Disqus

Monday, December 06, 2010

School Reports - Data in Question

I have already raised questions about the data points on the School Reports that are labeled "Students making gains on state tests".

That's a misleading label. The correct name for that data point would be: "Students with a delta on state test greater than the bottom third of their test score peers."

Yes, I know it is something of a head-scratcher. The District's label makes it sound like the number represents those students with a positive delta, but it does not.

Here's another number on the School Report that I'm having trouble with: Advanced Learners. The count of advanced learners at each school appears in the bottom left of the first page along with the other school demographics. The reported numbers are hard to believe.

These are the reported number of advanced learners at the schools in the Aki Kurose service area:

00% Graham Hill (ALO)
00% Martin Luther King (ALO)
11% Wing Luke (SPECTRUM)
00% Dunlap (ALO)
00% South Shore
00% Emerson (ALO)
01% Aki Kurose (SPECTRUM)

You'll notice that all but one of these schools claims to have an advanced learning program. Yet we are supposed to believe that there are only 46 advanced learners total in all of these schools?

I have reviewed the CSIPs and School Reports for these schools. Only one of these schools, Aki Kurose, makes any reference to advanced learners or their advanced learning program in either document. Of the schools with web sites, not one of them makes reference to an advanced learning program on their web site, not even the Spectrum schools, Wing Luke and Aki Kurose.

The message is clear. Southeast Seattle has no advanced learners and the schools in Southeast Seattle have nothing to offer advanced learners. No wonder families with advanced learners believe that they need to leave the neighborhood for an appropriate academic opportunity.

Here's what we should have seen. We should have seen an accurate count of the advanced learners at each school on the School Report. The School Reports should also describe what the school has to offer advanced learners. The CSIPs should also discuss how the schools intend to serve their advanced learners and the school web sites should also describe their programs and services.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's not just the SE schools. John Hay has an ALO program and I know for a fact has students who have tested into APP but have chosen to stay at John Hay. John Hay doesn't show any advanced learners either. I can't find a definition for "advanced learner" - could it be that it's only schools with an APP program? Or maybe it includes Spectrum as well? Jane

A. Hamilton said...

I just looked at Loyal Heights.

Our daughter is one of the 0% of advanced learners in there.

However, I should qualify that. I think the district defines "advance learners" as those learners that have taken four years of math and three of science and maintained a grade point average of at least 3.0.

Anonymous said...

Both my kids are Spectrum qualified ALO students at Graham Hill, and I know there are many more as well.

boymom

Dorothy Neville said...

I always found this irritating as well, how poorly tracked this data is. I think there should be some data on where are all the kids who have ever qualified for APP and/or Spectrum. I asked Brian Vance about the APP kids and he was clueless. Said he knew of two, but those were just two freshmen who had enrolled at RHS after attending WMS. I listed quite a few for him that I knew had qualified or been in the program at some point. He said he would get back to me, but never did. My gut feeling is that there were somewhere between 50 and 100 students at RHS who had at some point qualified for APP.

This is the sort of data that is needed for many reasons. As Charlie is pointing out, to daylight the dearth of support for advanced learners in some parts of the city. I think it is also needed to better make sense of HS test data and to better advocate for honors and AP classes to meet their needs.

Charlie Mas said...

When the District counts Advanced Learners I think they only count those who are Spectrum- or APP-eligible and are enrolled in a Spectrum program or APP.

Left out of that count are Spectrum- and APP-eligible students who are participating in ALOs (even though it allows them to retain their eligibility) and those who are not participating in any District-recognized advanced learning program.

Three of these programs, Dunlap, MLK and Emerson, were started this year. When these program placements were made, the Manager of Advanced Learning, Dr. Vaughan, promised the Board that these programs would not be "ALOs in name only". That was actually a rather troubling promise. First, there is no way for Dr. Vaughan to control anything about the program so I don't know how he intends to keep this promise. Second, there is no assessment to show whether Dr. Vaughan has kept that promise. Third, the need to make the promise implies that there are some programs that are programs "in name only." And if there are such programs then what is the District doing about them?

The District wants very much for families to believe that ALOs are just as good as Spectrum. Then why don't they count ALO students as advanced learners? It doesn't make the ALOs look to be as good as Spectrum.

hschinske said...

West Woodland supposedly has 0% advanced learning, too. This is a school that TRUMPETS the fact that APP- and Spectrum-qualified students often choose to stay there and be served through their ALO. The report itself does say that 100% of students in Advanced Learning achieved proficiency in reading and math on state tests, and the ALO is mentioned in the "School Goals" section.

Helen Schinske

Charlie Mas said...

Let's remember that families choosing a school focus a lot on the peer group. Families with high performing students, in particular, want their children to have a stimulating peer group - not only for the direct benefits, but also for the indirect benefit. It allows the teacher to present more challenging material and to move faster, providing the high performing student with a more appropriate academic experience than they would have in a class full of students working below grade level.

So it matters a lot for these families to see some sign that the school has something to offer their high performing student and that the school has a high performing peer group that their child can join. None of those things are in evidence.

Charlie Mas said...

So here's a question for the Board:

District Policy C45.00, School Effectiveness Measures and Review calls for annual reports on every program, reports that speak to the programs' effectiveness:
"It is the policy of the Seattle School District to develop and maintain a high level of effectiveness in each of its schools and programs as determined by multiple measures of improvement and in relation to established standards. A review of all schools and programs will be conducted annually using a process and criteria as approved by the Superintendent."

So where is the annual report on the Spectrum program at Wing Luke or the Spectrum program at Aki Kurose? Where are the annual reports on the ALO programs at Dunlap, Emerson, Graham Hill and MLK?

These are programs - we know that they are programs because they went through the Program Placement process. Consequently, they should have an annual report on their quality, efficacy, and enrollment.

Even if the District claimed that they did one big report for all of Spectrum, where is that report? After ten years of activism I've yet to see a single one.

Sahila said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hschinske said...

Yay, Dora! Hitting the big time!

Helen Schinske

Charlie Mas said...

I also notice that some of the schools that report having 0% Advanced learning students have a blank on the Advanced Learning line of the "Student Proficiency on State Tests" table and some of them have 100% on that line.

Curious.

Charlie Mas said...

Okay, even WEIRDER:

The School Report for Adams Elementary shows 0% Advanced Learners in the School Demographics, 100% Advanced Learners passing the state reading test, and 93% of the Advanced Learners passing the state math test.

What the hell does that mean?

Apparently 13 out of 14 (93%) advanced learners passed the math test, all 14 passed the reading test, but 14 advanced learners, which should have appeared as 3% of the school population appear only as 0%.

How can these numbers be reconciled?

hschinske said...

Note also the difference between Thurgood Marshall's report (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/strategicplan/schoolreports/212.pdf) and Lowell's (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/strategicplan/schoolreports/245.pdf). Lowell's report specifically names and describes its three programs; Thurgood Marshall's does not (except for a vague mention of "advanced learning").

You literally cannot tell from the report that Thurgood Marshall is an APP site. The words "APP" and "accelerated" do not appear anywhere. Nor does "ALO."

Helen Schinske

Anonymous said...

All non APP kids at Thurgood Marshall are referred to by staff as "ALO kids."

Also, "Advanced Learning Opportunities" aren't a program, but just more challenging work for kids who might want it. Nobody knows how many, if any, non APP kids are availing themselves of any ALO's. But they're all called ALO kids, regardless.

Anonymous said...

The whole ALO thing is a joke. Please, it's left up to each school to decide what it means. Our principal sent me some info about the ALO at Graham Hill, but it is pretty ad hoc. As far as I can tell, all it really adds up to is a different report card.

The Spectrum program for our area was Wing Luke when the first one tested and was not considered to be a strong program. My kids are really happy at Graham Hill and have good teachers who are challenging them, so needs so we're okay where we are. There are a number of families with Spectrum/APP kids who have made the same choice.

But it is not okay to try to appease families by offering programs in name only. And not bothering to count these students just shows how much consideration the district gives us.

boymom

ex - blt said...

The first year I was on BLT a couple of years ago it was clear that the Principal did not take the CSIP process seriously and was advised by his school director to fill in the blanks since it was just about meeting the state requirement to have one and the document didnt really mean anything. The second year on BLT it was clear that the school was going to be held accountable for the CSIP goals and so the district basically wrote them (or had the math and literacy coaches write them) and then the new principal pushed the BLT to sign off on them. Of course they were presented at the last minute and there wasnt a lot of time for review and revisions. I wonder if other BLTs worked like that. It definitely mirrors the way the staff treats the board meetings.

ex - blt

Charlie Mas said...

The state law requires that student families be involved in writing the CSIP. If the CSIP was written as ex-BLT described that is a HUGE violation of the state law and a big failure by the Executive Director, the Chief Academic Officer, and the Board.

Seriously, if this were true in a lot of schools it could cost the District its Basic Education funding from the state, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

Charlie Mas said...

The District likes to say that they have ALO programs at schools because it creates the illusion that they have some structured way to address the needs of advanced learners. The reality does not match the claims.

If the District did its job and actually performed some quality assurance (as they promised they would when ALOs were created) then we wouldn't have this gap between the reality and the claims.

Anonymous said...

There is so much funny business going on with these CSIPs.

The CSIP for our school for this year has MY NAME ON IT as a parent leader contact and I wasn't even asked if that was okay. Ours was up last minute in the panic before the board meeting, as well. I've since discussed with the Principal but sheesh... I can confirm no other families/parents were asked.

I'm Not Telling

Charlie Mas said...

Ah! So this is what the Chief Academic Officer swears was done entirely according to Hoyle and what the Board affirms based entirely on their faith in her (and their grasping need for the state funding).

auggch said...

Is this something that the regular state audit folks would/should look at, or is this something that some other state entity in charge of disbursal of basic ed funds would look at?

Charlie Mas said...

This is one of those things - like nearly everything having to do with the District - that NO ONE looks at.

Even if you were to bring a complaint, no one would bother to follow up on it.

Strictly speaking, the State Board of Education is supposed to police the District's fulfillment of the law here but they won't do it. I have tried to get them to do it once before when the District's compliance was much, much worse. I contacted the enforcement officer for the SBE and that person just sent an email to the SPS superintendent (Raj Manhas at the time) asking him to respond to the complaint. He didn't respond and the SBE didn't follow up.

When the cops won't bust you, nothing is illegal. It's not about what's right or wrong; it's about what you can get away with.

Anonymous said...

It was my understanding that Washington is a local control state, so the SBE is not an enforcement agency. The local school boards are supposed to provide the oversight and enforcement. If that fails, the only recourse seems to be lawsuits.

Meg said...

Since it's related to questionable data, what about the new functional capacity numbers?

There's some weirdness going on - I don't think View Ridge, Blaine or Bryant had any major space-increasing remodels, but they're all up nearly 100 students over their planning capacities, and from everything I've heard, they were all packed to the gills before functional capacity made them bigger.

And it is interesting that West Seattle Elementary and Aki have both, by functional capacity analysis, have shrunk.

Does this seem hinky to anyone else, or am I just being suspicious and a bit high-strung?

seattle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
seattle said...

"I have tried to get them to do it once before when the District's compliance was much, much worse. I contacted the enforcement officer for the SBE and that person just sent an email to the SPS superintendent (Raj Manhas at the time)"

So, though far from perfect, it appears that compliance is moving in the right direction under MGJ. Wouldn't this fall under accountability?

Lori said...

Meg, they can increase functional capacity by repurposing rooms. In the last 3 years, Bryant converted a science room to a classroom (08/09), "lost" their ELL program to Sandpoint and converted that room to a regular classroom (10/11), and converted the Resource room to a classroom (10/11). The Special Ed teacher now shares an "office" with the reading specialist that is slightly larger than a nice walk-in closet. I'm not sure where she meets with the kids with IEPs who used to come to the actual Resource Room. Spared in the last round of growth was the art room and the computer room, but I imagine those could go next year if they still need 5 K classes again. Of course, I bet with MAP, the computer room will be the last to go.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Meg and Lori, and that is why "functional capacity" is nonsense (no matter how often Kathy Johnson in Facilities defines it). This is ridiculous as the district twists and changes it with the wind (or whatever they want at the time).

Note that over and over, whenever staff wants something, functional capacity at a school where they want space magically appears.

wsnorth said...

Adding Functional Capacity is just another code word for "overcrowded". Adding portables or "re-purposing" rooms doesn't make the hallways any wider, add any bathroom or lunch room space, increase the size of the gym, library or any other facilities. It just makes the experience worse for everyone - teachers, students, and parents alike.

suep. said...

hschinske said...

Note also the difference between Thurgood Marshall's report (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/strategicplan/schoolreports/212.pdf) and Lowell's (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/strategicplan/schoolreports/245.pdf). Lowell's report specifically names and describes its three programs; Thurgood Marshall's does not (except for a vague mention of "advanced learning").

You literally cannot tell from the report that Thurgood Marshall is an APP site. The words "APP" and "accelerated" do not appear anywhere. Nor does "ALO."


Is it possible that the district is hiding the advanced learner numbers in some of these school reports so that it can claim overall test-score improvement for these schools without acknowledging the specific source?

If it's true that there's nothing on Thurgood Marshall's school 'report card' that mentions the influx of 200+ APP kids as of 2009-10, then the subsequent jump in test scores (I'm assuming) could be (mis)represented by SPS as a schoolwide "improvement," when in fact nothing has changed for either the APP kids (except being booted from their school and losing half their community) or the existing Thurgood Marshall kids (except having a sudden influx of a new program and 200 high achieving kids in their school).

Too cynical? Perhaps. Or not....

I've also been wondering about all the parent, teacher and student surveys referenced in the report cards. When did those happen? I don't recall hearing about them or being asked to participate in one.

Can anyone here vouch for the veracity of those surveys? Did anyone here participate in any of them?

Overall, how could anyone actually prove or disprove any of the claims in these school report cards?

I am also troubled by the fact that these dubious report cards are being used politically to push agendas. At the last school board meeting, Steve Sundquist basically wrote off the entire list of south end schools as failing, in order to justify his vote to allow short-term uncertified Teach for America, Inc. recruits to come to town.

The Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at UW is also taking this ball and running with it, most likely to the long-established reformite goal of bringing charters to Seattle, probably the south end. In fact, CRPE is working on a report for the Gates Foundation on charter management, due out 2011 I believe.
(http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/charter-school-management-research.aspx)

It's convenient for the reformers to be able to say that all south end schools are failing. It's convenient that the new student assignment plan prevents or seriously thwarts (no transportation) minority families in the south end from sending their kids to schools in the north end of town anymore (or even central -- TOPS is also less accessible now that its transportation has been limited). The end result is further segregation of the school district and probably further concentrations of poverty at some schools, creating a very specific segment of SPS that the reformites will consider "ripe" (to use a Broad term) for privatization.

So, after curtailing families' school choices in SPS via the new student assignment plan, the ed reform SPS leadership of Goodloe-Johnson or their sympathizers will then be able to decry the lack of "school choice" in SPS and make the case for charters. ("School choice" is code for charters in ed-reform-speak).

Clever, isn't it?

(Except that charters are seriously flawed and not the answer.)

(See Dora's opus on the background to all this at: http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-battle-for-seattle-part-one/)

sue p.

Charlie Mas said...

When the new student assignment plan was introduced, one of the featured arguments for it was that it did not reduce school choice at all. Families are still free to choose any school for their child. The only thing that is changed are the tie-breakers. They replaced "distance" with "attendance area". If the District comes now and says that there isn't as much school choice, then they will be making a lie of one of their own claims about the new plan.

Hamilton, I recall, congratulated themselves for their increase in WASL pass rates when the arrival of 200 APP students pushed out 200 students from the southend.

The bulk of the improved compliance with state law on the CSIPs came about four years ago when I threatened to appeal the Board's decision. Carla Santorno fixed them under Raj Manhas. There has been some continued incremental improvement in compliance since then,a dn that is, of course, good.

It's true that functional capacity magically appears when staff needs it. So does money. Then it dries up immediately as soon as someone else has a plan for it.

seattle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
seattle said...

How limited is choice now?

For traditional/neighborhood elementary and middle schools I don't see where choice has changed much. It used to be that only people who lived very close to a popular school got in, and those who didn't live close didn't get in. Seems the same with the NSAP, just with firm boundaries, and a guarantee.

You could under the old SAP and still can with the NSAP get into any elementary, middle, high school with space in the entire district - no matter where you live.

And although transportation was limited slightly for some alt/option schools they are all still available to all students across the district on a space available basis too.

Option high schools like NOVA, Center, STEM, are still open to all with Metro passes.

And in fact a HS student could have gotten into any high school in the entire city this year (except Ballard, Roosevelt and Garfield).

It doesn't seem to be any worse than the old SAP, but maybe I'm missing something.

SPS used to have data posted publicly that showed how many families received their first, second, third or higher choice assignment. I'd love to see that data for this year, the first year under the NSAP. I'd also like to see data that shows how many students picked a particular school, say STEM, as their 1st choice, 2nd, 3rd, or further.

If we compared that data to years prior to the NSAP we could really see how choice has been affected.

seattle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ParentofThree said...

Number of Advanced Learners.

This number is reported and has been reported for years, so I am not sure why it does not appear on the School Reports.

To see the number of students who are "tagged" as advanced learners in a school, go the
Research, Evaluation and Assessment (REA) website for any school on the SPS website.

Select a WASL report for any year and you will see that they report the number of Advance Learners in the school and the percentage of them who passed the WASL.

They do not (for some reason) have the 2010 MSP tests up yet. Probably due to the overall downgrading in information as seen in these expensive, but useless, School Reports.

hschinske said...

ParentofThree, I'm not sure the number is reported unless students are enrolled in Spectrum or APP. I don't see it on the West Woodland WASL report for 2009, for example: http://www.seattleschools.org/area/siso/test/wasl/2009/cur/281.pdf. Yes, there's a space to report results for advanced learners, but nothing in it. Apparently all 62 fifth-graders at West Woodland were in the regular or special ed programs, despite what it says at http://www.seattleschools.org/area/advlearning/documents/ALOPlanWestWoodland.pdf:

"Advanced learners are first through fifth grade students who have been tested and qualified for Seattle Schools Spectrum or APP programs and are expected to be performing at least one grade above their current grade level expectations. They remain qualified for these higher level designations by participating in our ALO program and receiving the ALO report card. Success in our program along with strong teacher
recommendations, allows these students to enter available spaces in Spectrum and APP classes, at anytime, including middle school programs. We serve our advanced learners within the classroom and include other students capable of above grade level work."

Here West Woodland acknowledges that they know exactly who these students are, but they don't exist on the WASL report, and their WASL performance cannot be disaggregated from the school as a whole.

Helen Schinske

ParentofThree said...

The report I am looking at for West Woodland reports 5th Grade Advanced Learning = 62 and gives WASL pass rates for each subject. I can't get to your reports, so I am not sure what you are refering to when your say there is nothing in it, as I can see the number of AL who passed by subject.

If the school is a Spectrum school then they list the # of Students in Spectrum and also give their scores.

Lowell lists the number of APP students on their report.

hschinske said...

The report I am looking at for West Woodland reports 5th Grade Advanced Learning = 62 and gives WASL pass rates for each subject. I can't get to your reports, so I am not sure what you are refering to when your say there is nothing in it, as I can see the number of AL who passed by subject.

I think we're looking at the same report. For fifth-graders, on reading, at the top of the page it says
"School Total 62 91.9%."

and further down it says:

"Advanced Learning No 62 91.9%"

Note that "No" in the Advanced Learning box. That means those who are said on this report to be NOT IN AN ADVANCED LEARNING PROGRAM, and the number is identical with the school total. There is no one listed as being Spectrum- or APP-qualified, nor as being enrolled in an ALO.

The schools that do have disaggregated Spectrum results list

Advanced Learning No XX.X%
Spectrum XX.X%

in the Advanced Learning box. (Incidentally, does anyone know what it means when #### is given instead of a percentage? Lots of the Spectrum and APP results seem to be that.)

Helen Schinske

Anonymous said...

#### may indicate 100% - it's three spaces instead of two, so it's exceeding the space formatting in the report.

Gouda said...

No wonder families with advanced learners believe that they need to leave the neighborhood for an appropriate academic opportunity.

@Charlie - Isn't that what you did?

Charlie Mas said...

Limes,

Yes. That's my family's story.

When my daughter was in kindergarten she tested eligible for Spectrum. We spoke to the teachers in her school and they told us, candidly, that they would do what they could to accomodate her but that they weren't set up to serve advanced learners the way that a Spectrum program would be.

The Spectrum site for our cluster was at Muir. We visited it but didn't like what we found. Instead, we enrolled her at the Spectrum program at Lafayette in West Seattle.

We weren't alone. There were a lot of kids from southeast Seattle in the Spectrum program at Lafayette.

I'm having a hard time getting current enrollment data, but it appears that in the 2008-2009 school year there were only two Spectrum students at Aki Kurose, both in the 8th grade. Is there any wonder that southeast Seattle families choose to enroll their Spectrum-eligible middle school students at Washington, McClure, or Hamilton?

Anonymous said...

But Charlie, that's the chicken-egg thing again. When you and other Spectrum parents run from Muir (where I know several families are very happy) and Aki (same thing), you cut the number of advanced students down, so that when future parents of advanced students look at them they see few advanced students and run, so that the next crop of parents see few advanced students...

I don't know how to solve this problem other than forcing people into specific schools, in which case they'd just run for private schools. So we're back to the original problem.

When we were trying to figure out where to place our daughter we looked at Muir. I can't recall what grade Spectrum program we saw, but the kids were all happily engaged, practically leaping out of their seats trying to solve the science problem the teacher had posed. Of course, there were those uniforms and well, there weren't too many Caucasian kids there-maybe that's really why some people run.

Our daughter ended up in APP so we didn't go to Muir but friends there recommend it to questioning parents.

hschinske said...

agibean, Charlie's older daughter is a lot older than yours, and schools can change pretty fast. I wouldn't assume you were really looking at the same situation. I know in my neighborhood Loyal Heights has changed a huge amount since we were looking at kindergartens.

Helen Schinske

Anonymous said...

Oh yawn. The whole "the schools will resegregate" canard... promoted endlessly by reform bashers. Especially ironic that app parents would use it. The fact is, school choice exacerbated segregation. South end whites fled the south end, mostly to get away from black students using the school choice option. A move to neighborhood schools, with a few minor exceptions, will mean that the schools will reflect Seattle's diverse neighborhoods. Seattle's families have been willing to live in integrated neighborhoods for a pretty long time.... they've just unwilling to go to integrated schools. Well, now we'll finally move away from that tired vestige of prejudice.

Seattle Parent

Huh ?? said...

If it makes anyone feel any better, simply having a Spectrum program, doesn't mean the district will serve advanced learnrers any better or that they will advocate for the Spectrum program or for advanced learners.

Interestingly, Lawton Elementary is the only elementary Spectrum School in the QA/Mag attendance area. Our report card shows 19% are Advanced Learners. 100% of Spectrum kids met reading standards, 98% met math. And yet, a small, yet vocal contingent has advocated (and apparantly convincingly so) for the dismantling of the Spectrum Program by removing the grouped model and splitting the Spectrum learners into all classrooms. If you are saying, well, that isn't Spectrum, you're right .. that ISN'T Spectrum, that's ALO. QA/Mag has 3 elementary (I think - Blaine, Coe, Hay) ALO sites, 1 Spectrum site. (Lawton, or it used to). This was done without any engagement at all with the parents of children in Spectrum.

So if you wanted to come to Lawton for Spectrum, I'd suggest going elswhere. District leadership has been completely silent and has offered no assistance whatsoever in enforcing district policy (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/advlearning/documents/understandingadvancedlearning.pdf) where the Spectrum program is *defined* by grouping all Spectrum children in a class together. Instead SPS appears to be content to outsource this decision to a small, vocal group and a first year principal. BTA, this is completely out of line with district's intent on having at least one Spectrum site per Attendance area. Maybe QA Elem will take the Spectrum program?

Charlie, have you said previously that that the presence of a Spectrum program needs to be mentioned in a school's CSIP? It's not in Lawton's. (I can't find previous CSIPs from prior years online.) I guess I shouldn't be surprised. There is no mention of advanced learners in our CSIP at all.

Huh ?? said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Huh ?? said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charlie Mas said...

The Muir we saw when touring the school in January of 2001 wasn't like agibean described it.

Spectrum classes were completely apart from general education classes, they were predominantly White and Asian in a predominantly Black school, and there were some seriouis discipline concerns - how it was done as well as the general lack of it.

Soon thereafter I know that a group of Mount Baker families devoted themselves to improving the school.

I'm very happy to hear that it has improved.

Huh ?? said...

Interestingly, at Lawton Elementary, the school report does give Spectrum stats. The population is 19% Spectrum, and 100% of the Spectrum kids met Reading standars, 98% met math standard. Yet, Spectrum program is being dimanted because a small, yet vocal, contingent advocated (over the summer, when Lawton had no principal in place) to stop grouping Spectrum students together and instead break them up among all classrooms. If you're saying, wait...that's not Spectrum, you're right ! It's ALO.

Mag/QA already has 3 elem. ALO sites(Hay, Coe, Blaine) and only one Spectrum elem. site (or it did, it was Lawton). It is also in conflict with the SPS published materials saying that each attendance area will have at least one elem. Spectrum site. Now there is none.

No SPS leadership or enforcement of SPS policy which *defines* Spectrum as grouping all Spectrum leaners in one class. SPS is silent. There was no engagment from Spectrum families whatsoever.

This is a SPS program, placed at Lawton, and no individual group, or staff contingent, or principal should have the ability to change it. It amounts to a program change w/o following district procedure, vetting process and application process.

It is a disappointing lack of leadership by the district and disregard for an established program and the children it serves. The right thing is for Dr. Enfield to agree that she wasn't given all the information necessary to make the decision, reverse her 'approval', and require Lawton to enforce district policy, which clearly states Spectrum students are to be grouped together.

Oh, and Charlie, didn't you say previously that a Spectrum program needs to be mentioned on a CSIP? No mention of Spectrum on Lawton's CSIP. No mention of how advanced learners are served. Can't find previous CSIPs to see if that info was on them.

SPS Policy on Spectrum v. ALO
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/advlearning/ documents/understandingadvancedlearning.pdf

Huh ?? said...

reattempt at post...

Interestingly, at Lawton Elementary, the school report does give Spectrum stats. The population is 19% Spectrum, and 100% of the Spectrum kids met reading standars, 98% met math standard. Yet, the program is being dimanted because a small, yet vocal, contingent advocated (over the summer, when Lawton had no principal in place) to stop grouping Spectrum students together and instead break them up among all classrooms. If you're saying, wait...that's not Spectrum, you're right ! It's ALO.

Mag/QA already has 3 elem. ALO programs (Hay, Coe, Blaine) and only one Spectrum elem.site (or it did, it was Lawton). This is also in conflict with the SPS published materials saying that each attendance area will have at least one elem. Spectrum site. Now there is none.

There was no SPS leadership or enforcement of SPS policy which *defines* Spectrum as grouping all Spectrum learners in one class. Drs. Enfield and Vaughan have chosen to remain silent and punt this decision to a small, vocal group and a first year principal. There was no engagment from Spectrum families whatsoever. This is a SPS program, placed at Lawton, and no individual group, or staff contingent, or principal should have the ability to change it. This amounts to a program change w/o following district procedure, vetting process and application process.

It is a disappointing lack of leadership from the district and complete disregard for an established program and the children it serves. The right thing is for Dr. Enfield to agree that she wasn't given all the information necessary to make the decision, reverse her 'approval', and require Lawton to enforce district policy, which clearly states Spectrum students are to be grouped together.

Oh, and Charlie, didn't you say previously that a Spectrum program needs to be mentioned on a CSIP? No mention of Spectrum on Lawton's CSIP. No mention of how advanced learners are served. Can't find previous CSIPs to see if that info was on them.

SPS Policy on Spectrum v. ALO
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/advlearning/ documents/understandingadvancedlearning.pdf

Movers and Packers in Bhandup said...

Movers and Packers in Panvel
Movers and Packers in CBD Belapur
Movers and Packers in Ulwe
Movers and Packers in Taloja
Movers and Packers in Bhandup