Garfield Honors For All Update
On May 23, 2017, the Garfield PTSA hosted two Garfield teachers at their regular meeting to talk about the progress of Honors for All.
To note, there were roughly 30 parents in attendance; it seemed like a small turnout but then again, given that parents were not notified about this change until right before school started and Principal Howard did no 9th grade parent orientation, maybe parents just thought it not worth attending.
There were two teachers presenting; Tim Zimmerman, an LA teacher, and Nathan Simoneaux, a History teacher. They spoke to the concern that "honors" would not be honors-level work. They handed out a group of papers that contained a test that students took two days prior, one from last year's Honors class and a paper from a student.
They each spoke about their experiences and then took questions from the audience. Unfortunately, they did their PowerPoint slides in such a way that the audience could not read them so they did from their phones.
Their Statements
- Over and over, "this is not dumbed-down material." They say the class average was about a B. (I'm not sure how anyone could verify that.) They compared the material to what was being taught in Bellevue SD but again, I'm not sure how to verify that. The test did look challenging but not particularly difficult.
- They said Honors for All was to show that everyone has a range of talents and experience and that would create an environment for all students to learn in. An example they gave was a student from China who had been here less than a year was able to create a podcast in Mandarin and the other students were impressed.
- They felt very strongly that they saw more mixing of different racial groups (unlike what happens in the hallways of Garfield). They said the students chose on their own who to work with.
But then there was a tangent where one teacher said that students could see that African-American males (he were specific here) could be seen as "leaders" in the classroom as well as "intelligent, worthy and empowering."
Frankly, I was taken aback. First, the teachers had never met these students prior to these classes. Did they assume that all the white, Asian and Latino students thought African-American students didn't/couldn't have these qualities? That's quite an assumption to make about some students in terms of how they saw other students in their class.
- They made a point of telling parents what they were teaching and then Simoneaux asked, "Is that what YOU learned in World History in high school?" First, I'm not sure many of us can accurately recall but is that relevant? I'm not sure I think it is.
- The teachers collaborated during the year (although it seemed that not as often and some were more available than others). Zimmerman said SS classes were more "lockstep" but not all the same. But they admitted it was hard with seven teachers to all get together.
- This was their first year and there were growing pains.
- They shared "data" with the School Board that was "fascinating." Oddly, they did not hand out that data here. From what I saw previously of what the Board received, it was more anecdotal stories than real data.
- Reading Romeo and Juliet is a "rite of passage" for 9th graders. They saw movies of it (not sure which ones) and they had students stage scenes (but with latitude on the presentation i.e. in the Wild West). They made masks for characters and did Renaissance dances.
I'll just interject here that I really don't like Romeo and Juliet. They did this in my son's 8th grade class and he, along with many other boys, really disliked it. I think King Lear or The Tempest or even MacBeth would be better choices.
- The Social Studies unit had more about the Holocaust than previous years
- They did mock trials - unclear to me which class - and had the students write briefs and make arguments
Changes for Next Year
1) They will have academies with grouped teachers for LA/History and the same 90 students
2) It will continue to be only at the 9th grade; 10th grade will have two tracks - AP and General Ed
3) As far as tutoring, they will try to be more specific in what tutoring will cover. Apparently, some kids showed up but there was no one to help them with specific topics.
Their Call to Action
1) Continue to support the program
2) They claim that they have made calls to parents that did not get returned "and then, in May, we get caustic emails for not doing our job" rather than parents who didn't answer e-mails. I'm not sure that's going to win over many parents.
3) They claim that Garfield is the only high school in the district getting their funds cut for the "collection of evidence" option for graduation. They could not say why that was but they wanted parents to call the district about it. (I'm not sure what that has to do with Honors for All but that's what they said.)
Discussion After the Presentation
1) I love teachers, I really do. But I have found, just from my own years of experience, that you really can't ask teachers even simple questions about curriculum without the teacher feeling you are challenging their skills. Both Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Simoneaux seemed defensive from the get-go and did not really seem to want to hear any parent questions.
2) One parent - who was clearly not happy but spoke quietly but firmly - stated that her child's class had only gone thru only two-thirds of the syllabus in LA. Mr. Zimmerman conceded that they did need to do better but to consider the skills their child learned, not how much was covered. (But I'm thinking if it were the reverse - a student telling the teacher he had mad skills now and didn't need to read all the texts - the teacher would not be so impressed.)
And, when your child brings home a syllabus and you are thinking he/she will be covering X,Y,Z texts and they don't, you might wonder if it is your child being lazy or is it the class. It's not a dumb question for a parent to ask.
I felt that the one woman who asked the most direct questions seemed to get piled on by teachers and a couple of parents. She did say that there were other teachers and that much of what was being stated was anecdotal. She said they needed "evidence-based" proof or "you won't convince us."
One teacher - I didn't note which - shot back and said "your child's experience is not all kids." And, that there were different quality of teachers throughout the school.
Even though, Mr. Zimmerman said they had "data" and were collecting it, he didn't say when it would be available.
Data parents did want to know - and was not available here - was how many students were enrolling in Honors for All next year versus this year. (Mr. Simoneaux claimed they didn't have access to that info.)
3) Another issue was who to talk to about the program. Mr. Howard has clearly held parents at arm's length and should parents talk to their child's teacher or were these two teachers the representatives for the program? They said to talk to your child's teacher.
One parent chimed in that she was sorry about the first parent's child but that there hadn't been a geometry teacher all last year. (I was perplexed how that made sense.)
One parent said she was the Equity advisor for the PTA and felt "uncomfortable" that parents have to defend the quality and quantity of education in SPS. She felt that some parents were saying that some students didn't want to learn.
I found it odd that she spoke out about some parents she believed thought that some students "couldn't learn" but seemed to miss that there was the assumption made about the beliefs of fellow students about the skills of male African-American students in their classes.
4) As to discipline in the classes, the teachers said that discipline referrals had gone down and that they were seeing more "socialization" in classes. They stated, "What we had before was not perfect and students were not all docile, quiet kids and angels who came down from on high."
I'll just let that statement stand on its own except to say that clearly, these two teachers have no fear of speaking out against some kids.
They continued saying that kids were "harmed and marginalized" by the previous class set-up and "not given access to public school classes."
I don't understand the latter part of that statement.
They ended their presentation saying that they encouraged parents to come volunteer and that there had not been a single parent in their classes all year.
In summary, it seemed to be a one-sided and defensive assessment of a newly-minted program. I suspect that defensiveness is not about working out kinks but feeling pushback from parents.
I also note that I have spoken to several different parents of 9th grade students (who do not know each other). To a person, they said that, for whatever reason, the make-up of these classes is not evenly HCC and Gen Ed.
The same theme emerged - the HCC class moved much more quickly. And it seems that the more mixed class had more behavior issues (not serious but more obvious than in the skewed HCC class.) Again, I don't know how two classes could be that different in make-up but that's what I am told.
As well, HCC students felt that with many group projects, they ended up having to take charge and do larger amounts of work than other students. They felt the other students did not get the academic support they needed to be in the class.
To note, there were roughly 30 parents in attendance; it seemed like a small turnout but then again, given that parents were not notified about this change until right before school started and Principal Howard did no 9th grade parent orientation, maybe parents just thought it not worth attending.
There were two teachers presenting; Tim Zimmerman, an LA teacher, and Nathan Simoneaux, a History teacher. They spoke to the concern that "honors" would not be honors-level work. They handed out a group of papers that contained a test that students took two days prior, one from last year's Honors class and a paper from a student.
They each spoke about their experiences and then took questions from the audience. Unfortunately, they did their PowerPoint slides in such a way that the audience could not read them so they did from their phones.
Their Statements
- Over and over, "this is not dumbed-down material." They say the class average was about a B. (I'm not sure how anyone could verify that.) They compared the material to what was being taught in Bellevue SD but again, I'm not sure how to verify that. The test did look challenging but not particularly difficult.
- They said Honors for All was to show that everyone has a range of talents and experience and that would create an environment for all students to learn in. An example they gave was a student from China who had been here less than a year was able to create a podcast in Mandarin and the other students were impressed.
- They felt very strongly that they saw more mixing of different racial groups (unlike what happens in the hallways of Garfield). They said the students chose on their own who to work with.
But then there was a tangent where one teacher said that students could see that African-American males (he were specific here) could be seen as "leaders" in the classroom as well as "intelligent, worthy and empowering."
Frankly, I was taken aback. First, the teachers had never met these students prior to these classes. Did they assume that all the white, Asian and Latino students thought African-American students didn't/couldn't have these qualities? That's quite an assumption to make about some students in terms of how they saw other students in their class.
- They made a point of telling parents what they were teaching and then Simoneaux asked, "Is that what YOU learned in World History in high school?" First, I'm not sure many of us can accurately recall but is that relevant? I'm not sure I think it is.
- The teachers collaborated during the year (although it seemed that not as often and some were more available than others). Zimmerman said SS classes were more "lockstep" but not all the same. But they admitted it was hard with seven teachers to all get together.
- This was their first year and there were growing pains.
- They shared "data" with the School Board that was "fascinating." Oddly, they did not hand out that data here. From what I saw previously of what the Board received, it was more anecdotal stories than real data.
- Reading Romeo and Juliet is a "rite of passage" for 9th graders. They saw movies of it (not sure which ones) and they had students stage scenes (but with latitude on the presentation i.e. in the Wild West). They made masks for characters and did Renaissance dances.
I'll just interject here that I really don't like Romeo and Juliet. They did this in my son's 8th grade class and he, along with many other boys, really disliked it. I think King Lear or The Tempest or even MacBeth would be better choices.
- The Social Studies unit had more about the Holocaust than previous years
- They did mock trials - unclear to me which class - and had the students write briefs and make arguments
Changes for Next Year
1) They will have academies with grouped teachers for LA/History and the same 90 students
2) It will continue to be only at the 9th grade; 10th grade will have two tracks - AP and General Ed
3) As far as tutoring, they will try to be more specific in what tutoring will cover. Apparently, some kids showed up but there was no one to help them with specific topics.
Their Call to Action
1) Continue to support the program
2) They claim that they have made calls to parents that did not get returned "and then, in May, we get caustic emails for not doing our job" rather than parents who didn't answer e-mails. I'm not sure that's going to win over many parents.
3) They claim that Garfield is the only high school in the district getting their funds cut for the "collection of evidence" option for graduation. They could not say why that was but they wanted parents to call the district about it. (I'm not sure what that has to do with Honors for All but that's what they said.)
Discussion After the Presentation
1) I love teachers, I really do. But I have found, just from my own years of experience, that you really can't ask teachers even simple questions about curriculum without the teacher feeling you are challenging their skills. Both Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Simoneaux seemed defensive from the get-go and did not really seem to want to hear any parent questions.
2) One parent - who was clearly not happy but spoke quietly but firmly - stated that her child's class had only gone thru only two-thirds of the syllabus in LA. Mr. Zimmerman conceded that they did need to do better but to consider the skills their child learned, not how much was covered. (But I'm thinking if it were the reverse - a student telling the teacher he had mad skills now and didn't need to read all the texts - the teacher would not be so impressed.)
And, when your child brings home a syllabus and you are thinking he/she will be covering X,Y,Z texts and they don't, you might wonder if it is your child being lazy or is it the class. It's not a dumb question for a parent to ask.
I felt that the one woman who asked the most direct questions seemed to get piled on by teachers and a couple of parents. She did say that there were other teachers and that much of what was being stated was anecdotal. She said they needed "evidence-based" proof or "you won't convince us."
One teacher - I didn't note which - shot back and said "your child's experience is not all kids." And, that there were different quality of teachers throughout the school.
Even though, Mr. Zimmerman said they had "data" and were collecting it, he didn't say when it would be available.
Data parents did want to know - and was not available here - was how many students were enrolling in Honors for All next year versus this year. (Mr. Simoneaux claimed they didn't have access to that info.)
3) Another issue was who to talk to about the program. Mr. Howard has clearly held parents at arm's length and should parents talk to their child's teacher or were these two teachers the representatives for the program? They said to talk to your child's teacher.
One parent chimed in that she was sorry about the first parent's child but that there hadn't been a geometry teacher all last year. (I was perplexed how that made sense.)
One parent said she was the Equity advisor for the PTA and felt "uncomfortable" that parents have to defend the quality and quantity of education in SPS. She felt that some parents were saying that some students didn't want to learn.
I found it odd that she spoke out about some parents she believed thought that some students "couldn't learn" but seemed to miss that there was the assumption made about the beliefs of fellow students about the skills of male African-American students in their classes.
4) As to discipline in the classes, the teachers said that discipline referrals had gone down and that they were seeing more "socialization" in classes. They stated, "What we had before was not perfect and students were not all docile, quiet kids and angels who came down from on high."
I'll just let that statement stand on its own except to say that clearly, these two teachers have no fear of speaking out against some kids.
They continued saying that kids were "harmed and marginalized" by the previous class set-up and "not given access to public school classes."
I don't understand the latter part of that statement.
They ended their presentation saying that they encouraged parents to come volunteer and that there had not been a single parent in their classes all year.
In summary, it seemed to be a one-sided and defensive assessment of a newly-minted program. I suspect that defensiveness is not about working out kinks but feeling pushback from parents.
I also note that I have spoken to several different parents of 9th grade students (who do not know each other). To a person, they said that, for whatever reason, the make-up of these classes is not evenly HCC and Gen Ed.
The same theme emerged - the HCC class moved much more quickly. And it seems that the more mixed class had more behavior issues (not serious but more obvious than in the skewed HCC class.) Again, I don't know how two classes could be that different in make-up but that's what I am told.
As well, HCC students felt that with many group projects, they ended up having to take charge and do larger amounts of work than other students. They felt the other students did not get the academic support they needed to be in the class.
Comments
-curious
I should be surprised by the willingness of Garfield staff to show open contempt for students and their parents but am not.
- Another reader
I can compare this year's class to the pre-Honors for All era and say it seems not that different this year.
It is accurate to say that many kids do not like the group projects (I have heard several students complain about this), but group projects are a problem in other classes, too, not just the H4A classes. Even in the AP classes kids find that not all members of the group will pull their weight, leaving the diligent and/or more organized kids carrying a heavier load. I have tried to see it as a way of learning a life skill (adults often face similar problems with colleagues not doing their share of a task). But I think it can be very frustrating for kids whose grades are negatively affected through no fault of their own, or who are up late doing the work of several other kids so that they can make sure the project is complete and done well.
I would also add that if these teachers were looking for volunteers to help in the classroom, that message did not come through to the parents.
- Bulldog Parent
I don't understand how Garfield is the pathway high school for all HCC students in the city, but Garfield doesn't seem to want them. It just doesn't sit right for a school to hate on one group of students who have been told to go there.
I hope the district will open up an HCC high school pathway north of the ship canal where students' access to academics will not be rationed and where all students will be valued as human beings of value regardless of how well they do on tests.
i do appreciate all your great work mw! and the response by another reader and curious show great appreciation too. thanks and you should run for sb if that is something that you want to do... i would also vote for you as sup but i guess i don't have a vote for that. sure you would do better than sup tolley and pensioner nyland.
no caps (here is what i saw on the post without any indication there was more).
Sunday, June 04, 2017
Garfield Honors For All Update
On May 23, 2017, the Garfield PTSA hosted two Garfield teachers at their regular meeting to talk about the progress of Honors for All.
To note, there were roughly 30 parents in attendance; it seemed like a small turnout but then again, given that parents were not notified about this change until right before school started and Principal Howard did no 9th grade parent orientation, maybe parents just thought it not worth attending.
There were two teachers presenting; Tim Zimmerman, an LA teacher, and Nathan Simoneaux, a History teacher. They spoke to the concern that "honors" would not be honors-level work. They handed out a group of papers that contained a test that students took two days prior, one from last year's Honors class and a paper from a student.
They each spoke about their experiences and then took questions from the audience. Unfortunately, they did their PowerPoint slides in such a way that the audience could not read them so they did from their phones.
Maybe the teachers seemed a "little defensive" because of the vitriol that has been directed against them. Who knows?
Funny that way
Anyone could sign up for these classes unless ted had some "don't let them in" policy for less capable students. reminder:
it was honors for those who chose
then it was announced it would be honors for no one
then when al office said "hey i need a box to check in hs for the state" it became honors for all
why? senseless changes with zero net benefit to any group and a huge deficit to most hcc kids. show us the data. no data no more silliness.
we were promised data and all we have is anedotas and tm has the same problems.
they also are both asking for family tutors that never were needed before. more resources lends me to believe that this whole thing has failed and it isn't for lack of trying - or browbeating parents- it is because hcc kids fall in the 2 to 8 years advanced range and gen ed can fall 3 years behind. meaning a teacher is trying to teaching a grade range of -3 to +8 or a total of 11 years. now of course that isn't happening at ghs but the range is significant and those making these decisions don't get it. at ghs any child could take an honors class before now those that want that rigor can't get it. period.
so ask yourself why are these only "solutions" for south of the ship canal. north of the ship canal they can have self contained elementary schools. south nope and at fairmount park not even self contained classes. north of the ship canal with ibx you can have self contained classes in hs. south you can't have opt in honors hs classes. ms is a mess everywhere but al still has a place there, not at wms. that has been obliterated. now wms is going to no specifically trained teachers for hcc to be added to no specifically developed curriculum. tolley you are a master at nothing but division; too bad you couldn't multiple so you geniusus weren't tens of millions over budget. think about all those hcc kids scared away from sps. times that by 10k and you start closing the budget gap.
no caps
Thanks, Bulldog, for the reality check. Having children involved and being able to speak honestly is a breath of fresh air. Knowing they go the extra mile for all students lowers the temperature on the Garfield teacher "hater" "racist" narrative that has been the gut response by too many who fear their child may lose a lap in the rat race.
Maybe the teachers seemed a "little defensive" because of the vitriol that has been directed against them. Who knows?
Funny that way
Funny Face
Clicking on comments doesn't show the entire posting either; it's only if I click on the headline that I see the whole article. (on a Mac with Safari browser, btw)
Don't mistake thinking skills for paper and pencil skills (or survival skills, which are too underestimated in some bubble worlds). That is where you are sadly mistaken.
funny face
you are correct the vitriol and racist claims have been fierce and one sided... by paid ghs teachers. not by parents. show me the post statements by parents please. this blog has many reported post by teachers that are shameful and should have been addressed with corrective action.
bulldog parent,
wth are you talking about there is no ap test associated with honors classes. you have zero credibility in my book sorry. and they need extra help because teachers were pushed into a racial narrative that is not correct. many of the underachieving black/hispanic kids at ghs are homeless and newly immigrated from war torn areas which is represented in their low scores. good kids who have extra burdens to catch up and should be given the resources needed to do that. should they be forced to do work years ahead of their ability? no! ghs's solution, without data i need to assume, is take a year from app that they accelerated and twiddle their thumbs. easy grade but it will show up on sats i suspect.
no caps
post from yours truly...meaning you...that called Garfield teachers "racist".
It seemed like such a great way to honor them.
Funny Face
i don't live in a bubble and neither do my kids. mw i thought kids were off limits? i believe ff just called all hcc ghs kids bubble kids = snowflakes (ala ghs staff) = white privilege. i find their post objectionable in so many ways. some of those ghs/hcc kids are also recent immigrants and black and brown. are they bubble kids too? \
don't waste this thread with your hate just move on...
no caps
racist comments come from racist people. there have been a lot of racist comments from ghs staff. i will stand by that. trolls use my moniker all the time, for some reason i doubt what you are saying is something i posted.
no caps
Now some of these same survivors are geniuses?
"some of those ghs/hcc kids are also recent immigrants and black and brown."
Get your self-preservation...
narrativeStraight
no caps
no caps
I doubt if Garfield teachers were scared off by you
and your own when you globally called them racists
on this blog and the APP blog. You don't matter to them
(no matter what you may think).
They have bigger fish to catch and your opinion doesn't
matter to them.
Backtracking isn't so easy in the digital age and
life is...
TooShort
Seriously
Fine if you don't want to believe me, but I never said there were AP tests for 9th graders. There are, however, AP tests for 10th graders who take World History, and the World History class is taught by some of the same teachers who teach the 9th grade class. The material taught in 9th grade is covered on the AP World History exam, along with what they cover in the 10th grade class. Some people have taken the view that spreading the material over two years is "dumbing down" the content from the time when 9th graders took the full World History AP class in one year. Maybe there is some truth in that, but I think the kids are learning history well, and the 10th graders I know felt well prepared both for the AP exam and for the SAT World History subject tests.
Just sharing my experience, which I realize is anecdotal, but some people may find it helpful especially since the data does seem to be rather scarce.
- Bulldog Parent
As a district, we need to change the HCC programs. Advanced learning is a not a scarce resource and not a large cost driver for the district (the primary costs are testing). Rather than an all in or all out program, we should offer a more flexible program that allows more students to participate, but insist on the excellence of the offerings and have verification through measures of student progress. Self contained units, not a self contained program.
Doing this will broaden participation in the program and allow more students to benefit from acceleration. The lack of diversity in honors classes at Garfield (which was the primary reason presented by the teachers in proposing the program) is the result of a rigid K-8 tracking which probably is not the right solution for Seattle. Having a more flexible program will also likely help with the issue of teacher referrals which appears to be the #1 issue in getting better diversity at an earlier age. As a city, we should commit to the idea that advanced learning programs are good, and that all populations have advanced learners in them, and that we may need to apply more resource to some populations. Let's fix the intake mechanisms and adjust how we deliver, to ensure that everyone can buy in. But to deny students the material and pacing that is right for them is just counter-productive.
We also need to address the issue that the governance model at many schools is completely broken. The family survey favorable scores on "the school partners with families to improve the learning environment" are: Garfield-39%, Lowell-46%, Stevens-34%, Washington-44%. Those scores reflect a deep frustration among parents with the lack of real school-family partnership. We need to build a consensus on the school board that the school leaders must do a far better job on positive and productive leadership. It would be really hard to look at the situation at Garfield and conclude in any way that this was well managed. This program was announced to parents in the Seattle Times after school was out, and the school has missed many commitments to deliver additional information - such as a promised 9th grade orientation, and measures of individual student progress.
At this point, we need to step back and agree on what problem we are trying to solve. Is the district trying to assert that self-contained units for advanced learners is the wrong model, and that great outcomes can be predictably delivered through differentiation in large classrooms, with a very wide range of skills and aptitudes?
Or are we trying to deliver equitable access to advanced learning for all populations? I believe we should be solving the second, and that HCC parents need to lean in to drive that discussion. I don't think this issue is going away, and there are three seats on the board at stake this fall. The best outcome is that we can create a consensus to positively address this on the board.
Given this reality - and this is a POSITIVE reality! - why create programs on the fly without parental input? Why act defensively when parents have questions about what is happening in the classroom? Why distance yourself from the very community you serve and is often more than ready to support you? Is this about a lack of confidence? Is the district so confused about its motives or muddled about the problems it is attempting to solve (as Cap Hill pointed out) that nobody can speak clearly about what is actually going on and why?
Flummoxed
-parent
Funny Face, I find some of your comments to be cryptic; maybe you might consider being clearly.
Seriously, of course the students could have read all the books. But reading them without the guidance of the teacher and in-class discussion makes them less useful to a student.
As for the programs with viewing threads, I had no idea this was happening. I suspect it's whatever browser you are using. I wish I knew how to fix it but I don't.
Yes, we need to change/improve HCC. Advanced learning should not be a scarce resource to be rationed, and is not a large cost driver. Some increased flexibility to allow more students to participate is probably a good idea. However, it needs to be done appropriately. The level or rigor required needs to be increased over what it is now (at least for high school and middle school; elementary may be fine), otherwise there's not a lot of point to separate offerings in the first place. For example, if an "honors for all" approach can truly deliver enough challenge for highly capable students, why do we even need honors and AP classes in later grades? Probably because the the honors for all approach doesn't really provide such a high-level experience, which means some kids are getting an artificial ceiling placed on their in-school learning.
Should the goal really be to open up HCC so more students can participate, or should it be to make sure that the students who really need it are able to participate? In my ideal world HCC would be smaller, serving those students whose needs really and truly couldn't be served by a stronger, more challenging GE program that provided differentiation and acceleration to students who wanted or needed it.
I don't understand the suggestion that we need "self contained units, not a self contained program." If the units are the same--as they are--what's the point? Or are you suggesting that we need a more rigorous curriculum for HCC, tailored to the unique needs and abilities of highly capable students? For example, a unit that covered 4x as much material as the GE equivalent of that unit, since HC students don't require all the repetition? That would be great, but what would happen to the students who opt into that unit and who DO need more repetition? If the units are truly designed with the needs of HCC students in mind, they aren't likely to work well for most other students. If they DO work well for anyone else who wants to do them, they probably aren't well-designed for the target population they are intended to serve, in which case they only serve to segregate. My point is, we need HC services because the needs are different, so the program needs to be different to respond to those needs.
"Doing this will broaden participation in the program and allow more students to benefit from acceleration." Acceleration is not the gold standard, nor is it appropriate for most students. Why do we necessarily want more students to accelerate? In middle and high school, acceleration are currently only available in math and science as it is. Do we really want MORE students taking Algebra in 6th or 7th grade? Biology in 8th instead of 9th? Is that really so important? Or would it be better to offer students stronger, more challenging classes that are more appropriate to their grade level? I fail to see how taking a basic, shallow, GE-type class a year or two earlier is a benefit. We need to focus on offering much stronger programs, not accelerating access to weak programs. If really challenging, truly-honors-level classes are too easy, acceleration should be an option, but ideally the number of students needing that would be small.
Re: teacher referrals,I disagree. Increasing the role of teacher referrals is likely to decrease, not increase, diversity. Study after study has shown that when you move away from a referral-based system, diversity increases. Teacher biases result in fewer referrals for minority students.
DisAPPointed
IB classes are like AP classes in that anyone with the pre-reqs can take them, but unlike AP, you have to wait until 11th to access them (or 10th if on the IBX pathway). Want to take IB Chemistry or IB Physics in 10th, before starting the IB program? No can do. Starting the IB diploma in 10th (IBX) is the only way to access IB classes sooner.
Is it possible IHS is changing as well? 9th grade "IBX" LA as delivered this year at IHS had lots of soft grading and next to no extended formal writing - there was maybe one typed paper. Is the curriculum being modified to shift to an opt-in honors model? 12th grade class options for IBX students have been pared back for next year, and new students are being discouraged from taking the IBX pathway.
Fewer students on an accelerated IBX pathway mean there won't be enough students to justify many advanced classes come 12th grade. IBX students may find Running Start (or early graduation) the only option for 12th grade, which is what they were trying to avoid by choosing an HCC pathway option.
For all the talk about improving access to AL, the trajectory for AL in SPS somehow seems one of rationing, not expanding.
-disillusioned
unclear
HCC is a different issue than advanced learning. Those kids are best served in self-contained classes. This may not be necessary at the high school level - if truly challenging opt-in honors courses and AP/IB courses are available to them beginning in the ninth grade.
The real problem the district needs to work on is a plan for the large number of elementary and middle school students who have mastered most if not all of the standards to be covered before the school year begins. These kids should not have to take the CogAT in order to access challenging classes. Every school must have a plan for meeting their needs. This should be included in the implementation of MTSS and monitored by executive directors or other central staff. If schools did this well, we'd see fewer families opting for self-contained HCC. In fact, losing a large number of students to HCC should be a sign that a school's staff needs more oversight in implementation of MTSS.
no caps
Sorry to sidetrack the discussion but just had to pipe up.
Even for those who think the Garfield teachers are doing the right thing, the way in which they are doing it is a disaster and undermines the success of this effort.
Patronizing Pedagogy
When you start rationing and metering and choking off the amount of educational challenge that public school students have access to, this disproportionately harms high achieving students who can't afford private school. So, you're harming lower income students. So, here's the question: does harming lower income students harm students of all racial and ethnical groups equitably? Or are students of certain specific racial or ethnic groups more likely than others to be harmed by programs that harm lower income students? Good thing equity is our main focus here at SPS, because I'd like to see some answers on this one.
What I'm against is bad leadership that allows problems to occur that don't have to. The arguing right now is evidence of bad leadership and not necessarily a bad idea.
And, you can ask the PTA presidents who were there what I got wrong. I'm sure they took minutes.
I am told that both the teachers at the meeting are considered two of the best at Garfield but what I reported that was said is true. I stand by my reporting on this one as I tried to take notes verbatim.
Nyland needs to be replaced with someone ready to set a vision for the system that lifts everyone to their highest potential and doesn't ration resources and put communities against each other.
Further, principals at "ALO" elementary schools who refuse to offer any acceleration beyond grade level need to be called to the carpet.
Fix AL
Don't all 9th graders have to be in Honors for All?
Also, maybe the classes get skewed between HCC kids and Gen Ed kids from scheduling their other classes.
L&E mom
Garfield's Football For All program is going to be just the thing for my geeky, bookish daughter. Bring it on!
We have yet to see incoming HCC numbers for GHS/IHS/BHS/RHS - where did most of this year's HCC 8th graders decide to enroll and did the Honors for All have an impact on enrollment choices?
-wondering
My daughter and her friends came from a much smaller school before attending Garfield, and I encouraged them to join sport teams which they did.
Sport teams attract students from all over the school, especially the no cut sports.
This encouraged them to branch out in academics as well.
While some students started out in honors in every class they could, others needed more support. They all eventually took AP courses and did well.
Setting goals on the soccer pitch, assisted them in setting goals in the classroom, in high school and college.
I think rugby is probably a bit safer than football, but different strokes...
not likely
Giving out a copy of a test or a paper is silly. How about sharing some sort of matrix that provides detail on what the prior expectations were for 9th grade GE vs honors-level LA and SS prior to HFA, and what the expectations are now. Also, how each version relates to the 9th grade standards. That would allow us to better understand what's changed.
I'm also hoping they'll provide stats on the "uptake" rate of honors and AP classes in 10th grade, broken down by HCC vs other groups. And further down the road, stats on how each group fares on AP exams. Without these data, it's hard to see how teachers could seriously report that the experiment is "working."
data seeker
-Long Road
data4all
Data4all, I'd be fine with that but I'm not sure how you would know some students are not performing?
And, I, for one, have asked and asked for data on ALL of Advanced Learning and really not gotten what I sought.
@bulldog
Yes, the Football-For-All program is going to be great!
Truthfully, I am more looking forward to Basketball-For-All: my kid is short and skinny, and we were too busy supporting his other interests (choir, chess, etc) so that he has never played basketball really. And now, because he is 14, he is too intimidated to play because the other kids have played for 5 years or more. Now at Garfield, he'll get to play, and because of equity, because he has a right to access education the same as everyone else, he gets to play with the best players, the kids who have worked hard on their game and are naturally very athletically gifted! That is great for him, because they can be role models for him, and so they can teach him, they could even be partnered with him on drills so that they could tutor him. As Eckstein faculty once told us, students teaching other students is an authentic learning experience. Plus, in Melissa's reporting, the Garfield staff talked about kids seeing certain kids as leaders, so, it will be great for those kids who have to slow down and not lay up 500 shot in order to help my son to be seen as leaders. Our kids have grown up with an African American male President all of their conscious life, so of course they already see males as leaders (but sadly they don't see females as leaders), but hey, more reinforcement, the better.
Also, I hear music is going to now be Music-Honors-For-All, because it makes sense to have a musician who has played for 8 years, and is very musically gifted and has perfect pitch, play alongside someone else who is the same age but never played before. That is what equity looks like, right?
Honors-for-all is a farce. It was never about learning language arts. And yet, that is what the course is for.
Having the cohort of HCC students go to Garfield IS the program of HCC: by having the critical mass students who require higher level courses, the principal has enough demand to run high courses and multiple sections of them. Like statistics, Cal B/C, Latin, etc. Which, any student, HCC or not, can take, and therefore ALL students are Garfield benefit by having the cohort programmed there.
The HCC parents are active supportive bulldogs, part of the community that raises money for the PTSA, which mostly gets disbursed for supporting students who are struggling.
Mark my words, this is what is triggering the transition of Garfield from what it is today to something that it was back before HCC got pushed in there. Don't believe me? Look at Lowell. The district is stealthily going about sucking the life out of HCC. Pulling it out of Garfield and pushing it into Lincoln, how do you think Garfield will do after that? 600 HCC high school students live in Ballard/Roosevelt. One may dislike HCC, but one might do well to consider what a post-HCC Garfield will be like. To keep the PTSA funded and the support services thriving, all bulldogs should start advocate for meeting the needs of all learners, and that includes HCC. Honors-for-all does not support HCC learners. Perhaps put down your apartheid signs and consider supporting all students. Or not. Your choice.
Stevens, Montlake, McGilvra, TOPS parents, look closely. Look across to Lowell. Then fight like hell to keep HCC at Garfield. Not a piece of it, all of it, because once it goes below a certain critical mass, and it simply dies, it becomes it name only.
Sunset
Is it required for a child who qualifies as Highly Capable to attend one of the Highly Capable Cohort Schools? Do they have to leave their reference area school?
No. Parents may choose to have their child remain at their attendance area school to be served there. Schools are required to have a plan (ie: School CSIP) in place to provide for the needs of all children, including Highly Capable students. It is important to note that by law, a child who qualifies as “highly capable” is entitled to highly capable services as part of his/her basic education .
We have some written communications about not allowing students to progress beyond a certain grade level of material and I feel that it's in direct violation of this policy.
C
No traction, lots of effort, then finally people give up. Many people would prefer to stay at their neighborhood schools, the institutional barriers and segregated system some people complain about is not an easy choice for everyone, but typically the best option for HC-qualified elementary students.
Fix AL
"Do the teachers have an accurate perception of what an appropriate level of challenge is for these students?"
That's an issue for many classes, not just Honors for All at Garfield, because there is generally no agreed upon curriculum or meaningful teacher training for AL classes. Even with AP and IB, which have more defined standards, class rigor is largely dependent on the teacher.
-disillusioned
Part of the problem at Garfield is no one trusts parents to see the big picture and advocate for a common good... Comments like these make us look petty and unreasonable, which, based on my experience in multiple PTAs, we aren't!
Killjoy
-parent
Here is the issue: SPS uses AP and IB classes as gifted services. Services which are for those students diagnosed with the need for intervention. By removing those services from students you are denying them the services they are required by law to receive. Every single HCC qualified student should by SPS designation of the AP/IB classes as their gifted services delivery model be enrolled in those classes starting in 9th grade in self contained LA/SS/Science cohorts.
Unless there is some other program that is implemented to provide the mandated gifted services then GHS is out of compliance with the law and is actively denying students their services.
Now, AP/IB are actually fairly poor examples of gifted services but AP is exceedingly cheap to implement since you just need texts and a training and the tests are optional. IB is different in that it is vastly more expensive and an expense that may be denying students gifted services in the 9th and 10th grade if IBX gets modified or eliminated.
The gifted students gifted services are to be paid for, again by law, from the per student funding allocation. This is generally why gifted campuses are easier to run because the funding goes to all the students who are all gifted. The challenge for this is when you have programs that are pushed in to other schools how can we know the monies are appropriately allocated without distinct departments and staff?
Sincerely,
Mr. Theo Moriarty
Am I correct in saying that last year Garfield did not have Honors for All history classes?
Our middle school eliminated advanced history and LA classes. I don't care what teachers say, content is watered-down. I don't care what teachers say,mixing all abilities make their work loads a lot easier.
Schools, by law, should be providing on-site HCC services to neighborhood schools;
they also, by law, should be providing services for single subject HC eligible.
Again, where's the real pressure by HCC parents for these? Pressure instead is
focused on a ninth grade class and a 5th grade social studies class.
Thanks, Melissa, for seeking data. HCC, parents, by and large are crickets about getting real HCC data and pressuring SPS to follow HCC law.
data4all
The official PC line seems to be that falsehood is a recent innovation, invented last summer by Donald trump. But SPS is capable of teaching you otherwise, if you pay attention. It's a valuable life skill to recognize well crafted lies, put forth by institutions who work hard at the con. It's valuable to learn who you can and can't trust. They can take almost everything away from you, but not that.
We are bringing to Seattle a thick folder of my child's written analyses of the 9th grade books as proof should I get enough nerve to plead our case with Ms Alston in person.
FNH
Let's that that apart.
You do know that some parents don't want the bell times changes because of sports. So, it's not really an exaggeration to see what some parents do value and yes, if you made sports for all, you would get a very big fight. (That and kids would be "on" the team but never play.)
But the bigger issue in that sentence is this: kids who come in disadvantaged need additional supports. I absolutely agree with that premise and any extra dollars should go that direction.
BUT, I will not budge that ALL students deserve an education that meets them where they learn. For kids who learn faster, that's not an extra expense so it's not saying to take from kids who need extra help. It's just, let kids learn at their pace.
I think when I get to the thread on the presentation at the Board retreat on highly capable students, it will become clearer. I will be quoting Mr. Moriarty there.
-NP
FNH
Thanks for your words of wisdom.
FNH, we also had a very unpleasant experience with SPS regarding credit for work already done. In our case we had to change schools to resolve the problem. The fundamental issue that was never told to us (but was obvious) is that the class that would have suited our child was full. Adding her would have forced the school to split the class and take on another FTE. We moved to a school where the class we needed was not full. And, surprise surprise, all the reasons that the previous principal touted for denying our child access to the class evaporated. This underscores the problem with the lack of state funding and forcing the SPS to maintain faculty so close to the bone. It ultimately hurts children and it promotes a culture of blatant prevarication in the district administration. This is because denying access to necessary classes based on capacity has always been illegal based on Washington state law. So the district and the principals figure out ways to deny access based on the phases of the moon....or anything else that can give them the appearance of compliance.
-SPSParent
Amy
@ Lynn, that doesn't sound right. Are you saying if a student is home-schooled for all of 9th grade and starts Garfield in 10th grade, they have to repeat a year of school to graduate? I don't buy it. Home schooling, whether full time or partial, is allowed by law. Even at Garfield.
If I had a student who didn't want to repeat 9th grade LA and preferred to take a more challenging LA course via an outside entity, I'd go for it. Submit all your documentation, appeal to higher forces, sue the district if you need to, but don't let stupid practices by rogue administrators kill your child's love of learning any more than they need to.
sorry ted
-parent
The Counseling Manual is a good resource for information on high school credits.
Community college classes (either free through Running Start or paid during the summer) or summer courses at the UW are likely to be accepted - but even these have to be approved before the class is taken.
Homeschooling is allowed by law but the district doesn't have to award high school credit for it.
I didn't comment on policies related to formerly home-schooled students and it doesn't seem relevant in this case. You might look at School Board Policy 2420 for information on that. Here's what I read:
High School Enrollment for Home Based Instruction Students
Students for whom a “Declaration of Intent to Home School” form is on file with Seattle Public School shall be enrolled in high school according to the following schedule:
Freshman/9th grade if age 14 by August 31 of the year wishing to enroll
Sophomore/10th grade if age 15 by August 31 of the year wishing to enroll
Junior/11th grade if age 16 by August 31 of the year wishing to enroll
Senior/12th grade if age 17 by August 31 of the year wishing to enroll
Students will be assigned the appropriate grade level during the enrollment process. Being placed at a given grade level does not eliminate the need to complete all graduation requirements if the student is attempting to earn a diploma through Seattle Public Schools.
HP
-pragmatic
reader
You may want to check out the scores Garfield gets for being responsive and partnering with families - 37% favorable and 39% favorable. And, since I sense what your counter point may be - break down the respondents by demographics. African American families actually rate the school lower that white families do on some of these measures. It seems like Ted may not be doing a whole lot of speaking truth to power - he may just not really care about working with families.
Note that this whole honors for all thing actually wasn't Ted's idea either.
" Either the HCC is serving students who are lucky not superior."
In regards to your statement, the tests don't measure who is "lucky". You can state that some (not all- as I know a few free and reduced HCC lunch kids) 1% kids might be "lucky" to come from households where kids went to high quality preschools, more stable, or more resourced households. I would agree with you there, but the answer to that lies in addressing those issues better as a society. The tests measure who is achieving beyond standard & how much, as well as a test akin to an IQ test. Anyone who "appeals" has to meet the same standard through private based IQ tests such as WISC.
Regarding differences in testing, it's nature PLUS nurture. Some kids with innate abilities are groomed to excel in certain sports when they are young, I believe you can make a similar analogy with academics. However, there are also those kids who excel despite their environment. We need to do a better job identifying more of those kids in Seattle schools.
-pragmatic
reader
-pragmatic
You are right that SPS is not delivering "academic value," but how much of that is attributed to poor curriculum choices of SPS? It's not just HC students who are being underserved. Discovering Algebra? Readers and Writers Workshop, with no explicit grammar instruction? The dismissal of classic literature? Look at a practice test. Students need to know basic grammar. Readings are taken from classic texts from authors such as Jane Austin, George Eliot, etc.
reality check
This makes no sense, Seattle. If some of Garfield students arrive at high school "harmed and marginalized" or "missing core academic skills," Seattle public schools is responsible for that. Where do we suppose these kids are getting their pre-high-school educations from??? SPS should be fixing this problem in the elementary and middle schools those Garfield students attended before they got to Garfield.
Are you really telling me that when students enter high school unprepared for honors level work, the way to fix that is by forcing them to do honors level work with students who score in the top 1-2% on IQ and achievement tests? How is that helping students who aren't ready for honors level work?
Say you have a fictional student who scores in the 10th percentile on the IQ and achievement tests. And you want them to successfully complete high school. Are you telling me that the way to improve this student's academic fate is to ship the absolute, very brightest kids in the entire public school system all the way to Capitol Hill and then have them read Shakespeare together? Carol Burris didn't ship in high scoring kids from all over Long Island when she did her detracking. She didn't import highly capable kids from Stuyvesant! The point to detracking is not to bring all the highest scoring kids from all heck over creation and have them sit next to the kids you wish were thriving better academically.
An HCC program is not tracking. It is not a coveted "prize" for fancy kids. It's a vital intervention for vulnerable students who at a very high risk of not being successful with a conventional approach to education. HiCap students have significant challenges in social and emotional development, delayed executive function, and are at a significant risk of not developing grit or a growth mindset if school is always "easy" for them.
HiCap students are at an increased risk of dropping out, of self-medicating for anxiety and not fitting in by developing addictions, of ending up in prison. The need for HCC programming is real.
Seattle has authentic social justice problems in its public schools. (Some schools can't afford recess monitors!) These need to be fixed. And busing hundreds of top 1% IQ kids to sit next to students who have been the victims of social injustices? That's what we believe the fix is? Come on, Seattle.
But you're right that HCC is not a good model. It lacks a curriculum appropriate to the learning needs of these students, and opportunities for acceleration and depth are thwarted at nearly every turn. SPS HCC takes kids who are advanced for their age (e.g., working two or more years above grade level in elementary school) and slowly lowers the ceiling on them, so they are allowed to work about a year ahead in middle school and none in high school. That's a warped version of equity.
DisAPPointed
PS - You'll no doubt be relieved to hear that my own former HCC student did obtain NMSF status, so all is not lost. (Although in truth, I give those three years of middle school HCC about zero percent of the credit for that achievement, so whatever.)
NMSF semifinalists get academic scholarships from competitive colleges. Very very very few HCC students got the nod.
HCC qualification might show aptitude or it might show elbow grease. But let's not kid ourselves that the program is for special kids who are so high flying* that they can't sit in a general ed classroom and get additional services. *Genius prodigy outliers excluded. Or that minorities without strong scores to date, but who are identified as potentially strong classroom learners can't sit with the HCCers in mixed classes.
There are parents out here whose kids are HCC qualified but who do not support the current program delivery specifically in the pre-high school years. Yes we want services for our kids, but we want them in a way that includes the diversity of our community's kids in family income and ethnicity in our kids' classrooms. That's where our kids are learning to be citizens.In the diversity of this community. I'm no Polyanna. Sometimes that means our classrooms have discipline or motivation issues with some classmates. That's hard, but it offers other learning opportunities. The painful group work sessions? Finding motivation from within not from without? The extra work to find common bonds with kids that don't look or act like themselves? Isn't this all the grit that the newest newest research is the key indicator of success in higher education, jobs, life?
We also don't care if HCC gets torn up at Garfield and Ingraham. Fine. Put these services in all high schools. Our kids won't have access to every advanced class under the sun? So what? They are going to live and there will be other school experiences and rewards. Not the same ones, but that is OK.
Like every community, HCC-identified families have a range of opinions about the program. This is one that isn't on this blog so much but it's alive and well out here in SPS-land. I might be so bold as to suggest it's the prevailing opinion of families and staff in this district.
Mom x2
(Of course, congrats to your individual student, Discussapp, it is still an achievement, even if one is well prepared)
-sleeper
What are you even talking about? My HCC kid was at our ALO elementary for years and then switched to enter an HCC program. And all the reasons you give for not switching to HCC are... wrong.
The HCC program my child attends does include the diversity of our community's kids in family income and ethnicity in our kids' classrooms. In moving from our geozone school to HCC, the racial makeup of the students changed, but it's no less diverse. There are fewer muslim students in HCC than our geozone school. But a lot more students from India and Thailand and Eastern Europe. There's plenty of diversity. Way more students with ASD. HCC definitely has discipline and motivation issues with some classmates. My kid has suffered way more physical injuries from classmates in HCC than at the geozone school. (The HCC students have major intensity issues). Or as my child likes to put it, "It's like this: in HCC all the naughty kids are *gifted* at being naughty."
It is hard, but it offers learning opportunities. Group work sessions are painful since the HCC kids tend to be a bit behind in terms of social and emotional development. But they're learning. Finding motivation from within not from without? Definitely a challenge. More so now than at our geozone school because the work is harder and the kid needs to muster up more motivation. But, again, they're working on it. The extra work to find common bonds with kids that don't look or act like themselves? Hard work in both locations, geozone and HCC.
A massive number of the students in the HCC program have spent years in both worlds, geozone and HCC. They know exactly what the differences are. Make whatever choice you feel is best for your child and your community, but don't assume the rest of us aren't doing that.
no caps
*i know there has been a reader in the past but this is way beyond their post... i believe they have been hijacked by no moniker.
-sleeper
There is a difference between the right to highly capable services and the delivery of services. As an individual I would never argue against the former. I can and do argue against the current delivery model. Families whose bottom line is academic excellence and a shot at college scholarships might take a look at those PSAT numbers and start asking more questions.
I also note that not a single student in high schools south of the Ship Canal, except Garfield with the HCC program had even one semifinalist student. That says a lot about our system
-skeptical-