Whispers
The APP community has heard, through undisclosed sources, that the District has changes in mind for the program's configuration. There is no word, no hint, other than that whisper of change coming. No one from the District has made any effort to engage the community regarding the problem, let alone the ideas or the plans.
APP has capacity issues. The elementary program, at 500, is bursting Lowell at the seams. There was an abortive attempt two years ago by Raj Manhas to split this program between Lowell and Broadview-Thomson. The high school program, at 400, comprises about 25% of the enrollment at Garfield. There was an abortive attempt three years ago by Raj Manhas to dismantle the program. The middle school program stands at about 425 students and is located at Washington Middle School. Last year, Carla Santorno tried to split this program between Washington and Hamilton, but a board review revealed just how capricious that idea actually was and Ms Santorno, unable to provide data to support her decision, withdrew it.
Let's be very clear. The APP community is not opposed to change. They just want the District to be thoughtful about it so the program's quality and effectiveness will be preserved. Previous false starts at reconfiguration were not thoughtful - not at all. The community has been trying to actively engage the district on reconfiguration for years to no avail - the District staff just won't speak with them.
When the District withdrew their proposal to split middle school APP, they committed to engaging the community on the issue. They have failed to keep that commitment.
APP has capacity issues. The elementary program, at 500, is bursting Lowell at the seams. There was an abortive attempt two years ago by Raj Manhas to split this program between Lowell and Broadview-Thomson. The high school program, at 400, comprises about 25% of the enrollment at Garfield. There was an abortive attempt three years ago by Raj Manhas to dismantle the program. The middle school program stands at about 425 students and is located at Washington Middle School. Last year, Carla Santorno tried to split this program between Washington and Hamilton, but a board review revealed just how capricious that idea actually was and Ms Santorno, unable to provide data to support her decision, withdrew it.
Let's be very clear. The APP community is not opposed to change. They just want the District to be thoughtful about it so the program's quality and effectiveness will be preserved. Previous false starts at reconfiguration were not thoughtful - not at all. The community has been trying to actively engage the district on reconfiguration for years to no avail - the District staff just won't speak with them.
When the District withdrew their proposal to split middle school APP, they committed to engaging the community on the issue. They have failed to keep that commitment.
Comments
So what else is new?
Normally the public is engaged after the real planning has already been done. Usually the public like the board is to just stamp OK.
I actually got started being active in the district over the Highly Capable program as it was called then. My son was in Spectrum.
This district acts like it's embarrassed about high achievers. I know of no other district that acts like this. There are magnet high schools over all the Northeast for high achievers and no one bats an eye.
My sons were never in APP but I would oppose splitting up the program simply because the program has so little and that move could weaken it.
I wish Spectrum were a stronger program with more uniformity from school to school.
With the assignment plan changing, these issues loom large. How will high achieving students get their academics? I think many parents would rather keep them at a neighborhood school but find that either there is nothing done or it's just "extra work".
How the district seems to deal with the SPED community is, identify a building that needs additional students, slap together a " program" using keywords from ' best practices", write up students IEPs, using those keywords & say " hey" , this is the only building that happens to offer the program that you need according to your IEP.
Doesn't matter if that is what the student actually needs, my experience has been the IEP is written before the meeting- the meeting is just to briefly ( emphasis on brief) explain what the procedure is, ask parents to sign, they don't have to agree, with the way the IEP is written, because the signature is just to certify they were there.
However, if both SPED and APP banded together- to insure that buildings could actually attempt to fullfill requirements of what was attempting to be offered- they both might have better luck dealing with district.
Additionally, it could help to serve those students, like my daughter, who fit into both categories, but who often fall between the cracks.
It often appears the SPS goal is to have each child learn the same content as every other child. The goal should be to maximize the learning for each child given the childs capabilities. {It appears the SPS program fails to serve many potential high achademic achievers.}
As Melissa said:
"It's pretty ridiculous."
For the program to have credibility it would have to be at a school that already has a reputation for academic achievement. There are five of those in the Central Cluster: Montlake, McGilvra, Stevens, TOPS, and Lowell.
I think you can see the problem. There's no room for additional students at any of those schools and two of them (Lowell and TOPS) would require significant changes to the student assignment plan.
Here's an alternative:
The district could designate Muir as the Spectrum school for the Central, South, and Southeast clusters. The three cluster draw would form a program as big and as credible as the one at Lafayette, which is (in essence) a multi-cluster draw.
1. Seattle Schools standards for student identification using top 1-2% for IQ and achievement scores in reading and math is such an outdated way to identify highly gifted. Isn't even close to meeting gifted industry trends.
2. National gifted standards recognize being highly gifted in a single subject area. Seattle's APP program only recognizes students being highly gifted in BOTH reading and math areas!
3. Seattle's APP program has very little, if any, representation of economically-disadvantaged students, African-American students and other students of color... these students are so under-represented, the word discrimmination comes to mind. (And to the minds of many in the know.)
4. The APP standards for identification have so many cultural biases that the testing measures used for identification barely meet the sniff test. Unless, of course, you're middle class and white.
5. Seattle's narrowly-focused APP program doesn't recognize or serve those highly gifted in other areas: creativity, leadership, the arts, intellectual... only academics.
6. Highly gifted students with disabilities (yes, gifted can be disabled too!) are rarely given access to the APP program because testing for eligibility is directly impacted by their disabilities. Some well-known gifted/disabled or Twice Exceptional are Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison (and maybe Gates).
Highly-regarded, rigorous gifted programs help prevent white flight. So regardless of any capacity issues, Seattle's APP program faces very tough scrutiny based on equity issues. This will leave the district scrambling to find an adequate fix to keep those families from fleeing the district while balancing those discriminatory perceptions of APP!
The group auditing Seattle's APP and other highly capable programs like Spectrum, are well-respected, industry experts and have been used by many urban school districts similar to Seattle.
Read the long-version of the highly capable audit... you might be quite surprised.
First, Seattle Public Schools puts very little money into APP. Most of the funding for the program comes from the State in the form of a grant that the District could not receive if they did not have a program. The grant pays for the identification testing and for most of the staff who work the program. The District's most significant out-of-pocket expenses for APP are the added transportation costs for the all-city draw program. The state covers a significant portion of these costs as well. The APP classrooms don't cost any more to operate than general education classrooms (they have about the same number of students) and there is no additional pay for the teachers. Since the classes don't have many special education students, they are actually among the lowest funded classes in the District. The general fund contribution to the Advanced Learning Office - which supports APP, Spectrum, ALOs, AP classes, IB, and Early Entrance Kindergarten - is totally punk. This is particularly true when you consider the number of students served by these programs.
The District's identification practice is poor, but not outside the norm. The primary deficiency is not the use of the CogAT, but the truly dreadful misapplication of WASL scores and the lack of out-of-grade-level testing. The District's efforts to add racial and economic diversity to the program by using the non-verbal CogAT was discouraged by the review as a bit misguided.
It sure would be better if SPS identified students as gifted in individual subject areas - they do for middle school Spectrum. The problem starts with elementary school where students are in a single self-contained class for all core subjects. The structure of the program dictated the identification process. It is less of an issue at middle school where, regardless of program, students are placed in math classes based on placement tests. It is not an issue in high school.
The under-representation of certain groups in APP is a well-known fact and the topic of a lot of discussion. The current program manager and the outside review team offer the same solution: talent development. Unfortunately, the schools that enroll a lot of minority students and students from low-income households have not shown any enthusiasm for supporting their gifted students or nominating them for participation in the program. In most cases they don't even acknowledge that they have any. The program can only serve the students who are in it. The deficiency here is not within the program, but outside it. High potential students, particularly African-American students, Latino students, and students from low-income households, are not getting exposed to the sort of challenging and rigorous curricula that would nuture their potential into ability.
The accusation of cultural bias in the tests has been around for a long time. No answer - short of equal outcomes for all groups - would appear to satisfy those who claim it. The publishers of the tests do their best to remove bias and none is found in the instrument, only inferred from the outcomes. While it is simple and politically popular to claim test bias, this is not the case as widely accepted by measurement professionals (Jencks, 1998). The outside reviewers - who are acknowledged experts in all other matters - did not contend that the tests were biased. The tests used for identification pass many more tests than the sniff test for cultural bias - unless you have cultural bias stuck in your nose and therefore smell it everywhere.
The one notable cultural bias is language. The tests are given in English. Students who are new to the language are at a disadvantage. That's why the District introduced the use of the non-verbal CogAT. The outside reviewers found this the appropriate use of the test.
It is true that the tests are narrowly focused on academic giftedness, but that's what the program is for - the academically gifted. It is not designed to serve those gifted artistically or with leadership. Artistic giftedness does not make a student well-matched for an accelerated program in math and reading. It is giftedness in math and reading that makes the match. That what the program offers, so that's what they test for. The outside reviewers cautioned against testing for and determining eligibility on criteria that do not match the programs offerings.
taylor is correct that the District doesn't do a good job identifying students who are both gifted and disabled. That was known before the review and was noted in the review and is definitely an area that needs improvement.
I too encourage people to read the outside review of APP. Of special interest to any reconfiguration of the program, I suggest that you read what the reviewers had to say about cohort size. It is not what you might expect.
This makes it more difficult to know what parents want in the assignment plan under the heading of Advanced Learning.
I agree with the issue of students having to be good in two subjects when they may favor one. That's where differentiation in teaching should come in. But it usually doesn't and if you ask you may get just a shrug. I know that one elementary PTA funds a math tutor for their students who are gifted (they don't have Spectrum and I don't know if they have an ALO).
I with Charlie on the issue of differing kinds of giftedness. This program is about academic giftedness. I have actually never seen a program that addresses other kinds of giftedness even though it clearly exists. This district already tends to celebrate achievements other than academic so I'm glad there's at least a program.
My D who was found to have an upward of 160iq, and was tested over a period of several years by Dr Robinson- did not qualify for the Seattle public schools gifted program.
Any of them. ( she is average in math apparently)
However, she did qualify to enter into private schools that serve gifted children and her test results were impressive enough for them, that they gave her financial aid. through high school ( ok college too) graduation.
Its really a tragedy, when I think of how many kids are not served because they don't look like what the district has in mind.
I know there are definitely students who are so far ahead of their classmates that they need accelerated coursework, and I applaud the District for working to meet their needs. However, in too many schools, the students in the standard classes have to endure a curriculum that is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator so they become bored and disenchanted with school.
There's got to be a way to serve a variety of students and meet all of their needs. It should not have to be up to parents to supplement the standard public education just to keep their child engaged. Does anyone know of other Districts who have managed to pull off such a feat?
ALOs follow all kinds of models, too many to list or describe. Schools that offer ALOs are noted in the Enrollment Guides.
That's not true across the board or even within a school.
For example, at Blaine in the lower grades I believe this year you need to test in to participate, it seems to change year to year, so not sure what the current model is.
However, in middle school, ALOs are open to any student with an A in the class, for 1Q all students are allowed to participate.
However, all the ALO consists of are projects to be completed entirely at home. Sometimes teachers will issue the ALO project at the beginning of a quarter, sometimes not. The adminstration has never really gotten a solid program in place (contrary to what their web site would lead you to believe).
Main point is that ALO programs have no real oversight from the discrict and so the ALO designation means different things at different schools.
Spectrum is also somewhat like this from school to school, although you can pretty much guarentee your student will get math and reading that is one year ahead, but that is about it.
For middle school, I cannot figure out what Spectrum means at any middle school. Anybody with any Spectrum middle school experience they care to share?
Interesting idea. It is predicated on two beliefs. One, that high schools offer classes in response to the demand by the students. Two, that there will be enough demand for the classes if the APP students were dispersed.
I'll set aside the first presumption because there is no point discussing it. Statements on either side would be pure conjecture. I could claim that the schools are not responsive in this way and others could claim that they are. Either way it is actually uncertain. There are no guarantees.
Regarding the second premise, we can do some reckoning. There are about 400 high school APP students. If they were dispersed evenly across all of the high schools - except the safety net schools - each of the big comprehensive schools would get about 35 APP students (some would go to Summit, the Center School, and NOVA). Of these 35 students, there would be about 8 or 9 in each grade, about 17 who are juniors or seniors in any given year. Of these, how many would want to take any one AP class? How many would want to take AP Calculus BC? Certainly not all of them. It's a class that is generally taken only by seniors after they took AP Calculus AB as juniors. So maybe six students would want it. Is that enough additional demand to merit offering the class? I don't think so. But AP Calculus BC is offered at Garfield. And what of AP Latin, AP Chemistry? Let's remember that Chief Sealth High School doesn't offer ANY AP classes and Ingraham only offers one. Will they suddenly create the a variety of these classes in response to spotty demand from 17 students? I don't think so.
It's a pleasant theory, but when you consider the actual events, they seem implausible.
Gifted people are percieved as different by their peers, and often have issues fitting in socially. They have high rates of isolation, depression, suicide and alcoholism. They are also often the target or bullying in schools. Having a large cohort of similar students offers them safety in numbers from bullying, and a chance of having deep and meaningful friendships that can ward off so many of those other things.
It's not just about AP classes. It really isn't.
No, you wouldn't have to spread APP high school students around evenly. I guess we will all see the actual plan at some point. Perhaps you could split it into 2 or 3, maybe with the eventual goal of an even split. Even if you wanted to, the split wouldn't be even. In any case, the downside might be a few esoteric AP classes would no longer be available. The upside... many other students, in many other schools, would have access to a range of AP classes. Because the advanced students are all concentrated in one place, it lowers demand at other schools. That much seems obvious.
First point: despite the absence of AP classes, a lot of APP students choose NOVA. My own daughter, for example. She is not alone. At least a half a dozen of her friends from Washington are enrolled there with her. While it is true that NOVA is right across the street from Garfield and NOVA students may enroll in classes at Garfield on a "space available" basis, very few of them use the opportunity. If they seek advanced classes they are more likely to use Running Start. The presence of APP students at NOVA has not fostered AP classes there.
If APP students don't choose Summit or The Center School, then the suggestion that dispersing APP would expand AP opportunities would not extend to those schools.
Roosevelt and Ballard already offer plenty of AP classes, nearly as many as Garfield. There is no need to expand the AP opportunities at these two schools, is there?
Chief Sealth and Ingraham offer IB instead of AP. These classes are already available, so there is no need to expand those offerings, is there? In fact, if the APP students were in the building they might take seats in these classes from other students. That would actually restrict access.
Nathan Hale chooses not to offer AP classes as a principle of their teaching (or political) perspective, so adding APP students would not extend any AP opportunities at Hale.
In short, dispersing high school APP would not improve the number or variety of advanced classes available to students at any of the high schools north of downtown.
What about at the schools South of downtown?
Dispersing the program would certainly reduce the opportunities at Garfield. Let's remember that any student who accepts the challenge can enroll in an AP class. They are not for APP students only. Garfield has long boasted that they have more African-American students taking AP classes than any other school. Those kids aren't all in APP.
Chief Sealth, as mentioned, offers IB instead of AP.
So, really, there are only four schools that might possibly offer more AP classes if the high school APP were dispersed are West Seattle, Franklin, Cleveland, and Rainier Beach.
Two of these, Cleveland and Rainier Beach, are in the Southeast Initiative. adhoc says "The schools that are part of the SE initiative can't fill their AP classes currently, but perhaps if a group of APP students went there they would. Perhaps their AP program would even grow?" Perhaps, but how many APP students are likely to enroll at Cleveland or Rainier Beach? Probably less than the estimated average of 35. I doubt any more than 20, which is only five per grade. I cannot see how ten or so upper classmen are going to create sufficient demand for AP classes to merit Cleveland and Rainier Beach to expand their offerings. More likely they will only take a few of the empty seats in the existing classes.
Really the only schools that might, by any stretch of the imagination, add AP classes as a result of dismantling high school APP would be West Seattle and Franklin, and there is no good reason to believe that they would.
So what does that mean? It means that students at these schools could take those classes as a running start class. That's actually not so bad is it?
I agree that it isn't right that some schools don't offer many (or any) AP classes. But breaking up high school APP won't change that. I think that's clear. The only thing that will change that would be for those schools to choose, on their own, for the benefit of the students already enrolled in their school, to start offering more AP classes. So why don't they?
If these schools aren't offering enough advanced classes, you can't lay the blame on a group of students in another school. That's weak. People need to take responsibility for their choices, and the courses a school offers is a choice that the Building Leadership Team makes. If your school doesn't offer enough AP classes, you need to talk to your principal, not try to dismantle APP.
Reader wrote:
"The upside... many other students, in many other schools, would have access to a range of AP classes."
Actually, no. At most, just a few other students at just two other schools might have access to a couple more AP classes. Probably not. We can, however, be sure that all of the students at Garfield would have less access to AP.
Don't go with the conclusion that seems obvious. Think another step further and you'll see that dismantling high school APP would most likely reduce the net total access that students have to advanced classes. Any increases at West Seattle or Franklin would be more than offset by reductions at Garfield.
In fact, there is no reason to believe that Garfield would offer any more AP classes than Franklin, so there would no longer be any school south of downtown that offered a wide range of AP classes - only Roosevelt and Ballard in the north end would have a strong selection.
Let's also remember that the District does not receive state funding for students who are in Running Start. The District is funded on AAFTE, so they only get half funding for a student who is at Running Start for half the day.
And if the district put an APP-cohort program at Cleveland, and NOT elsewhere, then maybe more would actually go to Cleveland, as noted by Adhoc. Then AP classes would be offered there because there would be enough students to warrant having them. Sounds like APP parents simply don't want to go to Cleveland. Well, neither does anybody else. Why should a particular group be exempt? I thought we cared about the SE? Good for everyone else... just not APP kids.
I'd like to support Charlie's statement above about APP and IB classes. The really great thing about IB at Sealth is that kids don't have to test into the program and for the most part, APP students are not filling seats there. IB at Sealth is the most academically rigorouss program south of Garfield and I think it needs to remain wide open to any student who wants to attend. In fact, the IB teachers at Sealth seemed to me very invested in having the program not associated with the APP high school cohort - they've worked hard at Sealth to create a very different philosophy of academic inclusiveness.
Charlie raises some good points in that there is power in numbers, and it takes those numbers to drive a program.
I find it interesting that not all APP students make the move from Washington to Garfield. I didn't realize that and was surprised to hear that several chose Nova. I wonder if some APP students that live north of the ship canal choose Roosevelt, Ballard, or the IB program at Ingraham? And if they are not choosing schools soley based on their lack of AP offerings (NOVA) are they choosing Hale or Center School or any other schools? Does anyone know the numbers or percent of MS APP students who do not move on to Garfield? It would be interesting data to have.
The other thing to note is if the APP program moved out of Garfield and the school was a regular neighborhood school, there would not be a high demand for AP classes, and I would assume that most of them would not be offered any longer. The rigor at the school would deteriorate, and in the end the Central/South end could watch as their strongest school turns into another Cleveland, or RBHS. Can this district afford to let this happen to yet another school south of the ship canal?
So that leaves three schools, Cleveland, West Seattle and Garfield that may be suitable for the APP cohort. If they were split between these three programs how would the numbers look? And how well would the students be served
If many students elect to leave the cohort for high school, then there is no reason why other eligible students who need the cohort can't move in, is there?
The reasons some APP kids would not take IB (even though it is very rigorous work) are there. First, the kinds of classes in IB are not, as I understand it, as broad as AP. So kids with a particular interest might not be served by IB. Second, IB is a whole program with multiple steps and extra community service work. Some students might not want that extra paperwork and outside the classwork (I have a friend with a son at Ingraham in IB and it is a lot of extra watching over to get it all done.) Third, if you want the IB degree, you have to take multiple tests in a shorter period of time than AP so that may be another factor. (Although I know at Ingraham and Sealth, they do encourage students to take individual classes and they don't have to be in the IB "program" per se. This is a great way to expose more students to rigorous work.)
Roosevelt is planning on adding another AP class next year - AP Spanish Literature. We have many students who come in from middle school having completed a year of Spanish and top out after junior year so RHS is planning to add this AP Spanish class for those who want to continue on.
Can you explain why this would be an issue for APP students? I don't understand? Aren't APP students up for the challenge?
As charlie has pointed out, splitting up APP probably won't improve rigor in the south end, even if its only spread across a few schools, especially if you account for the students who will leave the district if the program is split up. It would reduce rigor at Garfield.
So, what would increase rigor in the south end? I live in the Central area, and I'd like to have more choices too. Here's my "queen of the world" scenario for increasing rigor in the south end. These are just ideas, I'd like to hear what people think about them.
1) Close Rainier Beach (this is probably going to happen anyway), and consolidate it with Cleaveland.
2) Create an IB program at the new Cleaveland. As Charlie has pointed out before, the school is already set up for academies, and this could be a good fit. With the money saved from closing a whole high school, there should be plenty of funding for this.
3) Create a high school Spectrum program and place it at Franklin. Franklin is a great location for an all-city draw using public transportation. It has a Sound Transit station, two arterials with bus service, and a freeway entrance nearby. Consolidate the AP classes currently offered at RBHS, Cleaveland, and Franklin, since RBHS/Cleaveland will now have IB. If each now has 3 (picked for easy math, probably not the real number) Franklin will now have 9. If having advanced students really does drive schools to offer AP, the presence of the Spectrum students will cause Franklin to offer more over time.
3) West Seattle. I don't know this area as well. Will the students currently in West Seattle and Sealth fit in one of the buildings? Could they be merged, providing access to the IB program to all the students? The savings from closing another whole school should be more than enough to pay for additional sections of IB classes.
If they won't fit in one building, split the new Spectrum program between Franklin and West Seattle.
4) Finally, leave Garfield alone. Garfield is doing a good job. These other schools having more rigor will take some pressure off Garfield, and make it more available to neighborhood students.
If RBHS/Cleveland had IB, then there would be a program in the north, in the south and in the west! All students would have reasonable access to an IB school!!!
And if Franklin, probably the strongest of the three schools anyway (Franklin, RBHS, Cleveland) increased it's AP course offerings to a reasonable level, say 9, I think the school could have a renaissance (it used to be a very strong program).
And, yes, leave Garfield alone. It's doing a good job. Same for Montlake, McGilvra, TOPS, NOVA, and AS1. They are smaller programs, in awful buildings, but they are doing their jobs and doing them well. Lets leave the successful programs alone!
filling seats.
I do like the idea of a Franklin
"renaissance". Don't know enough about their current programs and why things are not as good there as they used to be to say what changes could be made. Franklin is the closest high school to where we live, yet I don't know a single student going there.
"If Ingraham and other IB programs can already serve APP students, then why shouldn't they go to Ingraham?"
The answer to this question is easy. APP students who want IB do are free to enroll at Ingraham - or at Chief Sealth. They are not required to enroll at Garfield.
Question #2:
"Why should students be shipped to Garfield, if they indeed can be served at Ingraham?"
Answer:
If they want to enroll at Ingraham they may. No one is shipping them anywhere.
Question:
"And if the district put an APP-cohort program at Cleveland, and NOT elsewhere, then maybe more would actually go to Cleveland, as noted by Adhoc."
Cleveland is not very centrally located and therefore not a particularly good choice for an all-city draw. The school is not well-served by METRO bus routes, especially for people coming from all parts of the city. That said, if the District relocated high school APP to Cleveland I'm sure a lot of the students in the program would enroll there.
"Then AP classes would be offered there because there would be enough students to warrant having them."
I suppose this would be a likely outcome of a rather unlikely decision.
"Sounds like APP parents simply don't want to go to Cleveland."
Really? Who made these sounds? Where did you hear anyone say any such thing? Please share that with us all; we'd like to know.
I did write that APP students are less likely to enroll at Cleveland than at some of the other comprehensive high schools. Let me share my reasons for this. First, APP students' homes are more sparsely located in Southeast Seattle than in other parts of the city, so Cleveland isn't a nearby school for a lot of them. Second, Cleveland is built around two vocational academies. It holds little appeal to students who are not interested in pursuing one of those two vocations. Third, Cleveland's focus is on getting their kids to pass the WASL. From their web site: "Our new math curriculum is designed to help students pass the WASL and gain powerful math skills." Cleveland does not offer any AP math classes or AP world language classes. It just doesn't offer what a lot of APP students are looking for. That's why I didn't reckon that more than 20 APP students would choose it if the program were dispersed.
"Well, neither does anybody else. Why should a particular group be exempt?"
Right now, no one is compelled to enroll at Cleveland (except, of course, special education students assigned to a program there), so everyone is exempt. No particular group - everyone. Nor are there any future plans to compel anyone to enroll at Cleveland.
"I thought we cared about the SE? Good for everyone else... just not APP kids."
We do care about the Southeast. Does the fact that high school APP isn't located there somehow indicate that the District doesn't care about the Southeast? By that reasoning, the District currently doesn't care about the Southeast, the Northeast, the Northwest or West Seattle, because there's no high school APP in any of those parts of town either.
I'm sure reader has a point; I just can't divine it. Perhaps, reader could explain this to us again.
Is reader suggesting that Cleveland a better location for high school APP than Garfield? Did reader simply misread my comment of 8:19? reader, please come back and make yourself more clear.
It's not that APP kids aren't up to this; it's simply a matter of what is the best academic course of action for them, just as it is for any other student.