SAP - APP/Spectrum
Open Thread.
Tuesday Open Thread
The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested. It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio. (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Comments
What do you think of APP south/TM's attendance area? It looks like they shrunk it. I can't tell.
He said the West Seattle South elementary location was not yet finalized. And there was a little discussion about varying quality levels in different spectrum programs. He expressed an opinion that the West Seattle Elementary program was not successful in it's current state.
Went to curriculum night (Lowell) and left feeling a little less optimistic about sticking it out with SPS. No glaring issues, but a collection of little things that nagged at me.
Twenty-eight kids in a small classroom - Not a lot of time for teachers to get to know the students or differentiate. An emphasis on following the "Everyday Math" curriculum - also not a lot of room for differentiation. A new librarian that is discouraging regularly scheduled weekly class visits, but wants kids to come during recess (yeah, right). Library often closed and librarian busy with MAP testing for two weeks, three times per year - this for kids that need books like the rest of us need air.
Between issues (known and rumored) with the APP split and merging with ALO, APP's uncertain future, and looming SPS budget issues - I didn't leave feeling warm and fuzzy.
(Also, why are second graders doing MAP anyway? I thought it started at third grade.)
Sorry that you left your child's school feeling bummed. Though I know that sensation, I did want to point out a few things:
Class size at 28 is the norm at many public schools in the district, particularly elementary schools in the NE and QA/Mag clusters. Even in a number of private schools that I have investigated over the years, 28 is not totally unusual. Assuming that your child is highly capable, you would need to look at schools such as Seattle Country Day (average class size 16) at $18-20 K per year to get smaller classrooms. Like you, I wish the norm were lower for every single kid in this district (24 would be great, 20-22 dreamy). But that's just not going to happen in this state where we do not properly fund education.
Also, 28 doesn't mean that differentiation isn't happening. My son was in a classroom with 27 last year, and again, while not ideal, the teacher was able to differentiate using flexible ability groupings for literature circles, vocabulary words, and science partnerings. I will say however, that every teacher I have spoken to has said that it is certainly easier to differentiate and to really know the kids when there are fewer of them in the room.
Everyday Math IS the materials adoption for the district. Schools don’t get to pick and choose which text to use any more, and in the first year of the adoption teachers were being told not to hide their Foresman or TERC in the closet and use it when they wanted to. A strict “fidelity to the implementation” mantra was being chanted at teachers. My personal take is that things have lightened up a bit in that regard, but that teachers can perhaps supplement, but not supplant EDM. And as Charlie has noted on a number of occasions, materials do not equal curriculum or pedagogy. I hope that your child’s teacher can use the materials to inspire kids to obtain a deep understanding of mathematical concepts (not sure if EDM are the materials to do that but just for the sake of argument, let's give it the benefit of the doubt). If you don’t see that happening – due to the materials, or due to the pedagogy – gently remind your child’s teacher that every unit has extensions for kids. That could at least be a place for him or her to start differentiation.
The initial MAP testing plan was for all kids K-9 to be taking it 3 times per year so that teachers can measure student progress. I believe grades 10 and 11 will be taking the PSAT instead of MAP. I would be interested in hearing from some K and 1st grade parents though as I can't imagine how a computerized test can be structured for non- or emergent readers.
I am not sure if this post will lift your spirits a bit or sink them further. I hope it is the former, not the latter.
I just read my lenghty post above and realized that it comes off rather lecture-y. I apologize; that really is not my intent. I am about making lemonade out of lemons.
Moose
He certainly broke it down well as far as our DD is concerned.
I was pleased to see that he's supplementing the math curriculum with not one but two other texts, and backing up classwork with traditional practice of the basics (multiplication, division, etc.) and frequent quizes.
My understanding of MAP is that it will be used much as the two-three times a year assessments used to be used-which were given to kids from K on. So I would have no issue with a K-2 student doing MAP.
Thus far, from social issues to schoolwork, our experience at TM has been a positive one, as we expected it would be.
Here's a demo of the K-1 MAP test...
http://legacysupport.nwea.org/assets/demos/
PrimaryDemo2/index.asp?ref=assessments
Who knew all those dumb little flash games my kids have been playing for years were actually preparation for standardized tests?
My kid took the MAP last week and definitely noticed its "adaptive" features. She could see that some kids in her class got "harder and harder" math problems and some kids got "easier and easier" problems. She preferred the easier problems -- apparently they had cute puppies and rainbows and such. The hard problems just had boring numbers.
Maybe the district should invest in a few of those filters that the libraries use to prevent other people from seeing what's on your computer screen.
I do like the test in general but I didn't know that about the Librarian.
Oh and mercermom it wasn't strenuous lobbying to expand the walk zone it was just pointing out that TTM and Stevens students could walk where Lowell students couldn't. In fact, I pointed it out before the vote to split Lowell but all the doctors in the room couldn't seem to realize that all the all city draws have dinky maps as just place holders as they were not defined by a true reference area.
Anyway we have our second curriculum night tonight and plenty of APP questions... Especially on math.
Thanks... Robert
Moose: Not lecturey, no sweat. I don’t mean to get anyone else bummed, either. Just reflecting on what I saw and felt. If more people left feeling positive, then maybe I need to re-evaluate.
Robert: Maybe I misunderstood – ask for yourself and see if you get a similar response.
Perhaps we’ve been “lucky” in that K was 24 kids with a student teacher for a good chunk of the year and First was 23 kids with a teacher that IMO excelled at classroom management. I’ll also add that I suspect this year there are a few more behavioral issues in my daughter’s class. The other factor is that two teachers are splitting the class (which has some upsides) – therefore each teacher is in contact with 28 kids for only 2.5 days per week, something we hadn’t considered, ‘til now.
I guess it’s still early to judge for certain. The teachers haven’t had time to get to know all the kids and begin to differentiate and the other issues still need to be ironed out.
As to private schools, I’ve often felt that most general ed. private schools didn’t offer much more than public schools, but their appeal was smaller class sizes and the ability to pick and choose students (thereby avoiding obvious problems). We will be applying to some private schools again this year as an insurance policy, but given that at least by the numbers, their cutoff is lower than APP’s, we’re not sure they will be an overall better fit.
The lack of differentiation in math was a little disappointing -- I'm worried that my son won't be challenged, or that it won't be noticed that he needs to be challenged.
We walked in late, so I missed the conversation about the librarian -- that is disappointing and I hope it gets worked out.
Everyone I've spoken to seems very happy about the TM transition; would it be worth opening a thread here (or on the APP blog) to talk about how things are going at Lowell? Feeling a bit lost at the moment...
Is the inference that the APP cohort moving up to Garfield as at risk... again? Perhaps the need to move them to suit the decentralized advanced learning vision?
No idea, I just wondered what the comment meant.
If you have an elementary school child who is Spectrum-eligible, in the current world you can choose the Spectrum school, neighborhood school, or go through the regular assignment process (right?).
In the new assignment program, it's totally unclear if there are Spectrum schools at all, or if all elementary advanced learning (except APP) will be at the neighborhood schools. Is that right?
Now with Spectrum, there is no guaranteed seat even if you qualify. (One of the great downfalls of the program that irks me to this day.) According to the presentation at the Work Session, ALL elementaries are to have some sort of ALO for advanced learners. I support the idea that any child should be able to access it if they want to try the work. If it's in every classroom, why should it matter if you are Spectrum/APP eligible or teacher nominated? Let them try the work and they will sink or swim.
I have also used it to ask about program placement for Spectrum in the Denny and Mercer service areas.
I suggest others do the same.
You may have been at the same meeting I was last night, and heard the same thing. I didn't mean to post in a know-it-all tone, but rather simply alert "walk zone" folks and wanna-be "walk-zone" folks to the fact that SPS may be able to change what "walk zone" means based on the new attendance boundaries. Based on Gregory's comments, it seemed to me that's the way they (SPS admin.) want to go and that's what they've communicated to Gregory -- again, just my opinion. On it goes. Good luck. Laura
I still have high regard for the writing program... So I guess it looks like it is going to be a great year.
And thanks for the heads up... Had it been the case (and I follow your thoughts on how it could have been) I would have certainly wanted to start contacting anyone that would listen!
I'm late to the party on this post, mostly because I've been thinking long and hard about the topic...
I think it would be a terrible idea to move either APP program *this year*. The kids in those programs have had enough turmoil, and so have the kids in the ALO programs sitting in the same buildings. There are kids in the ALO at Lowell who were at both MLK and TT Minor, and we need to leave them alone for awhile.
In addition, the ALO programs need time to grow up. I don't think that its fair to use APP kids to improve a school, but I think that it is more than fair to use APP STAFF to do so. And that's what's happening at Lowell. I imagine it's happening at TM too, but I don't have first hand experience with that. The staff at Lowell has a lot of experience with advanced learners. They know how to recoginize them, how to grow them, and how to handle their quirks. They can train and mentor the ALO staff on how to do this. This is exactly what is needed to grow an ALO that actually works. It's also what's needed to convince the neighborhood families that the ALO is real. It will take several years to do that.
Now, MacDonald, or any other soon-to-open building in the North End, won't be ready for 3-4 years. In 3-5 years, after the ALOs at Lowell and TM are established and running, after neighborhood families have bought into the schools, taken positions in the PTA and ramped up fund-raising, after the kids who have been disrupted by the earlier moves have moved on to middle school, then, and only then, I could support moving both APP programs to locations that would be more convienent for people in that part of the city. North APP to the North End (maybe MacDonald) and South APP to the South End (maybe AAA/Van Asselt). APP STAFF (not kids) would then be able to build another ALO program at each location.
At that point, it's pretty likely that Central will need the capacity anyway, and opening up 500 more ALO seats in neighborhood schools would be very useful. But, that only works once those ALO programs are up and and running and considered 'good' schools.
Fixing Madrona would do more to alleviate current crowding in Central than moving APP would.
Maureen 1st graders will probably make it through 2 grades of math in first grade... So end up the year completing 2nd grade math and eventually work to be up a full couple of classes ahead. So MS math in elementary and HS math in MS. We sent our daughter over in 1st as we didn't know how much harder it would be to catch up after that. I would think it would be hard... But perhaps a welcome change from way too easy.
I'm basically saying:
1) Don't move it now, but consider moving it after everyone who was involved in the split/merge has gone on to middle school.
2) If you move Lowell further north, you need to also move Marshall further south. Otherwise, APP is skewed to the north.
There's no specific information on the district web site about the location of the elementary Spectrum programs in the Mercer and Denny service areas. It only says that "Decisions about the location of advanced learning, bilingual, and special education services would continue to be addressed through the program placement process."
That's how I feel. The North cohort will pretty much remain intact, with the possible exception of Capitol Hill families. The North cohort didn't have to move last year. If people are concerned about breaking up friendships that may be forming across APP-ALO lines - that's not going to be made any easier by waiting longer.
Robert said: I think Lowell APP may also be a tad bit more jarred by the split...
Do you mean more jarred than the kids who moved to T. Marshall? Can you clarify?
In the interest of full disclosure I will acknowledge that I live in North Seattle; so I have a personal stake in having APP-North closer to my home.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC Robert and TechyMom (who express a desire to wait) are live in the Central Cluster and would also have some personal stake in APP remaining at Lowell.
Maureen asked earlier about APP math. In 1st and 2nd grades the math curriculum is one year ahead. By the end of 3rd grade the kids are doing 5th grade math. Fourth graders are doing the middle school curriculum. I am not sure of the rationale, but I have assumed it's because most of the kids seem to enter the program in 1st or 2nd grade.
Charlie, you keep mentioning that Mercer doesn't have a Spectrum school - worth noting that neither does Hamilton: for all the talk of the North End schools being ahead on these things, the Eckstein region has three and Hamilton has zero.
(I am wildly, wildly unconvinced that saying elementary schools will have ALO makes it so, and makes it work.)
I've also been watching the development of the ALO from a front-row seat. It's working. They're taking it very seriously. I hear most ALO programs aren't very defined or real. This one appears to be real. I wouldn't move my child for Spectrum (even if the Spectrum at Leschi didn't suck), and I'm not sure I'd move her to Marshall for APP. The presence of the APP staff, and the culture of achievement at the school are a very important part of why the ALO is being developed to be a serious advanced learning opportunity (without capital letters). Moving that staff now would, in my opinion, result in a far less successful ALO. Remember that this ALO and the one at Marshall, are likely to be models for ALOs added at every elementary school in the city. This is a high-stakes effort.
I do believe, however, that once the ALO is defined, established, and running, once the neighborhood families have embraced Lowell as a high-quality neighborhood school, then the APP staff can move to another location, and the culture of achievement will continue. I expect that to take 3-5 years.
I also think that the kids from TT Minor, especially those who were also at MLK, should be given the opportunity to finish elementary school without any more disruptions.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC Robert and TechyMom (who express a desire to wait) are live in the Central Cluster and would also have some personal stake in APP remaining at Lowell.
Exactly - and as a result they really don't have a vote in this "north APP" issue.
The Capitol Hill families that lobbied for a larger walk zone - which is exactly what it was complete with doctor's notes and umpteen emails to Dr. Vaughan - should be going to TM. The APP program is not a neighborhood school - if walking your child to school is so important, there is a very good neighborhood program at Stevens. Sending those kids to TM will help to even out the numbers for each location.
As for TechyMom - why wouldn't you consider sending your child to TM? There are just as many APP staff there that are every bit as well qualified as the Lowell staff.
That being said, I don't agree that it is the APP staff's job to make ALO work. That is up to each school's administration, the ALO teachers and the district.
If the district doesn't grant a North APP site now with the reopening of North-end schools, it very well may never happen. North APP families have earned the right to be able to "walk" their children to APP if they are lucky enough to be close to a North-end site, based on the many years that their kids have been bussed to Lowell.
And my jarred comment was a bit of a run on... I meant to say "more than" most people will admit.
1/ I have a vote even if you don't think so.
2/ We moved our kid from Stevens to Lowell and we would likely move our family close to any true north campus if that were to happen. Walking and being near the APP program is important to us and we feel is a good habit to pass on to our kids. (Full disclosure: because of issues with drop off we have not been walking yet this year. A shame I might add but we will get back to it shortly)
3/ I don't know why folks persist in calling it lobbying. The district corrected their obvious error in assuming that a postage stamp sized "walk route" map was the correct map and that students could walk to Stevens from Lowell but they couldn't walk from Stevens to Lowell... Which is nonsense.
a. I pointed this out to all the Directors prior to their vote and staff told them two things that were incorrect: that there were "walk zone" maps up for all to see on the SPS website and that the map for Lowell was correct. Based on that, the board reasonably voted to not bus kids that live across the street 4 miles down the road. Even you CCM can respect that. Oh and Mary Bass voted no on that a fact I still do not understand as she has never respond to any of my emails sent to both her campaign or district email.
Had the board actually read my email prior to the vote they would have realized that the two programs would be of unequal size by a large factor. I hoped that would make them reconsider the split all together. Alas, no.
I think it is the job of district employees who work on advanced learning, including the APP teachers who have experience with gifted education, to help design the ALOs that are supposed to be available to all elementary schools. This seems to be a point on which reasonable people can disagree. I just wanted to call out that it's not really the APP kids who are being called on to develop the program, it's the teachers.
I'm not trying to start a fight - you are obviously a very involved parent that is doing what you feel is right for your child. I support that 100%.
However, I do think that it is silly that Capitol Hill families were allowed to stay at Lowell simply because they were fortunate enough to live close to the program. The program was split north/south of the shipping canal - end of story. And that is my opinion - as a Capitol Hill family.
There are many Montlake families that are being bussed past Lowell to go to TM - fair? I don't think so.
Of course the majority of families did not want the split - and the majority of families probably would have chosen to stay at Lowell so their children would not have been disrupted by moving - but the majority of families didn't get that option.
What's done is done - and both programs need to move forward in a positive way to create a successful environment for each location.
I still think that the North APP location should be North of the shipping canal - as that is how the program was split.
Sorry.
I have compassion for parents concerns of the many hours on the bus... I wonder if they share my concern that the WZ kids cohorts' will be flipped from north to south once they enter into MS?
Did you mean MacDonald? That might be long enough. I think it would be worth looking at it when MacDonald opens, but I can't say for certain.
As for APP teachers working together to build the ALO model and curriculum. Good Luck. APP teachers couldn't ever get their act together to create and adopt an APP curriculum. The only real curricular reforms I have heard about have been pushed from above, notably Julie B. Some teachers are more innovative and attempting best practices and appreciated Julie's intervention. Some didn't. Guess which ones wanted to move with Julie?
I was pretty much underwhelmed by my son's Lowell APP experience. So was he. Others have different stories. Based on many factors, I chose to home school middle school part time and send him to Eckstein where he got some fabulous teachers. (best science year ever, 6th grade Eckstein.) Many APP (and non APP) parents have sought my advice over the years because of their kids' horrible experiences. Three families followed my lead and removed their children from full time Washington APP, homeschooling either full or part time. Several more I spoke with wished they could but logistics didn't work. And at least three more families home schooled one class (commonly, math).
Of course, I see the ones not happy. Many are. Many love Garfield. However thank goodness for UW Academy for Young Scholars. At the parent orientation, many of the Garfield and Roosevelt moms said their kids hated HS, especially the amount of BS busy work instead of academically challenging material. My son is finishing his first full week of university. Calculus and Honors Chemistry and Writing seminar and he is finally busy, finally challenged and NONE of the problem sets have any of that artsy fartsy bull his former teachers included to address "multiple intelligences" but which ignores rigor and critical analysis.
"What's done is done - and both programs need to move forward in a positive way to create a successful environment for each location. "
I completely agree. However, I think that more upheaval is not moving forward in a positive direction, for anyone. There are also 4 programs to consider now: 2 APP and 2 ALO. That wasn't true last year, but it is true now.
Setting aside for a moment the discussion of whether these are good choices or not, when and how were they made?
Program Placement continues to be one of the most corrupt and dysfunctional process in the District. It challenges even Facilities for coming up with irrational, political, and wasteful decisions.
As for the choices themselves, there is fault to be found with many of them, but I would like to highlight the selection of Hawthorne for the Mercer service area. Did the District learn NOTHING from the failure of the Spectrum program at West Seattle? I predict that families in the Mercer area will continue to choose either Lafayette or Muir for their Spectrum-eligible children. Any other school in the service area might have worked - any school except Hawthorne. Once again, the District placed a South-end Spectrum program in the least desirable school in the cluster.
What are the criteria for selecting the Spectrum site? What was the rationale for choosing Hawthorne?
What do these program placements mean for the program placement process this year? Was it already done without giving people a chance to submit their proposals?
That wouldn't be a concern if there was not a walk zone as CentralClusterMom suggests.
Are you implying that kids in the Lowell Walk Zone should be be sent to Hamilton instead of Washington to remain with their elementary cohort?
I also know families that were displaced from Meany - and as displaced students were supposed to get their first request, which in their case was Hamilton. They didn't receive it - so if the district isn't going to follow-through on their promises to kids that were at the closed schools, why would Lowell WZ receive preference? For what it is worth the kids are now very happy at Washington.
That is one of the primary reasons that some families in the walk zone chose Thurgood Marshall.
And Arch and CCM... no! Hows that... you both want to put words/motives to me. we made a choice like you... however the app kids from my dauhter's local area were cut in half ... that's unique.
right?!?! And yeah CCM Arch we could have decided to bus 4 miles verses walking to the closest school to our house... but why?
And to both you.... why should we feel it's good to wedge each other apart?
If they are decisions, how were these decisions made? Did they follow the usual Program Placement process? Where is the data and the rationale to support these decisions? How was public input gathered for these decisions? How were stakeholders engaged?
If these are not yet decisions but only proposals so far, the same questions apply. Will they follow the usual Program Placement process before being finalized? Where is the data and rationale to support these proposals? How will public input be gathered for these decisions? How will stakeholders be engaged? In addition, how will any changes in these proposals alter the boundaries? Will there really be any possibility that these proposals will not become final decisions? At Seattle Public Schools, proposals have a way of becoming decisions largely through inertia and without any authentic opportunity to divert them from that path.
Specific questions:
In the Hamilton service area, B.F. Day was selected as the Spectrum site. How was B.F. Day chosen? Was it chosen solely because it has space available? The Program Placement Policy was adopted to stop the District staff from using available space as the primary determinant in program placement.
In the Washington service area the District is closing the Spectrum program at Leschi. How was that decision made? Muir was chosen as the Spectrum site for the service area, despite the fact that Muir is the least central of all of the schools in the service area. It is further south than two schools in the Mercer service area. In fact, it’s a bit surprising that Muir isn’t in the Mercer service area.
In the Mercer service area, Hawthorne was chosen as the Spectrum site. This is another surprising choice. Did the District learn nothing from the disastrous choice of West Seattle Elementary as the Spectrum site for West Seattle-South? How is Hawthorne different from High Point?
In the Denny service area, the District selected Arbor Heights as the Spectrum site and chose to close the existing program at West Seattle Elementary. Last year the District rejected a proposal identical to this as completely unacceptable. They wouldn't even consider it. What changed to make it a good idea this year?
The District did not take this opportunity to find a north-end location for north-end elementary APP. What is the rationale for choosing to locate north-end APP at Lowell, a school outside the area where the students live? This program placement is completely inconsistent with both the Program Placement Policy and the Highly Capable Students Program Policy.
Why couldn’t the District use McDonald as the north-end elementary APP site? It has the necessary capacity, it is centrally located in the service area (north-end Seattle), it has excellent transportation access, and it is in the feeder pattern for Hamilton, the location for north-end middle school APP. Because the school is currently closed, no students would be displaced by the decision. The attendance area for McDonald might have to be made smaller, but as drawn it stretches across a number of arterials including Interstate 5.
Another possible location for the Washington service area Spectrum program is Madrona K-8. That would provide the school with a bit more impetus to serve students working at and beyond grade level (not to mention more credibility to their effort if they should ever make one) and provide the neighborhood with a middle school Spectrum program if the Washington program is ever limited in size.
However, I think the closing of the Spectrum program at Leschi will have little to no effect on the central area, as so few families chose to send their children there it will hardly be missed. Will Capitol Hill and Montlake families send their kids to Muir? Not likely, as Montlake and Stevens seem to do a decent job of serving those kids.
Placement of Spectrum at Hawthorne will mirror the Leschi program. I can't help but also feel some sympathy for Hawthorne, as they were first thrust into the APP split picture last spring, then that quickly changed. They are then given a new principal for this year and now are being asked to make room for a Spectrum program next year. How are any of these decisions beneficial to the current population at the school?
Madrona K-8 is interesting for Spectrum and could give Spectrum kids another option in the central area for middle school since there is always a Spectrum waitlist at WMS. I would never send my Spectrum kid to Madrona instead of WMS however, without some radical change in leadership.
"we would likely move our family close to any true north campus if that were to happen. Walking and being near the APP program is important to us and we feel is a good habit to pass on to our kids. (Full disclosure: because of issues with drop off we have not been walking yet this year. A shame I might add but we will get back to it shortly)"
That was exactly my point about walk zone -- several families that were very happy to be in the walk zone never walked a day in their life. At least it sounds like you do walk sometimes...
Based on your comments - it sounds to me that you would do ANYTHING to avoid being part of the south cluster...maybe I'm reading between the lines but I'm pretty sure that you never considered moving to Madrona or Leschi to be closer to the program. If you did that - you could actually walk to elementary, middle AND high school! But then, you would be in the "less desirable" cohort, as you have made clear by your actions.
I am well aware that the district created these issues - you didn't - and the programs will continue to become radically different once the SAP goes into effect.
How to solve it? I'm not sure - but maybe following the guidelines set forth by the program split and not asking us to feel sad that your kids will be split in middle school from their "cohort" would help. Hopefully you have a few years before you have to move so you can make sure your child goes to Hamilton.
I've said all I'm going to say about this now -- and yes - maybe there has been some major frustration building on my part since last November when the North/South issues were kindled. We have many North-end friends that we miss very much, and feel it very unfair that some families made a "choice" between the two.
Since they discussed splitting HS APP last year, that tells me it's on someone's radar, regardless of any promises that were made. I fully expect HS APP to either be split into two schools or else diluted across several schools within a few years - as long as MGJ & Co.are at the reins.
Just because you say "maybe I'm reading between the lines" doesn't mean that you can then define my point of view incorrectly. I DO NOT feel that TM is a less desirable cohort. Please STOP making statements about me based on your own false assumptions.