kirkland; and,
An addition at Lake Washington High School in Kirkland.


As we haven't seen plans or have any idea how many classrooms the new schools will hold; based on past experience, we can only assume that they will build them at current level of need; not for future growth.

As we've seen from the existing STEM school, the number of students attending STEM did NOT decrease the need for classrooms at Redmond High School.  In fact, between the adjustment from 3 to 4 year high schools AND the addition of STEM, the population at RHS increased from approximately 1400 students  to over 1900 students.

As I mentioned here in my blog "Redmond High School was originally built in 1964; demolished and rebuilt during the LWSD modernization process (Phase 2) in 2003.   The modernization updated the 1964 school from student capacity of 1,375 to the 2003 capacity of between 1431 and 1500 (specialized classes and ELL have different class and population capacities)."

Between 2011 and 2014 four portables were added to house the overflow of students from the 3 to 4 year high school change.  That change brought an additional 400-500 students to the building.

The current STEM school has approximately 300 students enrolled with a capacity of roughly 650.  Another STEM school built with the new bond funds would likely have a similar capacity of 600 students.  Not nearly enough to reduce the need for portables with the District's projected 4000 students (district-wide) in the next 8 years.

However, we have NO IDEA how many classrooms the new schools will hold; nor how many students will be able to attend each of these schools because there are no plans or even construction bids for the proposed schools.  We are expected to trust the District with tax money with absolutely no idea where the money will be spent.

WHERE will the new elementary school be built?
How will the boundary lines be affected for Rockwell, Horace Mann and Einstein Elementary schools?
How long will it be before these new schools will need portables?

I also don’t believe that the District didn’t foresee the change to four year high schools.  I know the District made the change public in 2010, but it should have been in the planning stages for many years instead of band-aided with portables.  That should have been incorporated into existing plans to account for student growth potential and grade adjustments.  After all, the District tells us these schools are supposed to last for 30 to 40 years.

I'm not saying that we should never expect portables to be used;  I understand that projection is susceptible to error.  In my catering business, I know to automatically add 5-10% increase to any numbers of attendees at an event.  Most taxpayers that I’ve spoken with would be more than happy to pay a bit more in taxes if they felt the schools were being built to last and if we felt that at every turn, we weren’t being asked for more money to cover the District’s errors.

Is the answer to NEVER ask for funds for modernization and growth?  No!  But when the District asks the taxpayer for more money every two years and the NEW buildings we have are ALREADY over-capacity; we have to ask ourselves where that money is going and if they are truly using OUR money in the most effective way and with our children in mind.

Update to Letter to Lake Washington School District Board

In response to my letter of March 10th, 2014 regarding why I voted "NO" on the February 2014 Bond measure for Lake Washington School District, I received an email from Jackie Pendergrass, President of the LWSD Board of Directors.

Email dated March 25, 2014:

Dear Ms. Norman,

Thank you for your letter regarding the recent February 2014 Bond measure. We appreciate hearing your perspectives, especially as a long-term resident of Redmond. I apologize for the delay in my response but I wanted to be sure I had my facts correct before responding.

As you know, following multiple hours of discussion regarding options, at both the February 24 work session and the March 3 Board meeting, the Board voted to place a $404 million bond measure on the April 22 ballot. This measure will allow the district to address its critical and urgent need to build new schools and classrooms needed to accommodate growing enrollment and avoid overcrowding. The following projects are part of the April 22 measure:

  *   3 new elementary schools (two in Redmond and one in Kirkland);

  *   1 new middle school in Redmond;

  *   The re-build and expansion of Juanita High School in Kirkland;

  *   The STEM focused high school on the Juanita High School campus in Kirkland; and,

  *   An addition at Lake Washington High School in Kirkland.

The needs of the district have not changed since the February 2014 bond. Our enrollment continues to grow and we need additional classroom space to avoid overcrowding. Our October 2012 enrollment was 25,395. Our October 2013 enrollment was 26,220. That is a one year increase of 825 students. 4,000 more students expected by 2021-22 school year, and we need to plan for classroom space to accommodate all day kindergarten when fully funded by the state in 2018. The April 2014 bond measure will allow the district to move forward with the most critical projects needed to meet the urgent needs to accommodate growth and avoid overcrowding in the next four years.

In 1997, the district began a program to modernize aging schools, and we are now halfway through this four-phase approach to modernization. While the April 22 measure focuses on the projects we need for growth, we also plan to continue to plan to address our aging schools. We plan to engage in community dialogue with respect to our approach to modernization.

I wanted to provide you with some additional information with respect to the examples you cite in your letter:

·         The portables are being added at Mann Elementary so Mann can accommodate overflow students from Rockwell and Einstein Elementary Schools. Those schools are being affected by all the new development along 116th street. In 2010, the district ran a bond measure that did not pass. Had that bond measure passed, today we would have two additional elementary schools in the district to accommodate our students. Since the bond did not pass, we have overcrowding occurring in the Redmond area. The February bond 2014 included three elementary schools – the two that were part of the 2010 bond that did not pass, and another that is needed in Kirkland. The April measure will include all three elementary schools.

·         Redmond Middle School is being affected by the same new development in Redmond. In planning for school sites, we include space for four portables to provide flexibility for future situations. It would not make sound fiscal sense to do spend the money to build a new school that would only have four classrooms occupied. However, we do expect more middle school students coming to Redmond Middle and Evergreen Middle, so a new middle school is on the ballot. Additional middle school space was also on the 2010 bond measure that did not pass.

·         With regard to Redmond High School, the district in the past has tried to honor all variance requests for high school students who wanted to attend a different school than their neighborhood school.  However, we no longer have room at Redmond High School, and as a result, we are now limiting the number of variance requests approved for students who live outside its attendance area. This change will enable Redmond High to accommodate the students living within its attendance area.

·         Lake Washington High School was funded through the 2006 bond measure. The planning for the new facility began immediately following the passage of the 2006 bond, and construction began in the summer of 2008. All of this planning and construction occurred prior any discussion of the district shift to four-year high schools. The school was built in 2011, and the district shifted to four year high schools in 2012.  In other words, LWHS was planned and built as a three grades versus four. Had we not shifted to four year high schools, we would now need seven new elementary schools instead of three. Therefore, the change to four-year high schools saved the district from having to build between three and four new elementary schools. The design of LWHS included plans for a later addition, which we now need.

Again, thank you for your input and I hope this information is helpful to you.

Jackie Pendergrass

President

LWSD Board of Directors

I recommend that we all send letters to the board with your suggestions and comments about the upcoming bond measure vote.  Do you agree with their position?  Disagree?

Lake Washington School District
School Board
PO Box 97039

Redmond, WA  98073-9739

Email:  board@lwsd.org

Additional information regarding portables and classroom building is available here  and here.

LWSD Bond Failure

Lake Washington School District       March 10, 2014
School Board
PO Box 97039
Redmond, WA 98073-9739

Re:  February 2014 Bond measure

Dr. Pierce and School Board Members:

Recently the LWSD put up for a vote two Levy and one Bond measures requesting more money for the District.  The Levy measures passed, however the Bond measure failed.  Per your email and information on the District webpage, a survey was conducted of 400 residents in the District to ascertain why the Bond measure failed.  As I was not one of the residents contacted, I thought I would explain my particular reasons for voting “NO” on the Bond measure.

I have lived in Redmond for over 30 years and 3 of my 4 children have graduated from Redmond High School; my fourth child is a freshman this year at Redmond.  My husband is also a graduate of Redmond High School.  Over the past 10-plus years I have watched as the District has repeatedly asked for more and more money to fund building projects to “modernize” aging buildings and build new schools.  My belief is that the District has used these funds in less than effectual ways and with dreadful results. 

• Horace Mann Elementary was demolished and rebuilt in 2003 with two fewer classrooms than the original building.  This fall it will house 4 portables.

• Redmond Junior High (now Middle School) was demolished and rebuilt in 2002 with the same number of classrooms as the original building.  It now houses 3 portables.

• Redmond High School has been rebuilt several times; in 1985 and in 2003.  A gym and additional classroom building was added in 2012 along with two portables.  An additional two portables were added in the summer of 2013.

• Lake Washington High School was modernized in 2011.  The failed Bond measure requested funds to add more classroom space for projected student population of 2000 students by 2021. 

The above are just four examples of how the District has failed to project the need for classrooms and plan for student growth within a 10 year span; let alone the 30 to 40 years that school buildings are expected to last. 

Lake Washington School District receives many awards for their academic proficiency, it stands to reason that many families will want to move within the district to take advantage of these programs.  In addition, Redmond and other areas within the district are still experiencing tremendous housing growth, including multi- and single family houses in most areas.  Older residents are moving out and their residences filled with families – many with more than one child. 

I voted “NO” on the Bond measure because I believe the District has used previous funds in a negligent and wasteful manner.  I will vote “NO” again in April because I do not believe the district’s plans for the new bond funds are any different.

Sincerely,
Paige A. Norman
16714 NE 97th Street
Redmond, Washington
paigenor@outlook.com

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”.

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

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.

http://www.lwsd.org/News/2014-Levy-and-Bond/Pages/Swimming-Pool-FAQs.aspx

http://www.lwsd.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/News/Levy-Bond-2014/2014-Levy-and-Bond-Options-Presentation.pdf

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 7^th graders meet or exceed state standards in reading and writing; 81% meet or exceed state standards in math
• Elementary School 85% of our 4^th 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

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

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

FAQ on Bond/Levy measures:  http://www.lwsd.org/News/2014-Levy-and-Bond/Pages/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx