"Let Them Test ", Says Times Editorial
This article appeared in today's Times editorial page. It supports additional testing for APP AND Spectrum for students whose schools are closing. (I'd say some more about it but I'm running short on time today.)
Comments
The district MUST expand true Spectrum programs in all areas with demand, in order to begin to allow students who already have qualified, but are now on long waiting lists, to enroll. That would not cost them one extra penny, and may lend credibility to the district's claim to want increased access to advanced learning. Their track record on Spectrum has been abysmal.
The district MUST expand Spectrum at Washington Middle School, in order to provide continuity for displaced Meany students currently taking Advanced Learning Opportunities. Otherwise how can the district claim that splitting APP increases access to advanced learning, when Washington would have fewer advanced learning seats if they don't?
The School Board MUST represent the public who elected them, and demand accountability. The School Board must require the district to show PROOF that splitting APP will increase access.
ATTENTION SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS: If they can't prove it, don't approve it! Please don't rubber-stamp the district's proposal. Kids are counting on you!
Because these students have demonstrated they are capable of advanced coursework they should not be required to take more eligibility tests.
These students will move from Meany to Washington if the current proposal is approved. Meany does not offer Spectrum. Washington can simply make some classrooms Spectrum instead of General Education. That would not require any extra space or expense of any kind.
There is no excuse for not expanding Spectrum at Washington Middle School!
After all, why should the district want to keep kids OUT of Spectrum who are capable of the classwork? They should provide as much opportunity as possible for every student to reach their fullest potential, by reducing barriers to advanced learning.
This confirms what Mercermom states, and the irony in this is that many families with advanced ability kids have chosen Meany in recent years as it has developed its ALO program, BECAUSE they were attracted to the open access which does not rely on self-contained classrooms or gatekeeping by tests. Now they are told that the gates may be closed, unless they choose something other than what the district wants them to do, because the plan leaves Washington as the only Central Cluster middle school.
As Rudy D notes, we have a significant, unresolved problem with access to advanced learning by kids/families with interest in it by the design of Spectrum and APP. ALO has promise as a model, but the only middle school ALO is at Madison in W. Seattle. Why isn't the district promoting and supporting its own model, especially as it makes the argument of improving access to "successful programs"?
So, let them test. But will it make any difference?
But increased access to Spectrum or increased Spectrum capacity is independent of the APP split. Isn't it? I understand that this might have been one of SPS's nonsensical arguments, but what's the connection?
Even without splitting APP, they could (and should!) add Spectrum capacity.
I think the district should define each of the advanced learning programs, APP, Spectrum and ALO, before making changes to any of the programs. Once the district knows what each program should look like and how many kids in each cluster would be included, they will have a much better idea of how to provide these advanced learning services. When you have empty spectrum seats in one part of the city and waiting lists in others, you know you have problems. ALO exists in some schools in name only, while in others it does mean something.
Until the district can guarantee access to all advanced learning programs, and show where the kids are who need it, they should not split any programs. If they were to offer new testing now, they will have a lot of unhappy Spectrum parents who find out that there is no room for their kid.
The audit only covered APP; why when Spectrum is the biggest part of AL?
Spectrum has always been the poor stepchild to APP.
"First, do no harm."
Spectrum, Alt, "Regular", SpEd, Culturally Relevant, APP, ELL, ELO...
GROW the variety of programs, etc, that meet the varied needs of students! Pedagogy over the last half-century recognizes more and more needs. We used to GROW services to meet these needs, because it's the right thing to do.
But another way to educate students is to put them all in a little box and stand an automaton in front of them, regurgitating direct instruction without differentiation. This is less expensive, and in these lean times, what with a deficit and all, perhaps this is the way to go?
GROW the variety of quality education that meets students needs.
Meany Spectrum students are losing Spectrum? I hope ALL "communities" looking for the individuation and differentiation that meets the needs of ALL children will watch the doctors and get second opinions.
"First, do no harm."
(Meanwhile, my 6th-grade son is taking 8th-grade math at AS1, a school with no Spectrum and no ALO; organizationally, the place is a mess right now, but as usual, the teachers are heroic in what they can accomplish.)