Lowell; What to Do?
I spent two hours at the meeting tonight with SPS staff and Lowell families who are trying desperately to understand what should be done about the massive overcrowding due at Lowell this fall. (The meeting was still in full swing when I left.)
There was a lot said and I will post a longer thread but I know many of you may need an outlet right now for your thoughts.
Briefly, the district is putting forth four options (but one is off the table for the district and one seems to be off the table for the majority of APP families at Lowell).
Options
1) Stay at Lowell. Obviously, this can't happen as the safety and crowding issues cannot be resolved. (One parent asked why portables couldn't be put in. It was not answered but I can only say that portables create classrooms - not bathrooms, common areas or lunch areas.) Not on the table for the district.
2) Split off 4th and 5th grade APP to Lincoln. This is the option that seems to be off the table for every family that showed up to the meeting. There are too many unresolved issues and most of them poignantly brought up by children at the meeting. Not even for a year -I think it more than would be asked of any other children in the district.
3) Split off entire APP cohort from Lowell to Lincoln. People seem to want to keep the APP cohort together but this didn't seem to be popular.
4) Create a third APP school. Where and could it be done in time for September? Who knows?
There were at least 75 parents in attendance. There were numerous staff (Pegi McEvoy, Operations superintendent, led the meeting) including Bob Vaughn( who remained silent), Marni Campbell, Lesley Rodgers (Communications) and Nancy Coogan, Executive Director. Board members who attended were Harium Martin-Morris, Michael DeBell, Sherry Carr, Peter Maier and Kay Smith-Blum. Principal King was also in attendance.
There was a lot said and I will post a longer thread but I know many of you may need an outlet right now for your thoughts.
Briefly, the district is putting forth four options (but one is off the table for the district and one seems to be off the table for the majority of APP families at Lowell).
Options
1) Stay at Lowell. Obviously, this can't happen as the safety and crowding issues cannot be resolved. (One parent asked why portables couldn't be put in. It was not answered but I can only say that portables create classrooms - not bathrooms, common areas or lunch areas.) Not on the table for the district.
2) Split off 4th and 5th grade APP to Lincoln. This is the option that seems to be off the table for every family that showed up to the meeting. There are too many unresolved issues and most of them poignantly brought up by children at the meeting. Not even for a year -I think it more than would be asked of any other children in the district.
3) Split off entire APP cohort from Lowell to Lincoln. People seem to want to keep the APP cohort together but this didn't seem to be popular.
4) Create a third APP school. Where and could it be done in time for September? Who knows?
There were at least 75 parents in attendance. There were numerous staff (Pegi McEvoy, Operations superintendent, led the meeting) including Bob Vaughn( who remained silent), Marni Campbell, Lesley Rodgers (Communications) and Nancy Coogan, Executive Director. Board members who attended were Harium Martin-Morris, Michael DeBell, Sherry Carr, Peter Maier and Kay Smith-Blum. Principal King was also in attendance.
Comments
Great if the program expands in future, but let it be cohesive and strong first!
While this change would move about 250 APP students into Lowell, it would also move about 400 of them out of Lowell, resulting in a net reduction of 150 students. That would go a long way to relieving the overcrowding.
I recognize the disruption this would cause for the TM families. I regret that. As for the Lowell APP families, their goal - keeping the cohort together - would be achieved.
This is, of course, the solution that the District should have offered when they originally split the program - a north location for the north-end students and Lowell for the south-end students. It would be nice if the District would acknowledge their poor decision and frame this as a correction of their mistake. Unlikely, but nice.
Please sign this latest petition to keep APP together for 2011-2012 until a successful long-term plan can be developed.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/keep-lowell-app-together-in-2011-2012/
Some folks are awful quick to pull the trigger and call out APP folk as selfish, elitist, and such. But would they say the same thing about any other special needs program in the district, for simply advocating for itself? Not that I've seen.
Oh let's just cry a river for those poor special needs kids, ahemmm the APP students.
First off, the few moves done by a few APP students is the name of the game for ALL special education students. The district thinks nothing of moving special education students YEARLY!!! Or even in the middle of the year. And, 1 by 1. No "cohort" is EVER offered for special education students. No group or even single classroom of the real special needs students is kept together. Parents often beg to go to a school where their child knows a single person. If you don't think having a god-given right to a cohort (actually 2 cohorts) is an elistist privilege, then you are living on another planet.
Secondly, APP students all have the choice of staying in their local schools if it's soooooo horrible to have diverse classmates.
Thirdly, the main issue for "special needs" is providing a mainstream education to the MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE. That is actually the law. (IDEA) Constrast that with APP... where the main idea should be the same. Instead it's, "Gee, I hope I can get my kid into a segregated, privileged program". Most of APP students are perfectly capable of being educated with typical peers, and that should be the district's goal. (Is it "special needs" or not?) Instead, we have an ever growing program dedicated to segregation.
I'm all for self-containment of 1 or 2%, of our entire student population. But not for self-containment because we can, or because somebody "tests in" in kindergarten. What about retesting? That is required of "special needs", tri-annually at a minimum... and self-containment is again removed. The bias for special needs is "mainstream" where possible, not self-contained where possible. Where is the re-testing? Are you special needs? Or not.
If we are to have constantly growing desire for self-containment, then that will require many programs and buildings... which is the situation now. Split on.
-parent
WSEADAW - your posts make me want to barf
Parent - Go peddle your hate somewhere else, please. No one here has taken an all or nothing approach, no one here has seriously advocated for one group AT THE EXPENSE of another, and no one has denied the issues faced by other SPS communities. To come to a specific "Lowell: What To Do" thread and bitch about people talking about Lowell is just showing your ignorance and hated. Your "my dog's bigger than your dog" approach is, at best, unproductive and, in fact, insulting.
Next - This just sent from the APP Advisory Committee:
APP Advisory Committee
Email 107: APP Advisory Committee, Lowell Recommendations
June 29, 2011
Below is a letter sent to the Superintendent and School Board members with the
APP AC's recommendations regarding Lowell (and TM). APP AC representatives from all 5 of our current schools have worked together on this.
It has been very difficult to come to this decision, as we understand the impacts of this and the other options on the entire Lowell community and also on APP. We know not everyone will support this, but there is no perfect solution. We also realized we needed to advocate ASAP for what we feel is the best solution at this time.
More will follow on Friday, but we wanted to provide this information now.
SB
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:17 PM
Subject: APP Advisory Committee, Lowell Recommendations
Hello Dr. Enfield and School Board Directors,
As you might know, the APP Advisory Committee is a district-sanctioned group of volunteer parents and school staff from each of the soon to be six APP schools. We listen to our community, work with the schools and Advanced Learning, and work hard to address APP issues in a positive and constructive way.
This afternoon our committee met to discuss the Lowell overcrowding issue. After listening carefully to many families, assessing data, and weighing our own long-term experiences with APP and our schools, we now feel compelled to advocate for all of Lowell APP grades 1-5 to move out of Lowell to Lincoln for 2 years.
We oppose sending only Lowell 4th and 5th graders to Lincoln, and we also oppose splitting to 3 sites for this fall.
We do support using next year to plan for what follows--we don't know yet what that will need to look like.
In order to plan carefully, this process should not be rushed. We hope that this will be an opportunity for much needed, long-term strategic planning for the growth of all of APP, and we hope our advisory committee will have seats at the table for those discussions.
Out of all the many considerations, the primary reasons we have chosen to support moving all the
Lowell APP cohort are:
1--Keep the program teacher cohort together.
Teachers are at the core of the program and its success. Next year at Lowell, a whopping 8 teachers will be new to teaching APP--in 4th and 5th grades, 4 out of 7 will be new. Four teachers were new this year. This is tremendous turnover and threatens to destabilize the program at the school.
We feel that by being together at Lincoln, the APP staff can mentor and support each other and their new teaching staff, work on program curriculum alignment and coordination, and become the cohesive teaching cohort they need to be for the students. This work is critical now and would be much more difficult, virtually impossible, at two or three sites.
continued
2--Keep the program student cohort together.
Second only to academic rigor, APP families have always said that what they value most about APP is the cohort. The cohort is often the primary reason why families stay, and why new families will come to APP.
They count on the cohort of students for the much needed academic, social, and emotional support they don't get in their neighborhood schools.
Putting a 4-5 group at Lincoln would isolate this fairly small group of students, change their school identity, cut their support line to their siblings and younger friends, school buddy programs, and so many other important aspects of their school experience. Splitting to three sites now would have an even greater negative impact.
3--Don't disturb the success at Thurgood Marshall.
It is imperative that Thurgood Marshall remain untouched as the centrally located APP school. The TM school community has worked very hard to create a school that works well ...this IS the successful model the School Board envisioned. It should be allowed to develop and grow without altering its path and disturbing those students, families and teachers. Proposing a Lowell split to 3 sites now is threatening their stability.
4--Lowell Walk-Zone families should have choice of schools.
Families that live in the Lowell Walk Zone attendance area should be permitted to attend Thurgood Marshall if they choose, or go with their cohort to Lincoln next year. Families should also be given the option to return to their neighborhood schools and Spectrum programs given the unpredictability ahead.
It has been difficult to come to this decision. We fully realize the many consequences to the various options on the table and the challenges to this one in particular -- among them, APP will be without an ALO partner while at Lincoln, and the ALO and Special Ed families will lose APP at Lowell. The loss of these relationships is particularly painful to us. We know there are costs to the District as well as many logistics to work out, such as library, music/art/PE teachers, school nurse, after school programs, transportation, and PTSA support for both sites.
We sense that if APP is split 1-3 and 4-5 next year or into 3 sites, there will non-stop battles with frustrated parents, a splintering of the community that goes beyond just where kids are placed in a building. This would not be a productive use of time and energy for anyone and would inevitably impact the students.
If the cohort can remain together, we feel that the APP community at Lincoln would be willing to pull together for the greater good, channel their energy into positive support, and will make it work, regardless of where they go afterward. They would also find ways to support the families remaining at Lowell.
As we have seen at Ingraham, we know that you, Dr. Enfield, are ushering in a new culture in the District--you listen, and we are grateful that you do.
We sincerely hope you might listen again now and consider our recommendations for Lowell APP.
Respectfully,
Stephanie Bower and Geeta Teredesai, Co-Chairs, APP AC and the APP Advisory Committee
1) Several of you are highly articulate, passionate, and knowledgeable about Seattle Schools. Why are you all not running for school board? It seems easy to sit on the sidelines and offer sage advice; why not get directly involved in the fray? Charlie Mas, Melissa, others? Part of the reason that this log is viewed negatively by some is that it is filled with folks saying how things should be done, criticizing the folks who are tasked with the job.
2) At this point, we everyone can theorize and make conjectures until they are blue in the face. We cannot change what we cannot control. What we can do, however, is gather the information that the District is so lamely witholding. There are really not that many APP qualified students. There are even fewer who opt into the APP program. Let's research, dig, and scrub the data so that we have some FACTS. How many kids are coming from each cluster? How have those numbers trended over time. We can get this information. Rather than sit around and talk about Bob Vaughan's lame leadership and the APP-AC's tepid tip-toes-ey-let's-be-collaborative stance, let's take some action and and dig for DATA.
--disgusted by the district
FYI
But you have cross-referenced that unhappiness with your dislike/disagreement with APP. And that's not fair. APP has nothing to do with how Special Ed is carried out. Your comments are so angry, I'm not even sure I understand what you are saying - should APP exist at all is one of them.
If you disagree with someone, fine, but please don't go so negative. It's hard to read such comments.
Digusted, boy, do I get tired of people saying all anyone does here is vent and be critical. It's not true. This IS the place where people can come to speak out but I know many people who post here and the data analysis and advocacy work they do away from the blog. I know most of the people here are active parents in their schools.
Charlie did run for School Board. I have considered it but have a family issue that I have to give more weight to (and, as well, I think I serve a better purpose here).
I work every day gathering data and I know in the case of the Lowell situation, that APP parents are trying to gather data. But if you have ever tried to find data from SPS, it's very difficult.
Bob Vaughn is a worthy discussion because he needs a good push to step up to help this community as benefits his role in the district.
Special service program — highly capable students
WAC 392-170-037
Definition — Program options.
Learning opportunities shown by research and practice to be especially effective with highly capable students include, but are not limited to:
(1) Accelerated learning opportunities;
(2) Grouping arrangements that provide intellectual and interest peer group interactions;
(3) Cooperative agreements between K-12 schools and institutions of higher education providing for concurrent enrollment, dual credit, and other advance and/or postsecondary options;
(4) Programs designed to coordinate, combine and/or share resources, people and facilities within a district or building in order to maximize access to and utilization of available resources for supporting students' learning;
(5) Mentorships and career exploration opportunities.
FYI
As a parent who has gone through the split, I understand some new families' indifference to the split. In our first year, I couldn't understand what was the big deal about the cohort. Families who had been in the program talked about being willing to drive across the city for APP. I thought they were crazy. Three years into the program I see where they were coming from. There aren't enough kids for three cohorts right now, and another split would be horrible for the kids who have been through one already.
Here's a link to the current petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/keep-lowell-app-together-in-2011-2012/
I don't know the inner workings of the Seattle educational political scene, but why didn't Charlie run sgsin? Wouldn't he have had a chance, or is he seen as branded as one of the Overly Negative Ones?
And Bob Vaughan? It is so disappointing and confusing and certainly a worthy discussion topic, but does he read this blog? So much energy discussing him. Does anyone know him well enough to write him and ask him point blank why he is not a more passionate visionary for the AL department. Is there anyone else that folks would advocate for his replacement?
I just get sick of all the talk and theorizing and wondering and imagining - without power and authority. Parents are entirely fed up. Reason is not working.
--disgusted by district
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/keep-lowell-app-together-in-2011-2012/
-I know Bob Vaughn and I likely will contact him. But he's been in the district off and on for years and if he hasn't championed this district by now, I don't know what will light a fire in his belly now.
I'm sorry if anyone perceives this blog as "too negative." I can only say don't shoot the messenger. It's not my fault that this district is the full-time mess that it is (not the schools, the management).
As the saying goes, the truth hurts. That others want to brush problems aside (or worse brush them under the rug) seems to me much worse than calling them out, loud and clear.
It's really not my worry to try to be Seattle Nice at this blog. I post good news every single week because yes, there are good things going on in the district. We do offer solutions and place to walk through ideas.
I think this blog, and the amazing amount of work that you do, is wonderful and disturbing at the same time.
It's wonderful how much work you put into keeping the public informed and how much digging you do to get to the facts. That said, it's incredibly disturbing that you and this blog are the primary, and sometimes only, source of detailed news available. What you're doing is what "reporting" used to be; investigate and report . . . oh, if we only had a newspaper in this town.
I don't care about the direction a discussion might take -- ok, I care somewhat -- but I'm thrilled that a discussion is taking place!
Without you and Charlie, and the others who are willing to look below the surface, and of course Meg's amazing charts, the public would be forever in the dark when it comes to what this district is doing. If I haven't said it enough, to all of you, thank you.
stu