Advanced Learning Policy Revision
One of the ten policies that the Curriculum and Instruction Policy Committee is scheduled to review and revise at their June 25 meeting is the Advanced Learning Policy, now called Highly Capable Student Programs policy, D12.00.
I don't really believe that the C & I Committee will actually put ten policy revisions on their agenda, so it is likely that this policy will not, in fact, be discussed that day.
Here is the current policy: D12.00 The policy was suspended on January 29, 2009. Also on that day the Board voted to direct the superintendent to review the policy and recommend revisions. Despite this direction - made by a vote of the Board - the superintendent never took any action. That alone, by the way, was sufficient grounds for dismissal with cause. The Board never reminded the superintendent that they directed her to take this action; it was one more case of the Board's timidity.
Nevertheless, the Board is finally getting around to revising this policy, just three and half years later. What policy will the Board want to set?
If you care, you might want to attend the meeting.
I don't really believe that the C & I Committee will actually put ten policy revisions on their agenda, so it is likely that this policy will not, in fact, be discussed that day.
Here is the current policy: D12.00 The policy was suspended on January 29, 2009. Also on that day the Board voted to direct the superintendent to review the policy and recommend revisions. Despite this direction - made by a vote of the Board - the superintendent never took any action. That alone, by the way, was sufficient grounds for dismissal with cause. The Board never reminded the superintendent that they directed her to take this action; it was one more case of the Board's timidity.
Nevertheless, the Board is finally getting around to revising this policy, just three and half years later. What policy will the Board want to set?
If you care, you might want to attend the meeting.
Comments
Anything wrong with simply striking that line and otherwise keeping the existing policy as is? I'd think that would be fine (and much better than having the current situation of having the policy suspended).
- Still waiting for reports and Godot, and thinking Godot will make an appearance first
-------------
POLICY
It is the policy of the Seattle School Board that students identified as Highly Capable Learners shall have the option of being served by programs that address their academic needs through differentiated curricula. Highly Capable Learners are students who exhibit markedly greater than average potential or ability in cognitive ability, in specific academic achievement (in reading, mathematics, social studies, language arts, and/or science), or in exceptional creativity in cognitive functioning and/or academic scholarship.
Selection procedures for participation in state funded highly capable programs shall be consistent with state law. Selection procedures for all highly capable programs shall consider test scores, performance outcomes, and the diversity in ethnic backgrounds, cultures, and learning styles of District students.
Subject to Board review, in the event of substantial District wide enrollment growth, such program sites shall be distributed geographically and among clusters to provide equitable opportunities for program access.
Where feasible, students in self-contained Highly Capable programs shall be mainstreamed with other students for non-core academic subjects such as music, art, and physical education, and shall be encouraged to interact with other students through tutoring and other activities.
Former code(s):
Reference:
H05.00, H71.00
RCW 28A.185
WAC 392.170
Parents of advanced learners often have superior attitudes that DO trickle down to their kids.
Why on earth can't advanced learners be accommodated at the local schools? It would make life so much easier for everyone and surely, this could be worked out.
Separating kids out is not optimal, b/c they miss out on meeting lots of wonderful children in general ed who are plenty smart and could be great friends for life.
Scoring in the 99th percentile on standardized tests is not the only thing that matters in life. There are children all over the place with all sorts of gifts to offer in the way of morals, creativity, optimal personality traits; tenacity, humor, kindness,and many other talents. Who cares about standardized tests??
The self contained rooms for the advanced learners hold the kids back socially, IMO.
We need to give these kids challenging work at their local schools and let them be kids with everyone else. Geesh.
Parent
How is it holding kids back socially if they are friends with other advanced learners? There are lots of kids with tenacity, etc, in APP. There are also lots of kids with social challenges to interact yet. I think my APP son has learned a lot from his interactions with his peers in APP, including those with special needs.
How is it holding kids back socially if they are friends with other advanced learners? There are lots of kids with tenacity, etc, in APP. There are also lots of kids with social challenges to interact without. I think my APP son has learned a lot from his interactions with his peers in APP, including those with special needs.
In our experience, the neighborhood schools have not been able to differentiate well or consistently. It's a lot to ask of a teacher. Studies have actually shown that having multiple levels of instruction - in separate classes - such as gen ed, honors, etc., actually increases achievement for all kids. Without having to differentiate, the class is more likely to get instruction at their level.
How would this look at the neighborhood school? In elementary, maybe walk-to-math and walk-to-reading. The advantage is that a child doesn't have to be advanced in both reading and math to get advanced math work and vice versa. Could work, but the district seems averse to ability grouping. Really averse.
In middle school, it would be easier as classes are in periods and there are enough students to actually offer classes at various levels. Other districts manage to do it (Shoreline at Kellog Middle School) and students can opt in to higher classes.
My kids don't give a whip about standardized tests. Really, they could care less. If they never had to take the MAP test again they'd be quite happy. They just want to learn. They don't want to sit in class for a year and not learn one new thing.
Superior attitudes? I won't even respond to that comment.
another parent
Look, I have stated that I think Spectrum could go away - entirely - IF the district was willing to create AND enforce an ALO program that would be REQUIRED at every single school. There would be NO deviations allowed except by the Superintendent.
So then, you wouldn't need Spectrum (and I say this as a former Spectrum parent). Kids who are good in math? Covered. Parents who want a push for their kids? Covered. Real pace and rigor for kids who can work at a higher level? Done.
But do I believe our district would or could do this? I do not.
I personally don't care if people don't get the need for APP. If you don't get it now, you never will and that's fine. Just understand that throughout the country, other district do get it and do provide a different plan for those kids. It's not just here.
Godot, to update. I wrote to Wendy London and Pegi McEvoy about 2 weeks ago. I wrote to Bob Vaughn last week. I wrote to the entire AL Taskforce to ask for input this past weekend.
Do you know how many of those e-mails got an answer? The answer is zero (unless you count Charlie and I don't in this case).'
I have no idea what is going on but I am getting beyond impatient. Maybe it's some plan to wait out the school year but I am waiting until Friday and then I'm going to write what I hear at the last couple of meetings.
And, I will make no apologies for it.
You know, I tried the community school. Not just one, but two. It didn't work out. The kids felt alone, were bored at school, didn't have friends because they couldn't talk about anything, there were no common grounds. One of them was kind of OK "just" hated to go to school. But the other one had a lot of problems. Since he is a boy, when he couldn't show his talent (because he didn't want to be the outlier) he started to act up and did crazy things. Just because he wasn't challenged. I advise you to read some books about the gifted kids if you are interested to learn about how they ARE different. They DO have special needs. They ARE special, they are on the other end of the Gauss curve.
-Another parent
I don't know how the Board wants the policy changed because I don't know what the Board wants the policy to accomplish. The Board has never spoken publicly about it.
The staff also has no idea about how the Board wants the policy changed or what the Board wants the policy to accomplish, so they will just draft the policy that they want. Should be fun.
Michael
Well I don't personally believe this can be done. Or done reliably by 98% of teachers.
We have an advanced learner in a neighborhood school for a variety of reasons (our naivete, wanting to attend a neighborhood school, keeping sibs together, etc.) and she's not had challenging work yet in 5 years. This despite being at a school that has a good reputation, board certified and enthusiastic teachers, and other very bright kids, and that preaches the gospel of differentiation at every opportunity.
And I don't mean she's been challenged but not sufficiently. No, I mean she's been given no meaningful differentiation. An occasional harder worksheet, with no instruction at her level.
It's a total joke, and if I knew then what I know now, I'd have chosen differently. I've lost faith that public schools can meet these kids' academic needs.
Disillusioned
I think just about every school and/or program has a few "superior" types out there doing an absolutely abysmal PR job for their school. It's a shame that some have come to regard APP as a prestige thing. But we can't judge the whole school/program based on the cringe-worthy remarks we hear now and then.
I agree that advanced learning should be available in a meaningful way at all local schools, and I hope someday it will. But I also see the need for a program like APP -- especially for those students who are most likely on the extremely high-functioning end of the autism spectrum, probably undiagnosed and unlikely to qualify for special ed services, but very much in need of help. Because that's what "gifted" often is.
Most of the parents of gifted kids I know aren't smug about it. They're anything but. Some are almost apologetic about it. Our kids have all kinds of social and behavioral challenges. Sometimes they refuse to participate in their schoolwork. They act out in school and get characterized as "bad." By the time they finally wash ashore in APP/Spectrum, the parents I know are feeling anything but "superior."
Those aren't the people you'll hear bragging about these programs. But those are the people who need it most.
I have advanced learners..kids who qualify for the programs in SPS and honestly after much experience in the segregated classrooms, I have a new opinion of this approach.
Parent, I really have to wonder what kind of "advanced learners" you have. Simply because your comment is so ignorant of the system and advanced learners in general. You can't even seem to make a distinction between "segregated classrooms" (a obviously nasty term meant to antagonize) and self-contained buildings.
Parents of advanced learners often have superior attitudes that DO trickle down to their kids.
Of course there are always a few, welcome to real life. But I've lived in both worlds (APP and GenEd/Spectrum) and I've seen far more "elitist attitude" and programmatic bullying at the local schools than in APP. When APP was in a single building at Lowell on Capitol Hill, there was almost none of that, simply because there were no competing programs in the same building and everyone was on the same page of simply educating their children.
Why on earth can't advanced learners be accommodated at the local schools? It would make life so much easier for everyone and surely, this could be worked out.
Again, statements like this make it seem like you've never been part of any advanced learning program in Seattle. For kids who are operating roughly a grade out of band, they most certainly can and should be accommodated at their local schools. But the reality is that there are issues with resource/energy allocation, lack of any understanding or desire to teach advanced learners, distrust and resentment. Not to mention a complete lack of support from central administration. It can work, but it doesn't work well in Seattle.
For kids who are 2 grades or more out of band (and yes, this can be fuzzy), it's just not possible to serve these kids well in mixed classrooms, and it's tricky to even make it work in a mixed building. "Making life easier" for others is NOT a good reason to serve kids poorly. That's selfish and thoughtless.
Separating kids out is not optimal, b/c they miss out on meeting lots of wonderful children in general ed who are plenty smart and could be great friends for life.
There are children all over the place with all sorts of gifts to offer in the way of morals, creativity, optimal personality traits; tenacity, humor, kindness,and many other talents. Who cares about standardized tests??
Your implication is that kids in a self-contained advanced-learning program (classroom or building?) have poor morals, lack creativity, have non-optimal personality traits, lack tenacity (what?!), lack humor, kindness and the rest. That's total BS.
The self contained rooms for the advanced learners hold the kids back socially, IMO.
The self-contained rooms are at least as important for the social aspects as they are for the academic aspects, at least in elementary. Understand that most of us advanced learning parents were at one time advanced learning students. We understand firsthand the difficulties these kids go through and we make efforts to help our kids survive the early years without social isolation. If you think you have a solution for this, please present something meaningful, not antagonizing personal opinions and recycled platitudes.
It is as if age is all that matters, and if you perform at the appropriate level for for your age, we can forget about teaching you. Sit there in the back row and wait until everyone catches up to you (if they ever do) and then, maybe, we will teach you, too.
Here's what is going to happen: Anyone with a kid that wants to learn and is capable of learning at a faster pace will flee the public schools. SPS will be a place only for kids who are right at norm, or who cannot afford better. Advanced learners who cannot afford better schools will be at a disadvantage vs. advanced learners from families with means.
Absolutely FASCINATED with my child
.AL parent.
;)
As Charlie said, that was indeed the reason the policy was suspended, and his other points are relevant as well. Charlie's research into D12, along with HUGE pushback from the community, saved APP from being split a couple years earlier.
Why didn't the Board just axe that one provision instead of suspending the policy? Good question. One possibility (warning, snide alert): it was just haste because district staff didn't have time to write a fully updated policy for the Board.
Better question: why was that provision put into D12 in the first place. Doesn't it seem like an odd thing to write? Disallowing the expansion of self-contained advanced learning program sites? Unless... the Board at the time understood there would be an unrelenting push by staff to dilute the programs via "expansion" and they wanted to prevent that. How prescient!
Most of the policy is fluff, the first paragraph could almost be the end of it. Why on earth does it need to be spelled out in policy that the programs shall be consistent with state law?!
And there is the interesting point that Floor Pie mentioned which I know, from talking to him, is a concern of Robert Vaughn's: How do you teach the kids whose brains really do work differently? Is it important to distinguish them from the 99ther's who are bright, responsible hard workers? That's a tough question.
Thank you Melissa in advance for your promise to discuss the AL task force - the school year is rapidly coming to an end and we need to know what is going on.
What should the Advanced Learning Policy say?
I think it should say that the District will offer a program that meets the criteria set by the state for a Highly Capable Students Program.
Right now it is the District's policy to guarantee access to that program for qualified students who request the access at Open Enrollment.
Right now the program is for grades 1-12.
The current policy does not address Spectrum or ALOs; it is strictly about APP. Should Spectrum and ALOs be addressed in the policy?
The Board has definitely indicated that they want every elementary school to establish an ALO, but that has led to a large number of schools that have one officially but not actually. There is no quality assurance effort at all.
The Board has encouraged the district to guarantee access to Spectrum for qualified students.
I wonder if the Board intends to punt and ask the ALPTF for help forming the policy.
Why is our Advanced Learning program so varied, confusing and without any real way to measure if the programs work well (since they are all so different in how they are presented school-to-school)?
Because no one in the district (except maybe some teachers) really cares.
http://www.shorelineschools.org/school_board/policy_manual/content/2166.pdf
Charlie said, There is no quality assurance effort at all.
This is true for all AL programs - ALO, Spectrum and APP. If the school's principal doesn't support or understand the program, there is little recourse for families.
another parent
Parent...
Parent
We don't think APP/Spectrum/ALO are all they're cracked up to be, yet it's all we have. There's room for improvement and the formation of an ALTF gave me some hope, but we see the results are ?
I feel we're all groveling for a basic education.
-can't we all just get along
But, even so, I know it would be worse for them in general classrooms (been there, done that).
-wishing APP would do more
-TIRED OF ASKING THIS EVERY YEAR
I experienced a self contained Spectrum first hand and those kids are held back socially..they stay with the same group in one class for the entire time they are in elementary school..AND, there are other qualified Spectrum kids in the building who just can't get into the Spectrum classroom because of space in the room. It is so weird. That there are kids out there qualified for Spectrum who never get in the door where it is taught is a HUGE issue..and should not be ignored.
And, exposing the kids to different kids each yr is healthy and is an important component in how one makes friends and finds best friends, etc.
In terms of APP, I agree the kids are unique and maybe need self contained rooms for more than math and reading, but honestly, I don't get why the program has to be in one or two locations in the whole entire city...and it is not selfish to consider location, btw. There are real logistical issues with this model...I would drive my kids to China and back if need be, however, it is not ideal or cost effective for anyone. So, I resent the insults up there just because i am expressing my opinions about these programs and how they are implemented...I have experience with them to back this up.
Charlie seems all about policy and I suppose it is necessary to focus there first to figure out change for these programs..I do agree that APP should be considered special needs just like the other end of the spectrum is...
And, I stand by my comments about some of the parents in advanced learning programs. Man o man, I have been around this for 6 yrs or more and the things I have heard over the yrs...it is weird...and just another way to make themselves feel superior to others. I guess I could feel superior for having brilliant kids, but I would rather focus on raising them to be well adjusted and humble and do good work and love others..then, they will have success. So, my pride or personal responsibility for their smarts comes dead last in the equation for them. They come first...raising them to be kind and compassionate comes first. We are speaking about degrees here when we talk about these things and I will maintain that I have seen too much in the way of "attitude" regarding IQs when it comes to these kids' parents....Spectrum and APP. Sorry.
Parent
Parent
Seattle Parent.
The advanced learning programs give people few choices there. Sadly, we can't all get along. Everyone has to be playing by the same rules to get along and there are parents out there who will use any agenda to feel powerful and big..this is one of the many ills of the self contained classroom.
Parent
I think the real question should be why there's no genuine Spectrum in ANY cluster anymore.
Okay, maybe there are vestiges left here and there, but let's be honest, SPS has almost killed Spectrum. And APP is suffering because families who would have been well-served by Spectrum are desperately searching for something to help their kids.
Fix Spectrum and APP will automagically stop "growing" (diluting) into what Spectrum used to be. At least growth will be limited to city-wide percentages.
* It's weird for you to refer to yourself in the third person. It's off-putting.
* If you don't want people to call you "ignorant" then don't write such ignorant stuff. And, while we're at it, there is no shame in ignorance, unless it's willful.
* Speaking of your own or your child's experience is fine. Presuming that it is universal (or even typical) is not. Prescribing it for everyone else is right out.
* If you think it is BS that Spectrum and APP can't be done in a small school, then you really are ignorant about the programs. The programs require critical mass to be effective. That critical mass is about 100 students for an elementary Spectrum program and about 250 students for elementary APP. Small schools do not have room for programs of this size plus an attendance area general education program.
* Your surprise and apparent indignation at getting corrected does not correlate with your intentional effort to troll. If you don't want people to take offense at what you write, then don't write such offensive things.
* The only person who has demonstrated a "superior attitude" here is YOU: "Parent has APP qualified kids and one who was reading BEFORE THE AGE OF 3... Parent has child who scored in the 99th percentile on 4 out of 5 categories when child was in Kindergarten." Well la-dee-dah. I'll go bake you a cake.
This is where having a large enough cohort of APP kids makes it more like any other school. Students aren't with the same class of 30 for 5 years, because they mix the classrooms each year. If the APP cohort gets too small, you also get into split grade level classes. How do you teach a 1/2 split class with an accelerated curriculum? If it gets too small, then you're back to the Spectrum dilemma - same kids year in and year out.
As others have said, ALO and Spectrum are different at different schools and we're now seeing that with APP. At a Spectrum school my child attended, teacher identified kids could opt-in to Spectrum to round out classroom rosters. This seemed great for those kids that received the benefit, though unfair and frustrating for other families, but this also posed a problem if more Spectrum identifed kids enrolled the following year. Kids that were teacher identified and accelerated in the Spectrum classroom could then get placed back in the gen ed classrom, and repeat material done the previous year.
Didn't North Beach have walk-to-math and reading at one time? Wasn't it successful until it was dismantled under a new principal? I still remember a teacher's tearful public comment at a Board meeting years ago. She was essentially forced out of the school for supporting what had been a successful program.
So, lots of room for improvement...Let's keep the focus on the structure, delivery, and placement of the AL programs, not the parents...
(I will second the comment about locating schools next to freeways - JM comes to mind)
The elementary Spectrum site for the Aki Kurose service area is Wing Luke. The elementary Spectrum site for the Mercer service area is Hawthorne. If these two small, weak programs were combined, they could form one program of sufficient strength.
Also, the District continues to draw students away from the program with false claims about ALO programs at every other school in these service areas. The District claims that nearly every school in southeast Seattle has an ALO but almost none of them do. Not really. But by the time families discover that it is too late.
Also, the small, weak middle school Spectrum programs at Aki Kurose and Mercer should be combined to form one reasonably strong one.
The District won't do it be it would cost them pride and transportation dollars.
However, you yourself have written ignorant things here on your blog...and more than just ignorant..and we won't go there now..but not forgotten.
Maybe it is possible to have APP in smaller class sizes around town and maybe it is not..what makes you say such things? Where is your evidence to back it up? You are always short on evidence when you post stuff, which then confuses and misleads readers.
FYI: If you want people to listen...stop hurling policy at them that puts them to sleep and instead pitch the vision clearly and then add the details over time. You do the opposite and then never clearly explain the vision...forest for the trees..you gotta see it clearly and you are too in it to see it. See?
And if I want to refer to myself in the third person, I will.
Parent
It is true that attitudes can be found anywhere, whether from the gifted or not so. I see this among middle school parents, those from the "good" feeder school as opposed to the "eh" feeder schools.
Ignorant and troll? Melissa, remember the whole name-calling thing. Please chastise accordingly.
I only gave details of my kids to show someone up there in the thread that I, in fact, have APP kids and I am not just blabbing here without some experience.
And, who does care that the kid read before 3?? Really, beyond it being interesting, I don't. Just using it to show I do have these advanced learning issues to tackle too. Wish I could send the kids down the road and have it be done. Can't.
-Charlie's Favorite Parent
So is this year another futile exercise, just more tilting at windmills? It is so bad that the paper-pushers have been sitting on the the AL taskforce guidelines for weeks, as the most recent example of this. Should we be debating policy, or should we be focusing on exposing the people who continue to hold back reports, make decisions after open enrollment, shut down programs with no recourse, and otherwise refuse to implement existing policy?
- Wondering if it is like this in other districts
Charlie's Favorite Parent Again
realist
Cramming more and more kids into a school causes too many problems that will have to be paid for anyway down the road...so do the right thing and allocate funds for teachers' aides.
Didn't some employee recently make off with 2 million dollars of the district's money? What a crying shame..2 million would go a long way in hiring teachers' aides.
The district needs to reassess budgets and see that the most important factors in a school are quality instruction and behavioral management. that means enough teachers and aides..not amazing swimming pools and top notch running tracks, etc. This is my opinion. Teachers and instructors first and luxury items second.
Parent
-CFP
We have experienced teachers that think bright kids just need to be put in their place - kind of knocking them down, rather than supporting them in being their best. It's something I'll never understand.
When my daughter was just a toddler I went to Carkeek Park to let her splash around in the water.
There was a school group there, and many of those kids were splashing in the water as well. A mom connected with the group made small talk with me, and when I asked what school the kids went to, she said "Lowell."
Not knowing anything about SPS at the time (ah, those were the days!), I asked, "So where is that?"
She looked around, and in a conspirational whisper said, "It's on Capitol Hill. It's where the smart kids go."
Not knowing ANYTHING, I replied, "Oh, I bet most parents say that!"
The bizarre look on her face after I said that made me realize I didn't know the whole story, but in retrospect it makes me crack up.
Signed,
Sick of Competition
--APP in ALO
I hear ya. When my son was 2-3, we had a Lowell family sell us wrapping paper at our front door. We asked the father of the girl selling about Lowell and he was all about telling us that the most brilliant kids go to Lowell and we told him that we thought our boy was academically ahead and he was like, "no, you don't understand..the most gifted students alive go to Lowell..most kids will never get in." We were like "la de da to you, Mister." However we bought his kid's wrapping paper and our son ended up getting into Lowell..or TM as is our school.
It is THE attitude of parents that is off. and it is bad for all...
Teaching kids love and compassion is the most important thing at the end of the day and if they are academically gifted, wonderful...absolutely brilliant for them and those people they can make a positive impact on in life..I sing the praises of anyone who can go far in thought and truly satisfy intellectual needs... we, as their parents must attend to their needs but do it with humility.... consider this from the brilliant and wise Maya Angelou....I teach my kids this:
"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."
-Parent
I say enough. Stop, just stop and listen to yourselves for one moment. Your words are narrow-minded, nasty, and openly hostile towards people who are essentially complete strangers to you. This entire twisting of what gifted programs do, and who they serve, has become an ugly, mean-spirited mess. Just stop with the hating.
-Appalled at some of you out there
ELB
Yes, I see your point. Wanting your child to get a good education is normal..if it means Spectrum, then whatever. I am sure hostility exists from others to you like you say.
All of this is somewhat superficial, no? We don't really know people based on little interactions and feelings we get from them in short conversations and so giving people the benefit of the doubt is important.
The elitism that exists in Advanced Learning is real maybe a minority ..I don't know..maybe you are not one of them, but it is something to consider when you're thinking of how you want to raise your kids.
And to the next person's comments... why not give a 1:5 ratio for the APP kids and have them all in one room in a school??..or collect up 15-20 in a region and put them together..so not every single local school has APP, but say 2-3 in an area might. Not a bad idea.
Parent
No feelings of superiority here, but you also won't get me to feel guilty that my kids are at the top end of the bell curve. Not gonna happen.
ELB
Parent
Sure we can discuss the pros and cons or self-contained vs. differentiation—even the quality of teachers. But to paint all APP parents with this broad "I think my child is far better than yours-attitude" brush is out of line.
Let's keep the discussion to the KIDS. There definitely are some children who NEED the kind of program that a self-contained AP offers (not my child, so I have no vested interest here). But I've known a handful who were so obviously in need of AP that it was striking.
In my daughter's kindergarten, there was a boy for whom the teacher got third-grade work. He needed it to be challenged and thrive; he ended up in AP, and rightfully so.
Other friends have a brilliant, but socially awkward child. She was spiraling in a traditional middle school. When she qualified for AP her 7th grade year, she blossomed and is now having a successful high school experience, with other kids as nerdy/smart as she is. She still wont be prom queen, but she has a place to belong.
And that's the point—handful. We're talking the top 1–2%, that means <1 kid per classroom on average—especially in some schools. There's no way these kids could be well-served in their individual neighborhood schools. You don't want to put a 7-yr-old with 9-yr-olds on a regular basis or worse, a 10-yr-old with 12-yr-olds. You don't want this kid singled out in class as the weirdo who needs harder work.
There are lots of bright kids who get bored in school on occasion, or have been reading since they were itty-bitty, or a math wiz, but a language-phobe. They need to be challenged at times too, but many can get it via differentiation, ALO and Spectrum, or parents can augment with tutoring, on-line learning or enrichment.
If people don't like the concept of AP, fine, but please stop turning it into a personality issue. Obnoxious people are everywhere—learn to ignore them, but don't punish their kids.
Solvay Girl
And where would all these APP qualified teachers come from, anyway? Not to mention an APP curriculum suitable for replication.
ELB
There are real concerns out there regarding these programs and they have nothing to do with envy or wanting bright kids to languish without getting their needs met...ignorance. This is the counterargument that can shut down meaningful conversations.."ignorance, envy." I mean, I have APP kids and i was one of the smart kids in school at every school I went to..so, what reason would I have to be envious?? There are concerns about how the system is set up...FOR REAL. No judgement to those with bright kids. Wonderful..Something to celebrate for sure.
Parent
If the district would allocate the funds appropriately to REALLY help kids, then it could hire APP qualified teachers. They are everywhere. Are you kidding me??? What a dream job....just go to UW School of Education and grab a few grads. What r u talking about???
It is about putting the resources where they belong..with the kids, not on using money for bureaucratic nonsense.
Parent
-"Parent" who is getting weary from typing.
I've been agreeing with much of what you post, however, as the parent of a child in special education, I put most of what I read in these threads in that light. We are often told our children are not afforded a "Cadillac" education. We don't want that, but we don't want holding pens, coloring books and token "inclusion" hook ups either. Again, federal law protects our childrens' rights. Our district must reach that bar first.
- Perplexed by the "massive influx" into the 1% "gifted" category
I believe that both of you have been in situations where you can verify, from visual observation of what was said to you, or what you heard, that some parents on both sides of this issue sometimes can, and do, behave badly. And to the extent that the behaviors you have experienced have persisted, over time -- it is difficult to deal with.
But -- two things. First -- please don't "extrapolate" to all (or even most) parents in a group. It is inaccurate; it leaves "right-minded" parents (parents who wish for their children the same kinds of things that "parent" describes) no way to defend themselves against a group slur.
And, most important of all -- it is utterly useless and unhelpful. Nothing that the District can do (as a matter of policy) will prevent a parent who wants to feel and act elitist and superior from feeling and acting that way. Nothing that the District can do, as a matter of policy or practice, can prevent a jealous parent of a "merely average" child from feeling envious and jealous, and from saying absolutely outrageous things to parents whose children are in advanced programs.
Let's just focus on creating, to the best of our ability with the time, money, and grace we have available to us, environments where all children can learn to their maximum potential. For some gifted kids, that means coming up with a big enough "group" to give them, for lack of a better word, an "academic peer" experience they can't get in a regular classroom. For others (and I had one of these) a Spectrum, or (real) ALO, or school with walk-to-math/reading is not only ok -- but maybe is actually better (for all the reasons stated by other posters). If we have kids in Spectrum and are not concerned about other "spectrum eligible" kids who cannot gain access to the program (because of size constraints, or because of the ridiculous ruls that requires advancement in BOTH math and verbal areas to get appropriate access to either area) -- well, shame on us. We SHOULD care. Kids NEED us to care. Given that the District has washed its hands of any responsibility for educating these kids at their appropriate level, they depend on us to carry this burden for them. And if you have a kid in APP and have thus washed your hands and mind of any further worry for the other programs (Spectrum, ALO, gen ed, alternative, SPED, -- ALL of them) well, shame on that as well.
In my opinion, the reason Charlie emphasizes policy is because this District steadfastly refuses to place and manage these programs with any degree whatsoever of integrity. What other stick does he have to brandish? Only policy (common sense, decency, and reason evidently not being part of any incentive package that has ever worked where gifted ed is concerned)! We can't even get them to follow POLICY, for Pete's sake -- but at least they have to pretend, from time to time, to mind. And high-level policy review does give anyone who wants to (big question there) an opportunity to think about the bigger issues -- around access (not which test, or what cutoff percentile -- but bigger things like access for kids who are 2E, or who are very advanced, but only in one area), program quality and consistency (including the issues Charlie raises around minimum size), transportation, funding, etc.
The admittance is based on 95% on achievement tests (MAP...) and 98% on CogAT.
parent not Parent
--my eyes hurt
I respectfully disagree, and I HAVE a SPED kid who made it through this District only because of stuff I did (or paid for) on the side -- i.e., NOT because he was adequately served by the District's programs.
If you had said "they must reach that bar as well" I would be with you. But how can we deny another child his or her chance at learning just because the District also falls down on special ed? We -- or at least I -- can't. Every kid matters. We are raising ALL of them. We are the adults for ALL of them.
Perhaps the best of both worlds? Put a pretty good policy back in place while there is also discussion of what an even better policy might be?
If the district is phasing out the Spectrum programs, in favor of placing Academically Gifted (Spectrum-qualified) kids in ALO programs in their neighborhood schools, I would like to see that documented in policy, along with some rules for what an ALO is and does. It seesm that this is the case, and they should say so in policy.
I would like the great work that SPS does with finding placement for 2E kids codified in policy, so that (god forbid) Roger Daniels ever leaves, that great work continues.
C'mon! If you hate advanced learning - programs, families - that much to the point you think them amoral, you will never be happy anywhere.
Here's my answer; Banda, Banda, Banda.
Anyone with two eyes and a brain can see that the AL program is nonsense. Incoherent, poorly overseen, not enough training (so if you want those kids in their own neighborhoods, the teachers need more differentation training). Not that the program doesn't work - it does but not well and not for nearly enough kids.
So tell you what, I will put up what the staff told the Board are priorities and we will then create our own list/petition and get that to Banda. Then he can hear what parents and community are saying. A lot of what is on staff's list is not about what happens in the classroom and it's a shame that our district is so ill-managed that that is the case.
The district should meet the needs of the children at either end of the spectrum.
Greg wants to get back to policy talk and I suppose it is necessary to do so.
Charlie talks a lot of policy here, but I feel like he loses readers with too much policy gunk and not enough vision talk.
Parent, not parent
I don't hate advanced learning programs and I don't hate the parents whose kids are in them. I do have concerns given my experience with some of these folks..legit concerns. Although, someone writing on this thread is right..what I said earlier is my experience and not necessarily everyone's.
I like the idea of bringing parents' concerns to the table.
One thing this new superintendent should focus on is bringing aides into the classrooms...not just for advanced learning classrooms, but for all classrooms. It only makes sense that if the class sizes are growing then more instructors are needed. Why doesn't anyone in the district get that???
Parent
-wake up people (or as my kids put in, we are heading to district 12)
I read the policy you pasted up there and like all of the P&P from SPS, it is too vague.
Parent
Parent, it's fine you have "legit concerns" but you said something pretty unpleasant and now you are acting as if you didn't. Not cool.
My kids would never make it in general ed as it is. I have one kid who would be taking his desk apart or something like that. I mean, come on..just because I think there are issues with the self contained classes as they are, does not mean that I don't want advanced learners accommodated. I am all for keeping kids together for certain subjects and then integrating for other subjects so all kids can meet and greet.
When I had my first child I believed some of the APP parents and how all APP kids have to be with one another all of the time, but then I saw how happy my kid was when he met kids he just liked and had things in common with and bonded with personality wise. You have to admit, THAT can be any kid. Right?
So, I am not advocating the end of advanced learning, I am presenting some of the drawbacks to self contained rooms, esp. when there is only ONE classroom in the entire school for the kids in Spectrum..
...and on a tangent here, why is it that so many kids qualify, hang on a wait list and never get to Spectrum? Why not have another classroom with Spectrum/gen ed split or something? Surely, some teacher out there has the talent, drive and dedication to handle it?
The University of Washington cranks out great future teachers, why not try that pool of people?
Resources are not being utilized in the community if this problem can't be improved.
Parent
I envision the wording for a Spectrum/ALO policy to be specific that these students have access to differentiated instruction appropriate to their identified capabilities in math and/or reading, meaning an extra worksheet won't cut it. My understanding is that teachers are given guidelines of some sort indicating how much class time should be spent on math, reading, science, etc. It should be stated that students would be taught at their level for the allotted time for that subject or at least a certain percentage of that time. That would basically require a walk to math/walk to reading setup which I feel is necessary to meet these kids needs. A policy for Spectrum/ALO should also state that all students shall be the opportunity to participate in such a program. If it's not available at their school, they will have a guarantee of access somewhere else in their area.
Just my thoughts.
Kitty
Sorry you feel that way. One day maybe we can talk in person.
Parent
Again, you are taking your experience and extrapolating it to everyone else. While I am sure your child is wonderful, they are not every child. My daughter, for instance, had ZERO friends when she was at our neighborhood school. She felt like she had nothing in common with the other kids. She was the only kid reading chapter books on her own in her kindergarten class, and she felt different than the other kids. Is this true for all kids? No, but it was true for mine. She has been in APP since first grade and has met a lot of great friends and feels socially normal, something that is worth a lot for a small kid. Since we don't live in a bubble, she also meets lots of other kinds of kids while doing her other outside of school.
As for policy for Advanced Learning, I would love to see the district put out a statement, maybe as part of this policy re-work, that Advanced Learning is part of meeting kids' needs and does not require any additional expense. There seems to be this faulty idea that APP gets all sorts of things other programs don't. APP uses all the same books as everyone else. The books used are just ahead of what same grade kids would get elsewhere.
-Sheesh
If your child goes to a school where the parents routinely get tutors or outside help for every child with challenges, you might not understand that there are many SPS schools where advanced learners cannot just "fit in".
Mom of 2
I see your point. I get it.
Parent
I absolutely support APP, and I absolutely stand by what I said above about Roger Daniels and his awesomeness in helping 2E families.
But I absolutely get what Perplexed is saying, too. And when someone makes the very valid point that SpEd students' most basic civil rights are simply not being met in many cases and perhaps THAT's where more of the attention should be, I think it's respectful not to try and wrangle and argument out of it.
Nobody's going to deny APP anything by acknowledging that special ed in this district is rather a mess and the stakes ARE higher than other programs. It's not just that their academic needs aren't getting met. Some seriously bad stuff is going down.
It doesn't hurt Advanced Learning the least bit to simply listen to somebody speak that painful truth and get it off their chest. Just listen.
There was this person once who posted all over a blog that I read. That person was full of negative generalizations about APP parents boasting and APP kids being socially underdeveloped, but at the same time puffed themselves up by touting their child's intelligence. Then they tried to act 'reasonable' as though they were just passing the time of day.
Should I now assume that all parents who wouldn't choose APP for their child are negative, defensive hypocrites who don't have the guts to stand behind their inflammatory comments? After all, my experience tells me that's the case, doesn't it?
If I shouldn't, then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge others either. And endlessly posting in a thread while others try to get on with the actual topic doesn't help anyone. Just step away and get some...
- freshaire
I did not mean to imply that all APP parents are that way. I presented the downside, but there is an upside too. I believe that. Thank you for the reminder. :-)
Parent
I think you are right, this needs to get back to the issue of policy. I wrote that above in reference to Greg.
Sorry I blew off steam by expressing myself. After all, that IS what many people do here. Apparently, not all expression is welcome. I get it.
Parent
1. It says "Highly Capable Learners are students who exhibit markedly greater than average potential or ability in cognitive ability, in specific academic achievement (in reading, mathematics, social studies, language arts, and/or science), or in exceptional creativity in cognitive functioning and/or academic scholarship."
Does SPS actually use these other criteria such as science or art achievement for APP eligibility purposes? What are the practical implications of this language in the policy?
2. "Selection procedures for all highly capable programs shall consider test scores, performance outcomes, and the diversity in ethnic backgrounds, cultures, and learning styles of District students."
Those are "and" not "or" requirements. Is this consistent with current eligibility requirements?
ELB
ELB
Getting into Advanced Learning programs is about test scores..whatever else is written in the policy does not seem to apply....
.. "exceptional creativity in cognitive functioning and/or academic scholarship"..what does that even mean?? This is another vague statement among many in the SPS policy book.
P
On the subject of testing, the AL website says Fall MAP can't be used for appeals, and only Spring MAP is considered for entry. That wasn't the case when we tested (more than a year ago).
This past summer, principals decided to make 2011 FALL MAP optional across schools. The Advanced Learning Office therefore advised principals that, because 2011 Fall MAP would not be available for all children at all schools, we would NOT consider these results in evaluating any student’s eligibility for Advanced Learning. This includes initial consideration of eligibility and appeals of initial decisions.
Why not administer Fall MAP (and skip Winter) so the most recent scores could be used for entry and identification?
hmm
My child has the same experience as yours but is at a different end of the curve (not the opposite end, mind you). Is my child afforded the Cadillac? no.
A wise friend of mine once said "self-contained is what the (insert descriptor here APP/Spectrum/ALO) families want and what the Special Ed families don't. Why is that? Who gets the choice and who doesn't? Who gets the cohort and who gets put wherever there's space for a program?
I am of the belief that Special education in our district should be, once again, managed under the same umbrella.
Perplexed
392-170-035
Definition — Highly capable students.
As used in this chapter, the term highly capable student shall mean a student who has been assessed to have superior intellectual ability as demonstrated by one or more of the multiple criteria specified in WAC 392-170-040.
These students exhibit high capability in intellectual and/or creative areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields, thereby requiring services beyond the basic programs provided by schools. Outstanding abilities are present in students from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor.
In my personal experience, there are highly capable students whose true abilities are more on the creative side, even though they are capable of the APP academic curriculum. I don't think APP does any better than our neighborhood school on the creativity and artistic front. However, I'm thankful that my daughter's love of learning has returned this year with our switch to L@L. I asked her recently how she was feeling now that her transition year is coming to a close and she is happy and said she basically has the opportunity to learn interesting things and isn't bored all of the time. And to those of you who feel the APP parents are elitist I can say that my observation is of little difference to any other school community I've been involved at and one can choose to ignore that minority parent group.
K
fact- grouping in a neighborhood school is not usually fair. If you take the top 33% of kids in one classroom, the next 33% in another and the bottom 33% in another, the low class is going to range from a CogAT of say 40% to 10%, a very tough class with lots of hard to teach kids.That top class will be CogAT 15% and up, a dream class even with 2E kids, and SPED kids are more likely to be in that low class. We need a middle ground with blending AND grouping. Self contained works for high kids but not for low kids.
And the name calling here is very unseemly.
Here's a list of possibilities:
* Require a program for highly gifted students (perhaps defined as those with cognitive ability 1.5 to 2.0 standard deviations above the mean) that complies with the letter and intent of the state law for programs for Highly Capable Students.
* Require transparency - the Superintendent SHALL establish a procedure for determining eligibility for this program, for the structure of the program, requirements for teachers and principals, etc.
* Require accountability - the Superintendent shall annually report on the program providing statistical analysis (complete with benchmarks and goals) of the accessibility of the program and the efficacy of the program.
* Require another means for addressing the academic needs of students who require more academic challenge than a general education classroom can reliably provide. Yes, Spectrum, I'm looking at you. The Superintendent shall establish procedures for any such programs.
* Require transparency and accountability for this program as well. This should be done by the inclusion of the program - a description, information about accessibility, efficacy, etc. - in each school's CSIP.
* Require some opportunity, available to every student on a self-selected basis, for additional rigor (engagement of higher level cognitive skills, deeper understanding of the concepts, broader application of the concepts, access to GLEs for higher grades, etc.) in a systematic way. This is what ALOs were supposed to be. Again, require transparency and accountability - we want to know just exactly what the program is supposed to be and we want to know how well it is working.
Let's remember that policy should not dictate how things are done, but set the goals for what should be the outcomes.
Thoughts?
http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10691.aspx
nP
ELB
-TIRED OF ASKING THIS EVERY YEAR
I think kids should be able to test out of required classes for credit.
I think there should be more independent study options available on school campuses during the school day.
More options to meet the needs of individuals and less emphasis on programs because gifted kids come in all varieties and most commonly develop asynchronously.
A change in the goals of the district to allow all kids to learn as much as possible instead of using the standards or program definitions as an upper limit.
Parent of profoundly gifted
Part of the issue has to do with curriculum - right now, it's little more than the regular district curriculum compacted and accelerated - and another issue has to do with principals not allowing students to accelerate even when more advanced classes are available (HIMS). Parents are left to provide instruction outside of the class day (homeschooling, tutor, or online) for classes that are being offered in school.
In the big picture, it may be a small number of students, but with some flexibility on the part of the district I think that there could be a way to serve these students without creating undue burdens on teachers or schools.
just a parent
If you look at the curriculum (it's actually delineated and posted online...) they use College of William and Mary materials for language arts and Project M3 materials for math, in addition to the district materials. For science they have extension materials for the district units, and the students participate in science fair.
The point is that resources include materials designed for highly capable learners. This is something that's currently missing in SPS's programs.
http://schools.puyallup.k12.wa.us/programs/quest/index.htm
just a parent
Also, Wedgwood did not implement a clustering model. They reconfigured first grade to evenly distribute the Spectrum kids among all classrooms. No matter what it is called on paper, in practice that is a heterogeneous model, not a clustered model.
TraceyS
TraceyS
http://www.sbsdk12.org/programs/gate/documents/200912_Detracking.pdf
nP
I don't necessarily want to see dictated curricula (though it would be fine if vetted materials were made available for teachers who want them), because I think many of the teachers who teach these kids are really good at coming up with their own materials and lesson plans -- and that bright, engaged kids often collaborate with their teachers to take learning in directions where they have passionate interests -- and that is a really good thing. This last comment is not limited to gifted ed, by the way. I think that in every school, units on conflict resolution might have been very different, after Columbine or 9/11, than what a publisher 2 years earlier put together. Great teachers, given autonomy and a collaborative environment (both with other teachers and with their students), come up with incredible stuff.
Math is the big problem. She can adjust her reading and writing to her level, but math kills her. She understood the stuff they are teaching a long time ago. Differentiation means she gets extra worksheets to do at home. So she is bored in class, and has extra homework.
Math is so skills based. Master a skill and move on to the next. I see kids struggle with a concept and yet they are forced to move on before they are ready. Others are bored. How can we improve the way math is taught?
My other child was put in a blended class to balance out the "tough to teach" low kids. Teacher did not begin to differentiate. He despised school for the total boredom. Got a teacher this year who deals him the work he can handle, and he loves it.
So blended may be easier on the teacher and better for the low kids, but is hard on higher kids that are used for balance. Good teachers can make it work, but we are 1 for 3.
SPS mom
Math is the big problem. She can adjust her reading and writing to her level, but math kills her. She understood the stuff they are teaching a long time ago. Differentiation means she gets extra worksheets to do at home. So she is bored in class, and has extra homework.
Math is so skills based. Master a skill and move on to the next. I see kids struggle with a concept and yet they are forced to move on before they are ready. Others are bored. How can we improve the way math is taught?
My other child was put in a blended class to balance out the "tough to teach" low kids. Teacher did not begin to differentiate. He despised school for the total boredom. Got a teacher this year who deals him the work he can handle, and he loves it.
So blended may be easier on the teacher and better for the low kids, but is hard on higher kids that are used for balance. Good teachers can make it work, but we are 1 for 3.
SPS mom
ELB
ELB
That's how it is at Hamilton.
Parents of accelerated kids at Eckstein have said students sign up for a math class and sit in the back working independently (I'm assuming this is done with the teacher's permission).
The "policy" seems pretty school dependent.
What I would like to see in the larger secondary schools would be an independent study classroom supervised by a teacher with a tutor available, where a child could practice remedial skills on a computer or do an online class or have a small group project.
I think it is important for kids to work with others who have different gifts & challenges. The social skills learning involved in school was more important to my kids than the academics. I think it is even important to learn to do things that are mundane, just not all the time.
Parent of profoundly gifted
When I was in middle school, this was called "Study Hall" and everyone was required to have one period of it. If you had a hole in your schedule, you got a second period of it. Is this really not part of the middle school experience anymore?
Your point on $ for purchase is a good one -- so I think there should be some budget, and maybe some recommended materials. But to your point above? All three sets of materials you cited are either horrible, or at best flawed -- all of them would be left in the dust by materials/lessons put together by a good teacher. I think I am reacting less to your idea though than to my own bias against expensive, bad curriculum materials being peddled, at exorbitant prices, by Pearson and others. My apologies. I need to keep my head in THIS thread and not gravitate to my soapbox.
We have lost so much of our Lowell expertise -- with teachers being hounded out of the school -- but at least a few years back, I think if you had put all the gifted elementary teachers together and asked them to survey "what's out there" for gifted kids and then come up an aligned curriculum (with some leeway for different materials for different teaching styles), you would have gotten an incredible work product. And the same was true of WMS (at least for language arts and social studies) several years ago.
On independent study -- the only family of a gifted child I know who did this well ultimately resorted to "part-time home schooling." She was WAY ahead in math (probably calculus in 7th grade), and reasonably advanced in other areas. She was also an incredible artist and needed studio time. They did part days at WMS, and had her work independently, off campus, in math and something else. But it would be great if there were creative, flexible school-based solutions for these kids (and also for special ed kids who need schools to step up and help them use THEIR time more effectively as well).
Middle school students have homeroom, which can be used to do homework, and you can get a pass to talk with another teacher if needed.
It's reported that some Hamilton teachers are not allowing homework during homeroom...they are supposed to sit and read, and it's not supposed to be reading for class...
HIMS parent
EDM and CMP are a joke. Working 2 years ahead in those textbooks is meaningless when the assignments are busy work and incoherent. No student, gifted or otherwise, should have to use crap materials.
I have a 4th grader doing Singapore Math at home. We are nearly finished with 6A, and she wants to keep working during the summer. So I imagine we will crack into 6B.
What do we do after that? She has a new teacher in the fall and we hope she will differentiate instruction, but if not, we don't want a completely wasted year. So what's after 6B?
A bit worried I'm going to run out of math before we get her to a qualified teacher who will actually teach her. I'm hanging in but can't make sense of the "net of a cuboid" stuff.
She tests high 99th percentile in MAP every time, but only high 80s in the CoGat, so thus far, we aren't doing APP. Don't know how much that will help anyway, given the curriculum and complaints about HIMS.
hanging in with the math
I use Saxon 8/7 (7th grade) for my 7th grade students at grade level or my high 6th graders. It is very comprehensive and does a nice job of teaching a lot of pre-algebra. My son was able to roll right into the Saxon Algebra 1 book. I like Saxon a lot with it's easy and clear explanations and worked examples. It is very easy for parents and students to use. Every problem has a referenced index that will track back to the original lesson.
I currently am single subject homeschooling 4 students from Whitman and will be going to 8 next year. All my students opt in to MAP and MSP testing in order to document growth for the district.
The kids either opt out of 1st or 6th period. They sign themselves out of the office and ride their bikes to my house. It seems to work better than the one day a week private tutoring because it is consistent and comprehensive. My students have better than expected growth on both MAP and MSP and they only see me Mondays and Wednesdays. On the off days they are doing the assigned homework independently at home. Math is math. Schools are pulling your leg when they say that CMP teaches higher order thinking and that kids can't do problem solving if they don't use inquiry based instruction and textbooks.
To give you a benchmark, students wanting to test into Algebra I for 6th grade (1 year ahead of APP pathway) need a Spring 5th grade MAP of 250 [this is new for 2012-13]. This translates to a Fall 5th grade MAP of 240 (assuming your child has 10 points of growth over 5th grade).
My advice - don't count on differentiation at school.
just a parent
That's good news, Just a parent. She's at 252 as of this spring, so she should test into Algebra by middle school. I sure hope so....she's chomping at the bit for Algebra.
hanging in with the math
Like Linh-Co, I'm puzzled by that MAP score cut-off as well. We had a 5th grade MAP in the 280s and were only assigned to Math Honors, even after a call to the district. Good thing we were planning to do independent study already. Perhaps some middle schools allow greater acceleration than others, even beyond APP? I seem to recall hearing that Hamilton may be behind the curve on math offerings...
ELB
ELB
Mom
The other "issue" of course is the curriculum materials and pedagogical approach -- some of which may vary, based on teachers, based on schools (like Mercer using Saxon and RHS using UW materials at the pre-calc or calc level, etc.) For that, you need to know the intricacies of your specific teachers and departments. And if you can't get what you need (and aren't willing to just concede), then the only options are to "afterschool" with supplemental materials or programs (Kumon, etc.) or if you don't want to do both, then to pull your child out and do homeschool/independent study. I am intrigued by the person who works with multiple kids after school. Until the District addresses their incredibly poor materials, I think there is a huge opportunity for other families to do something similar.
And (hope he is reading this) I reiterate that if Mr. Banda comes in and IMMEDIATELY replaces math materials (at least for the grades where replacement is due) with better ones -- he will look like a genius in the test score category. And my guess is that the change will be apparent at the end of the first year.
I also want to know how a district policy can be ignored by individual schools. I know Whitman is not offering any algebra classes to 6th graders no matter what their MAP scores are. I haven't heard of this at Eckstein either.
The district math placement letter that came home last year to 6th graders had weasely language about placement being offered upon space availability in fine print.
Linh-Co said: I currently am single subject homeschooling 4 students from Whitman and will be going to 8 next year. All my students opt in to MAP and MSP testing in order to document growth for the district.
It's fantastic that you have the time and ability to do this. Your students are lucky.
That said, please reconsider opting into MSP testing. The district gets credit (with the state) for teaching these children math, when they are in fact NOT teaching them at all. Also, because MSP is grade-leveled, it doesn't provide any valuable information about achievement for out of band kids, either for you (as their real teacher), the school or district. Opting into MSP gives your building absolutely no incentive to ever teach high achievers, and because the kids are likely to do better with individualized programs, it may actually act as a disincentive to the buildings to serve these kids if they take the MSP.
MAP is a completely different beast. It can potentially give some coarse information about the students' achievement over time because it's adaptive. This may possibly be helpful in some situations with the building and/or district. But it also, to my knowledge, doesn't give your building any unnecessary credit with the state for teaching your kids.