Not About Program Placement
I swear, this post is not about Program Placement, but a lot of folks will think that it is.
The District staff is making a new distinction, between things that are programs and services and schools that have a distinctive "curricular focus". All of the things that they will recognize as programs and services exist to address student academic needs. They are pretty much limited to special education, bilingual education, and advanced learning. Nothing else - including a lot of stuff that you might think are programs - is a program.
Language immersion? Not a program. Montessori? Not a program. Same for alternative schools, STEM schools, and international schools. None of these are programs. They are each, instead, a curricular focus.
So what? So this: since they are not programs, they will not be governed by the proposed policy 2020, Equitable Access to Programs and Services. In other words, the District won't be under any obligation to provide equitable access to any type of "curricular focus". This means that the next three schools to get language immersion programs can be B.F. Day, West Woodland, and Laurelhurst. Sure, all of them are in the Hamilton Service Area, but that's not a problem because the district has made no commitment to have language immersion be equitably accessible. In fact, the geographic distribution of schools with a specific curricular focus will be completely un-governed by policy or the Board.
Also, since they are not programs, the superintendent isn't under any obligation to provide transparency in how their locations are determined. The process does not have to be open, honest, or fair.
The Board does not appear to have clued into this. When discussing the proposed Policy 2020 at the July 3 Board meeting, Director Carr used the example of a language immersion program. She apparently didn't realize that language immersion is not a program and would not be governed by Policy 2020.
The District staff is making a new distinction, between things that are programs and services and schools that have a distinctive "curricular focus". All of the things that they will recognize as programs and services exist to address student academic needs. They are pretty much limited to special education, bilingual education, and advanced learning. Nothing else - including a lot of stuff that you might think are programs - is a program.
Language immersion? Not a program. Montessori? Not a program. Same for alternative schools, STEM schools, and international schools. None of these are programs. They are each, instead, a curricular focus.
So what? So this: since they are not programs, they will not be governed by the proposed policy 2020, Equitable Access to Programs and Services. In other words, the District won't be under any obligation to provide equitable access to any type of "curricular focus". This means that the next three schools to get language immersion programs can be B.F. Day, West Woodland, and Laurelhurst. Sure, all of them are in the Hamilton Service Area, but that's not a problem because the district has made no commitment to have language immersion be equitably accessible. In fact, the geographic distribution of schools with a specific curricular focus will be completely un-governed by policy or the Board.
Also, since they are not programs, the superintendent isn't under any obligation to provide transparency in how their locations are determined. The process does not have to be open, honest, or fair.
The Board does not appear to have clued into this. When discussing the proposed Policy 2020 at the July 3 Board meeting, Director Carr used the example of a language immersion program. She apparently didn't realize that language immersion is not a program and would not be governed by Policy 2020.
Comments
And who, from staff, has communicated to Director Carr since that meeting that her example does not fall under the purview of the Policy...?
Oompah
Kind of like ICS versus intensive service model versus inclusion. Seems some district staff will pick the definition that best serves their purpose. Meanwhile parents are left in the dark.
This is a common tactic used by District staff: they frequently redefine the nomenclature without providing the updated glossary and without notice.
"curriculum" used to mean the baseline body of knowledge and skills that teachers are expected to teach and students are expected to learn. That is now called content.
"curriculum" used to mean instructional strategies. That is now called pedagogy.
"curriculum" used to mean textbooks. That is now called "instructional materials".
"curriculum" - the last time I was able to confirm the definition - now means all of these things as a set.
Of course, just because the staff gives these words narrow definitions, that doesn't mean that they don't commonly err and use them to mean other things. But if you do it, then it just goes to show that you're a lay person who doesn't know anything about education and has no business meddling in it.
If you call them on this swirling lexicon they will deny that they do it with the intention of confusing, misleading, and shaming everyone else, but it doesn't serve any other purpose, so why else are they doing it?
Just to clarify, it is the admin. staff downtown that plays the lexicon game, not the school based worker bees. We are also left wondering what to call certain services/models. Inclusion? ICS? (last I heard we are NOT to use this one). Maybe we should just say, TBD or IDK.
SPED Staffer
I agree and I think it is just a matter of time. Now there may be those that will be unhappy but now that they have expanded, they cannot just be neighborhood-based.
So we'll see. I think the Directors have heard the cry of unfairness and are listening.
So what?
None of them has taken any action on that belief.
The Board wants to get a lot of credit for having beliefs that they never act on.
They want credit for supporting transparency but all they do in support of transparency is say "I support transparency" as they vote against it and refuse to take action in support of it. Same for advanced learning. They claim to support it as they routinely cast votes that damage it and refuse to take any action in support of it.
Equitable access to schools with a special curricular focus is exactly the same. They all say that they support it, but they never take any action in support of it.
Their words win no credit from me. I'm waiting for the action.
They were told that they were not a school, they were a "program".
And now APP at HIMS is being pushed to align LA/SS curricular content with gen ed. Prefer the "program" because it gave some autonomy. HIMS APP has been working to align with WMS APP, not HIMS gen ed.
Ignotus
And I think that parents at HIMS should pitch an absolute fit, really raise hell, over any attempt to align with gen ed there. The specific promise (and the only one that has any fidelity to the annual APP grant) is a curriculum that aligns with the WMS APP curriculum.
Now -- if HIMS wants to realign its gen ed curriculum to be more accelerated, or to look more like the APP curriculum, and they think it works well for their gen ed students -- I say they should just have at it. But in that case the program that "changes" needs to be the gen ed program, not the APP program.
If HIMS aligns APP LA/SS with gen ed, and math is ability based even if a student is not in the program, then what is the program? Without a principal, and teachers yet to be hired, who's doing the "pushing" and planning at HIMS?
-?