Review of Gifted Programs (not so much)
So it was announced that the review of the gifted programs was completed in an article in today's Times. The article only talks about APP so I wonder if Spectrum or the ALOs were even looked at. Maybe it's only the programs that get state funding that were reviewed. If so, that's not very useful. From the article:
"An outside review of gifted education in Seattle Public Schools said the district should act aggressively to diversify its program.
"But according to the report, APP is perceived to be "elitist, exclusionary and even racist," and that some of its African-American students are bullied and isolated."
Okay, perceived by whom?
But at the heart of the problem?
"The program's curriculum lacks vision, the report said, and rigor in classes is inconsistent. "The philosophy and definition of giftedness in Seattle do not reflect current developments in the field of gifted education," it said."
This is absolutely key and, to me, absolutely true. I trust Bob Vaughn, who is now the head of the department, but if he doesn't get key support, nothing will change.
Here's a link to the full report which I haven't read yet.
"An outside review of gifted education in Seattle Public Schools said the district should act aggressively to diversify its program.
Almost three-quarters of the students enrolled in the Accelerated Progress Program (APP) are white, compared to about 40 percent districtwide."
I know, for a fact, that huge outreach has been done so I'll be interested to see what else the district comes up with to find more minority students.
"But according to the report, APP is perceived to be "elitist, exclusionary and even racist," and that some of its African-American students are bullied and isolated."
Okay, perceived by whom?
But at the heart of the problem?
"The program's curriculum lacks vision, the report said, and rigor in classes is inconsistent. "The philosophy and definition of giftedness in Seattle do not reflect current developments in the field of gifted education," it said."
This is absolutely key and, to me, absolutely true. I trust Bob Vaughn, who is now the head of the department, but if he doesn't get key support, nothing will change.
Here's a link to the full report which I haven't read yet.
Comments
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/advlearning/APPEvaluationReportSeattle.pdf
I was very put off by the way APP presented itself. It did not seem developmentally appropriate at all, and actually referred to students as "Lowell Material", or "Not Lowell Material". What if someone decided my son was not "Lowell Material" once we transferred him there? I also got the impression that they viewed parents of highly gifted kids as necessarily pushy and in the way.
He is more challenged in Spectrum than he was last year, but it does seem pretty "one size fits all". There is not much of a spark happening, and I am a little disappointed. But still not ready to send him to Lowell.
I read through the report, albeit quickly, and am interested to see what comes of it.
-SPS mom
Our family chose to have our kid stay in a regular classroom rather than transfer to Spectrum this year. We will likely be going through the same process again.
One of the most confusing aspects of choosing an academic program (advanced learning or not) was trying to understand what our kid
needs and how that relates to the testing and eligability requirements. I appreciated the report suggestions to have the district change how they evaluate testing and data for entrance to these programs. Currently there are no factors considered for motivation level, learning styles or other learning experiences that demonstrate a need for an advanced learning curriculum.
On another note, the report's strong statements about the need to look at racism and bullying of kids of color at APP was good to see.
Instead, I'm worried that APP is about to get sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Is that being paranoid or just realistic?
-APP Dad
The Seattle Times is looking to sell newspapers and thus highlights one paragraph and one recommendation from an 85-page report. Every APP parent and APP teacher knows that there is under-representation of people of color in the program. This report just states the obvious and provides recommendations for how to address the problem.
APP has been a great program for both my kids. Both of them joined APP at Washington and are now at Garfield. We chose to wait to move them into the program until Washington (one at 6th grade and the other at 7th) because they were fitting in well socially at their elementary and middle schools. We did need to move our younger child from Bryant to Wedgwood to get her into the Spectrum program when she wasn't being challenged at Bryant.
Suspect you have plenty to say about this? Your thoughts?
Of course the Seattle Times wants to sell newspapers; that's it's business.
That is interesting. I haven't read the whole report, but I don't see data on comparative achievement scores. Where did you see that?
On a related subject: The report says (pp 28-29) that APP students are currently being re-evaluated at transition times (5th and 8th grades). How are they doing this? Does that mean that some Washington (Lowell) APP kids do not qualify to go on to Garfield (Washington)? Could APP qualified kids that stayed at their neighborhood schools access those spots at Garfield in some way? (there is no current mechanism to test into APP in 8th grade)?
What is your definition of political correctness? This report is about fairness and equity across econonomic and racial lines. Calling it political correct is why so many of us still think its okay to do nothing about these disparities. We can just brush it off as another Seattle School District politically correct saga.
There are links to information about re-qualication on the district website and the Advanced Learning home page.
And, I too found the report to be thoughtful - the suggestions seemed realistic and useful and I hope they can be implemented especially in relation to issues of equity and inclusion.
Most compelling were issues of bullying with students of color. ALso appreciated comments about inequity of having best music programs only at schools with advanced learning programs.
That's *far* from a correct summary. Both the APP-qualified students attending Lowell and those elsewhere have very high average achievement, but there was a significant difference noted in mean WASL reading scores. (Not on math, and not on any other achievement tests. If I remember correctly, it was only one year's data on the fourth grade WASL that was looked at.) However, that difference is in the range where a grade-level test, and a criterion-referenced one at that, can NOT differentiate or rank students with any accuracy.
One of the observations made in the report was that teachers used only on-grade level testing. I think the limitations of on-grade testing should have been a concern throughout, from identification onward. Many kids who may only squeak into a 4 on the WASL end up getting state honors on talent search testing, for instance, while others with higher scores on the WASL have been known to score much lower when presented with out-of-level material.
Helen Schinske
No one is arguing that we should ignore the disparities! Indeed, no one has pushed harder for reforming the testing process than those of us who've been through the whole ridiculous hoohah and know exactly why most people give up on Advanced Learning.
It's NOT a situation where anyone is sitting pretty. It's a situation where those who have various kinds of socioeconomic power (status, race, money, time, whatever) find it easier to deal with the bureaucratic absurdities. That doesn't mean anyone likes them or thinks they're the right way to do things. We'd *all* benefit if the process were fairer and more transparent.
Helen Schinske
But "increasingly overt racism" puts one in mind of Jena-style nooses and that kind of nonsense, and naturally this is the aspect that the media have seized upon.
No, my concern is about the school system's response to this report, and the possibility of this strengthening the hand of those in the administration and the community who think APP is elitist, racist, and "not really public school." It doesn't take much to stir up a racially tinged brouhaha in urban public school systems, and that's what I'm worried about here.
--APP Dad
No single assessment instrument or its results must deny student eligibility for gifted programming services.
That would be nice but it's unlikely to happen. They even use the WASL as a big stick if students want to stay in the program (you have to take the WASL if you want to stay in).
Does anyone know what came first at Washington/Eckstein - music or APP/Spectrum?
I suspect music and, of course, no music program gets built overnight.
Most of the report was no surprise, but it was a relief. It was great to see an outside authority confirm the lack of vision, the lack of professional development for teachers and administrators, the lack of administrative support, the lack of professional qualifications among teachers and administrators, the lack of communication with the community, and the lack of program evaluation.
I was deeply trouble to read about racist statements and race-based bullying by teachers and students in the program. That was news to me as I hadn't observed any of that.
There were some hard words for the Advisory Committee. Some families felt that they were not well represented by the Advisory Committee. The reviewers also wrote that "on several issues the boundaries between advocacy, advice and interference had been blurred in ways that were not healthy for the program in the long run."
I find it amusing that the reviewers recommended the creation of a new advisory committee. The committee they propose would have the same mix of membership that the Advanced Learning Steering Committee had - before the District disbanded it in favor of the current committees.
I found a number of conflicting messages in the review. For example, on one hand, the reviewers write that the APP teachers aren't really doing anything different than general education teachers, then they recommend that the District create environments in which the expertise and high quality instruction offered by APP teachers can benefit other students. Those two ideas appear contradictory to me.
The reviewers clearly prefer dispersing the APP students into self-contained classrooms within general education schools, much as Spectrum appears now. I'm not sure how this would be accomplished when there are not enough 1st grade students for two APP classrooms, and five sections of fifth grade APP.
I can't wait to see which elements of the review the District accepts and acts on.
Instead, parents whose kids do not test into a program like APP or have a school that they feel is challenging their children (and who have the money), send their children to private school. This is why the overall racial make-up of the school district does not track the racial make-up of the city.
The reality is the APP population is much more reflective of the racial make-up of Seattle since it is an all city draw and it is an attractive program. Hence, parents throughout the city whose kids test into the program generally send their children. This is why the student population of APP is majority white, the city is too!
Above and beyond the above facts, there are also a myriad of other reasons to explain the nuances of the student population of the APP program. One can find studies in books to explain this and I won't go into it on a blog site. Suffice it to say, the school system does not operate in a vacuum.
The important thing to remember is that this small program within the Seattle Public Schools is a special needs program for children that are two years ahead of curriculum and these kids must test in in order to be admitted. It is not a program for everyone, and to water it down on the basis of political correctness does a disservice to those students who desperately need the challenge of a rigorous curriculum to maintain interest.
APP parent
But the majority of the white gifted students are already in the myriad of private school that serve gifted students, leaving SPS with a kind of second tier gifted program which is also racially exclusive. EG. 60% of Lakeside seniors get some kind of national merit recognition.
Lakeside draws from surrounding districts as well, though -- particularly Bellevue.
Helen Schinske
Washington's Basic Education Allocation is around $4,000, and around $3,000 goes to each building. That's $3,000 that goes to your school, for your kid who isn't disabled, free-lunch, or ELL, etc.
Private school = mostly white = $15,000 to $25,000 + annual giving. You can get a lot more there but yes, you have to pay for it. In Seattle, that's no problem.
I think that is patently false. If you take the number of National Merit Scholars from Garfield and Lakeside this year, and divide by their respective class sizes, the % of National Merit Scholars is very close (Garfield may even be slightly higher). This is just a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but it serves the purpose in this case.
Clearly, the APP program has "top tier" talent. It is unfortunate that the inflammatory bits and pieces of the long report are getting all of the attention, while the fact that the curriculum and organization of the whole program seems flawed receives little attention.
While APP does not, middle school Spectrum and the ALOs currently provide accelerated instruction for kids who are off the charts in one subject but not another. I'm not sure the reviewers were aware of that fact.
By all means, let's nurture giftedness at all schools. Until then, however, let's not pull the rug out from under the kids we are now serving. The reviewers were sensitive to the question of how to expand access to APP without diminishing its effectiveness for the students now in the program or diminishing the challenge and rigor in the curriculum.
Their solution was to introduce differentiation which would address the current range of skills and allow for an expanded range of skills.
I hope re-gifted doesn't feel jumped on. I, and every APP family I know, fully support all of these ideas. My first choice would be for my children to be appropriately served in their neighborhood school. Some neighborhood schools are up to it, some are not. Some are honest about that, some are not.
Everyone supports raising the quality of teaching across the board, making classrooms in general better for all kids. But saying that we want it isn't enough to make it happen.
But all things are not equal. In the case of severe, indisputable special needs, there are obvious disparities in prevalence among different socioeconomic categories. Many disorders are related to environmental factors such as prematurity that currently differ widely among various groups. I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that the same socioeconomic groups with high incidences of severe special needs could well suffer from a higher than average incidence of less-definite special needs.
That's not to say that every special ed placement has been fairly and equitably done. Obviously I can't know that. But the mere existence of a racial disparity in special ed doesn't in itself prove much about fairness in the schools. You might much more reasonably draw conclusions about inequities in society, prenatal health care, etc.