Lawton Principal Change
The former Lawton principal, Christine Helm, has taken another job, assistant principal at Whittier Elementary, and the Lawton assistant principal since the start of school this year, Dr. Neil Gerrans, will serve as the interim principal at Lawton.
They will both be at the Lawton PTA meeting tonight to answer questions about the change.
Does this change re-open the whole question of the structure of the Lawton Spectrum program?
They will both be at the Lawton PTA meeting tonight to answer questions about the change.
Does this change re-open the whole question of the structure of the Lawton Spectrum program?
Comments
http://lawtonelementary.org/2010/11/11182010-letter-from-principal-helm
http://lawtonelementary.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Lawton-Spectrum-Letter.pdf
If it is ever actually formed, if it ever actually meets, and if it is ever given any actual authority.
Interestingly, the new principal, Dr. Neil Gerrans, has a PhD from Carnegie Mellon in computational electromagnetics. He also taught ELL. He also worked for McKinsey as a strategy consultant. Not your typical principal. But he only an interim.
As for the Advanced Learning committee, I look forward to being part of it and advocating for a coherent, stable and great program that will reach all students who need and/or desire more rigor.
What advice can those of you who have been through the dismantling of a Spectrum program offer us?
My advice, having been through the Lawton change: retreat, retrench, lower your expectations.
Don't expect the administration to listen to you, no matter that you are using solid research and the SPS's own bylaws to support your position. You are an elitist parent.
Be careful around friends with kids not in the program. It's a more sensitive issue than your realize. They think that you think that your kid is better than theirs. You can offend them and never know it.
No matter how much the other parents in the program bitch about the change, this is Seattle. People are "nice". People will talk pitchforks and torches but show up to a public meeting with a plate of cookies.
Stick your head out and you may be shot at.
Seriously
In anycase, Ms. Helm did not instigate the Spectum changes at Lawton. That started before she was hired. Ms Helem was a new, inexperienced principal. Remember Lawton was on its 4th principal in 2 years. The school was in a state of flux and perfect time for some to make big changes. It's also tough when a majority of your staff signed a petition and got the OK from then Chief Ed officer, Dr. Enfield and AL's director, Dr. Vaughn to make the changes without consulting the affected student/parent community.
She got a hornet nest for her first assignment.
mag parent
- Been There
been there too
(annoyed w. sps, again)
Your problem, of course, is that it is unlikely that most parents will join you, most teachers and, of course, the students are too young.
If Whittier's Spectrum program falls, then we will know the fix is in.
Personally, I think that Dr. Enfield gave Christine a very tough job in changing Spectrum at Lawton and all things considered, she did what had to be done and people aren't really that upset this year. There are some some strains here and there, but most everybody is speaking to each other and the kids are frankly happy to be mixed up again. I think Dr. Garrens will be a great principal and will hopefully start more walk to reading/writing. I also think it is very noble as well as good for Lawton that Christine is moving across the bridge. She has taken more flak than most people could bear and I'm sure it hasn't been easy for her. I wish her the best of luck and I hope that she does well in the future.
Whittier Parent.
Maybe we should just open one school for the AL program and be done with it. Any large derelict SPS building around to accomodate?
- in need of a home
A main problem (not the main problem) was the perception (by staff and some parents alike) that spectrum kids were 'easier' (or any other term you want to plug in there to mean less behaviour problems) and a desire to divide out the "time intensive" students. (That perception and dividing is absolutely confirmed - read the CASteam minutes) To be sure, a main problem was that teachers wanted more say in classroom placement, which they didn't have if the spectrum cohort stayed self contained. Self contained was more problematic some years than others (both when the cohort is large and takes up much of the self contained classroom, and when the cohort has students who don't do well in the same classroom together) but to me it was a throw the baby out with the bathwater situation v. trying to figure out how to adjust the bathwater on a year by year situation.
The whole thing was complicated by the principal churn we had and NO direction from SPS for a very long time. That and there was a meeting with Enfield and Vaughan to which no Spectrum representative was invited. (that meeting resulted in the "permission" to split the cohorts and rightfully left a very bad taste in people's mouths about the lack of tranparancy about the meeting)
I don't disagree that they aren't delivering the cluster grouping as proposed by CAST and approved by staff, especially in 5th grade. All "levels" (1-5) are mixed together, which negates any benefit of cluster grouping (wider range for differentiation, among them)
And walk to math/reading is no great shakes as it is disrupted anyway every time the others walking to or away from you have MAP or picture day or a field trip yadda yadda. (that's a lot of days 'we didn't do math b/c ms. X's kids had the ___") (oh, and I think all grades are doing walk to math. Not sure about reading)
I do wish Christine well. She walked into a school in flux, with difficult issues.
-also a lawton parent
mag mom
Also, I don't know the exact figure, but the Spectrum program at Whittier houses a large number of APP students who chose to stay near their cluster, rather than commute to Lowell. This wouldn't be just a Spectrum issue, but APP as well.
As to Spectrum, and just testing the next year - If you miss the testing window and have to wait for the next year to test, it means two years of possible misplacement. You have to wait until the next fall to test, then not until the fall after that could a program placement be made. Two years is a long time...
parent
This was a conscious decision on the part of staff and parents; Lawton had to get a pass from central. SPS wanted Lawton to go with a self-contained program for a number of years, and Lawton resisted. Why? Because it was a small school with 2 classes per grade, and with self-containment kids viewed the divisions as smart and dumb. Also, there weren't enough Spectrum kids to fill a self-contained class.
The community worked out its own site-based solution to differentiated learning.
When Beverly Raines started, the self-contained program was brought to Lawton. The school was bigger, and there was at least grade that could do a self-contained class. Some parents undoubtedly preferred it, others strongly opposed. When parents and staff tried to discuss it, they were essentially told this is the way it is.
When Ms. Helms started, the community wanted to revisit the Sprectrum issue. Especially the staff.
- Ramona Hattendorf, Lawton and McClure parent
A small school, one with only one or two classes per grade, is a completely inappropriate choice as a Spectrum site.
Yet the District did that at Lawton and at other schools.
They did it because they used to place programs based primarily on politics and space available. Smaller, under-enrolled schools had the space for the program so they got it, even if it were a program that could not be supported at a small school.
High Point was a designated Spectrum site when it had only one class per grade. How is that even possible?
The previous board tried to fix the corrupt and dysfunctional program placement process. They set a program placement policy. This board has looked the other way as that policy has been violated.
Ms. Helm was not in the picture at this point of the petition. She was selected at the end of that school year and became our new principal starting in Fall 2010. When she came on board, the waiver was in place (which at that point, MOST of the Lawton community did not have knowledge of). She announced she did not wish to change the class roster which included self contained class at the beginning of the school year, but will do so the following year. Thus began the journey to where we are today.
I don't place blame on Ms. Raines or Ms. Helm as to what happened. They came and went through Lawton's principal revolving door. What I hope the Lawton community would learn from all of this is you do need to have engagement, transparency, and consensus building when you want to change a program that will affect even a small, but significant group of kids and their parents. I believe we would have found a common ground and worked it out. It was about trust and not taking the short cuts.
-mag parent
S. Allen
-Mag parent
This is a really interesting point that I haven't seen discussed before in the Lawton and Wedgwood Spectrum conversations.
We had the same experience before transferring to APP. It seemed that some differentiation was going on in the class for math, but every child got the same homework, and my child would literally get angry and defiant about having to waste her time doing homework on topics she'd already mastered. It was a dilemma because you don't want to teach your child to defy or ignore their teacher, but it's hard to spend so much time night after night arguing about homework too, particularly when you agree that your child is getting nothing out of it. (and, yes, we were told we could substitute some other homework of our choice if we wanted to, but that wasn't practical for a variety of reasons.)
So, how's it working out in ALO programs and the new Spectrum cluster models? Is any school differentiating homework? Is a lack of differentiated homework an issue for others? Are schools aware of the potential problems that "too easy" homework causes?
Are Spectrum advocates blameless in all of this? I'd say yes they are. They had a program that worked for their kids and they wanted to keep it. They had no ill intent towards staff or non-Spectrum kids and parents. Any plan to keep the good parts of self-contained and expand it to the whole school would have been well received, I'm guessing.
I think the fact that pro self-contained parents are still at the school volunteering and being civil is testimony to their good intentions. Did Lawton raise the bar for all kids as intended or just lower it for the Spectrum classes? With no walk to reading program in place, it looks like the latter.
-mag parent
I don't mean one brilliantly motivated and hard-working teacher applying it, I mean even the "just average" teachers applying it and making it work?
Schools are justifying changes to the Spectrum program based entirely upon what is theoretically possible, but may not be achievable in actuality.
I've been on the lookout for it but not seen it, this rare thing, differentiation.
As far as homework, if your kid is frustrated by it, don't do it, unless s/he will be building on it in class and therefore needs to have it to function in class. I don't worry about teaching my kids to do what their teacher says. If anything, my kids are overly worried about pleasing their teachers. I believe i am more in tune with what they need. My kids practice their music and read. We sometimes drill on math skills, because I think EDM gives skill development short shrift. The rest of their time is free for them to use how they please.
Allowing a kid to get frustrated by homework is teaching them to hate homework.....don't let them get burned out in elementary school.
JMHO
In 2008-9 the 2nd and 3rd grade cohorts were big (over 20) and in the spring of 2007 Ed Noh conducted a community meeting to see if families would be open to splitting those two cohorts for the 2008-9 school year, in those two grades. I presume that staff had been having the same discussions, but don't know that for sure.
2008-9 saw the 2nd and 3rd grades split. Noh leaves in June, 2009. Raines arrives in August, 2009 and realizes the Spectrum students have been divided among all classrooms, at all grade levels and seeks guidance from the district, who evidently said, Spectrum kids need to be grouped together per SPS policy. Last minute shuffle and all kids are reassigned, and "as self contained as it could be" is back for the 2009-10 school year, but those same 2 cohorts are still big. (now they are in 3rd and 4th grades) Bledsoe came in and kept the "as self contained as it could be" for the 2010-11 school year (those large cohorts are now in 4th and 5th grades). Helm came in and kept those classroom placments intact instead of trying to shuffle them around and because families had been told by Bledsoe how the classrooms would be formed for the following year.
While those details are very important as to understanding the history of Spectrum at Lawton (and specifically to correct the recurring misinformation that we had only self contained when Raines and Bledsoe brought it to the school, b/c that's inaccurate) I totally agree that the pot blew off the kettle b/c of the lack of transparancy and collaboration with all the stakeholders. It could have played out very differently. Parents made enrollment choices (came out of cluster to attend Spectrum (at least 40), chose to stay at the neighborhood school v. moving to APP) based on the program as defined by the SPS. To alter that without consulting those families was in bad faith - both by SPS in granting the permission to change and the staff and whoever else lobbied for it without engaging the Spectrum families
The principal, who indeed walked into a hornet's nest, kicked that nest by failing to understand the difference between respecting and deferring. She felt that one parent had been allowed to be overly influential in the process and that that had created a big problem. An accurate assessment. Her solution, however, was to cut communications off entirely with the parent community on the issue.
I'm sure she learned a lot from the situation, and will become a stronger principal as she gains experience.
Saw it all
On differentiation -- yes, I have seen it work, though not at a public school. At Hamlin Robinson, they get dyslexic kids in a constant flow, at all grade levels, and with all sorts of abilities. Their reading abilities may differ hugely from their math abilities. They do school-wide walks to subjects that allow kids to consistently work at whatever level is appropriate. We weren't there for a long time, but my sense is that the groupings are fluid enough that a kid walking to one room who falls behind is swiftly moved to another group -- same if they move ahead. In other words -- it is not that you base a whole year's groupings on a spring or fall MAP test. If a child thinks they can/should be in a higher group -- they just bear down and get there. The idea was that most kids would learn compensatory language strategies and return to public schools -- so they were interested in facilitating as quick a move upward as possible. It DID mean that the entire school -- ALL of them -- had to conform to a schedule for subjects that facilitated this. But it also made the entire school very cohesive in terms of helping kids learn as fast as they chose.
IF we abandoned MAP for more nimble, flexible grouping AND had an entire school "on board," I think you could do really incredible things with walk to math, walk to reading, and walk to writing. Because of the possibility of content gaps, it would be harder to do with science and history/social studies -- but if schools worked on a 3 year rotation (same stuff covered K-2 as in 3-5 -- but at higher levels) you could, at least, "ability group" kids more effectively, knowing that if you let a first grader have science with the 2nd graders, they would cover the same subject again.
You need glasses. The district sent reps out every month to BLT meetings in 2009-10 to listen to parent ravings about the evil Spectrum cabal and the "bait and switch" that supposedly occurred when blending was abandoned after 1 year. The district and the principals called the shots and to think that any parent has more sway at that school than staff is ludicrous.
You make the case for fluid groupings to help challenge all students but I think the problem is the amount of organizational work required. Frankly, one walk to per day is fairly rare in SPS and getting two or more would be difficult. Could Lawton make lemonade and be the model for this? I think the ball is in the staff's court right now. They made promises and I would like to hear if they plan on delivering. I know that parents, and i would say especially Spectrum parents, are more than willing to provide the volunteer power required. Staff needs to give it a try.
Optomistic
Re-read my post. (Maybe you need glasses?) I did not say that a parent "had more sway than staff." I am aware of staff and district actions to disassemble the program.
I did say that the principal felt one parent had been overly influential and that is why she stopped listening to parents entirely. And I did say that I felt that assessment was accurate.
I stand by my post.
Saw it all
Unforced error by the principal.
Saw it all
The staff has added several new students to advanced walk to math and it seems good. I don't know if adding walk to reading is a logistical problem or it's felt to be too much grouping and therefore possibly demeaning to the twice grouped in the lower level kids.
My latest musings on the anti-grouping sentiment is that it reflects strongly the conservative values of the Magnolia area. We have a few parents who were schooled in the USSR and they are shocked that students are not taught by ability in the US. They grew up in a school system, like most in the world, that is a meritocracy. The brightest are expected to do more and hard work is rewarded. They need to realize that in the US we have more a aristocracy. Success in life depends on wealth as much as talent. Magnolia kids are going to go to good colleges because they have money, not because they are the smartest.
Saturday musing
Interesting, and something I hadn't thought of before.
I think basing a program on differentiation is building a house on an imaginary foundation. I just don't think differentiation is do-able on a broad scale. It's too hard, too much work, and we can't expect teachers to all be superheros. We need a system that works with just average folks, which is what most of us are.
Maybe we need to completely rethink how we teach kids.
Musing as well
JMHO, you hit the nail on the head. If this district wants to get to cluster groupings, then every - single - teacher has to be trained in differentiating their teaching and differentiating the curriculum.
The district makes it sound like this is easy to do but I believe it means real professional development to have it work well. I do not believe the majority of our teachers know how to do this in a real and sustained manner.
So if they want cluster grouping, they better have the goods to back it up. Otherwise, it then looks like they are doing it to help the teachers and not the students.
According to one poster, Ms Helm had to end a program that needed ending and as one muser posted, especially since teaching to meet all those individual needs is just "too hard" (curious to know if this is REALLY what your teachers think about their work, 'cause it is not very complimentary). Anyway, sounds like you all need to get her to come back and continue what she started.
-watcher