Thursday, January 12, 2017

Friday Memo of January 6, 2017

The Friday Memo for January 6 doesn't have much in the way of news, but it does form a pretty nice round up of the news from the past month.

For example:



Here's a nice, compact, recitation of the middle school dilemma:
New Middle Schools – Part of the Student Assignment Plan discussion centers on programming at the middle school level. Large middle schools have more students (Washington and Hamilton at 1200), more staff and more electives. Medium-sized middle schools (McClure at 600) have fewer students, staff and electives. For example, a smaller middle school may have one music teacher (for both choir and band) rather than one of each. Grandfathering of rising 8th graders is either a problem or a solution depending on perspective. Students leaving a school of 1200 for one of 600 may indeed have fewer electives and therefore wish to remain at the larger school – especially during their 8th grade year. On the other hand, grandfathering may then reduce Meany and Robert Eagle Staff below 600 students making it even harder to provide programming. Again due to our budget crisis we are not able to provide added staffing to mitigate.
This dilemma is discussed in detail in this excerpt from an email from staff to Director Peters:
  • It is anticipated that approximately 136 students would be in 8th grade at Meany Next Year from Washington and McClure. 115 of these students would be coming from Washington and 21 would be coming from McClure. 
  • If the Madrona Truncation is approved, that would be another 25 students since there are 25 students in the 7th grade at Madrona. 
  • Combined that would make an 8th grade cohort of 161 students. 
Meany is anticipated to be the smallest middle school next year. We do anticipate some growth, but part of this is because John Muir was originally planned to move from Washington to Meany, but based on community feedback from the original boundary plan, that area was recommended to remain in the Washington attendance area. 
There are not mitigation funds, so the best way to ensure that Meany will be a comprehensive middle school is to ensure that it has sufficient enrollment. Grandfathering would likely prohibit that.
I notice that the District does not anticipate any out-of-area students to enroll at Meany.

In the discussion of the budget crisis, the superintendent reports that "Seattle is now paying locally for 3 out of every 10 teachers". There is no mention of what portion of the administrators Seattle pays for. I'm curious to know.

Here's a little news:
Chief Sealth: Concerns have been expressed about the Mandarin dual language pathway to Chief Sealth which does not serve the SE well. High schools in the SE were contacted to see if they would be able to offer the dual language support for Mandarin. They were not able to do so at this time.
I don't understand this. Why is the District ASKING the schools IF they can or want to offer dual language support for Mandarin. Why isn't the District TELLING a school, Franklin, that they WILL offer dual language support for Mandarin. And, while we're at it, why is it that Chief Sealth can do it and why, exactly can't Franklin do it? Just saying that they can't do it isn't sufficient. They have to explain why they can't because the selection of Sealth is supposed to be temporary. Franklin (or Rainier Beach) is supposed to be the long-term choice. So what needs to change so that they can offer dual language support? Also, this program placement was done completely outside of the process described in the policy. What is the program placement process anyway?

Here's a very nice summary of the Licton Springs issue:
Licton Springs: Was formerly at Pinehurst and slated for closure. In a last minute amendment (2013?), the school was saved and they were moved to Lincoln with an opportunity to grow (at Lincoln) to 300-350 students. They were allocated space for 300 but are currently at about 150 students enrolled. They are now slated to move into the new Robert Eagle Staff (RES) building and co-locate with the middle school. They are designated spaces for 150 students at RES; which is about half as much space as they now have. For the immediate future there seems to be sufficient space at RES for “some” additional seats for Licton Springs – and the opportunity to offer joint courses with Robert Eagle Staff middle school. Director Burke will offer an amendment to that effect.
 And the Cedar Park question:
Cost: JoLynn Berge has an analysis of what options / non-traditional schools cost to operate. Fully enrolled options schools cost at least one additional teacher ($100K). The smaller they are, the more they cost. Licton Springs is our most costly school to operate. Given the short timeline, Cedar Park is likely to be in that same 150 student enrollment range. Postponing the opening of Cedar Park could represent a cost saving of $1.5M and provide more time for planning.
CSIPs issue in a nutshell:
Continuous School Improvement Plans (C-SIPS): On Tuesday, Dr. Starosky met with all of the Education Directors of Schools (EDS’) to examine and verify statements brought to the attention to Director Burke via an email he received questioning the omission of advanced learners being called out in C-SIPS. All EDS’ examined the statements for accuracy and emailed the 42 principals on Tuesday asking them to clarify and/or update their C-SIP to more accurately reflect the work their buildings are doing to address advanced learners. EDS’ directed principals to be clearer in their language and referred them to the second section entitled “We will use research based strategies that help targeted students.” Principals were also directed by EDS’, to notify them of when the changes were made so that central office staff could update the changes on the SPS website.

So I guess it's now time to review the CSIPs for specific references to services for students with disabilities. Then, after they have made those corrections I can review the CSIPs for specific references to services for ELL students. Unless, of course, someone else wants to do that work? Any takers?

The Research & Evaluation Department provided an update of active research partnerships. It included both internal and external ones. I notice that the Advanced Learning project isn't on the list. At the Curriculum and Instruction Policy Committee meeting on January 9, Stephen Martin noted that "conversations around data with Eric Anderson are already taking place to see the actual effect on student participation for those students in AL and spectrum classes". I guess those conversations do not rise to level of "active research".

There's a report on the District's difficulty finding substitutes, especially to work at schools in low-income communities. It's worth reading.

Rather than taking detailed minutes of Board meetings, the minutes will instead have links to the video record of the meeting. This will work right up until the day that the link goes dead. All of the videos are saved on YouTube. Gee. The District could monetize this by putting ads on the videos.

57 comments:

Charlie Mas said...

Back in the old days, when Meany was a middle school under the controlled choice plan, a lot of people in the southeast, who were not happy with an assignment to Aki Kurose or Mercer, would enroll their children at McClure and Meany. We may see a return of this sort of thing as some middle schools, including Meany, may have space available for the next few years.

I could definitely imagine families choosing space available at Meany over a default assignment to Aki Kurose in 2017-2018 just like ten years ago. Funny that the District doesn't imagine it - except that no one working in the District enrollment planning now was here ten years ago.

Anonymous said...

It would be nice to know how things went last night at Carol Burris' presentation @Garfield. Does anyone have time to share a summary?

Keeping Track

Anonymous said...

the cb meeting slide deck is on the app blog - jan open thread. nobody seemed to understand the dramatic differences between the ny program and ghs.

no caps

Lynn said...

There are many students in the Garfield attendance area who attend private schools through 8th grade and enroll in Garfield for the 9th. I can see some of these families choosing to enter the public schools in the 6th grade now that Meany will be open. It'll be a renovated building (no portables) and closer to home for many of them.

Meany? said...

And the Meany principle said they would have spectrum but agreed with parents that ability grouping was a bad idea. She also said that AL families have been talking to her about math options. She was very much in sales mode. Hope that doesn't doom the new program.

Anonymous said...

Meany used to be a middle school that most Capitol Hill parents did not want to send their kids to as it had a terrible reputation. With the change in demographics on Cap Hill, building renovations, and the weirdly drawn NSAP attendance areas (excluding the poor and welcoming the affluent), I expect it will be a popular choice. - Caphill Parent

not mc-t said...


new student assignment plan is completely backed caphill but to say welcoming affluent is a tremendous stretch. affluent most likely are going to busch, seattle prep, saas and etc. what has happened though it was drawn to send the majority of the frl students to wms. why? to show the incredible ses difference between the hcc and gen ed you say. how paranoid that would just make geary angry! and when she is angry she calls folks names... funny how ibx is immune to institutional racism.

no caps

Charlie Mas said...

I don't recall Director Geary saying that HCC self-contained represented institutionalized racism only at specific sites. Can no caps remind us of when she said that?

Charlie Mas said...

Also, is IBX at Ingraham self-contained? Are there just a couple self-contained classes? Or do IBX students just take IB classes along with everyone else at Ingraham?

Lynn said...

IBX students have taken English, World History and Chemistry as a cohort in the 9th grade. Their IB classes are not self-contained.

not mc-t said...

yeah charlie ibx has been the only self contained high school experience you can have in sps. i thought it was all of 9th as they prep for ib. i mention that as i believe she believes strongly in that program but not primary self contained as it is racist.

still waiting for your or her proof that any of the hcc programs are racist charlie but... crickets. and isn't that name calling charlie. she is saying dr. martin is a racist right. no different then someone calling other admins idiots, but less true and more inflammatory. and you let fwiw call thousands of parents segregationist. is that furthering dialogue on, as fwiw says, this mlk weekend. sheesh.

no caps

Charlie Mas said...

no caps, you seem to speak only for other people - people who have already spoken for themselves - instead of speaking for yourself. But I notice that when you re-state or characterize what other people say you never provide a direct quote. And when we review what people actually said, we find that your characterization or re-statement is false.

No one ever said that HCC programs are racist. You made that up. What was said is that self-contained programs are a form of institutionalized racism. Which is true. There are cultural barriers to entry to the program. That's an indisputable fact and that constitutes institutionalized racism.

You continue to refuse to understand the difference between institutionalized racism and personal racism. No one ever said that Dr. Martin is a racist. You made that up. It is just the latest example of a false re-statement or characterization of another person's statement. You need to stop doing that. Those other people are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. You should try it. If you are unclear about their meaning or if you suspect a meaning other than the plain, clear meaning of their words, you can ask them what they mean, but you should not try to tell them (or anyone else) what they mean. Especially when it isn't what they said.

As for segregationist, um, yeah, self-contained programs segregate students. Not by race, but segregated none the less, so the word "segregated" is correct - or at least not incorrect.

Charlie Mas said...

So, just to be clear, IBX students at Ingraham have exactly three self-contained classes, all in the 9th grade, and then no more. Is that correct?

Anonymous said...

Self-containment by selection, is still self containment. Segregation by selection is still segregation. This happens a lot too. And is institutionally promoted.

reader

not mc-t said...

charlie i believe, that ibx was formulated that the entire 9th grade year was self contained. even if it was just half the day that is even more than any student in hcc after 5th grade.

no caps

not mc-t said...

what jill said:

"I, personally, do not want any more self-contained schools in this district. I think that they are a form of institutional and structural racism that I simply cannot support. So let’s try to really focus in on what it is that is causing that problem and try to untangle it each little place we can.

keying on that she said structural racism too, which goes even further than institutional racism. right? but this isn't either and you are still misguided again.

(now some folks will chime in on this because they are only hcc haters not because they feel the program is racistly formulated. this they understand is a wedge issue and they will hammer it in every where they can. fwiw will say because that means everyone else gets the shaft! how does serving one group shaft the other? especially when it uses less resources.)

my definition from google on ir = "Institutional racism is a pattern of social institutions — such as governmental organizations, schools, banks, and courts of law — giving negative treatment to a group of people based on their RACE." clear cut stuff charlie. that is apartheid and segregation. sps hcc self contained is not. does it say culture charlie? which i am concerned you seem to think one's skin pigment identifies them to a specific culture. that is by definition racism charlie.

and that i believe is what we are dealing with here. it is only racist in south seattle. and jill has no problem with kids having self contained high school classes in north seattle but if the same was proposed at ghs her and the apartheid spewing teacher would blow a gasket.

and you know why they are self contained classes within ibx? because the kids headed to that program had already completed most of the ninth grade work but weren't completely ready to do 11th grade ib work. should they have repeated the classes with all the ib students?


not mc-t said...

(continued)

later you provided a definition of ir from last century:

Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."

let me highlight this charlie :"It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination."

show me where you see that fwiw, charlie, jill or teacher at ghs who likes to call parents who send their kids to hcc racist. WHERE'S THE BEEF, charlie? it has to be seen or detected and yeah the numbers are not equal but as you like to say that doesn't mean the kids aren't receiving equity in the classroom. no one is getting the shaft here (unless you consider being called racist continually the shaft then the hcc community is).

again correlation or causation?!?!?! i personally think that dr martin and the department of race and equity are doing everything to insure they are not allowing attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination.

folks where the heck is your institutional belief? now i don't trust a lot of what happens at sps but i happen to believe that sps, in polite seattle, is going to be on the other side of this such that It can NOT be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination because we are not that type of people. no i am not naive but neither am i looking for boogey men in every closet.

the fact that we have dr. martin (a kind and thoughtful professional) and an entire department to deal with race and equity leads me to believe in that system more than the one that fwiw, charlie, jill, hcc haters and racist teachers are clamouring on about, merely because it doesn't look right to them.

show me the "beef" and i will work with anyone to eradicate it immediately. but i will not shudder from advocating what is best for the hcc community. and as mw said the black achievement gap is not unique to hcc -- why is it the only one called racist for it?

and charlie sophist argument much? it is just segregation not "segregation." no charlie it is the later. they use that when they say things like appartheid. get real man that is below you.


no caps

Anonymous said...

>>how does serving one group shaft the other? especially when it uses less resources.)

Neighborhood students with disabilities are pushed out of Washington middle school by HCC. Specifically Access program, part of the so-called continuum of special education services available in all comprehensive secondary schools, is not available at Washington. Sorry. No room for you. They are kicked out of Washington to make room for the ever growing, ever talented, ever deserving, HCC. They are forced to overload McClure and anywhere else. Evidently. It's fine to overload everywhere else, but leave our privileged HCC schools alone.

BTW. Minority students are disproportionately represented in special Ed. So nocaps, let's hope you can do math on that one.

Speddie

Anonymous said...

"how does serving one group shaft the other? especially when it uses less resources."

Our experience was that HCC took up space that normally would have gone to local, gen ed students. For example, when Lowell was the HCC school, Capitol Hill didn't have enough space for some kids so they were sent to North Seattle (AS-1 Pinehurst). AS-1 was a fine school, but when you live on Cap Hill and your kid is bussed to Pinehurst (because all the neighborhood schools are full) that is just silly. -Caphill Parent

Anonymous said...

@ Charlie, re: HCC ,you said it's "indisputable" that "there are cultural barriers to entry to the program." Can you please elaborate?

Thank you,
unclear

not mc-t said...

no, wrong cap hill parent. did you just make that up? lowell was mixed with medical fragile and app. then it was gen ed/alo (undersubscribed) and app and now it's just undersubscribed gen ed and alo. that said, seems like you think self contained would remove those shaft(s), made up or not. but that is enrollment - sps shafts everyone with that. oh and you and your unicorn carriage rides north would have never happened. why would you not have gone to leschi or any of the schools in the wms zone. god is it really that bad that you have to make things up to show some imagined affect of having hcc?


speedie, i have no idea what you are saying. sorry. i hear your hate though.

"services available in all comprehensive secondary schools, is not available at Washington. Sorry. No room for you." this is hcc's fault?!?!? you don't know anything about the on going scramble that is enrollment for hcc it is almost every year that makes what you are say is happening (but shouldn't be happening) at wms is common occurrence year over year within hcc. but we, like you go where we are told. no shaft here,

also, required for sped is not like required for hcc. for sped it means something right. go sue them, get the feds involved or get your kid into a private school and have sps pay for it. both things you can do. required but not happening for hcc. sorry. move to a school that might solve that or nothing. must be nice to have those tools and a whipping program to beat on when you feel you aren't getting all the things your kids "deserve."


"Evidently. It's fine to overload everywhere else, but leave our privileged HCC schools alone." - you seem to have as much understanding of hcc as i do of sped as it relates to gen ed sped. hahahahh. that really is lol material. but no i didn't laugh. you bring up enrollment as a shaft to your program when the reality is that hcc is the ballast to sps enrollment. sorry if that isn't working for you but it hasn't worked for them for over a decade. also, i have made no derogatory statements about your kids... leave the kids the out of it will you.


so ok we take up room in a building and sps claims that is because sps. that is really shafting you then especially if it really is required you can sue them. if it isn't really required then we all deal with that shaft... especially hcc so thanks for highlighting a significant problem for everyone (except cap hill).

try again.

-no caps

Anonymous said...

@ not mc-t said... "no, wrong cap hill parent. did you just make that up? " And the answer is, I did not make it up, that was our experience in 2005-06. Under the old Choice plan, if you didn't get in to your reference school, you were low priority everywhere else. The Cap Hill schools were all full, Lowell was unavailable to the neighborhood (even though the Hill had a ton of kids even then) and thus AS-1. -CapHill Parent

Anonymous said...

Ok no caps. You don't get it. You've got a ton of privilege you aren't owning. Pointing out facts shouldn't mean that you "hear hate". Fact, any HCC kid south of the ship canal has dibs on Washington. That pushes out students with disabilities. Simply a fact. Your kid is prioritized above mine. Simply a fact, not hatred. But you should own it. In high school you can chose Ingraham or Garfield- for any reason at all. Maybe you like the lunches. Maybe your kid loves the great band. Fine reasons for an HCC kid. You also get a guarantee at your neighborhood high school. And if none those suit you, you can opt for spots at Nova, Center, or Cleveland with a virtual guarantee of admission. And if those 6 schools just aren't good enough for your super high schooler, you can apply to any high school with space. There will be AP, IB, IBX, or running start at all of them. The student with a disability has a guarantee nowhere. And other than the 1 spot they find for you, there is little hope of admission elsewhere. And really that's the difference between being prioritized last, and prioritized first. Your only response is that 1 can spend 30 grand suing someone. Sorry, that' doesn't diminish your privilege.

Speddie

not mc-t said...

really caphill 05-06 lowell was only app/and medically fragile/sped. Your term of reference school is not correct. you would have had stevens or leschi and yet you chose to go north. that was during choice not neighborhood assignment. EVERYONE got shafted then. ride that unicorn carriage where ever you wanted then, but unless you lived across the street from a popular school you were going to one of the next options. (but sorry yeah i guess then you could have chose a school not in your ms grouping then.) to be clear hcc did not push your kid out of a neighborhood school as it was only open to those that were hcc/sped/medical fragile. or better known as the heyday of app. disqualified further.

no caps

Anonymous said...

@ Speddie, blaming HCC for overcrowding WMS and pushing out Sped makes no more sense than blaming Gen Ed for doing the same. After all, if there weren't so many neighborhood kids at WMS, there would be more room for sped. The HCC pathway that assigns some HCC students to WMS is no different than the boundaries that assign certain GE students to WMS.

HCC students are bodies that need to be somewhere, right? In the absence of HCC, they'd all be back at their local neighborhood schools, which might cause overcrowding there instead...and certain programs/services might get cut at those schools as a result. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't only care about your own neighborhood school, is that right?

With our limited capacity across the district, it's all a balancing act. Right or wrong, some groups of students get moved more than others to implement the numerical "fine tuning" that is needed to make the space work. Unfortunately HCC and Sped are often those groups that lose out in the musical chairs game. Why not blame GE for there being too many kids in the WMS zone?

DisAAPointed

not mc-t said...


no speedie sorry not going to bite on your kid hating. not going to talk trash about your offspring. no class.

as for ghs and hcc big deal again how does that shaft you? saying "you can opt for spots at Nova, Center, or Cleveland with a virtual guarantee of admission." and so can you. and if you are saying solely because you have sped kids you have less options than gen ed then you need to fight that. but that isn't because hcc kids it is because the district's policy is wacked. hcc kids need a seat just like every other kid. they can go to their pathway school, just like your kid or they can go to their neighborhood school away from their friends (at their pathway school) and probably be forced to repeat classes.

oh and ibx. you know the history on that. you know the broken promises made to reduce the incredible poor capacity planning at ghs. to solve that they made claims of senior year internships. three years later nothing a few brave parents put stuff together but it was catch as catch can. the district used hcc again for capacity mismanagement. now ibx is done and it is just like those other options schools you mentioned. first come first serve, and you have to repeat classes last i heard.

hate less.

no caps

not mc-t said...


yeah you heard it disappointed. hcc kids being enrolled shafts others simply because they take a seat. weak privileges for such hate and being called racist.

no caps

Melissa Westbrook said...

CapHill Parent, Pinehurst was AS#1, an Option school. No one was assigned there; only people who signed up for it. And yes, Lowell, had HCC AND medical fragile kids and it was -according to people I spoke with - a good fit.

"And if none those suit you, you can opt for spots at Nova, Center, or Cleveland with a virtual guarantee of admission."

Only because they all are underenrolled. ANY kid could get into those schools. Please. Nor can anyone pick Roosevelt - it was never an HCC pathway.

Speddie, I understand what you are saying. But your beef is with the district, not other parents who also have NO say in where anyone goes.

I urge everyone to take a deep breath.

not mc-t said...

thank you mw. just think what the conversation would look like if mgj would have replicated the old lowell model in north seattle. i understand a split was needed but to keep those two groups together after they proved the synergy would have been ideal. i remember the first time i toured lowell it just felt right for my kid. not saying that lowell at lincoln was terrible but it wasn't the same community feel.

instead we have appartheid stickers down at tm. obvious ell/ses disparity; there is some community but there is a divide. and the first years were tough for all parties especially the principle then. she never had kids disobey her until tm.

and as a reminder michael tolley and mgj proposed initially to have tm be the NORTH site (on top of I90) with hawthorne being the south site. meaning most kids were going to be on the bus in the afternoon for over an hour. unconscionable right? nope just app politics.

so no cap hill i don't get your whining. at least you had choices then.

no caps

not mc-t said...


I guess my recent comments could be directed equally to you. we have no privilege just fighting for a seat like everyone else.

no caps

not mc-t said...

to speedie above.

Anonymous said...

>>how does serving one group shaft the other? especially when it uses less resources.)

mct posted this question, to which I provide a factual answer. I didn't realize he was only looking for a pity party. HCC is clearly prioritized far above sped. Not a blame, but simply a fact.. Special education programs are not placed at either Garfield or Washington. The ever growing and full entitlement of HCC has driven neighborhood students with disabilities out of both of those schools. Garfield has about 6% service rate. Special Ed programs, which are supposed to be in all comprehensive schools are not available at both these schools. And untrue that ANY kid can select Option high schools. They too have reduced special education offerings so not open to all.

Speedie

Anonymous said...

@ Speedie, HCC isn't driving Sped out of schools. Like I said, HCC students need seats, too, and they typically share schools with non-HCC students, who also take up seats. If Garfield and WMS have some number of HCC students and some--probably larger--number of neighborhood students, how do you figure it's the HCC ones only who make it too crowded? Moving some of the neighborhood kids out would make room for Sped, too, right? They contribute just as much to the overcrowding issue.

If there's any blame to be had, it's for SPS staff who haven't done a good job with program placement.

DisAPPointed

not mc-t said...

pity party = oh you sure have a way with words speddie.
ever growing, ever talented, ever deserving and super high schoolers = who the hell knows, but you seem to have an endless misconception of what hcc means and who are in it.

no apology necessary speddie, i am sure if i blamed sped for all of hcc's problems it would have been very clearly wrong to you too. oh yeah that is what you are doing silly, silly, person.

i guess fwiw and you should be silent as others tilt at the institutional racism that isn't part of hcc. charlie and jill can hammer away on that line of attack orchestrated by sps staff. that is why michael tolley put those wheels in motion and continues to spin them forward spreading hate.

no caps

Anonymous said...

speddie nailed it. hcc gets choices no one else gets and sped gets lees than everyone else. plug your ears if you want but facts are facts. is it wrong to state facts?

yo haps

Anonymous said...

Moving some of the neighborhood kids out would make room for Sped, too, right?

Disappointed - just an FYI. The students with disabilities ARE the neighborhood students. All students receiving sped services ARE first and foremost general ed students. And so we're talking about NEIGBORHOOD gen ed students, with disabilities, specifically targeted when HCC rolls into town. No these gen ed students aren't kicking themselves out of Washington and Garfield. Sure you could redraw the boundary to make an even smaller boundary for Garfield, but the boundary is already minuscule. Would you recommend the boundary of Garfield being limited to the same block? Pretty ridiculous. Let's talk about right sizing, and equitable options.

yo facts

not mc-t said...


ok first you almost had it there mc-t : sped and hcc do have different choices that no one else has. you however have chosen to think that the hcc options are "better." i don't think that is a "fact" that one is as you say better. sps is the arbitrator to what is needed and you know who else is there for sped? the feds!

number of sped parents who have sued or pursued accommodations outside sps that sps pays for as they don't like the choices offered by sps. HUNDREDS.

number of hcc parents who have sued or pursued accommodations outside sps that sps pays for as they don't like the choices offered by sps. ZERO

that is a fact mc-t. and look at stevens elementary. terrible right? who knows what is going on tm? don't ask don't tell. we kind of know what happened at hims with zero recourse. kill the program but call it hcc (thanks michael tolley) no recourse. send kids to tm from golen gardens not actionable. tell me where that has ever happened to a sped program. such enrollment inequity that has hcc faced. but no thanks just hate filled post.

same goes for ell and frl. they have fed support. hcc has state support. that is the same support that mcleary offers just to be clear.

as for enrollment matters speedie; to say that hcc has shafted kids outside of hcc based through enrollment is very contrite. hcc doesn't have an enrollment shafting effect for the district.

1. take your ghs example. doesn't that mean that for every other hs in sps there is more room. right? that means a ton to those families right? i mean those seats don't just disappear... unless of course the district is not allocating seats correctly.

2. now magnify that to every school in the district that sends self contained kids to a hcc program aren't those more seats for sped kids?

3. just simply look at the way hcc is used as a ballast to keep sps afloat. you can plug your ears all you want but when the likes of kellie, mw and cm have said that it is a fact.

4. what would those neighborhood schools do to teach all the hcc kids with the reassignment of ell kids back to them. unless you think being a teacher's assistant is providing basic education services.

the list really could go on and on. hcc can't be blamed for enrollment problems because 1./ they have no control on such matters. and 2./ the district has been bussing kids to dilapidated buildings for over a decade to solve enrollment issues and to occasionally address the student's learning needs.

no caps

Anonymous said...

Really mctnocaps? Hundreds of outside placements in sped? Data please? I'm familiar with a couple and no. It's not a family choice. SPS refuses to figure out how to handle behavior. Nobody gets their special placement at NWSoil because, wow the cohort is so awesome we really deserve to be together. It's because SPS refuses to serve. Refuses.

If sped is winning so many lawsuits, doesn't that mean it pretty much sucks for sped kids? Especially if you can't afford to bring a lawsuit? Then what? You're hosed?

If HCC can't even muster 1 lawsuit, that means it's perfectly fine. Remember, you aren't entitled to a Cadillac no matter how gifted you are.

yo facts

not mc-t said...


mc-t says:
"If HCC can't even muster 1 lawsuit, that means it's perfectly fine. "


no it means sped students are a protected class and they can sue. hcc has no protection. that is what i wrote and that is what i meant. same goes with tm versus stevens. no corrective action can help hcc not because it is all peaches and cream but because we have no protection. next week nyland can say hey hcc you all will be going to madrona and by all i mean everyone 1-12. nothing we can say will change that. sped kids have a federal right to be taught to standards in a less to more restrictive education plan at their neighborhood school. not in place go to court. not in place for hcc... nothing. nota.

so we share the dire enrollment issues and you have federal oversight to make sure gen ed equity happens. but to understand that you would have to think of someone other than yourself. but the shafting is one sided toward hcc and yet we have the likes of fwiw spewing hate and race filled post towards hcc.

no caps

Anonymous said...

African American students, Native American students are also protected classes. Using your logic, they must have filed millions of lawsuits and be getting a way better deal than poor little no caps . And they even had their own special schools and nobody complained. That means you are truly the downtrodden one.

Checkyer Privilege

Anonymous said...

@ yo facts, I understand that the students with disabilities are neighborhood students. But if there were fewer neighborhood addresses in the GHS zone, that would free up some capacity and make room for Access, right? The neighborhood boundary for GHS may be small but it isn't "miniscule"--after all, there are 1000 or so neighborhood kids there, aren't there?

I'm not saying it necessarily makes sense to shrink the boundary, but was just making the point that GHS and WMS are comprised of neighborhood kids as well as HCC kids. BOTH contribute to overcrowding, and changes to either/both could alleviate it. It's not unheard of for school boundaries to be close to school sites, nor is it unheard of for students to be sent to schools that aren't physically closest (e.g., HCC). If the district does a crappy job of program and service placement, don't blame HC students.

Similarly, the whole "HCC students have choices and Sped students don't" line seems inaccurate. The "choice" you refer to is to either accept HC services and go to the HCC pathway school, or deny HC services and go to the neighborhood school (which likely will not meet your needs). Isn't that the same for Sped? You can accept Sped services and go to the linked school that provides those Sped services, or you can deny Sped services and go to your neighborhood school (which likely will not meet your needs in that case). Now, you'll probably argue that it's just not realistic for a Sped student to deny services because they really need them. I get that. I also know that many HC students "need" real (not in-name-only) HC services just as badly. The only differences I can see are that Sped students have more legal protections and recourse, and that it's perfectly acceptable to bad mouth HCC students and parents but not Sped.

DisAPPointed

Anonymous said...

Not really the same at all Disappointed , school district absolutely refuses to serve many students with disabilities unless they are in a special ed program. And then, sometimes that setting is in a private out of district school. If students declined special ed, they are expelled. So no. Not remotely comparable. For students with significant disabilities, it's your one special ed placement or nothing. Many parents decline AL, and they are well served in their schools. Special Ed students in resource rooms could, in theory, decline sped. But they already get placed like everyone else. Many HCC parents have posted that they come from great neighborhood schools where their kids were doing just OK, but they wanted more. Gee. Who doesn't? 'So, you get an optimized program of your choosing, nearly perfect, but maybe not your every wish. Maybe not the $30,000 program that your neighbor has. You don't get extra legal protections because you aren't a member of a class that needs it. Exactly the opposite.

Speddie

Anonymous said...

If HCC services really are "in name only" then, by all means, return to your neighborhood! Why are you enrolled in it?

Btw. Garfield has Access. It doesn't have all the self contained special ed though. It's the only high school that doesn't. Some kids need that. They get the boot. Anything for HCC.

Yo facts

Anonymous said...

>>same goes with tm versus stevens. no corrective action can help hcc not because it is all peaches and cream but because we have no protection.

You're a joke no caps. Stevens has a closet to stick sped kid in when they get tired of them, and it does. And, it didn't hire anyone to teach them. It spent sped money on general ed, and didn't provide special ed at all. That was the OSPI complaint. And parents just got cash to pay for their own sped. tm HCC kids have to sit next to black kids for 1 hour a week. That's your comparable grievance?

Are you really surprised that people think you're a racist?

Checkyer privilege

not mc-t said...

wow pretty amazing ability to disregard the facts to call someone a racist mc-t. words fail me and appearently you too. no need to respond further. you are not open to facts obviously.

no caps

Charlie Mas said...

Is it possible that some things that the District does are less than perfect without being full blown evil? Does it have to be so binary? Or is it more likely that there are shades of grey everywhere?

HCC is a valuable service for the children who need it. It is not a perfect service, but it is better than no service. Rather than trashing it or pretending that it's perfect, can we find a middle ground in which we acknowledge both its value and its faults and work to improve it?

While some families can easily manage the HCC eligibility process, that same process presents barriers to other families. Can we find a middle ground where we can acknowledge that without accusing people of being racists? Then can we work on reducing those barriers?

Schools have finite capacities. When the school is full, the admission of any student necessitates the exclusion of another. All of the students need a seat somewhere and it is the district - not any community - who sets the assignment policies.

Nothing here is either perfect nor perfectly wretched. It all represents people's best efforts, it's all a compromise of some kind, it all works to some extent, and it could all benefit from improvement.

So when there is criticism of some aspect of a district program, such as when a Board Director says that it reflects institutional racism, the wise thing to do is to take a moment and consider:

Is that true?
What does the Board Director mean by that?
What does the Board Director see that strikes her that way?
And, finally, what can we do to alleviate the situation and improve service for all students?

That's a lot more reasonable than either screaming that it is false without considering the elements of truth in it or screaming for the elimination of the program. There's a lot of middle ground here that allows for continuing the program while addressing it's faults.

not mc-t said...

do you feel a bigger person when you restate your failed hypothesis (hcc is ir) surrounded by words of conciliation, charlie? i was with you until you went back to the well. and boy are folks like fwiw, speddie and mc=t eating it up. not because the last two believe it is racism but because it brings down hcc. are you and geary highlighting what is a real problem charlie or just being demagogues? if so where is the beef? i know the numbers don't represent equal representation. but they also represent a higher ses and non-immigrant group.

fwiw made the claim that it was important that geary said self contained hc = ir; and that finally folks will see how hcc shafts other groups. both claims are false. neither her or you can show any evidence that there is any effort, intentional or through prejudice, to keep black kids out because of their blackness; or that there is a unequal benefit for those in the hcc program.

finally no one defending hcc from these false claims are resorting to the disdainful family /individual name call that mc=t is. nor are we screaming. i think you hear dissenting views from yours (especially when you are wrong like in this case) louder than they are put forth.

no caps

Anonymous said...

I get what you're saying, Charlie, but I think part of the issue comes from calling out certain programs or groups specifically. Allowing that there is institutional racism in SPS, is it really primarily an HCC problem? Our neighborhood schools are incredibly racially segregated, but you don't hear Dir Geary complaining about that. Our option schools are even more so, but again, no complaints. I suspect knowing how and when to apply for an option school is also an additional barrier, impacting some groups more than others. But HCC is always set up to be the bad guy here. Why?

The other big piece of the issue comes from the correlation between race and other demographic factors such as poverty, parental education level, etc. You stated earlier that there are "cultural barriers to entry to the program." Are they really racial/cultural barriers, or more like language, education, etc? If the cultural/racial barrier you're talking about is that underrepresented groups have a negative impression of the program or suspect they'll feel out of place, is that really institutional racism? If the cultural/racial barrier is that students from underrepresented groups don't perform as well on the required cognitive and academic eligibility tests, is that because those tests are racially biased, or because those groups suffer more from the negative impacts of low-SES related challenges? If the former, are there tests that are less biased?

I assume that the HCC eligibility process misses some students who should qualify, but it's not clear that these students are disproportionately minorities. After all, that universal screening process the AL office tried in the SE ended up finding disproportionately more white kids than those from underrepresented groups, didn't it? If I'm remembering that correctly, that suggests that removing barriers to application might not change much in the way of eligibility demographics. It might just reproduce what we have but on a larger scale.

So what could change the disparities? Lowering the score requirements for certain racial groups. It's not very palatable to do that by race ("highly capable for white kids means score x, but for black kids it's only y"), and it would mean needing to set quotas by race in order to figure out the appropriate "cut scores" for each group. Not a good plan. Varying the requirements by FRL status or ELL, however, would feel more acceptable--and more appropriate, since it acknowledges some of the specific academic barriers posed, rather than race itself. To some extent the AL office may already do this, since they have said they take into consideration FRL and ELL status, presumably giving kids on the cusp the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they need to expand their thinking as to what they consider on the cusp, so that kids significantly lower (but still high for their subgroup) are considered for eligibility. The challenge with that, however, is that if you go too low, kids may not be ready for the jump. They might need additional supports, but we don't seem to have the money (or political will?) to provide them. It's one thing to say (like FWIW always does) that we should use local norms by subgroup), but as the author of the CogAT points out, that's only true when you are then designing services based on the unique needs of those subgroups.

messy

not mc-t said...

and of course charlie i would not take reasonable claims of racism lightly and yet i have belief in the race and equity department and dr. martin to put together a policy that is impartial and not race based. as it should be. i have explored these issues first hand. i do know because of these considerations they give accommodation for frl and ell students. and the iq test was chosen for it's nonverbal qualities allowing for greater ell and low academic achieving students to be identified.

i agree with you charlie it isn't perfect but when put such efforts together, and yet still have to fight against the hate with zero proff, even from a school board director, it is a painful use of energy.

no caps

not mc-t said...

should have said relatively lower academic achieving students.

no caps

Anonymous said...

"Test norms should reflect the local demographic, not only national norms (important for districts with a greater number of individuals from minority or ethnic groups)."

Messy, this is from the National Association for Gifted Children. I "keep saying" it because using local and sub-norms is considered a best practice for identification.

http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/identification/tests-assessments

FWIW

Anonymous said...

That's a nice simplistic quote, FWIW. But let's look a little deeper, ok?

Using local norms is only appropriate when there are different instructional opportunities available, reflective of the different needs. In other words, if the only intervention available is more of an achievement-based program (e.g., working at a higher grade level) rather than a talent development approach, then you select based on academic readiness, not potential.

As Lohman (CogAT developer, and advocate for local norms) himself says:
Is the goal to identify and serve those students who demonstrate unusually high levels of academic ability and accomplishment? If so, then traditional procedures of identifying and serving academically "gifted" students can be used. Poor and minority students will be included in this group, although not at a level that approaches their representation in the population. Attempts to achieve greater minority representation by using nonverbal tests and other measures that are not good measures of scholastic aptitude will indeed include more ELL students in the program. Unfortunately, these will not in general be the most academically promising students. On the other hand, if the goal is to identify the most academically talented students in underrepresented populations regardless of current levels of academic attainment, then procedures like those outlined in this paper [i.e., the use of local norms] will be more successful. However, options for educational placement and programming will need to be much more diverse than is currently the case. That's because even when evaluating students by "opportunity to learn" and making identification within groups, instructional placements should be primarily on the basis of accomplishments to date. In other words, you can use local norms to identify potentially gifted students from underrepresented groups, but you don't then throw them into a program designed for students performing at the 98th or 99th percentile.

to be continued...

Anonymous said...

(continued)

Lohman also says this re: the Importance of Local Norms:
Differences between schools in the same state are many times greater than differences between cohorts of students in different decades. This is important because the need for special services depends not so much on a student's standing relative
to age- or grade-mates nationally, but on the student's standing relative to the other students in the class. Talent searches and district-wide programs that recruit students from different schools need the common standard of national, state, or district norms.
In other words, our district-wide program, which pulls kids from different schools together, needs a common standard, not local subgroup norms. He contrasts this with more classroom-bases analyses, giving an example of a kid at the 95th percentile in a class at an average of 50th percentile. That kid probably faces a big mismatch between what they need and what class is getting, and the need special services. That doesn't mean they necessarily need a special program designed for kids at 98th+ percentile, but they obviously need something. In our district, that kid would qualify for Spectrum services. Regardless, they should get differentiation if not special programming.

Lohman is also clear that: the curricular needs of these students [students who are identified as high via local subgroup norms] will generally not be the same as the curricular needs of students who scores placed them at the top of the overall list. In other words,

Lohman also says that because both estimates of aptitude and accomplishment will be lowest for those who have had the fewest opportunities, consider grouping students by opportunity to learn and making identification within groups. Then make instructional placements primarily on the basis of accomplishments to date. In other words, use local subgroup norms to help differentiate instruction, but make sure academic placement [e.g., enrollment in something like HCC] is consistent with demonstrated achievement.

Lohman also says we need to look at what "educational treatment options are available." He says: "at the very least, different instructional paths should be available for those who already exhibit high accomplishment and for those who display talent but somewhat lower accomplishment. That doesn't sound to me like he's recommending using local norms to place high-potential but lower-performing minority students into HCC.

DisAPP

not mc-t said...

wow fwiw you sure know how to repeat refuted policy, ad nauseum. is that how you teach too? listen here kids the world is flat. i know your parents say it isn't but... and how is it going with all those shafted programs because of hcc? should be easy to identify after all right, sheesh. but krickets.

no caps

Anonymous said...

WA state law for HC incorporated both of types of students (current achievement and/or potentiality) into the definition for identification. Seattle's HC program legally cannot be defined just by the one type that conveniently applies to your own child. That's why there is a continuum of services in the law, as well, in order to serve the differing needs of those who should be identified:

WAC 392170036 “…students who are highly capable may possess, but are not limited to, these learning characteristics: (1) Capacity to learn with unusual depth of understanding, to retain what has been learned, and to transfer learning to new situations; (2) Capacity and willingness to deal with increasing levels of abstraction and complexity earlier than their chronological peers; (3) Creative ability to make unusual connections among ideas and concepts; (4) Ability to learn quickly in strength; and their area(s) of intellectual (5) Capacity for intense concentration and/or focus.” Questions Families Ask About Highly Capable Children How does one know if a child is exhibiting highly capable or gifted behaviors? National Association for Gifted Children provides information on informal assessments and checklists."

WAC 392170035 “…students who perform or show potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels when compared with others of their age, experiences, or environments. Outstanding abilities are seen within students' general intellectual aptitudes, specific academic abilities, and/or creative productivities within a specific domain. These students are present not only in the general populace, but are present within all protected classes according to chapters 28A.640 and 28A.642 RCW.”

FWIW

not mc-t said...

right and that is what the 98/95-95% testing gets you. an objective way to identify the kids outlined in your citations. this is all vetted and considered best practices in wa state. so more of the same?

also i know you meant no offense but the phrase giving them the shaft in this century is vulgar and i would think someone with your sensibilities would understand that. but still waiting for those disadvantaged programs put out by the hcc program.

no caps

not mc-t said...

to be clear the continuum of services fwiw, starts after hc identification. the state isn't saying you need to have programs in place to make everyone hc, right? it is saying you identify them and then you provide them services that match their learning ceiling. 98/95-95% is the floor. the floor is pretty low in some folk minds but that is what we have for now to identify those who have the potential for our highly capable program. (that said there really is no continuum of services thanks to michael tolly's watering down the program. so yeah you are right there.)

can we find a way to let others in? sure. should you do that based on the pigment of their skin. no because that is not an academic disadvantage. frl/ell/2e. yes as those will weigh down a participant to test lower than they would without those burdens.

i mean to say that if you are black you therefore make less money, your parents are less educated and are incapable of working through sps' bureaucracy is really troubling.

no caps