Seattle Times story on Madrona
A story on the front page of today's (3/28/2007) Seattle Times tells of tension between the administration at Madrona K-8 and some of the neighborhood families, particularly White affluent families who say that they didn't feel welcome at the school and their children were not appropriately served there.
To me, this story represents, in microcosm, what is happening throughout Seattle Public Schools. The District has put a great focus on serving underperforming minority students living in poverty. Unfortunately, they have, as usual, been clumsy in their communication - both internal and external. As a result, they have inadvertently given the signal that they are not interested in serving any other students. People have received that inadvertent sign and responded by taking their children either out of the neighborhood school or completely out of the district.
Some of you might think that the message "We are not interested in serving your White affluent child working at or above grade level" is intentional, but I am not ready to arrive at that conclusion. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.
Here are some facts:
Seattle and the Seattle Public Schools contrast demographically. Seattle is 70% White; Seattle Public Schools is 40% White. Seattle is an extremely affluent city where the median household income in 2001 was $70,000; over 40% of Seattle Public School students qualify for free or reduced price lunch. Seattle is one of the most educated cities in the country where 89.5% of adults are high school graduates and 47.2% have college degrees; only 61-65% of Seattle Public School students graduate high school.
I think that the District is absolutely right to focus attention on the needs of underperforming minority students living in poverty. I just have three problems with the way they are doing it.
To me, this story represents, in microcosm, what is happening throughout Seattle Public Schools. The District has put a great focus on serving underperforming minority students living in poverty. Unfortunately, they have, as usual, been clumsy in their communication - both internal and external. As a result, they have inadvertently given the signal that they are not interested in serving any other students. People have received that inadvertent sign and responded by taking their children either out of the neighborhood school or completely out of the district.
Some of you might think that the message "We are not interested in serving your White affluent child working at or above grade level" is intentional, but I am not ready to arrive at that conclusion. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.
Here are some facts:
Seattle and the Seattle Public Schools contrast demographically. Seattle is 70% White; Seattle Public Schools is 40% White. Seattle is an extremely affluent city where the median household income in 2001 was $70,000; over 40% of Seattle Public School students qualify for free or reduced price lunch. Seattle is one of the most educated cities in the country where 89.5% of adults are high school graduates and 47.2% have college degrees; only 61-65% of Seattle Public School students graduate high school.
I think that the District is absolutely right to focus attention on the needs of underperforming minority students living in poverty. I just have three problems with the way they are doing it.
- They talk about it a lot, but they don't seem to know how or what to do. For at least the past six years (perhaps longer), the District has said that their number one goal and priority is to close the academic achievement gap by bringing every student up to standard. Yet they have not introduced any plan of action for achieving that goal. That's either crazy or horribly disingenuous. How can you say "This is my number one goal" and then take no action to achieve it?
The District has very few models of success, none of which come from the District level initiatives, and the District doesn't duplicate those practices when they appear. Look at what is happening at Maple and at Van Asselt. Those schools have proven success, yet those successful efforts are strictly limited to those schools. The District has not made any effort (that I am aware of) to duplicate the strategies, work and results from these schools at others. Instead, the District provides initiatives such as cultural competency, which has not proven effective, and courageous conversations, which have not proven effective. The most recent effort from the District is Flight Schools; only time will tell if that effort will prove effective. The District inititiatives, including the Flight Schools initiative, always focus on educating the teacher instead of educating the students. They have coaches - for the teachers. They have additional training - for the teachers. Where are the coaches and additional training for the students?
The District appears to allow schools which have not proven effective to continue along their current path. It feels like neglect. What changes, if any, has the District demanded at schools which are habitually failing to meet AYP? The law requires the school to write an Improvement Plan, but does the District really provide any oversight or extra resources that will make a difference? - The District very clearly sends the message that they are not interested in serving high performing students or White students or affluent students. That message comes though clearly and frequently. They actually appear angry at these folks and contempuous of them. This is three kinds of bad. First, it is bad because the District should serve EVERY student. Usually when people talk about serving EVERY student it is code for serving underperforming minority students living in poverty. They need to make it mean EVERY student. To do otherwise is immoral. Second, it is bad because they are not serving the community as they find it. They are failing to serve the actual population of Seattle. This is simply a government entity failing to meet the needs of their community. Third, it is bad because these are good people to have in the public school system. Their children bring in just as much revenue from the State as any other child but they are actually less expensive to educate. The families bring additional resources to the District: money, volunteers, political support, and expertise. This isn't unique to Madrona; the District is driving away their most desirable customers all over the city.
- The District's stated commitment to serving underperforming minority students living in poverty has created a culture in which this effort is glorified. So much so, that the culture actually encourages this model and the associated behaviors. They claim to support parental involvement, but only from the right families. If you're White, then your involvement is a manifestation of White privilege and therefore comtemptible. They claim to want volunteers, but they only from the right families. If you're White, then your free time to volunteer in the classroom is a a manifestation of White privilege and therefore comtemptible. I'm not saying that they WANT children to fail academically, but they sure seem to relish wearing the hairshirt of being an urban district with low achievement. Am I the only one getting that vibe? Am I the only one who has heard District personnel say, sometimes unabashedly "I'm sorry that we don't have the time and resources to support your child's continued success, but we have children here who are failing and we need to give them all of our time and attention first."
The District's distorted vision of equity puts ceilings on student achievement. It's like some Soviet era idea - only instead of "No person should have two cows until every person has one cow." it is "No student should learn multiplication until every student has learned addition." At Madrona that means that none of the kids can have music and art because some of them need more time on task with math and reading. Where is the effort to differentiate instruction? Where is the commitment to teach each student at the frontier of their knowledge and skills? The focus on bringing every student up to the Standard has resulted in no support for students working beyond Standards. The Standards, intended in theory as a floor, have become, in practice, a ceiling.
Maybe I'm seeing all of this from a narrow perspective. I would really like to hear from other perspectives.
Comments
What I did find disturbing in the article was this passage:
"The sense of rejection some were feeling was confirmed by an e-mail sent to a parent that appeared to come from vice principal Brad Brown. It admitted that the school intentionally misassessed a white student's reading skills to rid the school of his family and others critical of the administration, then bade them a "wonderful educational experience aboard the Mayflower."
Brown and Andrews have vehemently denied sending the e-mail, saying those are not their sentiments and they're unsure just how the e-mail got sent. Andrews said the school also apologized to the family."
Someone must had access to the vice-principal's account and had his password. That's a real lack of security to student information if that's what happened. If what happened is that he got exasperated (for whatever reason) with the family and sent that e-mail, that too is a problem.
Charlie did say it well and, I believe, truthfully. I think that we have gotten so caught up in teacher professional development that the kids are left waiting.
For example, there are 4 high schools that were part of a DOE grant to create smaller learning communities. Each of these schools, as part of the grant requirements, had to take time out the schedule to meet and organize, exchange ideas, info, etc. Great except that it means somewhere between 10-20 2-hr late start days a year. That might not sound like much but when you add in weather days, holidays, vacations and early release days, my son has been in, maybe, 2 full weeks of school since the year started. High school kids actually have to have a certain number of seat hours to get high school credits and some of these schools had to get waivers because they were not meeting state hour requirements.
What I have experienced from this as well as my other son's high school is that it feels like our kids aren't get the best of their teachers because the teachers have to plan and organize so much. Maybe when these plans get further down the line perhaps they might need less time but for now, they want to keep the late-starts even though the grant has ended. (I note that Eckstein has some late starts - does anyone else know of other schools that take late-starts for professional development?)
I did meet the principal at Madrona and she was a very caring, hands-on principal. I'm sure she feels caught between two places but it is her job (and the district's) to bridge that gap and keep kids in public schools.
These myths have no basis in reality. The reality is what we see at Madrona.
Here were my favorite two bits of the article:
"Some parents, even before their own children were old enough for Madrona, had tried to improve the school. That left some parents with children already at the school bristling at the suggestion that somehow it wasn't good enough."
matched with:
"In the fall, two years after Andrews came to Madrona, nine families with those or other concerns followed him out of the school, withdrawing 11 students in all.
They were allowed to transfer under a federal law that requires the district to offer them a choice of other Seattle schools because so few of Madrona's fourth-graders passed the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) last year."
People bristle at the implication that their school could be improved, while the school is operating under a state-mandated School Improvement Plan. That's funny.
What is disturbing, to have parents willing to participate and try making the school better but only to be set aside as if they were not needed.
If the demographics of the city's total child population matched the demographics of the district's enrollment, then wouldn't that mean that the private school population also has the same demographic mix as the district's enrollment?
Does anyone believe that the private school enrollment is only 40% White and is over 40% living in poverty? Hmmm. I run over to Lakeside and Seattle Prep and take a look. Yes, I could also go to St Edwards and St George, and I would find a lot of dark faces, but not so many on the free lunch program.
For all the trouble the District is having recruiting affluent White families, they may be having even more trouble recruiting middle-class Black families.
Think of the middle-class African-Americans you know. Do you think any of them would trust the Seattle Public Schools to educate their child? Ask around. Do many of them think that SPS would provide their child with an appropriate level of challenge? Do they want their children in a classroom with other public school children getting exposed to the peer pressure to underachieve?
I have heard this canard about the District's population matching the child population and I simply don't buy it. Is there ANY data to support this contention? For that to be true in a City that is 70% White where the District is 40% White, non-White families would have to have two times as many children as White families. For the City to be so affluent and the District to be so poor, money would have to cause sterility or sterility would have to boost earnings. (This is a joke; my logic skills really are better than that.)
When there are two products on the grocery store shelf that both claim to do the same thing, but one costs $10,000 and the other is free, what does it tell you when 30% of the shoppers buy the $10,000 one? Sure, some of them might be conspicuous consumers or snobs, but surely not more than 10%. For the other 20% I have to conclude that they are passing up the free one because the job is important and the free product doesn't work.
I'm on a couple of listservs and one of them pretty much believes that white families are all affluent and get their way in whatever school they are in. I am always mystified at how they get to that place (some of them not being affluent and also being white). I agree it is bad form to come in and say, "here's what needs to be done." But it sounds like some of those families tried to help out even before they were even in the school community. A commitment to a school and follow-thru should not be discounted or mistrusted. Find common ground. I'll bet a lot of parents liked having a Spanish language program.
Madrona didn't just lose families to discontent. They also lost some under NCLB because they have been labelled not meaning AYP (families are notified of this listing and allowed to move to nearby schools). I believe this was the first year that families were offered McGilvra as one of their choices of places to move to and many did jump.
Charlie's right at a very basic level. The district loses money for every kid - of any race or background - who leaves our district. We need to get back some of our marketshare because the district would have many fewer problems if we did.
One of the guests was Knute Berger who, as it turns out, was one of the parents who invested time and money into the school when his child attended it (they have since left after 4 years there). He said he had attended the meeting profiled in the Times article and that district staff said that white people were moving into the neighborhood and white people made them uncomfortable.
I almost couldn't believe it except that he is a journalist and I don't think he got it wrong. I can't believe a district staffer would be voicing these kinds of opinions especially at a meeting that was to try to air differences and find common ground. Who are these people working for the district?
At Madrona, only 29% of the students at a school are from the school's reference area. While this does not translate directly into 29% of the school-age children in the reference area choosing the school, I think that we can presume (presume is just like assume but with pretention) that it is pretty darn close if we give the District the benefit of the doubt about right-sizing the reference area to the school.
This indicates that the school is NOT serving the neighborhood kids. In fact, they are very up front about resenting the change in the neighborhood and resisting any reflection of that change in the school.
My friends, any time you find yourself fighting change, you are going to lose. You can try to manage or direct change, but you can't stop it. Life is change.
There are neighborhoods in the city where the private school market share exceeds 75%. It isn't hard to conclude that the District is not adequately serving these neighborhoods. The private school market share for all of the north-end, in fact, for all of Seattle north of Denny, is over 50%.
Doesn't that tell you that the District is not adequately serving these neighborhoods?
At the Community Conversation at Brighton, there was a question about student families not feeling welcome at the schools. The District staff person who answered talked about the *perception* that the school is unwelcoming. Hey - the perception of unwelcome IS unwelcome. There is no possibility of a gap between perception and reality here. The sense of unwelcome is entirely in the beholder.
Could it be that the District doesn't even know the vibe they are putting off?
It's not just a matter of bringing up WASL scores; it's a matter of being comfortable at a school. I've done school tours and I've told parents that unless you are just going to be leaving your kid at the door everyday, this is going to be YOUR school as well for 6 years. I think parents need to feel welcomed (I used to volunteer to go stand by the main entrance and welcome people and direct them where to go - people almost seemed startled to have someone say, "welcome" or "good morning".)
Second: all those Draconian, un-enriched educational policies like no recess, no Spanish, no garden, no anything... would be acceptable if they actually raised academics or WASL scores, with the time and money saved. But, the school is a federally designated as FAILING!!! EG. It's not working. Maybe those are the kids who really need some better "enrichment". If you aren't going to pass the WASL, at least you could have some of that good old "love of learning".
Third: this principal, Andrews, wasn't able to raise WASL scores at Blaine... a lily-white school (with relatively mediocre WASL scores considering). If she can't do it in that easy, affluent demographic, how is she going raise achievement in a really challenging school? Answer: she isn't.
Digging a little deeper, we discover the 1 passing kid is a black boy from a low income family. Looks like Madrona K8 has done an excellent job eliminating the achievement gap! Way to go school!
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/waslCurrent.aspx?schoolId=1019&reportLevel=School&orgLinkId=1019&yrs=
It turns out that Danny Westneat is one of the White families that were made to feel unwelcome and left Madrona after four years.
Rickie Malone, the former Madrona principal - she is the principal at the African American Academy now, said at the meeting that White people in and around the school make her uncomfortable. I guess she isn't having those feelings of discomfort so much anymore.
Can anyone imagine a White public school principal saying "Having Black people in and around the school makes me uncomfortable"? Would anyone object to that sort of a statement?
Accusations of racist behavior and institutions (which apparently include summer vacation?!?) sure make a lot of noise - so where are the vocal parents, teachers, and community leaders who are willing to speak out against all this nonsense and work for solidarity and a common vision for educating our kids?
Please tell me that there is hope for this district.
I personally was thrilled that the article on Madrona and then Danny's column were in the papers. Lots of people read them and I'm hoping just maybe, district officials will think a little bit about what is going on and possibly more advocates braver than I am will make some noise.
It has four actions: a reading action, a math action, a family involvement action, and a school climate action. Here is a quote from the Family Involvement action:
"How did staff participate in setting this strategy? Staff analyzed current PTSA membership and noted that most parents/guardians involved are part of the primary grades. Involved families are also predominantly Caucasian, not representing the majority population in the school. We are working to be more proactive to increase African American family participation at all grade levels.
"What data identifies the need that leads us to this goal? We have made a strong effort at recruiting and using parents/guardians in the school as volunteers. According to record there are about 15-20 parents that volunteer on a weekly basis in the classroom for a total of 30-35 hours per week. Some volunteer in their child's class and some in other classes or in the library. These are parents/guardians that come in consistently on a schedule. There are also many parents/guardians that just stop in to visit classrooms or chaperone field trips, but we don't keep records of that. We have worked hard to have this group of parents/guardians represent the ethnic make-up of the school, but this has been difficult. About 2/3 of volunteers this year have been white parents/guardians and 1/3 have been parents/guardians of color who are volunteering consistently in the classrooms."
It seems to me - and other may read this differently - that Madrona wasn't happy about the family participation not because it wasn't enough, but because the wrong families were participating.
The evidence of that happening is all around us here in Seattle. I don't know if any of you remember, but almost a year ago there was an article in the Seattle Times about the Central Area part of Madison Ave and what's been happening in the redevelopment. Dan Westneat wrote an article where he interviewed a long time African American resident who basically said that White people don't want to live among African Americans, they want to take over.
That's a factor that nobody seems to be talking about on this blog.
I'm not saying that makes them racist--classist maybe--but not necessarily racist.
I'm also pissed off at the fact that Madrona got the APP program in the 90's to bring diversity to the school. So is the District saying that only White (and sometimes Asian) kids are smart?
So what is the answer? The answer has been right in front of us all the time, but it requires work that the District doesn't seem to want to do: make every school a great school for every kid.
I can talk about this factor, but since I'm white I'm not sure how seriously I will be taken.
Am I to believe that because one person made such a statement that ALL African Americans feel this way about white people?
And as a white parent who lives in a highly diverse community in South Seattle, what on earth am I to do? Refuse to get involved in my local schools because some people will see my actions as aggressive or self-righteous? Move out of the neighborhood so my African American neighbors don't feel threatened by my presence? Give up and enroll my child in private schools from K on up?
I'd love to see the district "make every school a great school for every kid," but it seems like the various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups in this city can't agree on what a great school looks like. Is that the real issue here?
Do White people like to have things their way? I suppose they do; after all, doesn't EVERYONE like to have things their way? Is that a particularly White trait? Don't the African-Americans at Madrona want to have things THEIR way? How is it different?
Do people who come to a school have any right to try to influence the school or must they accept the school as they find and forbear making any changes to it?
If they have some limited right to try to change the school, what are the limits? Can they only expand on existing programs or can they introduce new ones? Who can introduce new initiatives?
Didn't the Times story say that half of the 52 students enrolled into the kindergarten in 2001 were White and half were Black (no asians or latinos?)? If the rights to alter the school are race-based, then what rights are gained from making up half of the student body?
Then comes the question of wanting to "take over". Again, I'm not sure that this is a distinctly White trait and I'm not sure that a long-time African-American resident of the Central Area quoted in a Danny Westneat column is necessarily an authoritative source on that sort of thing. I, personally, would hestitate to make such blanket statements about such large groups of people.
What, exactly, was the "take-over" attempt? To offer music, art, and Spanish? To have a garden? It doesn't sound all that imperialistic to me. Weren't the music, the art, and Spanish for everyone regardless of race?
APP brought diversity to Madrona because, at the time, the school was predominantly Black and the program was predominantly White. That doesn't mean that only White kids are smart - I'm not sure how anyone could jump to that conclusion. As it turns out, the co-housing arrangement was a disaster - bad for everyone - and ended when Superintendent Stanford moved APP to Lowell in 1997.
You may say that the answer is to make every school a great school for every kid. Lovely. How do we do that?
Until you can show us how to do that, then your answer is no answer at all.
This is hard to say, to find a way to phrase it so it comes out right (not politically correct but right).
I think parents, all parents, come into a school with a couple of issues. One is their vision of what a school should be. You'd think that parents would do their homework but many times people choose on reputation or go on a tour and call it a day. (There are several schools in this district that, to my mind, are coasting on reputations, not reality.) But does this vision match the reality of the school? I remember someone on this blog had said they were unhappy with how their experience at Salmon Bay was because of numerous Fridays being used for things other than traditional learning. I have a friend at Salmon Bay who says it's clearly explained to parents so that person should have known coming in. My experience is that many things - both academic and social - are NOT explained to parents and whoops! they find out after they are enrolled.
The other issue that parents bring is their own identities and perceptions. I was looking for something and found this site (greatschools.net) where parents can write reviews of their schools. There are many Seattle schools reviewed and it makes for interesting reading. For example, there are at least 2 entries for Hay Elementary on QA that both state that if you are a single parent, you won't fit in at the school and likely won't be part of the parent group. I have no idea if this is true but it's interesting that two people took the time to write in.
I use this example because there are many issues among parents; gifted versus regular ed students, out of home working moms versus at-home working moms, married versus single parents, different races, part of school music or athletic program. If you have a bias against (or for) any of these things, it's likely to show up in how you perceive your role at your child's school.
So here's the hard part. I know this district pretty well and have attended many Board meetings. I believe that black parents care about their children just as much as any other parents. Many times they are not in the position to give money or time to their child's school. It doesn't make their concern any less. (This is also true of many immigrant parents who also may come from cultures that do not embrace parental involvement at school.) But my perception is that many black parents come in believing that the deck is deliberately been stacked against them and their children. That you have to stand up to the least perceived slight. That you have to draw a line in the sand and make sure everyone knows where it is. I recall at the CAO interviews a year or so back, one candidate (both, including current CAO, Carla Santorno, were black) said that she had gone out into her African-American community and talked to parents about working together with other parents and about how to come to a Board meeting and make a case or a point without alienating their audience. I was so surprised that she would think it important to say that or that she even done it in her district. But she said her district had had problems with communications between different parents within one school.
And before someone says something, there are many people, of all types, who yell, insult, threaten and so forth at Board meetings. I don't mean to imply any one group does this or even does it regularly. But if you have attended a Board meeting, you've probably heard these people and thought, "okay, you're mad. What is yelling and swearing going to accomplish? I want to hear your real point and I'm missing it in the face of your anger."
The new white families who came into Madrona may have tried to do too much, too fast. Maybe it felt like a mother-in-law who comes to your house and decides to rearrange the furniture because "it needed it." It doesn't sound that way to me, though. It sounds like, from the log Charlie quoted, these people are making a good-faith effort to improve their child's school to benefit ALL the kids at the school. I think the principal really should have made a good faith effort to support efforts on all sides and find a way to bridge the gap.
I think the district needs to get rid of the adminstrator who said white people make her uncomfortable. She has no business being in this district.
Perhaps I have been lucky. I have been in PTSAs that welcomed new blood and new ideas. The adminstrations may not always have but the PTSAs always said, "come and give us your time and your ideas." Many hands make light work.
A conversation about these issues; that would be a courageous conversation.
Maureen
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html
/localnews/2003647019_large02.html
Sorry I forgot to sign my name on the above post, Deidre
While I think it's great they got the math team going, I'm not so sure the tutoring during the day is the best way to use all those wonderful volunteers. I think after the need for such a program had been so clearly demonstrated for years and years, the teachers should have gradually taken over the duty of proving that math enrichment and acceleration to the kids who need it.
Bryant has tons of kids who qualify for APP and Spectrum every year. Under the terms of their ALO, those kids are supposed to get appropriate challenge within the classroom. Not just in fifth grade, not just for a math competition, but as part of their core education. The parents have gotten something wonderful going here, but it looks to me like a job half finished if the staff isn't taking up the other end of the work.
Like I said, I'm all about children loving school. That said though, school is school, and the bottom line is it is a place of learning, not slacking. There is major slacking happening at Salmon Bay. Absolutely NO academic challenge, many children with social/behavioral issues, and very poor leadership. Odd, odd teachers too.
It sounds as though there's some confusion about what an ALO (Advanced Learning Opportunities) program means. "Any elementary or middle school may opt to become an Advanced Learning Opportunities (ALO) site and undergo the certification process. Becoming an ALO site means that together, staff at the building have made a commitment to serve the needs of advanced learners. Advanced learners includes students identified by the district through the testing process as academically highly gifted or academically gifted and qualified for enrollment in Spectrum and/or the Accelerated Progress program, as well as teacher-identified students."
If Bryant is serving those students well in the classroom, great. But the part in Jerry Large's column about how the kids would be bored without the extra tutoring sounds to me as though those kids aren't getting the math they need elsewhere.
If that's not actually the case, I'm happy to hear it, and I'd like to see a follow-up article identifying *how* those students' needs are being met in large classes. That's the kind of information it would be better to have well known so that parents can make informed choices.
"Are you suggesting that Bryant and all schools should teach spectrum and APP level curriculum in their standard classrooms??? Why, then even have Spectrum and APP programs??"
Well, obviously some people prefer having their children remain in a heterogeneous classroom and getting differentiated instruction as needed. That's their choice when they pick an ALO school over one that offers self-contained Spectrum or APP. But that doesn't mean they're turning down any curriculum that even approaches Spectrum or APP standards (which are after all only one or two years ahead -- if you do any acceleration at all in math, it's hard not to bump into Spectrum or APP territory).
Helen Schinske
(This is yet another issue; teachers at schools with high volunteer numbers who get very complacent about the volunteers and their time. This is an issue that drifts down from the Legislature. The Legislature, seeing that districts put forth levies that help pay for basic programming - not enrichment - say, why should we pay more if the area residents will tax themselves? Then, the district starts saying to schools that they believe schools should fund certain things - previously funded by the district - themselves. The schools then ask parents to supplement state/district monies AND volunteer at schools and, at the end of the day, the state is off the hook for what THEY rightly should be funding.)
Class size too big? Yes, that is quite the problem. But you have schools like Hale saying they can differentiate teaching and curriculum and serve both Honors/AP students along with the regular ed students. (They are doing away with most separate Honors/AP courses.) Neat trick, huh?
To the person who said, should we teach at Spectrum/APP level, that's what they did at Maple or Van Asselt (I forget which one) and their WASL scores soared. The teachers said if you teach to the top and help kids keep up it can be surprising how well they do. (They, of course, had to divert many resources to accomplish this feat.) Likewise, I can't tell you how many suspicious parents I've heard over the years who believe that Spectrum/APP kids are getting a "better" curriculum and why isn't it taught in regular ed if it's so great? Their answer would be to teach at a Spectrum/APP level.
I don't know what the answer is but I do know the crucial point of too many kids in one classroom, especially in lower-income areas, means those schools may never see a rise in scores because of those dual challenges.
In math, it was only two years ago that the Whittier Spectrum classes actually got books for a year ahead. Previously they'd been expected to teach to above-level standards with grade-level books. Then the next year they were told they could use Connected Math for fifth-graders after all, and had to get all new books. Such a hoohah over something that really shouldn't be so complicated.
Helen Schinske