seattle public school assignments

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)

Achieving racially balanced school districts does not amount to a compelling government interest that satisfies strict scrutiny.

In order to create a numerical racial balance among its 10 public high schools, the Seattle School District assigned students among them. However, Seattle did not have a history of racially segregated schools. In Louisville, Kentucky, the Jefferson County Public Schools voluntarily implemented a system of student assignments that set quota percentages for African-American students in each school. While the County had been under a desegregation order from 1975 to 2000, this order had been dissolved when a federal judge found that it had largely solved the problem of segregated schools. Both school districts were sued by parents of children who were denied admission to certain schools. The parents argued that the assignment plans violated the Equal Protection Clause, but the plans survived review by the lower courts.

• John G. Roberts, Jr. (Author)
• Antonin Scalia
• Clarence Thomas
• Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Strict scrutiny applies to any government classification based on race. This means that the government must identify a compelling interest and show that it has used a narrowly tailored means to further it. Numerical racial balance in a district's schools is far from a compelling interest, and in fact it is not even a legitimate purpose. Considering the precedent of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which is only partly applicable because it concerns higher education, it is apparent that educational institutions must use diversity as one of several admissions criteria rather than setting strict quotas. Moreover, the school districts did not consider other options that might have been more narrowly tailored.

Concurrence

• Clarence Thomas (Author)

Segregation is not the only possible explanation for a racial imbalance, and there may be no educational benefit from diversity that is artificially created. The Constitution is color-blind.

• Anthony M. Kennedy (Author)

These plans are unnecessarily crude solutions to the problem of school segregation, which can be achieved through more indirect means. However, the government is entitled to consider race as one of several factors in determining school admissions and enrollment. It does have a duty to provide all children with equal opportunities. Any classification based strictly on race, as the majority notes, still must be predicated on a demonstration that it is necessary.

• John Paul Stevens (Author)

This decision departs from long-standing jurisprudence on school desegregation. The plurality should have remembered that historically only African-American students had been told where they could go to school.

• Stephen G. Breyer (Author)
• John Paul Stevens
• David H. Souter
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The plans at issue are not overly different from other plans that school districts have used with the express or implicit approval of courts. While the government is not required to take race into account to address problems arising from racial discrimination, it is constitutionally permitted to do so. There is no rule that the same level of scrutiny should apply to all racial classifications, especially when some classifications exclude people from participation, while others are designed to include them. The plurality's decision should not be read so broadly that it prevents the government from engaging in any race-conscious action. The precedent of Grutter v. Bollinger should allow these plans to stand because they are serving educational, democratic, and remedial purposes. In fact, they are even more narrowly tailored than the Grutter plan, which withstood strict scrutiny.

The Court was not persuaded that these plans were acceptable because race was integrated with other criteria or because ratios based on race gave children the benefit of a more diverse environment.

PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS v . SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 05–908. Argued December 4, 2006—Decided June 28, 2007

Respondent school districts voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that rely on race to determine which schools certain children may attend. The Seattle district, which has never operated legally segregated schools or been subject to court-ordered desegregation, classified children as white or nonwhite, and used the racial classifications as a “tiebreaker” to allocate slots in particular high schools. The Jefferson County, Ky., district was subject to a desegregation decree until 2000, when the District Court dissolved the decree after finding that the district had eliminated the vestiges of prior segregation to the greatest extent practicable. In 2001, the district adopted its plan classifying students as black or “other” in order to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests.

      Petitioners, an organization of Seattle parents (Parents Involved) and the mother of a Jefferson County student (Joshua), whose children were or could be assigned under the foregoing plans, filed these suits contending, inter alia, that allocating children to different public schools based solely on their race violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. In the Seattle case, the District Court granted the school district summary judgment, finding, inter alia, that its plan survived strict scrutiny on the federal constitutional claim because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. In the Jefferson County case, the District Court found that the school district had asserted a compelling interest in maintaining racially diverse schools, and that its plan was, in all relevant respects, narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Held:  The judgments are reversed, and the cases are remanded.

No. 05–908, 426 F. 3d 1162; No. 05–915, 416 F. 3d 513, reversed and remanded.

   The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III–A, and III–C, concluding:

   1. The Court has jurisdiction in these cases. Seattle argues that Parents Involved lacks standing because its current members’ claimed injuries are not imminent and are too speculative in that, even if the district maintains its current plan and reinstitutes the racial tiebreaker, those members will only be affected if their children seek to enroll in a high school that is oversubscribed and integration positive. This argument is unavailing; the group’s members have children in all levels of the district’s schools, and the complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of members whose elementary and middle school children may be denied admission to the high schools of their choice in the future. The fact that those children may not be denied such admission based on their race because of undersubscription or oversubscription that benefits them does not eliminate the injury claimed. The group also asserted an interest in not being forced to compete in a race-based system that might prejudice its members’ children, an actionable form of injury under the Equal Protection Clause, see, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peńa , 515 U. S. 200 , 211. The fact that Seattle has ceased using the racial tiebreaker pending the outcome here is not dispositive, since the district vigorously defends its program’s constitutionality, and nowhere suggests that it will not resume using race to assign students if it prevails. See Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. , 528 U. S. 167 , 189. Similarly, the fact that Joshua has been granted a transfer does not eliminate the Court’s jurisdiction; Jefferson County’s racial guidelines apply at all grade levels and he may again be subject to race-based assignment in middle school. Pp. 9–11.

   2. The school districts have not carried their heavy burden of showing that the interest they seek to achieve justifies the extreme means they have chosen—discriminating among individual students based on race by relying upon racial classifications in making school assignments. Pp. 11–17, 25–28.

   (a) Because “racial classifications are simply too pernicious to permit any but the most exact connection between justification and classification,” Fullilove v. Klutznick , 448 U. S. 448 , 537 (Stevens, J., dissenting), governmental distributions of burdens or benefits based on individual racial classifications are reviewed under strict scrutiny, e.g., Johnson v. California , 543 U. S. 499 , 505–506. Thus, the school districts must demonstrate that their use of such classifications is “narrowly tailored” to achieve a “compelling” government interest. Adarand, supra , at 227.

   Although remedying the effects of past intentional discrimination is a compelling interest under the strict scrutiny test, see Freeman v. Pitts , 503 U. S. 467 , 494, that interest is not involved here because the Seattle schools were never segregated by law nor subject to court-ordered desegregation, and the desegregation decree to which the Jefferson County schools were previously subject has been dissolved. Moreover, these cases are not governed by Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U. S. 306 , 328, in which the Court held that, for strict scrutiny purposes, a government interest in student body diversity “in the context of higher education” is compelling. That interest was not focused on race alone but encompassed “all factors that may contribute to student body diversity,” id., at 337, including, e.g., having “overcome personal adversity and family hardship,” id., at 338. Quoting Justice Powell’s articulation of diversity in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke , 438 U. S. 265 , 314–315, the Grutter Court noted that “ ‘it is not an interest in simple ethnic diversity, in which a specified percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected ethnic groups,’ that can justify the use of race,” 539 U. S., at 324–325, but “ ‘a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element, ’ ” id., at 325. In the present cases, by contrast, race is not considered as part of a broader effort to achieve “exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints,” id., at 330; race, for some students, is determinative standing alone. The districts argue that other factors, such as student preferences, affect assignment decisions under their plans, but under each plan when race comes into play, it is decisive by itself. It is not simply one factor weighed with others in reaching a decision, as in Grutter ; it is the factor. See Gratz v. Bollinger , 539 U. S. 244 , 275. Even as to race, the plans here employ only a limited notion of diversity, viewing race exclusively in white/nonwhite terms in Seattle and black/“other” terms in Jefferson County. The Grutter Court expressly limited its holding—defining a specific type of broad-based diversity and noting the unique context of higher education—but these limitations were largely disregarded by the lower courts in extending Grutter to the sort of classifications at issue here. Pp. 11–17.

      (b) Despite the districts’ assertion that they employed individual racial classifications in a way necessary to achieve their stated ends, the minimal effect these classifications have on student assignments suggests that other means would be effective. Seattle’s racial tiebreaker results, in the end, only in shifting a small number of students between schools. Similarly, Jefferson County admits that its use of racial classifications has had a minimal effect, and claims only that its guidelines provide a firm definition of the goal of racially integrated schools, thereby providing administrators with authority to collaborate with principals and staff to maintain schools within the desired range. Classifying and assigning schoolchildren according to a binary conception of race is an extreme approach in light of this Court’s precedents and the Nation’s history of using race in public schools, and requires more than such an amorphous end to justify it. In Grutter , in contrast, the consideration of race was viewed as indispensable in more than tripling minority representation at the law school there at issue. See 539 U. S., at 320. While the Court does not suggest that greater use of race would be preferable, the minimal impact of the districts’ racial classifications on school enrollment casts doubt on the necessity of using such classifications. The districts have also failed to show they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals. Narrow tailoring requires “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives,” id., at 339, and yet in Seattle several alternative assignment plans—many of which would not have used express racial classifications—were rejected with little or no consideration. Jefferson County has failed to present any evidence that it considered alternatives, even though the district already claims that its goals are achieved primarily through means other than the racial classifications. Pp. 25–28.

   the Chief Justice, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, concluded for additional reasons in Parts III–B and IV that the plans at issue are unconstitutional under this Court’s precedents. Pp. 17–25, 28–41.

   1. The Court need not resolve the parties’ dispute over whether racial diversity in schools has a marked impact on test scores and other objective yardsticks or achieves intangible socialization benefits because it is clear that the racial classifications at issue are not narrowly tailored to the asserted goal. In design and operation, the plans are directed only to racial balance, an objective this Court has repeatedly condemned as illegitimate. They are tied to each district’s specific racial demographics, rather than to any pedagogic concept of the level of diversity needed to obtain the asserted educational benefits. Whatever those demographics happen to be drives the required “diversity” number in each district. The districts offer no evidence that the level of racial diversity necessary to achieve the asserted educational benefits happens to coincide with the racial demographics of the respective districts, or rather the districts’ white/nonwhite or black/“other” balance, since that is the only diversity addressed by the plans. In Grutter , the number of minority students the school sought to admit was an undefined “meaningful number” necessary to achieve a genuinely diverse student body, 539 U. S., at 316, 335–336, and the Court concluded that the law school did not count back from its applicant pool to arrive at that number, id., at 335–336. Here, in contrast, the schools worked backward to achieve a particular type of racial balance, rather than working forward from some demonstration of the level of diversity that provides the purported benefits. This is a fatal flaw under the Court’s existing precedent. See, e.g., Freeman, supra , at 494. Accepting racial balancing as a compelling state interest would justify imposing racial proportionality throughout American society, contrary to the Court’s repeated admonitions that this is unconstitutional. While the school districts use various verbal formulations to describe the interest they seek to promote—racial diversity, avoidance of racial isolation, racial integration—they offer no definition suggesting that their interest differs from racial balancing. Pp. 17–25.

   2. If the need for the racial classifications embraced by the school districts is unclear, even on the districts’ own terms, the costs are undeniable. Government action dividing people by race is inherently suspect because such classifications promote “notions of racial inferiority and lead to a politics of racial hostility,” Croson , supra , at 493, “reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of our history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin,” Shaw v. Reno , 509 U. S. 630 , 657, and “endorse race-based reasoning and the conception of a Nation divided into racial blocs, thus contributing to an escalation of racial hostility and conflict,” Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC , 497 U. S. 547 , 603 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). When it comes to using race to assign children to schools, history will be heard. In Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U. S. 483 , the Court held that segregation deprived black children of equal educational opportunities regardless of whether school facilities and other tangible factors were equal, because the classification and separation themselves denoted inferiority. Id., at 493–494. It was not the inequality of the facilities but the fact of legally separating children based on race on which the Court relied to find a constitutional violation in that case. Id., at 494. The districts here invoke the ultimate goal of those who filed Brown and subsequent cases to support their argument, but the argument of the plaintiff in Brown was that the Equal Protection Clause “prevents states from according differential treatment to American children on the basis of their color or race,” and that view prevailed—this Court ruled in its remedial opinion that Brown required school districts “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis .” Brown v. Board of Education , 349 U. S. 294 , 300–301 (emphasis added). Pp. 28–41.

   Justice Kennedy agreed that the Court has jurisdiction to decide these cases and that respondents’ student assignment plans are not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling goal of diversity properly defined, but concluded that some parts of the plurality opinion imply an unyielding insistence that race cannot be a factor in instances when it may be taken into account. Pp. 1–9.

   (a) As part of its burden of proving that racial classifications are narrowly tailored to further compelling interests, the government must establish, in detail, how decisions based on an individual student’s race are made in a challenged program. The Jefferson County Board of Education fails to meet this threshold mandate when it concedes it denied Joshua’s requested kindergarten transfer on the basis of his race under its guidelines, yet also maintains that the guidelines do not apply to kindergartners. This discrepancy is not some simple and straightforward error that touches only upon the peripheries of the district’s use of individual racial classifications. As becomes clearer when the district’s plan is further considered, Jefferson County has explained how and when it employs these classifications only in terms so broad and imprecise that they cannot withstand strict scrutiny. In its briefing it fails to make clear—even in the limited respects implicated by Joshua’s initial assignment and transfer denial—whether in fact it relies on racial classifications in a manner narrowly tailored to the interest in question, rather than in the far-reaching, inconsistent, and ad hoc manner that a less forgiving reading of the record would suggest. When a court subjects governmental action to strict scrutiny, it cannot construe ambiguities in favor of the government. In the Seattle case, the school district has gone further in describing the methods and criteria used to determine assignment decisions based on individual racial classifications, but it has nevertheless failed to explain why, in a district composed of a diversity of races, with only a minority of the students classified as “white,” it has employed the crude racial categories of “white” and “non-white” as the basis for its assignment decisions. Far from being narrowly tailored, this system threatens to defeat its own ends, and the district has provided no convincing explanation for its design. Pp. 2–6.

   (b) The plurality opinion is too dismissive of government’s legitimate interest in ensuring that all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race. In administering public schools, it is permissible to consider the schools’ racial makeup and adopt general policies to encourage a diverse student body, one aspect of which is its racial composition. Cf. Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U. S. 306 . School authorities concerned that their student bodies’ racial compositions interfere with offering an equal educational opportunity to all are free to devise race-conscious measures to address the problem in a general way and without treating each student in different fashion based solely on a systematic, individual typing by race. Such measures may include strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones with general recognition of neighborhood demographics; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race.

   Each respondent has failed to provide the necessary support for the proposition that there is no other way than individual racial classifications to avoid racial isolation in their school districts. Cf. Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. , 488 U. S. 469 , 501. In these cases, the fact that the number of students whose assignment depends on express racial classifications is small suggests that the schools could have achieved their stated ends through different means, including the facially race-neutral means set forth above or, if necessary, a more nuanced, individual evaluation of school needs and student characteristics that might include race as a component. The latter approach would be informed by Grutter , though the criteria relevant to student placement would differ based on the students’ age, the parents’ needs, and the schools’ role. Pp. 6–9.

   Roberts, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III–A, and III–C, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts III–B and IV, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

 Together with No. 05–915, Meredith, Custodial Parent and Next Friend of McDonald v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

• Opinion (Roberts)
• Concurrence (Kennedy)
• Concurrence (Thomas)
• Dissent (Stevens)
• Dissent (Breyer)
• Download PDF Copy Citation

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

Seattle Schools' New Student Assignments: Community Meetings Set

Published on: september 19, 2009.

From: Seattle Public Schools For immediate release: Sept. 18, 2009

Seattle Public Schools took another step forward in the implementation of its new student assignment plan with the announcement that it will present proposed attendance area boundary maps for all elementary, middle, and high schools. The presentation will be made at a School Board workshop on Tuesday, October 6 from 4 to 8 p.m. at the John Stanford Center auditorium. The District also outlined an extensive schedule of meetings at which it will consult with and inform the community at locations across Seattle — as well as ways to comment for families who cannot attend any of the meetings. After reviewing community comments, the District will introduce recommended boundary maps — including any revisions — at the School Board meeting on Wednesday, November 4.

The School Board will vote on the recommended boundary maps on Wednesday, November 18 (see schedule below). The actions announced today are the next step in creating a new student assignment plan that is predictable, equitable, and easy for families to understand — as well as one that supports greater family participation in schools, brings needed services closer to where students live, fosters diversity, and is feasible and cost effective to implement and sustain.

“What we're embarking upon with the new student assignment plan is an important move toward ensuring that each school is an excellent school — and that every student receives a quality education,” said Superintendent Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson, Ph.D.

The general idea behind the new student assignment plan is that students will receive initial assignments to elementary, middle or high schools in their attendance areas. Those assignments will be based on their addresses. Students can choose to apply to schools outside their attendance areas; those assignments will be based on a series of tiebreakers. If students are currently enrolled at schools outside their attendance areas, they can stay at those schools through its highest grade under a process called “grandfathering” — as long as the services the students need are available at those schools.

The new plan will be implemented in phases, beginning in the 2010-11 school year; the assignment rules for the current 2009-10 school year will remain the same. If adopted by the School Board, the new attendance area boundaries will replace a set of school reference areas that haven’t been updated in decades, no longer reflect city demographics, and do not accurately reflect the capacity of the District’s facilities. By comparison, the development of the new attendance area boundaries has been a data-driven process, designed to reflect demographic shifts and building capacity more accurately — as well as provide greater assignment predictability while preserving choice options.

Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson said that the District will spend the next three weeks preparing families for the release of the attendance area maps and the many ways in which they will be able to provide feedback. “We know that boundaries are of great interest to our families — as well as those with pre-school aged children and those considering moving from a private school to the public system,” said Goodloe-Johnson. “Our job is to help families understand how we got to this point, what comes next, and reassure them that when new attendance area boundary maps are released, they will have the ability to be heard — and that we will be listening.”

Community Meetings Span Seattle A number of public meetings related to the release of the new attendance area boundary maps are scheduled over the next two months. Interpretation services will be available at all meetings.

The meetings include: 

School Board Workshop: Proposed Attendance Area Boundaries Tuesday, October 6 4 p.m. John Stanford Center Auditorium 2445 3rd Ave. S., Seattle, WA 98134

Community Feedback Meeting Monday, October 12 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. McClure Middle School 1915 1st Ave. W., Seattle, WA 98119

Community Feedback Meeting Tuesday, October 13 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Aki Kurose Middle School 3928 S. Graham St., Seattle, WA 98118

Community Feedback Meeting Wednesday, October 14 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Ballard High School 1418 N.W. 65th St., Seattle, WA 98117

Community Feedback Meeting Thursday, October 15 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. West Seattle High School 3000 California Ave. S.W., Seattle, WA 98116

Community Feedback Meeting Saturday, October 17 10 a.m. – 12 p.m. Mercer Middle School 1600 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108 Community Feedback Meeting Saturday, October 17 1 – 3 p.m. Mercer Middle School 1600 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108

School Board Workshop Attendance Area Boundaries Tuesday, November 3 4 p.m. John Stanford Center Auditorium 2445 3rd Ave. S., Seattle, WA 98134

School Board Meeting: Introduction of Attendance Area Boundaries Wednesday, November 4 6 p.m. John Stanford Center Auditorium 2445 3rd Ave. S., Seattle, WA 98134

Community Information Meeting Thursday, November 5 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Roosevelt High School 1410 N.E. 66th St., Seattle, WA 98115

Community Information Meeting Saturday, November 7 10 a.m. – 12 p.m. Rainier Beach High School 8815 Seward Park Ave. S., Seattle, WA 98118

School Board Public Hearing: Attendance Area Boundaries Monday, November 9 6 – 8 p.m. John Stanford Center Auditorium 2445 3rd Ave. S., Seattle, WA 98134

School Board Meeting: Action On Attendance Area Boundaries Wednesday, November 18 6 p.m. John Stanford Center Auditorium 2445 3rd Ave. S., Seattle, WA 98134

Families who cannot attend the meetings can submit comments via e-mail and by postal mail to Seattle School Board, P.O. Box 34165, MS 11-010, Seattle, WA, 98124-1165. They can also visit the recently updated new student assignment plan Web site .

JOIN THE PARENTMAP COMMUNITY Get our weekly roundup of Seattle-area outings and parenting tips straight to your inbox.

Share this resource with your friends!

Seattle Met

• Eat & Drink
• Arts & Culture
• News & City Life
• Style & Shopping
• Travel & Outdoors
• Home & Real Estate
• Health & Wellness

The New School Plan

By Matthew Halverson November 18, 2010 Published in the December 2010 issue of Seattle Met

Image: James Yang

SARAH BOWEN plays a mean violin. For three years at Eckstein Middle School, she was her grade’s concert master, a desirable designation bestowed upon the top violinist in the entire orchestra. In other words, her path to higher learning is paved in half notes and treble clefs. Or it was until she found out last winter that, based on nothing more than her address, she’d been assigned to Nathan Hale High School, which didn’t even have an orchestra program. “We became very active last year in trying to have a reasonable discussion about this with the district,” says Sarah’s dad, Keith Bowen. “And basically we got snubbed each time.”

The neighborhood-school concept is so accepted—and entrenched—in most cities not named Seattle that it’s practically passe: If you live within the boundaries for Clark Kent Middle School, you’re going to Clark Kent Middle School. What that system lacks in options it presumably makes up for by encouraging neighborhood ownership of the school.

On the other hand, Seattle Public Schools’ decades-old open-choice program has given picky parents the power to apply, on their kids’ behalf, to any school in the district. And what that plan lacked in community building, it presumably made up for by encouraging niche curricula: Don’t think the science program at West Seattle High is challenging enough for your overachieving teen? See if you can get her into Ballard High—and the district will pick up the crosstown transportation tab.

At least that’s how it worked until the 2010–11 school year: From now on, all incoming kindergartners and sixth and ninth graders are assigned to their neighborhood school. At its core, it was a change jump-started in 2007 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down SPS’s method of integrating schools. But the district prefers to focus on the positive, pointing out that the new student assignment plan excises the complexities inherent to the open-choice system, which included tiebreakers for students who fought for spots at in-demand schools. “In the past, you had every choice except predictability,” says SPS enrollment manager Tracy Libros. But Sarah Bowen’s less-than-desirable school-assignment sitch underscores the ways in which the new plan is testing some families’ ability to adapt to change—and the district’s ability to meet every student’s educational needs.

iPad illustration by Benjamen Purvis

Image: Charlie Schuck

In theory, the neighborhood-school plan wouldn’t be a problem if parents believed the educational offerings were comparable at every SPS high school. And although superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson says the district is trying to level the academic playing field across the city, it’s a work in progress. In Bowen’s case, it wasn’t until other parents like hers complained that administrators at Nathan Hale tuned up an orchestra there. But faced with the prospect of languishing in a fledgling program, Bowen decided her only choice was to go private and attend Bishop Blanchet.

Now, the neighborhood-school system hasn’t stripped parents and students of all of their options. In fact, this year 10 percent of the seats at each high school were left open for students who live outside their preferred school’s attendance-area boundaries. But unless they had an older sibling already there, they landed in a random lottery. And there’s no guarantee that the district will be that flexible in the future. The new student assignment plan mandates that each high school offer open-choice seats, but it doesn’t specify how many. A subsequent transition plan approved by the school board set the 10 percent target for this year, but even Libros isn’t sure what will happen next year. “The percentage of open-choice seats may decrease and it may increase.”

{page break}

Even more troubling for parents whose kids were assigned to schools they wanted to attend is the potential for overcrowding. Contrary to district projections that enrollment at SPS high schools would drop this year, the incoming freshman class at every high school except Ballard and option school Nova was actually higher than the average enrollment of the other three classes. According to enrollment figures released in mid-October, this year’s sophomore, junior, and senior classes at Garfield each average just over 400 students, while the freshman class has ballooned to nearly 550. The crowding was so extreme earlier this year that students struggled to get through the cafeteria line before their lunch period was over. It’s hard to say for sure why enrollment spiked. The economy may have hit parents’ budgets for private school. But it’s not a stretch to presume that kids who went private in the past are going public now because they’re guaranteed entrance to desirable public schools. The very thing that the district was striving for—namely, predictability—may be what’s choking its schools’ hallways.

Of course, it’s not all bad. In fact, it’s mostly good. School-choice applications at all grade levels dropped from more than 13,000 last year to less than 6,000 this year, which means that instead of spending money busing kids all over the city, the district can devote more funds to classrooms. And those students who applied to schools outside of their ’hood had a considerably less complex system to navigate: After receiving their assignment in February, they could opt for open enrollment, choose their preferred schools, and wait until May to hear if they got into one of them. Even the educational offerings are expanding. For the first time ever, every SPS high school offers some Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate classes. “And that’s the promise of the new student assignment plan,” says Goodloe-Johnson.

As for violin virtuoso Bowen? She’d requested a seat at Roosevelt, but because it’s an in-demand school she’d resigned herself to attending Blanchet—and her parents had paid the $500 deposit. But then last summer she got a call: She’d been accepted to Roosevelt. “We put in a whole lot of time and energy and money,” says Keith, “and really, the only thing it came down to was that we won the lottery.”

GROWING PAINS

In the first year of the new student assignment plan, the number of entering freshmen in several public high schools grew substantially over prior years, but none more than Garfield.

Total Enrollment by Class

Related Content

A Neighborhood Bar for Every Neighborhood

08/07/2024 By Meg van Huygen With Seattle Met Staff

Renee Erickson's Accidental Empire

07/08/2024 By Allecia Vermillion Illustrations by Jonny Ruzzo

Neighborhood Dining Guide

Where to Eat on Phinney Ridge

04/15/2024 By Seattle Met Staff

Pours & Pulls

The Handy Guide to Seattle Coffee Shops

04/22/2024 By Allecia Vermillion and Darren Davis

Amie Stewart ,

Kelley Meister ,

3938 C S Pearl Street,   Seattle, WA 98118

What's special.

Welcome to PEARL, a rare find tucked away on a quiet street in the heart of vibrant Columbia City. Choices abound in this stylish and modern collection of 17, Four Star Built Green homes. Striking exterior design, flexible floor plans and the exciting buzz of Columbia City accommodates a variety of lifestyle needs. This desirable community offers privacy and beauty within a few blocks of all the amenities Columbia City has to offer. AND, did we mention, easy commute via Link Light Rail? Your gem awaits! Show more

Travel times

Tour with a buyer’s agent.

We’ll find a local expert to take you on a private tour of 3938 C S Pearl Street .

Next available tour time: Today at 9am

Facts & features, bedrooms & bathrooms.

• Bedrooms : 2
• Bathrooms : 2
• Full bathrooms : 1
• 3/4 bathrooms : 1
• Main level bathrooms : 1
• Main level bedrooms : 1

Primary bedroom

• Level : Third
• Level : Main

Dining room

• Level : Second

Living room

Utility room.

• Ductless HP-Mini Split, Tankless Water Heater, Wall Furnace
• Ductless HP-Mini Split
• Included : Dishwasher(s), Disposal, Microwave(s), Refrigerator(s), Stove(s)/Range(s), Garbage Disposal, Water Heater: Tankless
• Bath Off Primary, High Tech Cabling, Walk-In Closet(s)
• Flooring : Ceramic Tile, Laminate, Carpet, Wall to Wall Carpet, Laminate Hardwood
• Windows : Double Pane/Storm Window
• Basement : None
• Has fireplace : No

Interior area

• Total structure area : 1,357
• Total interior livable area : 1,357 sqft
• Parking features : Off Street
• Levels : Multi/Split
• Entry location : Main
• Has view : Yes
• View description : Territorial
• Size : 879.91 sqft
• Features : Dead End Street, Paved, Sidewalk, Gas Available, Patio, Rooftop Deck
• Topography : Level
• Parcel number : 5292200068
• Zoning description : LR3 (M),Jurisdiction: City
• Special conditions : Standard

Construction

Type & style.

• Home type : Townhouse
• Architectural style : Modern
• Property subtype : Townhouse
• Cement Planked
• Foundation : Poured Concrete
• Roof : Flat
• Under Construction
• New construction : Yes
• Year built : 2024
• Major remodel year : 2024
• Builder name : Shelter Homes

Utilities & green energy

• Electric : Company: Seattle City Light
• Sewer : Sewer Connected, Company: Seattle Public Utilities
• Water : Public, Company: Seattle Public Utilities

Community & HOA

• Features : CCRs
• Subdivision : Columbia City
• Region : Seattle

Financial & listing details

• Price per square foot : $582/sqft
• Date on market : 8/8/2024
• Listing terms : Cash Out,Conventional,FHA,VA Loan
• Inclusions : Dishwashers, GarbageDisposal, Microwaves, Refrigerators, StovesRanges
• Cumulative days on market : 2 days
• King County
• Columbia City
• 3938 C S Pearl Street

Nearby cities

• Auburn Real estate
• Bellevue Real estate
• Bothell Real estate
• Federal Way Real estate
• Kent Real estate
• Kirkland Real estate
• Redmond Real estate
• Renton Real estate
• Sammamish Real estate
• Seattle Real estate

We’re Sorry!

This website is unavailable in your location. 

It appears you are attempting to access this website from a country outside of the United States, therefore access cannot be granted at this time.