academic outcomes

First, a correction needs to be made. The school district sent out a mailing to 45,000 households, describing a joint Denny/Sealth campus. The official Voter's Pamphlet did not say anything about it. It merely said that four high schools were being "renovated or replaced." Seattle is made up of far more than 45,000 households.

Second, every single decision in the district should be driven by academics. There is, as Carla Santorno said at the work session on this issue, no real academic plan. Building a joint campus and then planning the program is backwards.

Three, the best flexibility in building use is not one joint building but two separate ones (whether on the same site or not).

Four, the building planned, with its 250-foot galleria is a security nightmare. The district will be creating a 2,100-student community (plus staff) that anyone in a bad mood can easily access. The district has not been good about building in security at several new high schools (Roosevelt and Cleveland) and to do this with a larger group of students is worrisome.

If the district is not called on these issues, then how can voters ever believe what is printed in the official voter's guide?

To say it's all about money is wrong. It should be about the best academic outcomes and if the district did not think it through thoroughly with a clear academic plan and vet it with the communities involved, that's the district's fault.

Melissa Westbrook

West Seattle