tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post1791679308966345997..comments2024-03-28T02:21:17.452-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: Who is on the Advanced Learning Task Force?Melissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger157125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-17472379396782614242013-10-15T07:18:22.164-07:002013-10-15T07:18:22.164-07:00Meant to say would NOT qualify in Math. And befor...Meant to say would NOT qualify in Math. And before someone says "let's not talk about your specific situation" let's. Because, yes we left the school but this is bound to happen to other kids if APP becomes Spectrum!<br /><br />GEMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-70535311354468168282013-10-15T07:09:06.387-07:002013-10-15T07:09:06.387-07:00Aghhhh!!! In N Seattle all the kids all well prep...Aghhhh!!! In N Seattle all the kids all well prepared. My kid was reading at 3. Is she a genius? No. We read a lot. We like to read. She would qualify for Spectrum in Math but her MAP scores are consistently in the high 90s in reading. AND YET, she was left without a peer group!!!! In a leftover bunch. Does this kind of kid count? I think it would have been better for her without all the social engineering and just letting all the well prepared kids be with their peers. For the true outliers, yes, APP is needed. But it should be APP, not Spectrum. <br /><br />Gen Ed MomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-57504745643943431142013-10-14T23:55:00.293-07:002013-10-14T23:55:00.293-07:00Ah yes peer groups. Does it matter if there are s...Ah yes peer groups. Does it matter if there are sufficient peer groups if these under represented students are not in the program to begin with? It's bad to start with talk of scaffolding when there isn't anything to scaffold on to. Push comes to shove, APP and its leaders had opportunities in the past, but chose not to engage over spectrum/ALO.<br /><br />It also rings hollow to say 10 years ago, kids were reading in 1st grade, but now the current crops don't have to because the standard is declining. (Research agrees with just saying by the way.) I don't hear loud oppositions made about these current students from SNAPP or of APP becoming more like spectrum. If you don't like the status quo now, why aren't you suggesting turning these less than well prepared students back for more preparation so they won't lose confidence too. Why aren't loud APP voices clamoring for re-testing at MS like other districts if there's so much concern about dilution and rigor? Why reserve such strict scrutiny for those kids with "potential" who don't have the enrichment and social advantages? Their presence were not the cause of APP decline because they never got a chance to have a presence to begin with. <br /><br />That is why all this handwringing over spectrum demise and wishing for a SPS program like Rainier Scholars accomplish nothing because they are wishes on paper. <br /><br />moo<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-73381949325939605422013-10-14T21:50:20.328-07:002013-10-14T21:50:20.328-07:00Reading before beginning school does not mean you ...Reading before beginning school does not mean you child is gifted.<br />Some of the most gifted students are late readers. <br /><br />I stated this earlier in the thread. However, early reading is often a indicator of being well-prepared.<br /><br />--enough alreadyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-38853820533229810572013-10-14T21:38:25.251-07:002013-10-14T21:38:25.251-07:00dw,
I always appreciate it when you show up here ...dw,<br /><br />I always appreciate it when you show up here - you are often the voice of reason. <br /><br />I think that is a really good reason for every school to have a plan for providing Spectrum services. A solid Spectrum program could over a year or two help a gifted student who did not have the ideal preschool preparation bring their math and reading scores up to match their CoGAT/IQ/ability scores. Maybe they'd want to move to APP at that point - maybe not. <br /><br />The book I read the other night on <b>another reader's</b> suggestion called this a talent development program. Lynnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-55938209307086629422013-10-14T21:37:20.179-07:002013-10-14T21:37:20.179-07:00DW,
I was not talking about gifted children. I w...DW,<br /><br />I was not talking about gifted children. I was specifically talking about well prepared students, as I indicated.<br /><br />I am a strong advocate for gifted children, but not for treating well prepared students as though they are gifted.<br /><br />Maureen's references are some of the studies I was referring to you<br />(thank, you).<br /><br />--enough alreadyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-68998964382026280382013-10-14T21:09:18.691-07:002013-10-14T21:09:18.691-07:00Lynn,
moo might have an opinion buried in that mo...Lynn,<br /><br />moo might have an opinion buried in that mostly incoherent ramble, but I can't find it either. Apparently moo thinks the current situation, where few black and hispanic kids, and few SE kids qualify for APP is A-Okay. I don't.<br /><br />What moo fails to grasp is that while there certainly are kids with potential that miss the mark in all areas of the city, those kids in the NE are going to have decent options with a decent peer group. Not perfect, but not terrible. Most of those kids in the SE, in contrast, will have squat. moo seems to think that's fine too. I don't.<br /><br />Potential is merely potential until it's realized. Throwing a potentially capable, but unprepared kid into a situation where they're functioning significantly below the rest of the class is a great way to kill a kid's confidence, not to mention the difficulties presented to the teacher. I've suggested a scaffolding system to help those kids (and more) realize their potential, and somehow that's considered "discouraging"?! Rainier Scholars provides a vaguely similar function, and it's great, but I think it would be nice to have something like it within in the school district.<br /><br />Oh, and as for 1st graders coming into APP not reading fluently, it didn't used to be that way. 10 years ago you could walk into any APP 1st grade classroom and every last kid was reading well above grade level. A few years ago that changed with the misguided changes to APP entry criteria, and it's been exacerbated in recent years with Spectrum being killed around the city. There's nowhere left for many kids who are operating somewhat above grade level, but who are not true APP outliers. As someone else wrote here the other day, APP is becoming Spectrum and Spectrum is being killed. THAT is what's discouraging.dwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-63092634314856960092013-10-14T20:08:11.252-07:002013-10-14T20:08:11.252-07:00@5:28 pm,
What would you like the task force to r...@5:28 pm,<br /><br />What would you like the task force to recommend for students who have APP scores on the CoGAT but not in math or reading? Or on the verbal CoGAT and reading MAP but not in nonverbal and math? I think you have an opinion on this. Could you share it - and the reasoning behind it? <br /><br />I have some thoughts on the topic - but am not decided yet. Lynnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-11676358004156520992013-10-14T17:28:26.763-07:002013-10-14T17:28:26.763-07:00DW. How discouraging you are. It's a good thin...DW. How discouraging you are. It's a good thing those kids didn't listen to you and there are adults who believed in them to help them through APP despite naysayers and into good universities. Thank goodness there are private schools willing to work with these students. It's a pity Rainier Scholars don't have more seats to meet the needs. Here I thought APP already has a wide range of abilities. Not every 1st graders come in able to add or subtract well or read fluently, yet they aren't turn away. Math in MS allows for variations, both lo and hi, yet they get the same APP science regardless. If accommodations can be made, why not for these kids? Besides you don't have to cross the ship canal to THAT REGION to find them. Many live right in the NE region. Oh, if only they can have that spectrum program, that would be the answer. Oh, the pity. Oh, it's troubling. Oh, if only we had head start, better taxation. Oh, if only......the cows would come home.<br /><br />moooo<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-47048897693291191572013-10-14T16:29:28.460-07:002013-10-14T16:29:28.460-07:00Was Jefferson referring to his African slaves i n ...<i>Was Jefferson referring to his African slaves i n that quote or what?</i><br /><br />Y'know, I suppose it's possible, but I try not to think about stuff from the distant past through modern glasses. I simply saw the quote in multiple places while I was looking up the above references and thought it was apropos.<br /><br />Since you made me look, it appears the quote may actually have been originally stated by Aristotle ( <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aristotle140848.html" rel="nofollow">Aristotle brainyquotes.com</a> ), though he might be accused of some of the same flaws. Then again, he was living in a <i>vastly</i> different era, and was certainly one of the top handful of most influential humans in the history of our planet. Mostly in very positive ways.<br /><br />Remember, Thomas Jefferson also (famously) wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal", so I think it's a stretch to think we know what any of these people actually meant or thought. Best left for historians to argue about amongst themselves, IMO.dwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-30708673991365098322013-10-14T15:51:31.122-07:002013-10-14T15:51:31.122-07:00Maureen,
There are very few studies that are prop...Maureen,<br /><br />There are very few studies that are properly able to control relevant variables, including selection bias, with real-world students, for obvious reasons. One that I know of, but don't have a handy reference for was done by Dina Brulles in Paradise Valley AZ. It's very difficult to do these kinds of studies because there are few situations where student placement has a randomized component. IIRC they had to go outside their own district to get their data.<br /><br />In any case, this particular study explicitly showed <i>improved</i> outcomes for the non-gifted kids by removing the gifted kids from their classrooms. Again, I don't have a link, but I spoke at length with her about this very subject when she was in Seattle during the Wedgwood debacle. If you decide to dig and find an online reference, please post it!<br /><br />The ties between wealth and gifted <i>designation</i> is troubling, but not unexpected. Some fraction of it, I believe, is failed policies that refuse to help bright kids with potential (that are not working at APP level) get into their own classrooms and buildings where it's accepted (and even cool!) to be smart and work hard. To get out of the poison atmosphere in many schools where the brainy kids are picked on and hide their talents (or put them to use in less-than-desirable ways). That does NOT mean putting putting bright, capable, but ill-prepared kids into APP, because that is a recipe for disaster. But by helping potentially capable kids get into an environment where they may actually be able to develop their talents, then with time certainly some of them will continue on a faster trajectory and qualify for APP. More importantly than that, they will more likely be psychologically prepared for and interested in a move to APP. This system could be achieved by having 1-2 "real" (self-contained) Spectrum buildings in each region that pull in the top 10% of students IN THAT REGION.<br /><br />Sadly, the current environment will probably not support a plan like this, because the administration is in the process of dissolving APP and destroying Spectrum. They see it as privileged education, rather than a way to help students.dwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-53045684318337333932013-10-14T15:30:57.579-07:002013-10-14T15:30:57.579-07:00Was Jefferson referring to his African slaves i n ...Was Jefferson referring to his African slaves i n that quote or what?<br /><br />Monti CelloAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-18360602423854495902013-10-14T14:47:56.112-07:002013-10-14T14:47:56.112-07:00dw, It may be that enough already is referring to...<b>dw,</b> It may be that <b>enough already</b> is referring to the evidence that low income children benefit from being educated with wealthier peers (see <a href="http://www.amazon.com/All-Together-Now-Creating-Middle-Class/dp/0815748116" rel="nofollow">Richard Kahlenberg</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reign-Error-Privatization-Movement-Americas/dp/0385350880/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381787085&sr=1-1&keywords=ravitch+diane" rel="nofollow">Diane Ravitch</a>(ch. 31) for starters.) Gifted designation in Seattle (and elsewhere) is strongly correlated with income. I suppose the studies you reference control for income?Maureenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18444916440000921599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-55994937111546694972013-10-14T14:10:28.492-07:002013-10-14T14:10:28.492-07:00My daughter was "blended up" so to speak...My daughter was "blended up" so to speak to accommodate another group. Is there a plan to keep that from happening when you remove the high achievers so that the other kids can also be with peers?<br /><br />Gen Ed Mom<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-46751215016049452172013-10-14T14:01:55.528-07:002013-10-14T14:01:55.528-07:00Except when your school is 30 percent high achieve...Except when your school is 30 percent high achievers and there are no girls in the 4th grade because such a disproportionate amount tested into the high achiever program that the regular achievers all left the school so your kid gets put in a 4th grade class to balance the gender and that's presented to you as a split but there is no plan for how to teach your kid in that class and everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "that's how it is". Oh, and throw on top of that a teacher from the "leftover" pile who is new to the school and got the labels she's sticking on all the kids to anyone who will listen from SOMEWHERE (could it be the school culture? Not sure but possibly).<br /><br />Gen Ed MomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-20835379570981661292013-10-14T13:49:42.177-07:002013-10-14T13:49:42.177-07:00Sigh. GenEdMom, while I'm extremely empatheti...Sigh. GenEdMom, while I'm extremely empathetic to the situation you faced last year (more than you could possibly know), your ongoing hypersensitivity is to the point that I'm kind of worried about you. No, my comment has nothing to do with you or your very specific situation, it has to do with general egalitarian notions that all manner of kids should be stuffed into the same classrooms, blended up and homogenized because somehow it's better for <i>someone's</i> education. Or society at large, or whatever. Notwithstanding the abysmal situation your daughter was in last year, the <i>overwhelming</i> majority of situations do not call for blending kids together.<br /><br />To quote Thomas Jefferson: "nothing is so unequal as the equal treatment of unequal people." <br /><br />Really, believe me, it goes back for centuries, this discussion is not about your kid.dwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-84202126887480786372013-10-14T13:44:06.452-07:002013-10-14T13:44:06.452-07:00No, your kid would not be a lower achiever, in thi...No, your kid would not be a lower achiever, in this context. That would be the kids who are behind, who are having trouble. Your kid is considered average (I have two of those!), and absence or presence of app kids does not make a huge difference for them, except that those app kids were more disruptive, and there was marginally less class time generally if the teacher was differentiating. But it did take away time and resources that were more necessary for the struggling kids(not our kids, gen ed mom, struggling academically) who needed extra help, and I thought it didn't really help with their self esteem to see a kid doing all this stuff so easily (for my gen ed kids it is not all so easy, though they do not really struggle.)<br /><br />-sleeperAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-80133495018528096612013-10-14T13:35:52.959-07:002013-10-14T13:35:52.959-07:00P.S. despite the studies, my child WAS harmed.
G...P.S. despite the studies, my child WAS harmed.<br /><br />Gen Ed MomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-87639264692126185472013-10-14T13:32:43.751-07:002013-10-14T13:32:43.751-07:00You're not your (less you label me a lower ac...You're not your (less you label me a lower acheiver)<br /><br />Gen Ed MomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-26357569301337209172013-10-14T13:29:56.951-07:002013-10-14T13:29:56.951-07:00"Andectotal crap". "Lower acheiver..."Andectotal crap". "Lower acheiver". Is that my experience and my child your referring to? Are these worth less than your experiences and your child? It seems like you think so. Or am I misinterpreting you?<br /><br />Gen Ed MomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-62763013843974057122013-10-14T13:04:43.836-07:002013-10-14T13:04:43.836-07:00enough already said: You aren't doing south-en...enough already said: <i>You aren't doing south-end teachers and students favors by having a bloated APP program, and thereby keeping the range of abilities more limited. This is a new line of argument that has been brought up in this thread, and it is insulting to the staffs and students who are in these schools.<br /><br />Please don't go there. It is simply not true. Well prepared students and the privileges that they bring to general education environments have been proven to help, not hinder, the success of low income students.</i><br /><br />If I'm understanding what you're trying to say (you can correct me if I'm misinterpreting your comment), this is an absolute false myth, that has been completely disproven with decades of research. Having high achievers mixed into classes with lower achievers DOES NOT HELP ANYONE!<br /><br />This has been studied to death, and if that's indeed what you're saying, you need to read up on the topic and stop listening to anecdotal crap that seems to get repeated over and over. Fortunately, rather than posting countless links to papers and studies, the kind folks at HoagiesGifted have put together this <a href="http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/grouping.htm" rel="nofollow"> list of references to a bunch of academic sources.</a> Please read up on the topic.<br /><br />Summarized in two sentences: There is absolutely no merit to the argument that mid and lower achieving students are harmed when gifted kids are removed from mixed classrooms, and there is absolutely measurable improvement for the gifted kids' education. There is more recent evidence that shows <i>benefit</i> to the general ed kids when the gifted kids have been removed, but nowhere near the hundreds and hundreds of studies that show they are not harmed.dwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-81597971756229610272013-10-14T12:49:49.019-07:002013-10-14T12:49:49.019-07:00Brian said: It's like kids who do high level a...Brian said: <i>It's like kids who do high level anything, from gymnastics to fencing to music to drama. Those parents usually are proud and vocal about their kids abilities and success, why not APP parents. All this defensive and passive aggressive questioning and hyperbole almost seems a cover for a deep guilt.<br /><br />No parent should ever feel guilty about doing things for their kids. But not owning your actions and your efforts and your beliefs does not serve the APP community well in the short or long term.</i><br /><br />Spoken like a true idealist. Or a noob. Or both. Said with a smile. ;-)<br /><br />Kids who are awesome gymnasts, fencers or pianists are held in high esteem by most people in our fair city. But even a hint that your kid is super-smart, and you might as well be a leper or a sex offender in many, if not most people's eyes. Really. I'm guessing by your comments that you haven't mixed it up enough in different environments around various parts of our city and tried to advocate for APP. It truly is HOSTILE. When you've been verbally abused as many times as we long-term advocates have been, you get gun shy. Frankly, in most contexts, I'm like RufusX, because I'm just too tired to deal with it anymore.<br /><br />It's not for lack of wanting change, it's for lack of energy, time and especially lack of progress.<br />dwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-69836202143040240962013-10-14T11:43:20.400-07:002013-10-14T11:43:20.400-07:00Hate to call you out RufousX, but you did blog qui...Hate to call you out RufousX, but you did blog quite a bit about getting your "things" as you called them into Washington a couple of years ago. Your moniker always sticks in my mind. I'm glad it worked out and you should never feel ashamed to advocate for your kids. Downplaying their inclusion in APP, however, to many people, only adds to the distrust and misunderstanding about the program. Parents should own the program, they have no trouble defending it here. If it's fair and appropriate, then wear it proud. If it is all good then don't talk about hiding it in a school where no one will be bothered by seeing the kids. Let's get some more sunlight on the program not less. If it's best practice, then educate the district, the parents, the students and the general public. <br />It's like kids who do high level anything, from gymnastics to fencing to music to drama. Those parents usually are proud and vocal about their kids abilities and success, why not APP parents. All this defensive and passive aggressive questioning and hyperbole almost seems a cover for a deep guilt.<br />No parent should ever feel guilty about doing things for their kids. But not owning your actions and your efforts and your beliefs does not serve the APP community well in the short or long term.Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-73636502761436006432013-10-14T11:04:11.037-07:002013-10-14T11:04:11.037-07:00Kee-rist! Some days I wonder if private school is...Kee-rist! Some days I wonder if private school is worth the cost. Other days, I read threads like this and think it's worth it, if for no other reason than to avoid the hate, vitriol, and constant need to stand up against false accusations and misrepresentations. <br /><br />The sad part is that it hasn't changed in a decade and isn't likely to change any time soon. No need to bother posting - Mel and Charlie can just recycle the same tired talking points from archived posts. The names change, but the story stays the same.<br /><br />-No RegretsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-13289994004695301952013-10-14T10:46:22.141-07:002013-10-14T10:46:22.141-07:00Or when the neighborhood school kids told him to s...Or when the neighborhood school kids told him to stop talking, because nobody was interested in what he had to say? How is that, enough already, helping the success of other students? (Aside from their own social bonding over being rude to the nerd, perhaps?)<br /><br />If you don't have a kid who really and truly needs APP, please stop trying to pretend you know what these kids need.<br /><br />HIMSmomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com