Here's the letter that one of those amazing writers, Mary, wrote.

Dear Director Carr and Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson:

I am writing on behalf of parents at Daniel Bagley Elementary who have younger siblings affected by the NSAP, including a group of 10 siblings entering K in the fall of 2011. First, we would like to thank you both for meeting with Bagley parents in recent weeks; we appreciate the work you do on behalf of our schools as well as your receptivity to our concerns.

Despite advocating for sibling grandfathering, we understand the current reality that under the NSAP, attendance area students have first priority for enrollment. What we are asking now is to be treated like every other attendance-area school in Seattle--for our siblings to have priority after all attendance area students have been enrolled.

The problem lies in Bagley's unusual two-program situation: now that the Barnhart-Waldman algorithm is no longer in place, parents need to choose which program to apply to, which determines which waitlist they'll be on. Tracy Libros (among others) has recommended that if our top priority is to have our kids in the same school as their sibling, we should apply to the contemporary program. This recommendation is based on data from past years, when more incoming parents expressed a preference for Montessori. We are all willing to do this, despite the fact that most of us are Montessori parents, because our top priority is keeping our kids in the same school.

But the situation is very different this year than in years past:
· Formerly, Bagley drew parents from around the city with a commitment to Montessori education, many of whose kids went to Montessori preschool. In contrast, attendance-area parents are not necessarily those with a connection to Montessori. This has been borne out by our poll of attendance-area parents attending the Bagley tours, more than half of whom registered their program preference as "don't know/not sure.”

· What happens if parents follow SPS's advice and try to game the system by choosing contemporary, even when that's not our true preference? If many/most attendance-area families choose contemporary, then the sibling families could end up stacked up on the contemporary waitlist while unrelated families from out of the attendance area enroll in Bagley Montessori.

· In other words, despite Superintendent Goodloe Johnson's words at our recent meeting, when she told us that there is no higher priority than allowing siblings to attend the same school, at Bagley siblings will NOT necessarily have priority over out-of-attendance-area students.


By having to choose only one program and one waitlist, our chances of getting into Bagley are effectively cut in half. This is not the case at any other elementary school in Seattle (other than Graham Hill and Leschi), and it is not equitable. Director Carr's response at our recent PTA meeting was that this was the way Bagley parents wanted enrollment set up. True, but that was under the choice system, when this setup guaranteed parents that their kids could attend the same program.

We ask that SPS work with our families to develop a work-around for the “two-program problem.”
· Once the attendance area students have all been accommodated, siblings should be next, in whichever program has space, with no out-of-attendance-area families enrolled before siblings.

· This would not negatively impact other district families, just give them the same chance at entering Bagley as they'd have at any other out-of-attendance-area school. It would not displace any attendance-area students.

· We're not asking for any kind of special treatment; we simply want the same shot at keeping our families together that all the other families in the district have.

· While solving this problem represents a logistical challenge, it is the right and fair thing to do.


Daniel Bagley has provided an environment rich in opportunity for our children who are currently enrolled. Allowing their younger siblings a fair shot at the same opportunity would be the best way to serve the NSAP’s goals of being equitable, predictable, and easy for families to understand. It would, in the plan’s own words, “provide equitable access to programs” and “enable stronger family engagement with schools."

I appreciate your time and your efforts on behalf of all our kids.

Respectfully,
Mary Park