Sunday, August 14, 2016

Seattle Schools Updates

Seattle Schools This Week:

Monday, August 15th

Curriculum&Instruction Policy Committee Meeting, 4:30-6:30 pm, Agenda
The agenda documents are mostly taken up by the Student Rights and Responsibilities handbook (which has updated info on discipline and suspensions.)  It also includes a contract with TeamRead, long-time partner with the district for tutoring in reading.  However, I intend to let the Board know that the student data privacy section is not strong enough.  It's not enough to say "make sure you keep this safe" - whoever gets student data should be required to list what they will do.

I also see that among the many types of items that TeamRead will have access to - without student names/ID numbers is the "Discipline Action History" which includes incident date, discipline action, discipline action description and incident ID.  There is no reason to give the date or the ID if all they are truly trying to do is assess how many of the students they tutoring run into discipline issues.  Hmm.

At the very end of the documentation, is the new Advanced Learning program procedure.  Since it has no clear definition of two-thirds of it - namely, Spectrum and Advanced Learning Opportunities - it should be rejected by the Board.
Tuesday, August 16th
Operations Committee Meeting, 4:30-6:30 pm, Agenda
A hugely long amount of documentation on garbage and recycling services to the point of making me a little suspicious.  I didn't read everything but it's a lot of paper.  There is also the Sexual Harassment Annual Report and the Bell Times implementation update but neither has any documentation attached at this point.

Community Task Force Meeting, 6-8:00 pm

Wednesday, August 17th (Updated with agenda)
Executive Committee Meeting, 8:30-10:30 am, Agenda 

 - of note from the Minutes of June 2, 2016: 
the District is in the process of implementing key card access in all buildings. 
Public Records Officer Natasha Walicki provided information on the annual report on how many public records requests (PRR) the department takes in. She further noted that they have recently seen a decline in requests. 
Ms. Walicki noted that a portion of PRRs are from parents who want a larger view of what is occurring in their children’s schools. Director Harris and Ms. Walicki discussed the probability of the reduction of PRRs if issues were addressed at a lower level of complexity and earlier in the project. 

On the Board's legislative agenda work: 
He (Stephen Nielsen) noted that Director Geary will be the Board’s point person for these meetings. 
Minutes of June 16, 2016

Director Patu asked Flip Herndon to provide more information on deferred maintenance. 
Dr. Herndon noted that the list will change when the buildings are finished at the end of the summer and that there is currently about $500M in deferred maintenance costs, which will decrease to about $300M with the completion of BEX IV and BTA III work.
On the PASS contract, it appears it may have been posted on July 2nd.  I'll have to ask.  It also appears that staff rejected the Board's request for a Board rep to just be at the meetings.
Regarding the Board meeting next week:
- Director Pinkham has introduced a BAR to memorialize support of Federal Recognition of the Duwamish Nation.   (see page 11 of the agenda)
- the PASS contract is indeed on the agenda (but no link)
- an award of a RFP for CloudBook laptops has been pulled as has a contract to replace waterlines at Ingraham
- there are 10 capital items on the Action list; the one for the restoration of masonry on Franklin's fascade has got one (kinda) funny part to it.  There's a "one-year warranty" that ends in January 2017.  You'd think for $1.3M we could have a longer one than that.

Thursday, August 18th
Audit&Finance Committee Meeting, 4:30-6:30 pm, Agenda not available

To note, the BEX Oversight Committee meeting that was scheduled for last Friday, August 12th, was cancelled.

A welcome back message from the district is on its home page with enrollment, bell times, kindergarten, vaccinations, and free/reduced lunch meals information.  This is great information for families with one glaring problem.

Kindergarten Students with Special Needs: If your child is supported by an IEP and is receiving services in the following service models (Access, Focus, Social/Emotional, SM4, Medically Fragile or Deaf and Hard of Hearing), please check with your school staff to confirm their first day of school. Your student's teacher will schedule a Family Connections visit during the first few weeks of school.

One-on-One Teacher Visits "Family Connections": The three-day delayed start enables teachers to meet with each family on September 7, 8 or 9 to answer questions families may have and better support our youngest learners as they join our school and classroom communities. These teacher-parent visits called Family Connections, available at every elementary and K-8 school, are an opportunity for teachers to hear families’ hopes and dreams for their children and shape instruction accordingly.

So, if Sped students are Gen Ed students first, why do those kindergarteners have to wait for their family connections meeting?  It's not even clear from that paragraph when their first day is (no less when their family will meet their teacher.)  I think Sped parents have "hopes and dreams" for their students as well.


Anonymous said...

"Kindergarten Students with Special Needs: If your child is supported by an IEP and is receiving services in the following service models (Access, Focus, Social/Emotional, SM4, Medically Fragile or Deaf and Hard of Hearing), please check with your school staff to confirm their first day of school. Your student's teacher will schedule a Family Connections visit during the first few weeks of school."

Seriously? Is this a joke? Why couldn't families of students in these service categories expect to start exactly on schedule with everybody else? I can just imagine how crushed these families would be - such an exciting day for everybody but whoops your kid can't be part of it uh uh so sir ... it's a community event and a big day for the ABLED not for the DIFFERENTLY ABLED. I hope somebody explains this quickly.

Frustrated reader

Anonymous said...

Frustrated Reader,

I just happen to see this come through, and yes, I do have a quick explanation. The fact is ALL Kindergarten students in Seattle will start school later (Sept. 12th) than everyone else this year as SPS adopts a model that has proven very successful in other districts like Highline. The idea is that all Kindergarteners will be able to come in the first three days, see their classrooms and have some one-on-one assessment time with a Kindergarten teacher. Schools will then be able to adjust as necessary before everyone's first full day on the 12th. Presumably, students coming in with IEPs will benefit from even more opportunity to get a lay of the land, perhaps scheduling time with the general education teacher, the case manager, and possibly other service providers and instructional assistants. That would be the reason for special scheduling.

Given that this is our first time through this model, every school is developing their own schedules. At my school, for example, we're scheduling ALL students for a half-day during one of those three days, and we're really looking forward to the opportunity to get to know the kids before their own Big First Day. It will be a little different for everyone, but we see some big advantages.

I hope this helps. I don't know the context of this announcement, but I'm sorry for the understandable confusion and consternation.


Melissa Westbrook said...

It says:

"..please check with your school staff to confirm their first day of school."

That would indicate that not all kindergarteners will start on the 12th. Is that poor wording or factual?

And all the kindergartners will have had their teacher come to their house but not the Sped kids?

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a total oversight and a very poorly worded blurb to address the fact that most/all Ks in those types of programs (services? whatever they are calling them) are in mixed age group classes. And someone finally realized oh wait - if a kid is in a K-5 medically fragile class or a K-2 focus class or whatever, the teacher isn't available to do home visits W-F the first week of school. Hopefully those K's get to start on the W and not have to wait until later.

I'm also assuming there will be no K-1 splits this year. I know there was at least one planned at the beginning of last year - not sure if it got changed at the last minute or not. Those classes would also pose a big problem for coordinating this type of home visit program.

I understand the idea behind the home visits and think there is value in those early connections, but the reality on the ground is always more complex than the simple idea seems and this seems like the result. Oops again...SPS forgot about kids with special needs again - shocker.

NE Parent

Anonymous said...

Let's see how you get to "this exclusionary thing with disabled students must just be an oversight". Look at what it says. You kids with these disabilities (Access, Focus, Social/Emotional, SM4, Medically Fragile or Deaf and Hard of Hearing) - please stay home for as long as possible.... all other disabilities - Welcome to School!

Sorry NE Parent. That's plain old on purpose. They didn't "forget" about kids with special needs. They thought about it pretty hard. They decided not to serve kids with special needs that make them uncomfortable. All other disabilities - well, they're hunky-dory with those disabilities.


Anonymous said...

OH principal!!!! Surely you jest. Surely you are not fooled by the usual name changing rigmarole of special ed "models". If so, you are the only one. There's no "new special" ed that you haven't done before, unless this is your first year. There have been inclusion programs before - let's not get all confused by the name "Access". The only thing "new" here is the name. And Social/Emotional... that might sound really confusing, but we've had EBD for years and years and years. Because the word "behavior" sounded really scary and bad - so they changed it to a friendly sounding "social/emotional". But we all know the fact - "disruptive behavior" gets you sent to the thing now called Social/Emotional. Not a new model. It's been around even longer than inclusion. SM4 is old hat. Used to be called "level 4", the "Autism self-contained" - unless it was a secret "Autism Inclusion". In any case, SM4 is not new. Medically fragile - old hat. DHH - has been around forever. Are any of these things the "new model" you are referencing?

So principal, please. Let's not pretend that edict was some sort of "inclusion" thing - eg parents waiting for the district to tell parents when school will start, and telling parents that they will not have a meeting that everyone else is getting with their general education teacher (after also telling them that they could not meet early repeatedly by the district). Students with the "hard IEPs" are explicitly told NOT to come in early (as they might need). They can come in "later". You say the district is really somehow being extra sensitive to students with disabilities?

PLease principal. This type of edict - tells families that their kids with disabilities don't count. At. All.


Anonymous said...

I wondered if the garbage/recycling thing was related to that whole uproar a while back re: SPED kids doing recycling, but it's mostly just money, plain and simple. Though there are some fascinating bits in there

1. The low bid vendor decided to ask for more after winning the bid.
2. Rather than re-bid the contract, because of "time constraints" the district essentially agreed via a previously agreed upon 1 year extension.
3. the vendor "forgot" to charge the district the 15% increase for the 1 year extension (as previously agreed)
4. Now, there's no time and we still want the over $500,000 for the rest of the contract.

So many "ooops" in one little contract. It does make one go "hmmmm....."


Anonymous said...

Well, the reality is that telling people that their kindergartners in self-contained classrooms will not be doing the home visits, and to check with the school about the start date (most likely Sept 7th, like the other grades) is a actually a step up. Two years ago when my daughter was going in to kindergarten she was mailed all the info about the late start, and then I never heard anything else. About a week before school started I called to see why no one had scheduled a visit yet, and that was when I found opt she was just meant to start school on the 7th & the home visit program did not apply. Fortunately I was still able to change my daycare arrangements without paying for those three days I no longer needed.

The real reason that this works like this is as NE parent says - if you have a multi-grade classroom, the teacher has to be in school those first three days of the year because all the other kids will be there, so he or she is not available to do home visits (unless it were to be done after school or prior to the 7th, but that would involve both paying overtime & clearing it with the teacher's union. Short of having ALL kids from self-contained classrooms start late, which would be much more discriminatory, the home visits for kindergartners in self-contained classes won't happen unless the district decides they will do it outside of regular school hours.

Mom of 4

Anonymous said...

Oh, reading it more closely I guess now they do the visits after all, just not in the first 3 days. Two years ago, self-contained was just omitted from the program altogether (I think the program was only going on at about a quarter of the schools that year, not all of them). For us it did not matter, as my daughter had been in preschool at the same school & was familiar with the teacher & the classroom, but for the many kids that attend preschool & school in different buildings it would have been helpful.

Mom of 4

Anonymous said...

Mom of 4, if they are doing it for some, home visits, etc. then they can do it for all. If it's just too hard, then they need to not do it at all. The main point here is that somebody went to some bit of trouble - to NOT include kids with disabilities.


Anonymous said...

Nice - of course kids with disabilities should be included. But that is not the Seattle Public Schools way. If they were included, they wouldn't be in self-contained classes in the first place. But I appreciate you being indignant, because if more people were, perhaps things would change!

In most of the country, kids with Down syndrome or other disabilities are placed in gen ed classrooms with an aide as a matter of course. This is a much better placement - studies show that the employment rate after graduation for special ed students that are in inclusion settings is about 70%, while those that go though school in self-contained setting it is only about 30%. This is not because the individuals are higher or lower functioning - how disabled people are educated is almost entirely a result of where they live, not their abilities. Despite this, Seattle is actually increasing the percentage of special ed students in self-contained classes.

My point was that setting up a program that excludes disabled kids is nothing new. At least the district is acknowledging these kids existence now enough to remember to tell them they aren't in the program, instead of making them figure out by themselves that they aren't.

Mom of 4

Anonymous said...

Has anyone had a chance to compare the original May waitlist to the August waitlist postings to see how much they changed? I do notice the latest they've posted is 8/8, not 8/15 yet. I wonder if they were able to do any last minute moves.

- B

Anonymous said...

Re: Family Connections meetings. I could be mistaken but I have not seen anything from SPS about home visits. As I understand it the Kindergarten family and teacher meetings are to take place in the classroom at school, not at families homes.


Anonymous said...

"successful in other districts like Highline" is not a phrase you hear too often.


Melissa Westbrook said...

BD, I do have news from Highline that I think will be of interest to readers but that's a separate thread.

Done Deal said...

Regarding Spectrum - the program has been dismantled and middle schools are dismantling advanced learning LA and SS.

It appears the district- at least Garfield- is dismantling advanced learning LA and SS.

I'm glad the board will be looking at Advanced Learning in Committee. Perhaps they can get a hold of a run away district.

parent said...

2015-16 SBAC scores now posted to OSPI's Washington State Report Card.

Wow. Jane Addams 8th grade ELA went from 70% to 57% meeting standard. If you take into account opt outs (no scores), they went from 75% to 67% meeting standard. Not good. By comparison, the district ELA pass rates increased at that grade level, from 61% (68% excluding no score) to 68% (72% excluding no score).

Anonymous said...

Thurgood Marshall got their Social Studies Waiver. Here's the letter from the principal.

"Dear Thurgood Marshall Community:
Last night the School Board Curriculum Committee met to discuss changes to the Advanced Learning policy including a suggested change that would allow us to apply for a social studies waiver so that we can blend students from our various programs to learn together. Because the current policy states that Highly Capable students will be taught math, writing, reading, social studies and science in a self-contained setting, this has been a subject of much discussion and some contention. I am so happy to let you know that with much support from district central office leadership and from all of you, we have received approval to apply for our waiver!
School Board Directors Burke, Harris and Geary asked me to pass on their appreciation to our staff for their hard work and innovation on behalf of our students. They were clear that while innovation must be balanced with oversight, they did not want to stand in the way of a creative new approach that we know will benefit our students. I want to thank all of you for your involvement in this process. The social studies plan was truly a grassroots effort, begun by our Equity Team and taken up by our staff and parents. It is the positive beliefs and thoughtfulness of our staff, as well as the supportive efforts of our parents that made this a reality.
Of course, this is just the beginning! Other schools have been watching our journey to get to this place. Superintendent Dr. Nyland has repeatedly stated that closing the achievement gap is THE educational issue of our time. As we begin this work of coordinating our efforts to educate our diverse students body about social studies and to teach them the skills that will allow them to live and work successfully in a diverse community, our progress will be watched by our parents, the district, the board and others who might also want to consider changes to the ways they deliver instruction to create more equitable learning environments. We will approach this work carefully and thoughtfully, keeping and eye towards evaluation of our efforts. This is exciting work we are embarking on!
I look forward to seeing you and your children in just 3 short weeks. I’m excited to start our next year together!
Katie May, Principal
Thurgood Marshall Elementary"


Anonymous said...

Parent, those two groups of 8th graders were both split out of Hamilton and Eckstein at different times; the school is changing composition, yada yada. That said, even when I try to compare trendlines of the same students or to each other over time, it does seem like the more time you spent at Eckstein or Hamilton LA the better, compared to JAMS, and that scores go down mostly. I think --hope-- they are working on it. Math is solid, from my glancing at it.

(I do think they knew all this wothout disrupting school for weeks with this test.)


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I meant different points in time in their educations- one after 6th, one after 7th. But yes, the ones who stayed through 7th fared a little better. Though there are so many variables here it's hard to say. I think the LA SBAC in particular is a bad test, but to the degree there is news here it's not good. I do think the school is already working to strengthen its LA program and has some energetic if inexperienced teachers to work on it. I hope so.


Anonymous said...

I have a friend who's child went from Bryant to Eckstein, rather than JAMS, and he is thriving in a math class that is 2 years ahead and loving his music experience. He is confident and happy, and walks home! Eckstein used to get a bad wrap, but I have a feeling things are changing.

Any insights out there as to the value of selecting JAMS over Eckstein when apparently students can take high quality advanced math at Eckstein, too? Is it just for the science, or the cohort, or something else?

why JAMS?

Anonymous said...

Funny, I was just planning to write a version of that exact question.
sleeper, do you have experience with both Eckstein and JAMS? for a Cascadia 5th grade kid, what would you consider if you were doing it again?

why JAMS2

Anonymous said...

I don't think this is a good forum for this question right now, when so many of these threads have gotten bogged down. Try the app blog- other people will answer, and I will if I have time. The short answer is yes for my kid, but no for many kids. Eckstein is also a great school. LA at JAMS has been a real drag and frustrating because it doesn't need to be that way.


Charlie Mas said...

I have the solution to all of the District's equity problems around HC and Spectrum/ALO.

1) Require all schools to identify 2% of their students in each demographic category as HC eligible and 5% of their students in each demographic category as Spectrum/ALO eligible. The result will be perfect equity in identification of students for HC and advanced learning. That will solve all of the concerns about equity and institutionalized racism.

2) All of the schools then provide the identified students with "HC services" and "Advanced Learning" at their neighborhood schools, most likely in their general education classrooms through differentiated instruction, accelerated curriculum, or small group instruction - just as they claim to do now for Spectrum/ALO. It's a complete fiction, but it's a fiction that the District already accepts as part of the official truth.

3) A lot of students won't get any real advanced learning services through this process, but serving students is not the goal here. The goal is to generate statistics that create the illusion of equity.

4) It is absolutely imperative that the District never define a curriculum or set of learning standards for these HC Services or Advanced Learning Opportunities and equally critical that they make no effort to monitor or enforce that curriculum or Standards. Without any set Standards they won't have to admit the inequities built into their system - whereby the "HC Services" or "Advanced Learning" at some schools is real and meaningful while the same-titled services at other schools exists in name only.

This will solve all of their equity problems.

z said...

Charlie, other than #1, the district has already implemented most of this policy, and is on the path to implement all of it. Piece by piece by piece, advanced learning in Seattle is being structurally dismantled, and the end result will be #3.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Melissa Westbrook said...

"The students most likely to be limited by such a proposed scenario would be high ability students in low income schools. Imagine JAMS without a HC cohort. Imagine Eckstein if all Eckstein area HC students returned to their neighborhood school (absolutely not wanted in last round of assignment plan changes, remember?). They would both be very different schools, and cries of inequity would be even louder. The district may not believe in AL, but they sure like to use the cohort to balance district capacity and SES."

Anonymous, next time, give yourself a name. But I agree with you; the district sure likes to use Advanced Learners for their own numbers but not usually in ways that helps those students.

Anonymous said...

Charlie, how does this Brave New World sarcasm jibe with your support of Honors for All?


Anonymous said...

I"m confused: did TM get their waiver, or were they misinformed about this?


Melissa Westbrook said...

Reader, as I stated elsewhere, the principal said they could apply for the waiver. I suspect the Superintendent told her if the Board signs off, he would.

Unfortunately, the C&I committee may not have even done that. Even if they did, it needs to go to the full Board for an intro and then, two weeks later, a vote. This item isn't even on the agenda (at least not when I checked) for the Board meeting next week.

I think her letter may have been premature.

Charlie Mas said...

FWIW, Thank you for asking. I really value your participation on this blog.

On one hand we have schools taking license to do anything or nothing to provide advanced learning services. There are plenty of examples of this, any number of families can speak to their experiences with Spectrum in name only or ALO in name only. The school has no genuine interest in providing any support for students working beyond Standard and is using the District's failure to set Standards, failure to monitor, and failure to enforce as license to do nothing.

On the other hand we have a school, Garfield, making a thoughtful and committed effort to provide advanced learning services in an inclusive environment, complete with a set of academic expectations, monitoring, and reporting.

I'm not opposed to inclusion - I'm opposed to failure/refusal to serve. The problem with inclusion is that it makes it harder to serve advanced learners and it makes it easier to cloak the failure/refusal to serve them.

It would be the same for any student who is not being served regardless of their need.

Anonymous said...

And you know this how Charlie? How do you know inclusion is "harder for advanced learners" than for others? There is no other option but inclusion. When we have limited resources - we can't just educate a few to a rarified standard because they are gifted, and then leave the "inclusion" to everyone else. Yes. Inclusion is hard. It is hard for everyone. Diversity is hard. Real diversity is hard. Resolving different opinions and values is truly hard work. But we must all share the challenge. We can't have an easy monoculture, free from burdens of poverty and disability and language barriers and cultural conflict, for some students who are "gifted" - and leave all those challenges, magnified, to everyone else. We surely can't have that segregation when it exacerbates the difficulties for others. Diversity also brings many gifts and opportunities. And those must be leveraged. It's not easier to do "inclusion" in an impoverished underachieving school than an HCC one. Why does one group of people think that they should be immune from the burden. The district does not owe one group of families some sort of "proof" that desegregation will advantage them. It is not about "them". Public education is not unlimited. And the degree to which public education is limited - needs to be shared.

BTW. I like your idea of identifying the top 2% at each school and making that the population eligible for self-containment. Other students would be maximized in their local schools - to the extent that schools maximize all students. It would be a more diverse group, and it would be limited enough to reduce the resegregation caused by unchecked and out of whack growth in gifted ed.


Charlie Mas said...

You misread me and misquoted me, reader. I didn't write that inclusion is "harder for advanced learners"; I wrote that inclusion "makes it harder to serve advanced learners".

How odd that you put words which were not a direct quote inside quotation marks. Do you need to review the meaning of quotation marks?

Given that the entire premise for your question is in error, you'll understand why I don't bother to answer it. How about you answer a question for me instead: Why did you find it necessary to intentionally misquote me?

Anonymous said...

Inclusion is hard for everyone Charlie. Why do you constantly lament "inclusion" for advanced learners alone? Inclusion is harder when challenges are magnified by one group. Segregation in the south was a really neato thing too. It was really easy for white people to live in a great segregated world full of wonderful cheap things and lots of really cheap labor. But now we think of that as wrong, no matter how good it was for those white people. Inclusion is desegregation. And yes it is hard. But not just for you. I put inclusion in quotes - because people act like it is something special, in need of its own delineation. You don't need to comment.

(you constantly whine about others misunderstanding you, or misquoting you. Actually, people sometimes just have different viewpoints)


Charlie Mas said...

reader, no. When you put words inside quotation marks and imply that they are from me, but they are words that I did not write, then you have misquoted me. I'm not whining; I'm stating the case. And, to be clear, it is not a case of your having a different viewpoint, but, with the evidence directly above, it is a plain and clear case of misquoting. Why are you unwilling to acknowledge this obvious truth?

I note that you continue to ask me questions but refuse to answer mine.

Now you write essentially the same thing that I wrote, that inclusion is hard. Yet it means something different when you say it, doesn't it? When you write it your words are filled with virtue. When I write it, my words reek of racism. How odd.

Anonymous said...

No Charlie, your posts are replete with whining and admonishments of people misquoting and misunderstanding you and putting words in your mouth. Actually you put so many words in your own mouth, it would be nearly impossible to misquote you. But the thing you really dislike is divergent opinion.

Charlie says:
"The problem with inclusion is that it makes it harder to serve advanced learners."

Why is that the problem? Why is that even true? A failed inclusive class could just as easily fail the middle or the bottom learners. Or the foreigners. Or the disabled. Or the person who can't get there. It really depends on how it fails. And who is left out.

Because you make a point of segregating out advanced learners when talking about the challenges of inclusion, you imply that those students are the only ones who count. It's hard to do inclusion period. Segregating out advanced learners means that somehow your pet group is special, and should be exempted from the burdens of everyone else bears.


Melissa Westbrook said...

Reader, you could have just addressed his question with "I misunderstood, sorry."

And since you hate segregation, let me be the first to tell you it is happening all over the country, in both traditional and charter schools. Some ed reformers think it's fine (and I'll have a thread on that soon.)

My point is not that it is okay (and I do not call HCC "segregated" for many reasons) but that it on the rise. Even gifted programs that do not have separate classes, have pull-out classes or, as is done in many traditional classes, reading groups based on levels. I doubt if there are many classrooms in this country that doesn't not, for one reason or another, break kids into groups based on ability level at some point.

Anonymous said...

Melissa, I didn't misunderstand Charlie and I'm not sorry. So, that's why I didn't say what you apparently wanted me to say.

Well, I guess Garfield is going against a trend then. The degree to which we see charters ets, is evidence of decline in public ed.


Charlie Mas said...

reader (what an ironic alias!), you have now both misquoted AND misunderstood me.

Here is what I wrote:
"I'm not opposed to inclusion - I'm opposed to failure/refusal to serve. The problem with inclusion is that it makes it harder to serve advanced learners and it makes it easier to cloak the failure/refusal to serve them.

"It would be the same for any student who is not being served regardless of their need."

So, as you can see, I wrote the same idea that you wrote - an idea opposite to the one you believe I wrote.

I did not write exclusively about advanced learning. I specifically wrote that this problem "would be the same for any student... regardless of their need."

Are you really so dedicated to portraying me as a bad guy that you will make such obvious and gross misstatements about my clearly stated positions? What drives you to misrepresent me in this way?

Can you please acknowledge the simple, obvious truth that you misquoted me?
Can you please acknowledge the simple, obvious truth that I did not write exclusively about advanced learners? If you cannot, then there is no hope for an honest discussion or exchange of ideas.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Charlie, let it go. I put something up about quotes and this blog. Either Reader (or any other commenter) abides by it or he/she can see all comments by them deleted.

I don't have time for this kind of passive-aggressive nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes quotes are used to quote someone. Sometimes quotes are used to "mock" something. See what I did there?

-Two Cents