Bye, Bye Spectrum?
There is a Yahoo group for Spectrum/APP which is largely inactive but I do, from time to time, get an e-mail from it. Here's what I received today:
"Did you know that the Seattle School District says that "We anticipate that we will phase out the Spectrum program over time so that its closure will not affect current students."
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/faq_advancelearn.html#al64 <http://www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/faq_advancelearn.html#al64 > (last question-and-answer)
(The writer also said she had e-mailed the AL office but no answer. I'll try on Monday.)
Okay, so here's the original Q&A:
If a school loses its Spectrum program under this plan, what will happen to the students currently enrolled at that school and in that program?
This situation will be addressed in the transition plan. We anticipate that we will phase out the Spectrum program over time so that its closure will not affect current students.
It's a little unclear because the question is about School X and the answer seems to cover all schools but maybe just School X.
What do you think?
"Did you know that the Seattle School District says that "We anticipate that we will phase out the Spectrum program over time so that its closure will not affect current students."
http://www.seattles
(The writer also said she had e-mailed the AL office but no answer. I'll try on Monday.)
Okay, so here's the original Q&A:
If a school loses its Spectrum program under this plan, what will happen to the students currently enrolled at that school and in that program?
This situation will be addressed in the transition plan. We anticipate that we will phase out the Spectrum program over time so that its closure will not affect current students.
It's a little unclear because the question is about School X and the answer seems to cover all schools but maybe just School X.
What do you think?
Comments
But rather than immediately shutting down a Spectrum program and forcing kids to abandon either their school or the program, they plan to phase it out. So, no new Spectrum 1st-graders at the school that will eventually lose the program.
That's how I read it. And I hope it means better differentiation, but I doubt it. They are just moving the programs around and trying to do it in a less-disruptive fashion.
There are two schools which are now designated Spectrum sites but will not be designated Spectrum sites next year: Leschi and West Seattle Elementary. I think question and answer was specifically about those two schools and no others.
That said, I believe it is the District's intent to phase out Spectrum over time. This is a long-standing ambition of the District. They have wanted to get rid of Spectrum for at least the past ten years. And they have done a pretty good job of it. Spectrum now exists only in a few parts of the District, it is indistinguishable from an ALO in most of the District, and it Spectrum in name only in much of the District.
Spectrum families didn't work hard enough to protect the program, they went along to get along, they accepted false promises, they demurred from making a fuss or holding people accountable, and now their program is a shell of what it used to be or should be.
A friend of mine also wondered what was intended by this FAQ so asked.
Per Dr. Libros Spectrum is not ending. This particular question being asking is if a Spectrum program moved out of a current school what would happen. As for for Capacity Managment, programs may be moved to new locations.
The answer is that those already enrolled in Spectrum at a specific school would be able to stay at the school they are attending. The Spectrum program at that specific school would be phased out by the graduation of those currently attending, and not adding any new participants at that certain school.
Anyone new to Spectrum could enroll in the program at the relocation school.
I think APP will always exist but Spectrum will not.
We're already seeing a move away from program-based special education so that those students don't go to a certain school with trained staff and a special program but rather to their local school with a resource room and maybe one special ed teacher on staff.
And now elementary schools that have not had formal ALO or Spectrum in the past have been told to have a formal plan for advanced learners in place by fall of 2010. In NE cluster, Bryant has never had, nor wanted, Spectrum or ALO, but now we have a team putting together a formal program for next year at the district's request. Once in place, there won't be a reason for an advanced learner to request to go to another school for Spectrum because they will be told that Bryant will meet their needs.
You can't guarantee a space to every child in a geographic boundary if you offer "special" programs and have to hold spaces for an unknown number of special ed or advanced learner children each year from outside that boundary.
Curriculum alignment. Special ed at each school. Advanced learners at each school. No more choice, but no more need for choice because everything is the same.
Notice the district's talk, ad nauseam, about "quality offerings" in every school, for every kid, and how they talk of "opportunities" for each child to get a quality education? As opposed to an actual commitment worth striving for like, "we will commit to do our level best to ensure that every kid GETS a quality education?" Nope. No chance of that. Why? Because the former sets up the excuse to blame the non-performing students (the victims), instead of the district. Then they can blame those darn low performing kids who wouldn't avail themselves of what was offered, and conclude that what those kids really need is the boot in their butts that only charters can do. See KIPP, Green Dot, and other "no excuses/military style" charter operators as an example of what they want.
First, they'll make their last college try of putting all kids of all types and backgrounds under the same roof, and say that everything is in place for any kid to succeed. But conspicuously absent will be the actual support, actual resources, actual commitment, and anything more than basic politics and lip service. More broken promises, more hypocrisy, more inconsistency, more fat contracts for private companies, more dilution of advanced programs instead of raising kids up from below, because the easiest way to close the achievement gap is not to raise up under-performers and struggling kids. It's much easier to dilute the concentrations of high performers at the top, lose some to attrition, sprinkle the rest around where neither they, nor their teachers have adequate collaboration and resources, and in the end, they get what they want, on paper, a narrower achievement gap. Then they can all claim success, put it on their resume, and move on to higher office, touting how they "closed the achievement gap in Seattle."
I truly believe that's what all this cock and bull of reform is about.
Seems to me they aren't getting rid of Spectrum. No, actually over the years APP has become what Spectrum was supposed to be. Spectrum is alive (if not well) it's just called APP. Once APP grows a bit bigger, they can justify splitting it into each reference area and voila! Finally the goals of Spectrum will have been reached.
Amen. Couldn't have said it better, myself.
Any evidence this "differentiation" is actually working?
Any evidence greater centralization improves a district's academic performance?
Any evidence that a massive expensive coaching model improves academic performance?
Wsaedog's prediction of wastebasket fodder seems right on. BUT only if there is some rational decision-making eventually.
Remember meaningless and harmful fads often continue for decades in education. This district likes to believe in fairy-tales and hides data to continue damaging plans based on erroneous beliefs.
{See social promotion, lack of interventions, & Discovery Math etc.}
I went in for my 6th grader's conference and was told that they weren't sharing the MAP scores with parents because they don't mean anything at all. They didn't even have the numbers written down anywhere. Ok, I love the teachers and trust them, but, it is my understanding that MAP scores (fall or spring?) will be used to determine academic level for the Advanced Learning process. Is that true? If so, I may have to make some noise and get the scores. (Of course, if I had confidence that SPS wasn't in the process of standardizing alt schools (and Spectrum) out of existence this wouldn't be an issue for us.)
My guess is that some teachers haven't been properly trained to interpret or explain scores to parents. If they truly are meaningless, then why are our kids missing class time to take them? If they are meaningless, why is MGJ on the Board of Directors of the NWEA company that makes the MAP test?
I'm planning on formally requesting my student's scores at some point, but haven't gotten round to it.
Helen Schinske
There are four data coaches who were hired and are getting paid very nicely to train teams of teachers at every school. Those teachers, in turn, are supposed to have trained all of the other teachers at their schools. We (and the Board) were told that this was all done, but now we learn that it wasn't.
These people are dreadful in every way.
What is the Board doing? Why doesn't the Board say something or do something when this sort of news crops up? Why isn't the Board advocating for the communities that elected them and holding the Superintendent and the staff accountable for doing their jobs and reporting the truth?
What I'm wondering is if Advanced Learning will use MAP scores to determine academic level. If so, I will push to see the scores to see if it makes sense for me to bother to test my kid. (It's not clear to me why I have to do that anyway since APP people seem to think that their CogAp scores are stable over time--are they afraid that my kid has suffered brain damage since she last took the test in 2nd grade?! I could get a note from her doctor...!)
Helen Schinske
Thanks,
new Spectrum parent
My kids were in Spectrum from around 1996-2005. They were both at Whittier. Whittier has self-contained classrooms, no pull-outs. I don't know for sure that all the kids were Spectrum-tested but given we always had a waitlist, I think so. I never really asked but I believe the Spectrum teachers asked for the job and had done some professional development for it (likely on their own at that time). I would say I thought acceleration was more the key than enrichment although there was some of that as well. The teachers seemed to "get" these kids and all of them seemed to want to help the kids achieve to their ability. I wouldn't say I saw a lot of innovation in their classes, just good solid teaching. There was a little anomasity between a few regular ed teachers and Spectrum teachers. Also, some tension between a few parents over Spectrum but it was a solid program that was well-attended and liked by parents in it.
I believe there are some elementaries that use some self-contained and some pull-out. It is hard to track if you don't attend the school and the info isn't usually in the Enrollment guides. You have ask on the tours, "How is Spectrum presented at your school?"
They were in middle school at Eckstein. The Spectrum model changes again at middle school and again, it's whatever the school wants to do. When my sons were there, it was only in LA and Social Studies. You tested into the math class (and this was open to all). Somehow science, even though a core subject, stops being part of Spectrum at middle school. Towards then end of my second son's middle school years, I learned that some schools only did LA and not Social Studies and there was no advanced math even if you tested high.
At the middle school level, I found teachers I thought were fantastic and some that were very difficult to communicate and work with. It was disappointing. I was not really aware if any of the middle school teachers had any professional training for teaching higher level students. Eckstein is a Coalition of Essential Schools subscriber (although much less so than Hale). Under this model, they technically don't believe in separating kids. I have no idea if this is an issue for teachers at Eckstein. I never heard a principal say they wanted to get rid of Spectrum at Eckstein because of their affiliation with CES.
I think the issue (and sorry, I've said this before) is that Spectrum has never had a real upper-level champion on the Board or in upper leadership. It really gets very little attention at all but now with Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson seemingly intent on changing every program, well, I think change might come.
But Spectrum, when it was in a strong school, has always been a popular program with parents. I don't think any ALO model could take its place but I think that may happen. Spectrum parents, as a large group, should start working now to protect their program.
This means that Spectrum classes are supposed to have only Spectrum-eligible students in them.
In a lot of cases that simply isn't practical. Most Spectrum schools don't have enough Spectrum-eligible students to fill the classes in the primary grades. In those cases, to keep the cost of the classroom reasonable, the school completes the class with high performing students from the general education population that the school staff believes are ready and able to succeed with the Spectrum curriculum.
The whole class is then taught the Spectrum curriculum.
That's how it is supposed to work, whether at elementary or middle school. The self-contained delivery model is what distinguishes Spectrum from an ALO. If it isn't built on the self-contained model, it isn't Spectrum.
The District, however, does not enforce the definition of Spectrum. In the absence of enforcement, schools have taken the liberty to offer whatever model pleases them and to call it Spectrum. There are a lot of inclusive models out there that are claiming to be Spectrum.
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the inclusive models. I'm not saying that the inclusive models don't work. I'm just saying that they are not Spectrum.
The kids at Whittier when we were there were definitely not all tested. The program had a waitlist because it was the only self-contained Spectrum program in the cluster (North Beach had a pull-out program). Whittier was popular anyway, and often had waitlists in kindergarten.
Helen Schinske
I cry bs on this for many reasons already listed -- SPS institutes a test and doesn't bother to understand if/how it will report out?! How is it that some schools (as reported on this blog) are giving out scores at conferences where others are not? Our school is acting as if they "own" these scores, which they do not. It just makes me cranky and adversarial when it does not need to be. I asked when I could expect to see some scores, and was not given any clear answer -- maybe when the second round of MAP is over and there is something to compare? Perhaps.
When I cited FERPA to the teacher, there was evident surprise that I would make a request in that way.
If not, don't let them test your kid. (There's yet another tool in our very small kit of things to get their attention but someday a mass refusal of MAP might be something to consider especially if you aren't going to get the score anyway.)
The business about not being correlated with state standards is bogus. I can't think of a single non-WASL test that's been used district wide that *is* correlated with state standards. Me, I've occasionally gone outside the system on PURPOSE to have my kids take nationally-normed tests (such as the SAT in seventh grade). I'm supposed to care that the MAP doesn't match up to some GLEs or EALRs that I never could make head or tail of anyway?
Helen Schinske
I would think this might be a little tricky to accomplish.
The MAP is different from the WASL. It's not like you can just keep the kid home on the day the test is administered. They can administer the test anytime they like. I suppose you could ask that they not give your kid the test, but can you expect them to listen to you on that point, if they won't listen to you about giving out the scores?
The pamphlet does say that "MAP is aligned to WA state standards and is used in 131 districts across the state"
The pamphlet also gives details on how to interpret the results (RIT and Percentiles). At the bottom of the page, it says "continued on back" but the next page is empty....hmmm....
Since we only have on P/T conference a year, when the scores are released in Jan, I wonder how they will be shared? And if they aren't going to discuss them with us, why did they need coaches/training for all the teachers?
wv made me LOL - forkiers!!
I'm sure they won't like it but do you like being misled about MAP? No.
They might try, "well, we don't have anything else for your child to do." Ask them to send your child to the library (which is what I did when my son wasn't taking the WASL).
If we don't hold them to their words, what will?
I am starting by crafting a letter to the school principal asking why the MAP scores are not being released. Does anyone know where on the SPS website it says that he information will be released at the P/T conferences? I've tried searching the website, to no avail. (I would like to include this information in my letter to the principal.)
If I don't get the information by asking nicely, then I am going to make a demand using the link that Helen posted. I also found a link online to a sample FERPA request: http://www.listen-up.org/rights/samp-letr-4.htm
WV: comedi
Go to this address:
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/board/agenda.htm
Click the link "November 18th Regular Board Meeting" at the top.
Under III. B. - CAO report is a link and that PowerPoint has a page which states that :
"100% of elementary & K-8 schools will share results with
families during parent-teacher conferences"
My guess is that results were similar in other schools, and some just didn't feel comfotable sharing results that seemed all over the place, and might upset parents.
Did anyone else get scores? What was the messaging that went with them? Did they seem valid? Did they match what your kid's teacher thought of his or her work?
We were fine with the conversation and what we were told. Personally, I'm interested to see how/if my children improve over the course of the year. I didn't really ask the question, but I am interested to know whether teachers feel that they can use this as a tool in the classroom for differentiation
Purpose: The purpose of the Full Inclusion Committee is to review research and data regarding full inclusion and to make a recommendation to Eckstein staff and families for the ‘10’11 school year. This movement would only affect Language Arts and Social Studies; Math would continue to offer Honors classes.
Attending: Kara Golgert, Liora Minkin, Kathy Sherman, Eric Miller, Ruthann Allan, Josh Hanson, Kim Whitworth, Miriam Hart, Stacey Norman, Jodi Gedansky, Terry Elrand
Summary of Meeting: At this meeting we read an article out of Education Leadership that outlined the rational to replace tracking with heterogeneous grouping in schools. This helped us identify benefits and challenges to this model.
Benefits:
High expectations for all students
Differentiated instruction that meets the needs of all students, including advanced learners
Our science and elective classes are already heterogeneously grouped
Acknowledgement that students come with multiple intelligences that are not identified in our current advanced placement testing
Students who didn’t get into Spectrum but are highly capable would be better served
This addresses working on 21st Century skills
Many of our students are already coming from a full inclusion model
This model moves us closer to fulfilling the Districts philosophy of social justice as well as Eckstein’s philosophy of inclusion for all
Challenges:
There would be more pressure for teachers to articulate how they are meeting the needs of all students
We would need to provide ongoing professional development for teachers in the areas of differentiation and rigor
We would need to ensure that the classes are balanced in terms of the program ratios
Parents will want to have their children in a pull out Spectrum model regardless of our assurances that we will meet the needs of students in a heterogeneous model
Next Steps:
Gather feedback from the full inclusion pilot we’re doing at Eckstein
Look at more research on heterogeneous grouping
Gather input from Language Arts and Social Studies teachers
Get information out to families via, PTSA meetings, website and listserv
Calendar:
November 9 – Share our work with PTSA in an open meeting
November 23 – Full Inclusion Committee meets to share information on benefits and challenges
December 14 – PTSA Parent Forum
Parent and Staff survey during this process
If, however, the District is not going to stick to their definition of Spectrum, then Spectrum is dead.
A separate thread would be great. As far as I know, the only communication the school has sent about this was a brief invitation to "help bring full inclusion to Eckstein classrooms," buried among many other items in the weekly email bulletin. I don't think this innocuous-sounding headline would pop out to parents as much as, "Spectrum at Eckstein may end next year." I don't know if the word has gotten out to NE area elementary schools, but it seems like those families should also know that this discussion is taking place.
More on this on a separate thread.
Helen Schinske
Her teacher didn't have any "don't trust these scores" type language and seemed comfortable with the test.
I posted these to the APP blog, but thought y'all might be able to use 'em:
Overall NWEA/MAP "reports" link: http://www.nwea.org/support/category/reports
2008 Normative data: http://www.nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/files/support_articles/Normative%20Data%20Sheet_v2.pdf
Reading material corresponding to Lexile score:
http://www.nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/files/resources/Reading%20Pathfinders.pdf
From an Illinois school, examples of material corresponding to MAP scores (links on the right):
http://www.phpta.org/MAP.htm
Eckstein is one of the top performing, highest sought after, middle schools in the entire district. Surely that has something to do with it's strong Spectrum program, higher level math classes, and full array of honors math classes. What will happen to the school if it cuts back its math offerings and does away with Spectrum?
I'm sure this is part of MGJ's big picture of making all schools the same. I think the new jingle should be "Excellence for all average learners"
I heard something disturbing from another parent, and while I haven't verified it yet with my school, from reading the comments to this post, it seems plausible. It went something like this:
'Last year, there weren't enough students who qualified for Spectrum, so there wasn't any Spectrum class.'
My biggest concern is that, if for any given grade level there is no Spectrum class, would there never be Spectrum for that cohort of children for their ENTIRE career at that school? Administrators may argue that new students can test in each year, but my guess is that if a student doesn't meet the criteria in one year, the parent will not encourage the student to try again the next.
If they don't provide Spectrum for my kid at his assigned school, what are my real options? Busing an hour and a half to Lowell? Getting him into another neighborhood school?
My next question is: How does the school system determine how many Spectrum/APP seats to provide? Just the top 5%/2% of the school population?
How does the school system determine how many students are eligible to attend Lowell but do not, possibly because of the lengthy bus system?
I've been trying to calculate the percentage of all elementary school children who attend APP at Lowell to see if 5% of the population attends. By definition, APP is those in the top 95%. (ref1)
However, I can only get K statistics, which might be skewed because APP isn't offered until 1st grade. If we compare the number of actually enrolled APP students at Lowell (62 in 2009) with the total elementary enrollment (3887 in K in 2009) you only get 1.5% (ref2)
Something to think about; I know my statistics aren't complete - didn't include all Spectrum attendance, etc.
[References:
(1) http://www.seattleschools.org/area/advlearning/program_app.htm
(2) http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.seattleschools.org/area/eso/OntimeAnalysis_2009-10_Short.pdf ]
I do not understand how continuing to offer Algebra 2 classes is cutting back on math. Can you explain?
Methyl, the percentile results required for APP and Spectrum are on *nationally*-normed tests, not local norms. (That is, except for the faked-up percentiles on the WASL, which isn't normed at all -- the district being therefore out of compliance with state law.)
Also, APP students must be in the top *two* percent nationally (not five) on the CogAT or individual IQ test.
Helen Schinske
Why do you say there is not an Alg 2 class?
Again and again I tell people not to believe any promises from the District, but again and again people want to believe them.
WASL Boycott is the only reasonable response.
The APP Advisory Committee should re-purpose itself as an advocacy committee because it isn't giving anyone any advice and no one is taking it anyway.
She said that as of next year Eckstein will offer 6, 7 and 8th grade math, along with Algebra 1 (9th grade math), and Geometry (10th grade math). But they will no longer offer Algebra 2 (11th grade math). Rose, if you are a parent at Eckstein would you mind checking with the math dept or principal and verifying this? And then post what you find out?
As for Spectrum... Eckstein gets a long Spectrum waitlist for 6th grade every year. Spectrum is so full that some kids never do clear the Spectrum WL all three years they are at the school. Why would Eckstein do away with such a succesful, sought after program?
Shouldn't we be moving forward and adding to, and strengthening, our offerings, instead of cutting back?
You have to ask yourself why? Why are we cutting back? dWhy did Washington and Eckstein, the only two schools that offered ALG2 cut it out next year? Why is Hamilton not offering it as promised? I can't help thinking these are some of the districts first moves toward cookie cutter, standardized schools.
With standardization some schools will increase and strengthen their offerings, and that's a good thing. But other schools like Eckstein and Washington, that were already offering above and beyond the "standard" offerings will have to regress and cut back their offerings in an effort to make all things equal.
Is this excellence for all?
Perhaps the advanced learning office will require eckstein to offer spectrum math, limited to only one year ahead and all spectrum kids are automatically placed in those classes and no one else can qualify. It seems to be what many parents want.
A few years ago the eckstein principal & math chair told parents that kids would not be allowed to join classes more than one year advanced. They were told of this change after open registration. That is the spectrum model & was all that would be offered. Yet some of those kids did end up taking math 3 years ahead in that dept.
I am not sure I would depend on a certain configuration of classes being stable for the next 3 years, no matter what you are told.
I remember when the principal announced this and many parents were angry. There was a lot of push back. I don't think it ever happened, but it has become much harder for kids to get into advanced classes. Why any school would want to limit kids rising as high as they can is just beyond me? It's astonishing.
I hear there have also been a lot of problems with the new district wide 5th grade math placement tests. We know many Eckstein families whose kids were placed in much lower level math classes than they should have been, and the school says placements were made based on the results of the 5th grade testing. Last year was the first year of 5th grade math placement testing (boy, last year was the year of firsts wasn't it) and hopefully some of these issues will be ironed out this year.
Rose, as for Spectrum, Eckstein has NEVER offered Spectrum for math or science. They have only offered it for LA and SS. Where did you hear that there may be a Spectrum model used for math at Eckstein? Or was that just conjecture on your part?
I am sorry, Ad Hoc, that I was unclear. I have not seen a 'spectrum model' math or science program at Eckstein. The math dept. chair there a few years ago said that they intended to offer only "spectrum math, one year advanced". He said that kids who needed "APP math, 2 years advanced" should go to Washington. That is the only explanation of 'spectrum math' I have ever heard.
I have been getting emails from other parents talking about demanding a spectrum program that is more like what they had in elementary school. Those classes used math texts one year ahead. Which corresponds with the explanation I have previously heard of spectrum math. So I yes, I am presuming that is what they mean when they say spectrum.
She apologized for the misleading information on the website.
Considering the upcoming Spectrum test for my kid, I did some more figuring. If the top 5% of students are assigned to Spectrum and the top 2% are allowed to go to Lowell, then of the 58 kids assigned to Kindergarten at Broadview-Thompson in 2009, only 1.16 of them are eligible for Lowell, and 2.9 of them are eligible for Spectrum.
How does a school determine the makeup of a Spectrum class? If a class is about 25 kids, would they pull the next top 22 kids together to form the class?
Referring to my previous post, I noted that another parent said that they "didn't have enough kids to make up a Spectrum class" last year. There were 80 students assigned to B.T. last year (wow, 22 more students?), from which we can estimate a whopping 4 kids eligible for Spectrum.
What gives?
You have to perform at or above 98th percentile of the Cognitive Assessment and at or above 95th percentile of the Achievement threshold to be eligible for Lowell. For Spectrum, you only have to be in the top 10% of your class.
Still searching for the results of the assessments to determine the actual distribution of students ... but it does appear that only 5.8 kids would be in the 90th percentile of test takers?
[1] http://www.seattleschools.org/area/advlearning/eligtestcriteria.htm
Remember these are national norms. Has nothing to do with being in the top x% of your particular class. Has nothing to do with how the other Seattle test takers did.
Out of my son's preschool class of 16, five ended up in APP and I strongly suspect two more would have, but they went private.