Tuesday Open Thread
As promised, let's try two days of open thread. What's on your mind?
I noticed a huge amount of discourse over charters. I hope to have a couple of charter threads in the coming days as this is certainly a topic of interest (and some even consider them inevitable but nothing like throwing in the towel before the fight).
Last call for the big School Board candidate debate tomorrow night at Town Hall at 7:30 p.m. You need a ticket but they are free.
I noticed a huge amount of discourse over charters. I hope to have a couple of charter threads in the coming days as this is certainly a topic of interest (and some even consider them inevitable but nothing like throwing in the towel before the fight).
Last call for the big School Board candidate debate tomorrow night at Town Hall at 7:30 p.m. You need a ticket but they are free.
Comments
I am hereby coining ArchStanton's Corollary to Godwin's Law. It states that:
"As an online discussion pertaining to the academically gifted grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving racism or segregation approaches 1."
-thump
Well yes Charlie, I would agree with that. But in the case of SPS only advanced learners are skill grouped. In the schools that have Spectrum, average kids are not grouped together, but are rather grouped with an overwhelming majority of struggling students, and a disproportionate number of students with disabilities, IEP's and 504s. Why should the average student be in a classroom where the bar is set low? If your theory is correct, and I think it probably is academically speaking, then shouldn't we be grouping all learners by skill level? Shouldn't we have gifted, gen ed, remedial, and special ed classes? Come to think of it when I was in HS that is exactly the way it was. Is that what we want to go back to? That model did seem to work academically, though I felt our school was divided both culturally and socially.
Inclusive -Pedagogy or political? In my case definitely pedagogy. But then I have pretty average, middle of the road kids that inclusive classrooms have worked very well for. They have been inspired to work harder by the example set by much higher performing peers, and they have learned what behavior is absolutely unbecoming and unacceptable by other peers. They have sat at a desk with a kid doing honors work on one side, and a kid who didn't turn in a single homework assignment on the other side. And they learned from both.
I do however want to acknowledge that if I had a severely struggling student or an academically gifted student I may not feel the same way. You have to walk in those shoes, and I haven't, so really, who am I to say.
FOS
Do you have a link for that report?
There is a presumption that teachers will teach to the 40th percentile in the class.
There is a presumption that the presense of students working below grade level lowers the academic expectations for the whole class. As in: "Why should the average student be in a classroom where the bar is set low?"
Yet we all know that the District is committed to curricular alignment, which would mean that every class in every school is teaching to the grade level standards - at a minimum. So no matter who is in the class, the teacher will teach the grade level material or beyond.
The Spectrum students are supposed to be taught to different set of standards, generally one grade level ahead when developmentally appropriate.
The APP students are supposed to be taught to different set of standards, generally two grade levels ahead when developmentally appropriate.
Having these students in a different classroom helps the teachers because the students are being taught to a different set of standards. The self-contained programs make it so teachers only has to teach to one set of standards in each class.
The general education students are not impacted by the presence of low-performing students in the classroom (for whatever reason - only a fraction of the students with IEPs have a cognitive disability) because - thanks to the miracle of curricular alignment - the teacher will deliver grade level lessons.
How are you liking that curricular alignment now?
Well, Charlie, it is true that teachers are now expected to teach the grade level standardized material. But when all classrooms are being taught grade level material, then wouldn't that be a total and complete injustice to the kids that were working below grade level? Shouldn't they be in separate remedial classes if we went with your theory that kids should be grouped by ability level?
Further, I doubt seriously that any gen ed teacher would only teach grade level material. ESPECIALLY if they had students that presented 1, 2, 3 or further years behind. I'd hope that as human beings and trained educators they'd try to reach every student where they are regardless of SPS mandates. But that's just total speculation.
FOS
-more grey area
"The fact IS every Maintenance staff who requested a CREDIT CARD will be receiving one as of Tuesday 9/27/2011", oops didn't happen. Larry G. didn't quite get around to that yet, maybe on Thursday 9/29/2011. Nope not then either.
Since we are on the subject of, "It's not my money."
Did you know Bruce S. has authorized the electricians to replace every ballast in the school regardless of whether it's working or not. Oops, it's not his money. I'm speculating, however, I think it's the Federal Government Money that is being used and misspent in this case. Hmmm, maybe someone might want to contact the FEDS about abuse of his power. Which is coming out of our pocket, the taxpayer.
Now there is Schooldude. I feel Bruce S. is trying to hide the labor charges that the maintenance staff is using (I can only guess it's to hide it from the School Board). There are four or five different work order numbers to use now, combining multiple admin items into one. Hmmm, you have to wonder, "What is Bruce trying to hide?"
--TheOne
Nitpick: 95th percentile, not 95%; not the same thing. (Percentile scores aren't really supposed to get averaged, either.) For what it's worth, my son's MAP percentiles in reading have gone like this: 96, 98, 91, 99, 72, 95. Four out of six 95 or above, yet the average is under 92 (though if you throw out the obviously goofy 72, the average is 95.8). Math: 91, 98, 99, 95, 93, 96. Same thing, four out of six 95 or above, but this time the average is over 95.
Helen Schinske
IDEA does indeed grant many things to special education students, defined as those with qualifying disabilities that isn't grated to others.
1) FAPE. IDEA students are entitled to a "free and appropriate education". You might think everyone is entitled to it. Not really under any law. That is why an IEP is much more powerful than a 504 plan. Parents and advocates do have a job to do... "what's free and appropriate". And that is not an easy thing to come to agreement on. If it comes to a court case, experts can be brought in to agrue that some situation "isn't appropraite". But, the district would have to defend their choice.
2) LRE. Least restrictive environment. Students with disabilities are entitled an environment which does not restrict their access to non-disabled students. They are also entitled to self-contained environments if that is what they need.
So yes, if "tracking" means students with disabilities are disproptionately segregated, at least in a massive way, then the school must provide a remedy. If there's a small percentage of APP students in a system - students with disabilities may not be impacted. But if the Spectrum + APP + ALO (or other) winds up segregating students with disabilities, then the idea of LRE for students with disabilities indeed becomes an issue. It could be that students with disabilities would attended classes with non-disabled peers who are accelerated. That was something that at least a few parents at the old old Lowell tried to get for their kids - which was always a thorn in the district's side. APP students are non-disabled, so there isn't really a big reason - other than lack of will - that those classes couldn't be made to support that arrangment. If students are different enough, the "advancement" of the class doesn't matter - because ALL classes would be more advanced than they are. But, that doesn't mean that they don't get benefit from the classes. There could be many different remedies that solve the problem. I can say without a doubt, many disabled children learn the most when exposed to accelerated classrooms, even if they are not accelerated themselves. If that is the only available LRE, then it should be made available to them, regardless of "qualifications" required on other students.
3) Access to all school activities, before, during, and after school. Schools are supposed to provide special education support for the entirety of the students day. Schools are required to provide this, but most don't. Eg. How do you support students on the "afterschool ski-bus" and 9 hours at the Summit?
-spedvocate
Answer: OSPI reports everybody. The school district only reports students who are on the budget of the local school. That leaves a lot of kids uncounted in the district's report. Yes, there is also a preschool. But, lots of elementary schools have preschools which have 12 students per class, usually 1 class. Roxhill is a great example. It is highly disabled. In fact, the arguement that Roxhill does not provide an LRE has been successfully made by parents of students attending Roxhill. And those students have been granted placement elsewhere because of it. I know this because I made it happen for them.
If you look at Roxhill's OSPI count by grade you will see the following rates of disability for 2011. Previous years have been higher. NSAP probably has somewhat reduced its disability rates because local students are forced to attend it.
3rd: 26% disabled
4th: 34% disabled
5th: 15% disabled
So Charlie, here we have an entire grade at Roxhill - with a disability rate of 34%. That should be an eye-opener to any claims about disability rates in particular classes. And all of those students, are entitled to seat in general education. All them, in fact, do have a fully funded seat in general education starting in 2011. The district's average is 14% (or so) as a whole.
On this very blog, I have often seen teachers at the secondary level who report very large levels of disability in their classrooms, disproportionately large, general education classes. Perhaps some of them will share those rates with the community again - since it seems to be forgotten.
-spedvocate
PS. Roxhill was the site of special ed dumping a while ago - since nobody else wanted to attend it. Undoubtedly, that has increased it's rate. Those students are still entitled to an LRE... so it is a sticking point for the district, or least it has been.
SPS school sped reports are different from OSPI's because SPS only counts students funded with local building "funds". OSPI counts them all. By that reckoning, Roxhill, is indeed VERY disabled. In fact, it is so disabled, that students with disablilities have been able to use an LRE argument(eg. this school doesn't provide enough access to non-disabled peers) to get a change of placement. I know because I'm responsible for it myself. Students with disabilities have been able to transfer out of it.
If you look at OSPI's numbers you will find the following numbers for Roxhill in grades 3-5.
Roxhill Disability Rates, 2010:
3rd: 26%
4th: 34%
5th: 15%
SPS: 13%
So you see, a single grade at Roxhill has a disability rate of 34%. Why is it so surprising that a classroom at another school might have this too? I seem to recall secondary teachers reporting HUGE disability rates in their general education classrooms. It might be good to hear from some of these again.
spedvocate.
you asked where to find the information on how many SPS students have Section 504 Plans, broken down by school, etc., since the district figures you cite include only special education students with IEP plans. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your question, but surely the district should be able to provide it, since they have to comply with both types of disability plan as they arise in each classroom. On that point, it does seem odd that the SPS special education department apparently has nothing to do with Section 504 plans, which at least recently were filed elsewhere in the John Stanford building with a "Central Office Section 504 Plan Coordinator."
By the way, in response to the last posts by Spedvocate, it is not true that "APP students are non-disabled." A disabled student who meets the same cognitive and achievement eligibility standards as other nondisabled students must also be admitted, if necessary with any necessary services or accommodations.
spedvocate, is it the school who is supposed to provide this or the District? Our school makes it possible for all the kids to go to camp and ski bus but I believe we depend on gen ed staff and parent volunteers to do this. Should the District be paying for an IA or sped teacher? (Many special needs kids do not participate and I can imagine it is because their parents/guardians don't believe they will get appropriate and trained assistance. I can also imagine that staff might discourage participation if they don't think they can handle a certain level of disability. I don't know why it is true but some kids participate and some don't--also true of gen ed kids of course.)
And parents should not have to be volunteers. If a kid can't make it through the night, and a parent wants to come, well fine. And if a kid isn't up to it, that's also fine, something else must be provided the student. But think of it. Parents of students with special needs are asked to do almost everything in the "extra's" department - go to camp, provide assistance (or pay for assistants) for afterschool sports, arts, foreign language, MSP prep (special needs students never get that little bennie, then we wonder why they don't do well)
-spedvocate
-spedvocate