Reminders and Open Thread
A couple of meeting reminders:
Monday the 24th - Joint City Council Environment Committee/School Board Operations Committee meeting from 6-8 p.m. at Eckstein Middle School, 3003 NE 75th St. (By the way, this one doesn't even rate a notice in the News and Calendar section of the SPS website. I wonder why not.)
Thursday the 27th, Community meeting with Steve Sundquist at SW Library, 9010 35th Ave SW from 10-11:30 am
Saturday the 29th, Community meeting with Betty Patu from 10 am - noon at Tully's, 4400 Rainier Avenue South (at Genesee)
Did anyone attend DeBell or Sundquist's Community meetings this past Saturday?
Open Thread for anything on your mind.
Monday the 24th - Joint City Council Environment Committee/School Board Operations Committee meeting from 6-8 p.m. at Eckstein Middle School, 3003 NE 75th St. (By the way, this one doesn't even rate a notice in the News and Calendar section of the SPS website. I wonder why not.)
Thursday the 27th, Community meeting with Steve Sundquist at SW Library, 9010 35th Ave SW from 10-11:30 am
Saturday the 29th, Community meeting with Betty Patu from 10 am - noon at Tully's, 4400 Rainier Avenue South (at Genesee)
Did anyone attend DeBell or Sundquist's Community meetings this past Saturday?
Open Thread for anything on your mind.
Comments
When I got there the group, a combination of Nova students and teachers from other schools, were having a discussion about "teacher quality." As in, how much of a problem is it really? I guess a discussion of the superintendent's performance preceded it. On that, I can say, from comments DeBell made, the he has clearly read the comments from at least one of the surveys, and I think he's got the message.
Anyway, the consensus was that ineffective teachers (5% max) was a pretty small piece of the puzzle.
One teacher talked about how he was amazed how hard teachers worked when he first started. Another talked about the out-of-school factors, and cited Geoffrey Canada's wraparound model. I shared my perspective that I have seen few "bad" teachers and I have in fact seen teachers "exited." (Flashback to last month - my kid comes home with a rumor so-and-so if going to be fired. I say "I don't think so, honey, it's nearly impossible to fire a teacher." Boy did I have egg on my face when I got that letter...) So it seems to me the system CAN work; it's not a teacher-contract problem, it may be a principal-contract problem plus a principal-supervision problem.
The Nova students were there to talk about water quality in the Meany building, and including 5-year graduations in the graduation rate. They were both 5th year seniors, set to graduate after significant challenges, and they were blazingly articulate. DeBell seemed to support using "Inclusive" graduation rates.
I of course gave him an alt school speech. I won't go into the details but MGJ seems to be leading us in circles, e.g. no work session (no consideration at all) until after the audit! Followed by "no capacity for audit next year." I assured him we're willing to wait for it to be done right, but in the meantime they cannot avoid giving us some consideration around curriculum alignment waivers.
One thing to consider is a point Dr. G-J has made several times. The district has "priorities" and if you, your school, your program aren't one of them, oh well. I think her priorities are all aligned with ed reform so you can see where her time and attention go.
I didn't know where to send this link from the NYT
I was pretty disappointed with his responses to spec. ed. and budget. I was literally writing "blah blah blah" in my notes. Then I thought, maybe these parents are really unfamiliar with the district and he does need to go thru all this ad nauseum...Then a Nova student asked about water quality, a 9th grader, not so blazingly articulate but perfectly polite and clear...and I just felt he was so condescending. He even made some reference to how "their parents" prioritized plumbing repairs. So that's why I left such a scathing comment on the other thread. And he wasn't taking notes like DeBell. It was like "Insert question, out comes speech."
However, he did write some things down when I was talking to him. I was a little harder on him because he was at that C&I committee meeting. And I did get some useful information out of him: Dr. Enfield had been expected to attend that meeting, but had a family emergency and had to leave town suddenly with no time to brief anyone. So apparently, not all committee meetings are that dysfunctional. (Perhaps Charlie, MW would like to weigh in on that.) He also made some reference to all the people at the meeting "breathing down his neck" - so hey, let's keep it up, and next time breathe louder!
WV: some of you are going to love this: trumath
A name for the new textbook DD is going to write and make millions on?
Well, they've decided to follow the mandate by requiring all RHS students to take a year of AP English Language and Composition. It will have an American Lit focus. Students have the option of taking it 11th or 12th grade year, but they absolutely must take it. There will still be options semester classes, but none in American Lit. (and American lit is, if I am not mistaken, a state graduation requirement. Anybody know for sure? Clever, isn't it then, to make the AP class the only "option?")
The teacher who explained this at the latest RHS PTSA meeting very clearly stated that they are completely opposed to kids self-selecting rigor and that having a variety of kids in the same classroom will "lift all boats."
Anyone???
APP is, to all intents and purposes, a K-8 program (or 1-8?) Garfield is the "track" for APP students, I believe they are guaranteed a spot there and then can take AP or Honors. They are a cohort K-8, but I don't believe the cohort model continues in Garfield.
I don't know what support is offered at Garfield for students who are identified APP, beyong the AP and Honors offerings. There might a person at Garfield who is identified as the APP lead.
I'm not sure (and someone here will certainly correct me!) that there actually needs to be an APP program or cohort in HS. APP is a program designed to meet the needs (both academic and social) of high-testing students, and by high school, with the variety of AP offerings, perhaps AP serves the same purpose, and APP students social needs are met by counselors, et al.
I do know that by high school a number of APP students, who were together as a cohort for as many years as they were in the program up 'til 8th grade, find other schools and attend those and take AP coursework where available. Some students chooose NOVA, even, can you believe it?
I have not heard any rumors about such a division of APP, it would seem un-necessary, as the students are already drifting out of the cohort and there are AP classes (and Honors) available elsewhere.
The district has already split elementary and MS APP. I think they will spilt HS APP too, and I think it makes sense to do so. Why should north end kids have to bus all the way to Garfield to remain with their cohort and have access to appropriate classes?
The question is where will north end APP be housed? Ballard and Roosevelt are just too full with neighborhood kids. Ingraham is an IB school. That only leaves Hale - and Hale doesn't generally fill with a waitlist, and is undergoing a remodel and expansion. It will have exess room. And families of the NE have been pleading with the district to have HAle offer stand alone honors and more AP classes. It makes complete sense to use Hale as the APP preference school of the north end.
Has anyone else heard the rumor that APP may move to Hale? I'm very curious to know if there is any validity to this.
If they split it, would that mean that APP students would have a guaranteed spot at Garfield AND some north school? Or would North APP (Hamilton) students only have the track to some future North APP?
The first and second thing to determine before anything is done is a) what support is offered at Garfield to students who were in the APP program? and b) does the cohort, who took all their classes together in 8th grade, continue to act as a cohort? Or are they more "on their own" at Garfield?
If there is a feeling that continuing the cohort is of use and benefit to the APP students, and if there are actual services for them in HS (beyond merely AP classes - I'm talking about an organizer or whatever) the maybe it would make sense to have two such support networks. But if they are fine with AP classes, etc, there are a number of choices, without actually identifying a north school as "APP"
I guess, in short, I wonder if there really is a "cohort" in HS anymore, as they take regular AP classes with other non-APP students, and there are AP classes throughout the district (not in all schools, but many).
Sure, APP kids could go to another school besides Garfield, and some do, but the APP kids are working two years ahead of gen ed kids. By the time they are sophomores they are taking senior level AP classes. Most high schools have no classes that will challenge these kids beyond sophomore year. That may be why APP needs a critical mass, or cohort.
And, the district apparantly feels that it is appropriate to keep the cohort together at a school that provides the necessary classes and challenge for these students - that's why they have a preference to Garfield.
If a cohort is necessary then having the north end APP kids go to a school in the north end is totally appropriate. They should not have to bus across town to remain with their cohort and receive appropriately challenging classes - that's wrong on so many levels.
===================
Reminder..... the following four school board decisions are still under appeal and have not been resolved.
1. New Student Assignment Plan
2. School Closures
3. New Technology Network contract award as related to Cleveland PBL STEM
4. On Friday 5-21-10 District filed a 47 page brief appealing the Spector decision of 2-4-10... This appeal looks like a restatement of the same arguments that lost the first time round. I really must wonder if any legal representative advised this appeal action. It looks like a unilateral MGJ decision to appeal with rubber stamper support.
========
5. Oral argument before the commissioner of the Supreme Court on Friday 5-28-10 on Writ of Mandamus which names all 7 school directors and three superior court judges as failing to follow Washington State Law.
Writ filing HERE
Response to Writ HERE
Petitioners reply to response HERE
A lot of the legal action surrounds the failure of the District to follow RCW 28A.645.020 in the following interrogatory questions it is painfully apparent that the District sees no need to follow state law. HERE
RCW 28A.645.020
Transcript filed, certified
Within twenty days of service of the notice of appeal, the school board, at its expense, or the school official, at such official's expense, shall file the complete transcript of the evidence and the papers and exhibits relating to the decision for which a complaint has been filed. Such filings shall be certified to be correct.
To win an appeal of a school board decision it must be shown that given the evidence available to the school board at the time of the decision the Board made an arbitrary and capricious decision. A poor decision has nothing to do with this argument. The argument must be based on the evidence used (or that should have been used) at the time of the decision. [This is why an extreme problem exists when the Board can never provide the record required by RCW 28A.645.020]
The appeal of the Spector decision is extremely ill advised, which is why I believe it is an MGJ only decision.
Board did NOT use the correct record in making their decision. Evidence was excluded. District agreed to have the evidence used by the board supplemented with 300 pages of additional evidence that should have been used but was not used.
Judge found that when using the entire record the Board's decision was not supported by the evidence. The order of remand that the district is appealing said use all the evidence and try it again. MGJ's response = NO!!!.
===============
Not to mention how much MGJ's work falls in line with the Chicago Cover Up.
I have heard the possible north-end location would be Roosevelt since it has a music program comparable to Garfield's. But, from a capacity standpoint, that doesn't make sense to me. Roosevelt is already full, isn't it?
That would make the Nathan Hale scenario more plausible.
For the record, APP is not a 'privilege,' it is a program, just as Spectrum is a program, as is Special Ed (in theory at least), ELL and BOC. It meets a real need and, by and large does it well. It's a damn shame the District keeps messing with it. It is a lifesaver for some families whose kids were misunderstood, bullied, or underserved in gen ed classrooms.
Splitting it into pieces has consequences. The cohort, community and resources are diminished, and sometimes there is no longer the critical mass necessary to offer the AP classes these (and other) kids need. So everyone loses out in that situation.
Again, the history of APP is not one of 'privilege,' but one of being used as a tool by the District to boost other schools. The District first placed the high school program, then called IPP, at Garfield some 30 years ago, because Garfield was a struggling, under-enrolled school at that time. (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/historybook/garfield.pdf) APP did help fill it and bring more rigor to it. Now that the school is strong and popular, it is inaccurate to blame the APP community for their placement there, and begrudge them an assignment to it.
When the Supt/District split APP at the elementary level last year, it put the 'south end' at Thurgood Marshall Elem -- also an under-enrolled, struggling school.
The Supt's original plan was to put the other half of elementary APP at Hawthorne Elem -- which readers of this blog know has been tagged for intervention because of its apparent weaknesses.
Were these location choices a coincidence? Hardly likely. Have the
splits helped anyone?
The elementary APP splits have done little for the gen ed/ALO kids that the APP kids are co-housed with, and have only made classes more crowded for the APP kids. The most cynical interpretation of these maneuvers is that the Supt. can use APP test scores to mask the other needs of the school and make it look superficially like she has "improved" these schools. Keep an eye on MGJ's resume -- you can bet that Thurgood Marshall will be listed as a school she "turned around" and TT Minor just a memory of a "failed" school she helped "solve" by closing it down and dispersing its kids. As for the kids themselves, what does she care about them?
It's all a game of smoke and mirrors, resulting in the utter neglect of the kids who are struggling the most, and at the expense of kids in programs like APP who, by the way, can also have challenges, and are shuffled around for questionable reasons.
Unfortunately, the District uses a lot of kids and communities this way. It lets PTAs pay for things the District should pay for. The Supt dumps inept principals in strong school communities so they will oust the principal and do the Supt's dirty work for her (McGilvra, Lawton are recent examples). etc, etc.
So I guess this brings us back to the Superintendent's evaluation, which in turn leads to the letter F.
When looking at the "pseudo theft of carry over funds" from low income schools and diversion of those funds into Cleveland STEM NTN option it is most apparent that MGJ has little interest in serving all the children with an ample education; nor do Sundquist, Carr, Martin-Morris, and Maier have much interest following article IX of the WA State Constitution.
So here comes the next lawsuit. It must be remarked that this one required two lawsuits. NTN #1 filed on March 5 appealing the 2-3-10 NTN decision and the NTN #2 filed on May 7 in regard to the 4-7-10 redo do-over because the District failed to produce a contract that was approved by directors in the initial NTN appeal (same 4 misguided directors voting yes to approve a contract they apparently never really looked at.....as usual).
More lawsuits will likely be on the way. Look for the district to lose a Special Education lawsuit on the grounds that the district is not fulfilling the requirements of IDEA laws. It is not filed yet but my wife teaches special ed and when I outlined MGJ's moves in regard to Special Ed..... she said: "MGJ can't do that the District will be sued and lose".
Keep in mind that the Seattle Times thinks MGJ is doing a swell job. The Times is a complete embarrassment of a Newspaper.
You are also right in that there is no room at Roosevelt, it's past capacity this year and has a waitlist (as it does every year). But there probably will be room at Hale. Next year Hale has about 1200 students enrolled (almost full), and no waitlist. After the expansion however, Hale will be able to hold over 1400 students.
The Eckstein families that with the NSAP now find themselves in the Hale boundary have been pushing (and working) hard for a stronger music program at Hale, and many neighborhood families have been pushing for years for stand alone honors classes and more AP classes. While I certainly don't advocate moving APP into a school in order to help that school moving APP to Hale might be a win win for everyone involved (APP and the neighborhood Hale families). Hmmmm...
I've heard other similar comments about principals being moved around willy-nilly creating chaos. I asked our (elementary) principal about who decides on a move. She said that the district can offer a position to the principal and the principal decides whether or not to move. Sometimes principals leave because they want a new challenge. So, the district controls who is offered a position (yes, that is a lot of power), but the principals have final say.
It may just not have gone thru properly. Try again.
Does a school need APP to have a good music program? Or do APP students BRING good music programs, because many are involved in music?
In other words, is a strong music program a necessary part of APP or AP or whatever?
Couldn't APP students go to a school(s) without a strong music program? Why are these two things (AP and music) being posited as aspects of APP?
No. Roosevelt has a music program that rivals Garfield's and they do not have APP. I'd say Eckstein's middle school music program rivals Washington's too.
And no of course music is not part of the APP curriculum - a Duke Ellington award winning band is not an APP entitlement. However, the APP community is the reason that the music programs at Washington and Garfield are as strong as they are. These kids have invested a ton of time and energy in the music program, and their families have supported and grown it. For consistencies sake, the APP students should be able to continue on the music path they started down.
It's not any different from kids that go to JSIS and have Spanish or Japanese language immersion getting an assignment preference to Hamilton International middle school where they can continue on that path. Or kids from AEII/Thornton Creek having an assignment preference to Salmon Bay for so many years so they could continue their alt educations.
What did Magilvra do as a community to resolve their principal situation?
It is a sad state of affairs at Lawton and it is very discouraging and disappointting what the district has done to that school.
Here's the info we got from our PTSA about the meeting:
There are some significant issues related to a growing student population in Northeast Seattle, including Bryant, that you should be aware of. There are 575 students currently enrolled to attend Bryant for the 2010-11 school year, including 120 kindergarten students.* (These numbers do not include families who move into the Assignment Area between now and September.) This is a significant increase in student population as compared to this year's enrollment of approximately 530 students. While the district has placed 15 of our split siblings at Bryant (8 split siblings remain on the wait list), this does not account for the entire increase in enrollment. You may be aware that two new schools – McDonald and Sand Point – will be opening in Northeast Seattle to help ease the capacity strain on area schools, including Bryant. The opening of these two schools is helping ease capacity pressure as both schools combined have 96 kindergarten students enrolled. Thornton Creek is also adding an additional kindergarten class. Without these additional resources, schools in NE Seattle would be even more crowded.
Nevertheless, the number of students at NE Seattle schools continues to increase. This has wide-ranging implications:
-- Increasing enrollment impacts each individual school's budget. Are schools getting enough funding and staffing to accommodate the increase in size?
-- How will Bryant and other NE schools accommodate larger cohort sizes over the next few years?
-- Will there be enough seats in middle school and high school as these children move through the system? SPS and the City need to be planning for this now.
Excellent questions, and these issues should be on your radar if you live in NE Seattle and have elementary-age kids in SPS or will have kids in SPS in the upcoming years.
As for the idea of a HS APP split, I can say that Susan Enfield doesn't believe that there is a high school program. At a Board Work Session last year Director Chow said that she didn't understand why APP students had a guaranteed seat at Garfield when there isn't even a program for them there. Dr. Enfield replied that as every high school develops more AP classes the District will be able to dissolve APP at Garfield.
Of course, given the resistance to AP classes at Hale and Roosevelt, and the difficulty around maintaining AP classes at Rainier Beach, the District isn't making legitimate progress towards that end. The failure to make legitimate progress, however, is no impediment to district officials claiming progress.
As for the principal at Lawton, that's a tragedy produced by the Superintendent and her ham-fisted dictitorial management of her personnel and schools.
That's not what I've heard, and the Lawton story is a good example of how a principal can indeed be moved against her/his will.
My understanding is that the Superintendent has the sole authority to move principals around, and this one moves them like pawns on a chessboard, pretty much at will. The fact that Goodloe-Johnson has now moved about 30 out of 90 principals around in the past year alone is further proof of this.
The principals are beholden to the Supt; she is essentially their employer. So if she tells them to move, how much power do they have to refuse? Again, witness the Beverly Raines case at Lawton. She did not want to be transferred there from Brighton. Yet she was.
One school board director said that the Superintendent is purposely moving some principals around in order to get rid of them. Very passive aggressive of her, and damaging and unfair to the communities who get saddled with these problematic principals (McGilvra, Lawton, possibly TOPS). This particular board member was not happy about this destructive and cowardly maneuver by the Superintendent.
Re: Principal moves & selections-
It seems as if it's still hit or miss with which way a principal gets selected. I thought site-based hiring (with the superintendent getting the final say of the last 3 candidates the site-team selected) was supposed to be used when there isn't a pressing time issue.
Not the case with Madison, where the AP was appointed last spring to take over (as "interm principal") when Hudson moved to Hale. Turns out there was no hiring w/ interview process at all & the interm is now the district appointed principal. So much for site-based hiring!
As for WSHS, parents & staff have all been repeatedly asking the district what the timetable is for their site-based hiring process to fill their principal position, with absolutely no answers from the district, and no confirmations even that there will be a site-based hiring process. With only 3 more weeks of school left, the chance of having a district "appointed" principal is looming large on the horizon.
It's not so much what I believe as what the District has committed to do. Nevertheless, I won't dodge the question. APP has to be a program, not a service, because it requires a peer group to be successful. For a program like APP (or Spectrum) to be successful it needs a critical mass of students. The program can withstand being divided into two groups at the elementary and middle school levels because the numbers will support two groups with the necessary critical mass for viability. That critical mass minimum is about 110 students at the elementary level and about 200 students at the middle school level, so no further division of the middle school program is possible. Although theoretically it could be divided into a third program site at the elementary level, it's not really possible on a practical basis. There's already trouble forming classes at the first and second grade level.
It's a bit trickier at the high school level largely because the Districty has not adquately defined the program for grades 9-12. The answer to that lies in the response to the second question:
Beyond the AP classes, do they need a cohort or other resources?
Yes. They need a cohort. They don't necessarily need a cohort of other APP students exclusively. That's why a lot of APP students find a suitable peer group at schools other than Garfield, such as Roosevelt and the NOVA Project, and, I'm sure, STEM. As for other resources, I think they need a counselor who has some knowledge and experience with the social/emotional needs of gifted students.
The current District leadership seems to think that the high school program either doesn't exist or consists entirely of a few AP classes. This is a bizarre interpretation given that it is exactly the opposite of what the District used to tell families who complained about the absence of a program at Garfield. The District told those families (and tells the state on the annual grant application) that the program in high school is a "cohort" program. The District has told families (and the state) for years now that at high school the cohort IS the program. There's a change in District leadership and, in the absence of any articulated Vision for the program we see how it can be re-defined with changes in personnel. So, obviously, another thing the program needs is an articulated Vision.
Sorry to say things, but it's a false question. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. The sad truth is that there can't be adequate AP classes around the district. There aren't enough students who want those classes to support the creation of the classes at schools all around the district.
Consider the chicken-and-egg problem with the demand for AP classes. Cleveland didn't have students who wanted AP classes, so Cleveland didn't offer AP classes. Because Cleveland didn't offer AP classes, students who wanted AP classes didn't enroll at Cleveland. Because Cleveland didn't have students who wanted AP classes, Cleveland didn't offer AP classes.
The introduction of a few students who want AP classes wouldn't cause the school to offer them. Students can't ask for a class that isn't in the course catalog, so Cleveland would never be aware of the demand. Moreover, without the classes in the course catalog, it is possible that the students wouldn't think to want them. Students would take Chemistry and never question the absence of Chemistry AP from the menu.
So, what do APP students need at high school? They need a peer group that will create the demand for a broad variety of challenging classes in a variety of sections. More than that, they need a staff and administration that supports students who self-select for rigor. That's not in evidence at Roosevelt or Hale. Finally, they need other staff who have the knowledge, skills, and experience to support their needs.
It has taken years for the program to get where it is at Garfield and it could not have happened without a principal who took the program seriously (as opposed to those who have denied its existence).
Both Hale and Roosevelt have been forced to take on separate AP classes. Roosevelt's LA department has quite a lengthy explanation but I doubt they like it. I do like that they seem to be making the best of it. Dr. G-J said at the last Board meeting that RBHS would continue to have core AP classes despite their falling enrollment. The District may feel they can point to these things and say there is equity in the availability of offerings in high school so no more APP anything.
As to chicken and egg, well, I think it was getting the right music directors who were determined to have great programs coupled with parents for whom music means something. Have that kind of united determination over decades and you will produce excellence. I'm not sure I agree that because APP students had a great music program in middle school that they deserve one in high school as well. But, their parents have shown their willingness to work and donate to make programs work. However, spread out those parents and you will likely see weaker programs.
If there were no APP cohort or program, then depending on where an APP student lived they may be assigned to Hale which actually resists advanced learning all together, they may be assigned to Rainier Beach which only offers a couple of AP classes. or they may be assigned to a school that chooses a completely different style of rigor like IB, or Core24. etc. There is not much that is consistent in this district regarding advanced learning.
I am all for some consistency district wide in this area. But until we get to that point I can't imagine dispersing the APP cohort.
Here is one more consideration. With the NSAP every general ed student in the district will now have the opportunity to move with a cohort from elementary school, to middle school, to high school. Why shouldn't kids in APP be afforded the same privilege?
If the 'cohort' is valuable to advanced learners who passed the test when they were five years old, then it would be valuable to advanced learners who chose not to enroll in APP before 8th grade (for whatever reason).
The advanced learning community's refusal to consider the importance of serving those students' academic needs makes it very clear that they see access to Garfield as an entitlement, not an advanced learning "program."
Helen Schinske
Given my understanding of APP (as a program to address a) high level academics, and b) social aspects of students who, by testing, show an extemely high level of aptitude....given that, I agree that APP is a sort of special ed, that these students are having these needs met by being supported as a cohort.
My earlier comments reflect my own belief that perhaps by HS these students are more sure of themselves and don't require the "b" part, the social aspect, and, hence, might drift away to other schools to take advantage of other learning opportunities. But I do believe they are, in fact, a cohort in many ways, and to have that HS piece could be beneficial.
Now, whether that should be divided up, a north and....central location...I wonder. IF there were to be a division, I would divide it north and south: Garfield is as far away for someone to travel from down by Beach as it is for someone up at Lake City.
The NSAP does NOT guarantee a high school cohort. They guarantee the same cohort from K-8 only by the use of feeder schools. There is no feeder pattern to high school. See above for a few examples of the lack of a feeder pattern.
Making the best of it? Melissa, have you been following? Do not repeat your mistakes with AP HG where you accepted the school's perspective until later, when you privately apologized to me for your wrong impression of the changes and what they meant for rigor.
The LA department is passive-aggressively rejecting the AP class! They are simply making a year long class in American Lit and saying that they will cover the AP Composition skills in it and it will be REQUIRED for ALL students for graduation. How is that accepting teaching a college level class for those students willing and able to work at a college level of depth, breadth and rigor?
I have spoken to many parents with the same complaint, that not just at Roosevelt, but at Eckstein as well, ALL the writing critique their child EVER got was peer review. My son didn't take LA at Eckstein so I don't have first hand knowledge. But that is completely true for his two years at Roosevelt. So tell me this: how did those peers learn to critique writing? The only possible positive thing here with the AP class is it might force the LA teachers to thoughtfully critique student work so that they can improve, instead of copping out and having the students review each other. In what other educational environments is it OK that the only substantive review is from peers? Med school? Police Academy? Food Handler's training? Cement mixing training?
And the ironic thing about the LA department defending their Options program and then eschewing students self-selecting challenge is that of course the different Options classes are going to have different levels of challenge and different styles of teaching. Kids know that. Don't you think that kids are already self-selecting the LA options based partly on that? For a department that has firmly argued for students to have options, for them to do an about-face and say that NO ONE will have the option of taking this new AP class, it's pretty funny, don't you think?
After the LA teacher declared that having a mix of students in each classroom will "lift all boats," I turned to Brian and asked, "How's that working out for AP HG, you got proof that boats are getting lifted?" And he hemmed and hawed and answered that the data shows that students are not doing worse than before.
The Garfield APP cohort thing is complicated and wrong in that kids are not allowed to apply after seventh grade. Yes, some kids have found cohorts and challenges at other schools. But the movement at Roosevelt, with the AP HG required class replacing the self selected AP Euro class, and now this AP! For! ALL! Lift! A! Boat! reduces the opportunities for kids to find the highly motivated, self-challenging peers. It's the wrong direction and will put more pressure on qualified kids to move to APP. With the much more convenient location for north end kids for middle school APP, look for increased Hamilton APP size and look for even more pressures and crowding at Garfield.
(Hey, comment deleted at 11:50 was me (it did post for a little while) and I don't think it broke any rules--just my standard: it should be possible to enter APP after 7th grade rant.)
Helen, Ingraham wouldn't get APP because they already have IB which is an "Advanced Learning Program" (they all seem to be interchangeable at SPS)and MG-J is all about spreading the love.
You are one of a handful of members here that I believe have consistently high quality comments on virtually all topics you chime in on. But on this point be careful where you aim your frustration.
Many members of the advanced learning community are in favor of allowing access to APP after 8th grade. There certainly isn't 100% consensus, but it's a source of frustration for many, if not most of us, and it's the administration that deserves the blame.
The advanced learning community's refusal to consider the importance of serving those students' academic needs makes it very clear that they see access to Garfield as an entitlement, not an advanced learning "program."
Who are you referring to, Maureen? Me? Charlie? Stu? When have any of us ever said what you just cited?
Entitlement is your word.
Assignment is the fact. APP kids are assigned to Lowell/TM, WMS/Hamilton and Garfield.
As I have mentioned many times before, when APP was first moved to Garfield, it was not considered a plum assignment at all. To now take out on the APP community the fact that the DISTRICT invested a great deal in one school -- Garfield -- while neglecting others, is misplaced frustration at best, and offensive at worst.
Also, the APP kids who enter 9th grade at Garfield aren't there just because of a test result from when they were five, as you put it. Many have eight years of experience learning at an accelerated pace and depth, and are prepared to continue at an advanced level. Their families also have a longtime commitment to the APP program. If you commit to the program, the track the District offers is Lowell/Ham/Garfield or TM/WMS/Garfield.
I believe you have stated elsewhere that your child qualified for APP but you chose TOPS instead. Okay, so that is the choice you made and it took you off the track that the District established.
As I have said before, I feel that kids who are able and willing to take advanced classes should be allowed to do so, at Garfield or anywhere else. There -- I have just contradicted your blanket statement.
I don't think it serves any of us well to buy into and use the District's set-up of zero-sum games and divisiveness.
Divide and conquer is the District's game. Let's not make it ours.
It makes some sense from a capacity standpoint, with the expansion in capacity at Hale, and the overcrowding at Garfield. But as others have bemoaned, should we let capacity drive program placement decisions, or should we look at what's best for the students?
If a truly high quality APP program was created at Hale (or Roosevelt, but fat chance) for the north 1/2 of the city, I'd be okay with that. Far less commute, more local community, etc. The problem is that there needs to be a sizable cohort to drive the breadth of classes, particularly AP classes. And there needs to be a REAL commitment (not just words followed up by zero action) to maintaining the educational opportunities that exist at Garfield for these kids. (And that includes a quality music program)
Math has already been shown to be a casualty of the middle school APP split. If they can't pull off relatively simple stuff like that, it doesn't give a lot of confidence in the ability to make it work well for HS.
As far as it being the administration's fault, in this case, I would say that it starts and stops with Bob Vaughan. He sounds like a great guy in many respects, but this is not an issue he chooses to support. From my perspective, he sees himself as an advocate for the students in the Advanced Learning Program, not for all advanced learners in the District. Maybe if he had more support himself he would allow himself that 'luxury?'
(By the way, I'm not advocating for my own kids here, they have spots at Roosevelt and will be fine. I am advocating for (1) basic justice and (2)the APP qualified kids at K-8s (and other schools) who feel pressured to switch for 8th grade to WMS or HIMS so they can score that golden ticket to GHS and avoid a HS which can't meet their academic and social needs.)
WV reminds us not to use fakedges when making boundries for NSAP
So are AP classes under the aegis of Advanced Learning. That's a reason TO place north-end APP at Ingraham, if anything, not the other way around, whereas Hale's stance against separate AP classes is a reason NOT to put APP there. In any case, surely Ingraham has more room?
Helen Schinske
If APP does attract a lot of new students at Hamilton then a HS split may be inevitable
Just FYI there is only one inclusive AP class at hale, and of course the AP English 11 and 12 classes that all students must take.
All of the other (8) AP classes are stand alone.
Still no honors classes at Hale classes though.
You can read for yourself the course descriptions here. Page 23.
AP is supposed to be college level work, not just something that prepares one for future college level work. And they don't even mention which of the AP course syllabi they will follow (Literature, Composition?), nor suggest one takes the exam. Nor can I find data on how many students sit for the exam or how they perform.
Dorothy, again with some egg on my face. I was going off the single announcement to parents and didn't read the rest of what had been put at the RHS website. I should have known the LA department wouldn't go quietly. It is quite unbelievable how much power one group in a high school can have even in the face of a district directive. I marvel at their ability to keep a firm grip on their curriculum.
“Stand-alone” courses that provide preparation for the AP Exams in LA 11 & 12, Japanese Language and Culture, Spanish Language, Calculus, Statistics, Environmental Science.
Coursework that may be done on-line or in an addendum meeting with teachers outside of regularly scheduled class time providing for AP Exam preparation in United States History."
That looks like seven stand-alone courses to me, *including* the lit courses that everyone has to take (and honestly, unless they make everyone take the exams, doesn't that end up being essentially the same situation as the history?), and in reality almost no one would take both the Japanese and the Spanish, so in effect it's more like six.
But yeah, I was probably thinking of the honors situation.
Helen Schinske
“Stand-alone courses that provide preparation for the AP Exams in LA 11 & 12, Japanese Language and Culture, Spanish Language, Calculus, Statistics, and Environmental Science."
and
"Coursework that may be done on-line or in an addendum meeting with teachers outside of regularly scheduled class time providing for AP Exam preparation in United States History"
In the past almost all of the Hale AP classes were done online and in addendum to a regular class, with no direct AP instruction from a teacher. Thankfully though over the past few years Hale has moved away from that style of teaching AP and they now offer 7 of their 8 AP classes as stand alone courses. Only one class remains as an online/addendum class and that is US History.
Though all kids take AP LA 11 and 12 it is still technically a stand alone course since the entire class is taught to the AP curriculum (though I understand it may be watered down).
My issue is with the slim pickings of AP courses. There are only 8 to choose from which is far less than many of the other SPS high schools, and they offer no honors classes at all.
I have had the misfortune of being employed in the district and frankly as I travel between the schools and see the huge discrepancies between schools, staff and students you have to wonder if anything can be done.
I am writing a book, a horror book, about my experiences. The bulk of the problems is of course SES of the students and the compromise of the nearby community.
South Seattle struggles financially and their children are a reflection of it. They are angry adults and their children are equally angry. The language, the behavior, the way they treat each other and the adults creates an environment of intense stress all around. Many staff and particularly the Administrators are deeply vested in believing that any transgression, slight or issue is in the eye of the observer. Meanwhile walk into numerous classes and you see the chaos and know its far more systemic and customary than you are lead to believe.
The north end schools with families vested in their child's school and ultimate success shows. From resources to attitudes you feel a breath of fresh air.
No one wants to deal with the elephant in the room and the problems that largely fall to race and economics. So instead it gets swept under further attempts to move people, change programs or academics and fundamentally delay the obvious.
I meet few, if any, decent administrators and mostly resigned if not burned out teachers in these schools. They are fueled by paranoia, frustration and FEAR. FEAR of parents who threaten lawsuits in lieu of accepting accountability. Students have by far more power than is necessary and teachers are of course the whipping boys.
This is blame seeking and laying district. I would rather starve in the street than continue to subject myself to this insane bureaucracy of incompetence.
The fish stinks from the head. You can start at the top of the food chain and work your way down to understand the real problems.
Anybody else have more info on this?
When you ask for specifics, could you also please ascertain what percent of the students take the exams and what the score distribution is? Is the percent of test takers and scores more like a stand-alone true AP class where the students self select the challenge or more like the percent of kids who turn American History into AP by doing extra work?
How large is the Huchoosedah program, anyway? How much room, and instructor support, does it need? Could it be salvaged by colocation with some somewhat-underenrolled school? Could it, perhaps, be housed at Marshall, for instance, which has space for rent, according to the signs out front?
Or is it just screwed, and the kids who would benefit from it also screwed, because SPS administration screwed the pooch on getting funding lined up? This is the kind of thing the lackey press (read: Seattle Times) will never EVER report, because it makes administrators look bad. I sure hope someone reports it out anyway.
Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson gets low grades from parents
I know that Hale had, back in 2006, at least 3 teachers who were eligible to teach AP History but didn't want to and that's why they have no AP History. I can't speak for teachers in other disciplines.
Who knew that the problem with Dr. G-J is that she's a commie liberal intent on turning our schools into gulags to blah blah blah blah....
Reminds me of the old Simon and Garfunkel lyric: "a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
I checked today and this is what I found out
At Hale:
AP11 = American Literature
AP12 = Composition
Teachers are AP qualified.
I'm sure they know, however, nobody could tell me how many or what percent of kids take the AP exams.
Yeah, the crackpot posts for talk radio blogs are pretty depressing and off the wall - much worse than the newspaper comments.
Mostly, I was surprised to hear them mentioning it on air this morning since most local media are mum when it comes to parents dissatisfied with SPS administration. I didn't find an audio link so I posted the blog link.
Perhaps things are so obviously bad that the media can't continue to ignore it.
The fact that they cannot or will not tell you how many students sit for exams is telling.
Roosevelt claimed their AP HG required for all 10th graders was a success because in the first year about 50% of the kids took the AP test. Well, up until then, about 50% of 10th graders chose to take AP Euro course, but now were not allowed to. Therefore, the 50% taking the AP HG exam shows that they really did not increase AP participation, even though the AP HG exam is demonstrably easier (Covers less material, only two hours instead of the more typical three hours, no essays, just "short answer"...)
Some funny definition of success, if you ask me. Just like Hale calling their required for all LA classes AP seems a little funny.
Helen Schinske
Hale has avoided AP classes for years. The principal was opposed to offering Spectrum when she was a middle school principal. She took an active role in watering down the APP program as a member of the Highly Capable Review Committee. I would not look to Hale for an APP high school program.
The fact is that Hale and Ingraham are the only two high schools north of the ship canal that have space. I don't think the district would house APP in Ingraham because they offer IB (I don't know if IB would work just as well as AP or not, but it would "look" inequitable to have the north APP get something different than the south APP).
So if Hale is the only building with the space and program necessary to house APP north of the ship canal, then I don't think the principal will get much input in the decision. And if she is really opposed to it, MGJ will just transfer her.......
PR/Award #: S330C090065
Award Amount: $697,117
Grantee: Seattle Public Schools (WA)
Contact: Robert Vaughan
Seattle Public Schools (SPS) will increase student enrollment and success in Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses in four high schools and three middle schools. Two of the high schools will focus primarily on the expansion of AP courses, while the remaining two high schools will focus on enhancing their implementation of the IB Diploma Program. All seven schools will work to implement foreign language programs in Chinese and Japanese. The project will align instruction and curricula from middle to high school to create articulated course pathways, provide academic coaches to enhance teachers' content knowledge, and provide academic and social supports to low-income students with the potential to succeed in advanced academic coursework. SPS will provide teachers at the high schools with four types of sustained professional development, including instructional coaching in English, math, and science; dedicated time for collaborative planning, peer observations of instruction; and attendance at AP or IB workshops.
What can this mean? Do (can) any middle schools offer AP? IB doesn't even start in SPS until 11th grade. Are they rolling it down to MS, where?
Does anyone know the other two high schools that will be the recipients of this grant?
Sealth and Ingraham, for IB, and RBHS and Cleveland for AP, and their respective feeder middle schools (Aki, Denny and Hamilton).
Since Cleveland won't be offering AP the grant funds will go toward strengthening the science and math offerings.
Grants were given (not sure if the grant required this?) to schools that had 40% or higher FRL.