Updates
From Superintendent Banda via SPS Communications:
Alice Walton, the daughter of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, donated
$600,000 last week to an initiative to allow charter schools in
Washington state, helping to bring the effort’s fundraising to $3.3
million.
Also last week, Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer contributed $250,000, bringing his total investment to $450,000, according to public disclosure documents. And Mike and Jackie Bezos, the parents of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, kicked in another $50,000, bringing their total to half a million.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates is still leading the group, however, with $1 million donated.
And they say the union folks are bullies? Nothing like a small group of wealthy people trying to force change with money. Again, why are all these out-of-state people trying to influence this election?
Today I am
pleased to appoint two new Executive Directors of Schools. Kim
Whitworth, principal at Eckstein Middle School, will be Executive
Director of Schools for the Northeast region. Carmela Dellino, principal
at Roxhill Elementary, will serve as Executive Director of Schools for
the West Seattle region. The new positions will start in mid-August.
They join four
other Executive Directors of Schools, who support principals’
instructional leadership in order to increase student achievement and
close opportunity gaps. This includes using data to monitor
school progress, coordinating professional development, one-on-one
coaching and principal evaluations, and conducting frequent learning
walks through school buildings to ensure quality instruction. Together,
they supervise and support more than 100 principals.
Ms. Whitworth is
replacing Phil Brockman, who has been appointed to a new grant-funded
Executive Director of School Operations position. Ms. Dellino replaces
Aurora Lora, who left her position this month to
be the Assistant Superintendent for the Dallas Independent
School District.
Both internal and
external candidates were reviewed by interview teams that included
Executive Directors of Schools, principals and Assistant
Superintendents. There were three rounds of interviews in total,
and the committee recommended finalists for interviews with me and
members of my Cabinet.
These
appointments leave vacancies at two schools. We will work with both the
Eckstein and Roxhill communities to develop a hiring plan that will
include family and staff input. We will be in touch soon with
each school community to ensure we have a highly qualified principal in
place for the start of the 2012-13 school year.
And in the seemingly neverending chain of wealthy people from outside our state donating to I-1240, here's the latest from the Times.
Also last week, Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer contributed $250,000, bringing his total investment to $450,000, according to public disclosure documents. And Mike and Jackie Bezos, the parents of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, kicked in another $50,000, bringing their total to half a million.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates is still leading the group, however, with $1 million donated.
And they say the union folks are bullies? Nothing like a small group of wealthy people trying to force change with money. Again, why are all these out-of-state people trying to influence this election?
Comments
same ol same ol
It looks very unlikely at this point that the disaster happening at Wedgwood will be fixed any time in the near future.
I genuinely would like to understand the answer to this question. They must have seen the same data all of us have that show charter schools have not been effective. Do they not believe the data? Think it will be different next time? Why? What are they trying to do? I really don't understand, but would like to.
I think there are some people who really think charters do better, and don't believe the evidence, possibly haven't seen it. There are also some people who just don't like unions and want to hurt the union as much as possible.
On the change front, it looks like someone finally showed Holly Ferguson the door. How on earth she got to her position of power was a mystery, other that knowing that she was very good at telling whatever Superintendent was in power just want they wanted to hear.
IMHO
Gee, last I checked, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Nick Hanauer... were all local to Seattle. Nogthing like crying foul when people put their money where their mouth is. Talk is cheap, and I love you is free.
-Seattle Parent
And, it's great to put your money where your mouth is when you have LOTS of money.
Unions have to organize and get thousands of like-minded people to get that kind of influence.
Holly is gone?
His dyslexia wasn't diagnosed till sophomore year from what I was told by a classroom parent in the know. Could it be that these people had kids or were kids who had difficulty in regular school? And they blame it on public ed? If you have money or can go to a private school that serves higher SES kids, usually the education is better. But that's because the funding is better and class size smaller.
My mother wasn't too impressed with our public school in the sixties. Perhaps these people don't feel they got what they needed in public school. We do have a lot on our plates.
Just thinking . . . I do wish public ed could be more innovative and creative. And, yes, I like the possibility creative approach schools offer.
n...
-Seattle Parent"
Especially when you're a billionaire with an agenda you can buy.
My guess is that the charter crowd (and maybe the larger Reformer crowd) has seen that their failutes are being publicized, that not all is rosy in charter land and people are figuring that out, and Washington is voting this year whether to accept them. It would be a big loss to the national charter scheme for WA to reject charters, so they're pulling out the stops, pouring in money, spreading their particular brand of un-democratic propaganda, and attempting to rescue their failing privatization of public schools effort.
Washington will matter.
Hanauer's hubris has outstripped his good ideas. And his 'purchase' of charter legislation may be legal, but it's crass and not appreciated by some of the communities he thinks he represents. At least that's the current word behind more than one closed door.
DW - it's not bad news for advanced learning. Whitworth is the parents of an ALO student. However, she pushes for rigor for every child, and her efforts to move Eckstein in a more inclusive direction were the right decision for that school, and would have been a shift well handled by the staff. Having spectrum be the only self-contained program at Eckstein counters the school's inclusive philosophy, and underestimates the ability of the staff to meet the needs of its students.
Our high schools do not make seats in honors classes dependent on a test a child took in kindergarten. I supported Whitworth's efforts to move Eckstein in a direction consistent with its inclusive philosophy and more in line for what students would encounter in our feeder high schools.
Parents of ALO kids - and I am one - would do well to drop the battle for separate classes and start pushing for more rigorous curriculum in all of the classes. There's no guarantee (and little liklihood) that a "spectrum" class full of "spectrum" kids is getting any more challenging curriculum than the class down the hall, filled with bright kids who didn't take the test to get a spectrum seat.
Many high schools are opening honors / AP / IB seats up to anyone willing to do the work. God forbid middle schools start mixing kids up too!
Eckstein Teacher
Eckstein is an exceptionally run school despite being over crowded (the largest in the state I believe). I hope the community is able to survive the change in leadership. The NE keeps a lot of kids who would go private if Eckstein wasn't such a strong option. I think she'll be a great Director for helping open the new middle school too.
I also heard that they are not getting any of the Family Levy money this year to help support all of their after school and support programs. I can't imagine that NE families are going to be happy with that...
Eckstein Teacher
Many high schools are opening honors/AP/IB seats up to anyone willing to do the work. God forbid middle schools start mixing kids up too!
And God forbid middle schools would ever actually pay attention to research regarding gifted kids, cause the programs and policies rarely reflect any such knowledge. You probably feel like elementary APP kids should just be scattered back to their neighborhood schools, since every school is capable of delivering a robust, challenging education!
Yes, I'm well aware that various staff members (mostly non-Spectrum staff) were supportive of the proposed (effective) dissolution of Spectrum at Eckstein. That doesn't mean that the parents of those students were supportive whatsoever. Nor does it mean it would have been the right thing to do. At the risk of leading this thread down a volatile path as seems to happen every time this topic comes up, I'll merely say that while there are certainly imperfections in the Spectrum program, you just flat out don't understand the issues and problems many of those kids face.
A simple statement to consider, and then I'm bowing out:
Equity and equality are not the same.
Please read it several times.
Whitworth is the parents of an ALO student.
Parents of ALO kids - and I am one -
This pretty much explains everything. Because ALO parents often have a particular philosophy. I am 100% in favor of robust ALO programs around the city, because there are different needs for different kids (and families).
However, the problem I see all too often is that many ALO families seem to be self-righteous in their beliefs, and are NOT supportive of those kids with very different needs. That's what gets me defensive. It's not fair, nor thoughtful.
Funny. Families with students in special education are often told "you aren't guaranteed a Cadillac" education. And these are humans who are protected under federal law.
Whatever
Thank you for understanding...
Whatever
The district is at fault for this. When they allow schools to join groups that fly in the face of what is offered then, of course, there will be disagreement.
My experience at Eckstein was that there were some teachers who did not like Spectrum and some who did. I'm not sure I thought the Spectrum classes in LA were all that different than the regular ones (albeit the students tended to be more on task and the class moved faster). (Kids used to be placed in math by testing scores, not being in Spectrum in elementary. I don't know what happens now.)
This is one issue that needs to be resolved. Either this district supports gifted programming (and therefore so will the schools) or we don't. But we can't continue to have every school stake its own position. That is not fair (and is confusing) to parents or students who don't seem to have any vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Superintendent Banda,
Please do not exercise The Peter Principle when you fill this important position.
Sincerely,
A SSD sped. staff member
However, the dissolution of Spectrum (or APP) removes the choice from those who prefer the self-contained classroom.
The people who prefer self-contained are not trying to take your choice away from you, why are you trying to take their choice away from them?
Every Spectrum and APP student has been in a general education classroom - if only in kindergarten. If it had worked for those students and those families they would still be there. They aren't still there. They aren't still there because it did not work for them. If it is working for your child, that's wonderful. I'm delighted for you. But please allow these people their story and their truth that it didn't work for them and their child.
And there are a LOT of them. So it isn't the rare case. You can't just brush this off as too infrequent to merit an effort. You can't make this go away with lip service to differentiation, rhetoric about "rigor for every child", or ambiguous talk about the school's philosophy. If that wishful ambition doesn't translate into an appropriate academic opportunity for the students, then it's misguided.
As far as advanced learning, my child finished pre-calc at Eckstein while Hamilton was only allowing math 2 grade levels ahead. Kim made that happen for us. Another child finished calculus. In my experience APP was the program putting the lid on advanced learners.
I also really like the standards based grading system she has implemented where your grade is based on mastery of the material not organizational skills or behaviour.(There are other grades for that.) And the emphasis is on kids taking responsibility to learn the material even if they need to try again. I would love to see that at Roosevelt where you can get a zero for having a waterbottle on your desk no matter what you mastered academically, and there are no second chances to master material.
I will really miss Kim's leadership at Eckstein.
Eckstein Parent
Want to try that again because clearly it cannot be true for Roosevelt as a whole.
If you have a problem with one teacher, say so. Don't tar an entire school with this rather broad brushstroke.
On the first day of 9th grade my child came home with all the class rules for each class. Mostly the consequences for rule breaking were to get a grade of zero for that day. There were almost 100 rules all together & including things like having a water bottle on your desk, being late for class, having a book unrelated to the class on your desk, having the wrong kind of notebook, reading unassigned parts of the textbook, moving the chair, questioning your grade, helping another student with homework, talking about classwork outside of class, late work, forgetting your textbook, sharing a textbook with a student who forgot, using the wrong color of pen for notetaking or corrections, asking another student to borrow a pencil, et cetera. Yes they were different rules for different teachers. I can see that teachers need to have class rules.
But I prefer the standards based grading where your academic grade reflects your mastery of the subject & not your mastery of each teacher's myriad of rules.
As to the opportunity to repeat material for mastery. I have not seen that at Roosevelt at all. Perhaps it happens in some classes. Often, it seems that a student's first chance to see if they are learning the material is with a quiz. But when the quiz shows that they have not mastered the material, their opportunity is already over. In the standards based grading at Eckstein, the student is encouraged to work on the material some more & repeat the quiz. Their grade is final only when they decide to stop working on that material or when the course is over. There are no grades on homework. The student chooses what homework will help them master the material & does as much as they need to do to learn it. They are not given a zero for not turning in homework. And they are not penalized for doing it late. There is no 'extra credit'. They can also redo projects, and improve them. Or use the teacher's feedback to rewrite a paper. Instead of the feedback being a 'gotcha' with no chance to improve.
Anyway, that is our experience.
Eckstein Parent
On the other hand, so much praise for a school that is in a high SES area with motivated parents and students who are advantaged by coming prepared to learn and who have a high work ethic compared to a lot of other schools.
I love Eckstein. I do. Because I love excellent learning. But you really can't compare and praise teachers and principals who have such advantages to begin with compared to teachers and principals working in areas of poverty, diversity and where children have little reason to hope for a brighter future than the one they see at home.
I work at a school with a high SES population myself and I've never overrated the advantages I have as a teacher. I have nothing but admiration for those working in the face of much greater challenges. Whitworth should probably go to a school that needs her more than Eckstein and see if she can spread her magic to a truly needy group of kids.
n...
n...
Parents simply need to engage with those teachers and confirm their kids are getting what they need. It is all about ceilingless instruction. Which should be the norm anyway.
n...
This summer, she's at a gifted summer camp, where everyone is 98th percentile IQ, and the program is designed for those students. She's like a different kid. She's on fire. She doesn't want to leave at the end of the day, and has all these ideas for experiments she wants to run. The kids are all chatting about math and science what kind of cool things they want to learn, and she's right in there with them.
Her regular school experience is fine, and she's getting a good education. But, wow, what happens in a self-contained classroom designed for gifted kids... I wish there was something like this available all year.
I'd hate for the main lesson the kids get from a classroom is how to appease petty tyrants.
Charlie, I hear what you're saying about "don't make the choice for them," but I think you interpreted my position to be "get rid of spectrum classes" instead of my bigger point, which is that our focus should be on instruction.
The reason I support inclusive education as a teacher is that every child needs to be challenged in some way, and every child needs to be supported in some way. For convenience and placement of bodies we have these "programs," but the program may not meet the child's needs.
I think the best classrooms are those where each child's needs and strengths are identified and instruction is tailored. In my spectrum class, I had kids who needed tremendous support and modifications. I also had kids who needed a totally personalized program because they needed to be so challenged. Sometimes, it was the same kid - totally supported in writing and totally challenged in reading. And I found that personalization needed to happen in my general ed classes too, where some of my students outperformed some of my spectrum students in reading or writing, or both.
As a parent, I don't want my daughter to have "spectrum" on her class schedule just for the sake of the label, or the company. I want her to be pushed and supported in ways that help her thrive as a student. I chose to leave her where she is rather than move her to a school that offered spectrum because she's getting what she needs. I wish every parent had that option. I know they don't, and I'm doing what I can to change that.
So when I say that we need to put our energies into the curriculum and the instruction instead of so vehemently protecting separate classes, that's what I'm talking about. That if every teacher was supporting and pushing every child, every child would thrive in every classroom. I often feel the whole spectrum / pull-out ALO situation is deceptive, and parents put their trust into the label while the children may or may not be getting what they need.
Eckstein Teacher
About the water bottle thing - you can't have certain bottles during tests like the SAT / ACT because people have cheated with those kinds of bottles - at the root of 90% ++ of stupid rules is the behavior of some student who won't accept responsibility and parents who support not accepting responsibility.
Try Teaching 150 plus with flexi-rules.
I also support inclusive classrooms. I've certainly written about it numerous times.
I certainly support ALOs. I helped to create them. They were supposed to accessible on a self-selected basis.
I just know that the research and the literature on gifted ed shows, time and time again, that self-contained classes work best for most gifted students. That doesn't mean that it works best for all of them or that all families will choose it.
I certainly agree that in some sort idealized version of education every student could be properly served in a single inclusive classroom. I just don't know any schools with those classrooms.
Small class size allows a lot more creativity in teaching strategies. Less managing.
I wonder group size at the science camp?
n...
Eckstein Teacher
Seattle Parent
And there are lots of bright children in those regular classes. Lots and lots of them.
n...
Are there just classes with the bottom 10%. I haven't seen them. If it is good enough for the top 10 then why not the botoom 10? It not right, either way.
- See ya
Thanks,
reader
Can we talk about your use of quotation marks?
I want to understand what you have written, but your use of quotation marks confuses me.
You write:
Yes there is a problem with "self contained" gifted programs for students who choose them.
Is the use of quotation marks around the words self contained intended to communicate some skepticism about whether the gifted programs are self-contained or not? Is it intended to express a question about whether the term self-contained should apply to these classes? What does it mean?
You wrote:
Segregated gifted programming, especially for minimally gifted students like "spectrum" has a huge impact on the makeup of OTHER classes because they suck down so many students.
What do the quotation marks around the word spectrum indicate? I can't even hazard a guess.
I do appreciate the skewed language used in this sentence. You refer to the classes as "segregated", which has a strong negative connotation (one you refrain later). You also refer to the Spectrum-eligible students as "minimally gifted". I guess that makes them even less gifted than typical students. You refer to the impact on other classes as "huge", a quanitification that cannot be supported by data. There are a lot of classrooms all across the district with no Spectrum-eligible students in them, particularly in the southeast, and I have never heard anyone express concern about the "huge" impact this has on those classes. I also admire your use of the word "suck". The idea that Spectrum is sucking down students is really evocative.
Back the use of quotation marks, you wrote:
So the whole can of worms "If you want inclusion, or ALO, you shouldn't impinge on the God given right of others to choose self-contained gifted programs."
This use of quotation marks was the most interesting because it appears to use in the conventional way, to repeat - verbatim - another person's words. What's interesting here is that you did not repeat anyone's words verbatim but added a twist, an arrogant and entitled attitude, that did not appear in the original statement with the supplement of "God given right".
See, here's the interesting, and, for me, ironic, thing. The access to the self-contained class isn't a God given right. It is a commitment made by the District. Access to an inclusive classroom, on the other hand, isn't assured at all. That is the special privilege that you are asserting without any reason to expect it.
Nevertheless, I applaud your propaganda skills. They are truly impressive.
If there are enough students working beyond grade level for differentiation to be worth the teacher's effort, inclusion may work for those students. If there are only one or two students in the class needing the differentiation, it's less likely to happen. That's the reality.
Is ablility grouping in school any different than ability grouping for swim lessons? Kids are placed in classes where they will get the instruction they need, so they are more likely to progress. Would you want your beginning swimmer to start in the deep end? Should a proficient swimmer practice face floats?
There are students with learning disabilities and behavior problems in Advanced Learning programs, so I'm skeptical that self-contained programs concentrate them in gen ed classrooms. Also, there have been studies showing that ability grouping benefits those working below level as well, as they are more likely to get instruction at their level.
Of course, your mind is made up, so whatever. Let's just acknowledge that there's the philosophy/ideal and the implementation/reality.
I think you miss the point. Students at the high end are often dismissed when it comes to recognizing their special needs. And we shouldn't resent or envy them for those needs.
Frequently, when Spectrum classes are available, APP-eligible children remain in their neighborhood schools because they have a peer group and program which satisfies their need for advanced learning and a faster pace.
I do wish there were more openings because our school always has a wait list.
And I'm not saying that all classes shouldn't be engaging. They should.
n...
I'm not angry with you, I probably don't even know you. And thank you for being a teacher, btw.
But I am somewhat angry with the large portion of our educational culture in Seattle, from parents to teachers to administrators, that is willing to sacrifice a portion of our students for lofty ideals that don't exist in real life:
That if every teacher was supporting and pushing every child, every child would thrive in every classroom.
My main point is essentially what Charlie has also said in this thread, he's just saying it more concisely. I have a bit to add, so maybe I'll try again.
1) That ideal classroom doesn't exist. I know there are a few teachers here and there who seriously try to achieve this. I'm not aware of any who are able to pull it off for all their kids in a wide-range classroom, and it's usually the ones at either end of the curve that suffer. Maybe there's an amazing teacher somewhere in this fine city who actually manages to do a decent job with a wide disparity of learning abilities in their classroom. But if they have more than maybe 15 or so kids in their class year after year, good luck. The effort required to do a great job would be heroic and unsustainable.
2) Even in this ideal fantasy world, you (and many, many others) are missing a huge point, which is having a learning cohort. This is CRITICAL for most kids with exceptionally high learning abilities, and is the reason a program like APP is a life saver for those kids. The same situation exists to a lesser degree with Spectrum, but if you haven't experienced both, either as a parent or during your own youth, it's difficult to understand.
You only have to look right here in this thread to see an example. Read "there's a difference" at 7/18/12 4:29 PM. I have personally heard dozens and dozens of stories like this, year after year. It's very real, very important, and yet get short shrift by so many who just don't understand. Being an ALO parent, I'm sorry to say, does not necessarily give you any insights into this. On average, ALO parents think they understand, but they and their kids have different needs entirely, and all too often they want to push their way of thinking onto other families/kids. Think about how you'd feel if I was pushing to dismantle ALO because it doesn't suit my needs or philosophy.
3) Then typically comes "you're keeping these kids in a bubble", blah blah. Sure, some parents are like this, but after elementary school these kids all mix in music, sports, foreign language, PE, art. Having a few self-contained classes at least allows the kids to understand what it feels like to have a cohort where they can reach upward without fear. This is especially true for middle school girls.
Many of us make the effort to keep our kids involved in activities outside school, giving them the opportunity to mix with a lot of different kinds of kids. The job of the schools is to educate our kids, so please leave this part to us.
Seattle Parent said: (regarding self-contained classes) it concentrates disabled students and students with behavior problems in the OTHER classes, and makes providing appropriate challenges for OTHER kids very much more difficiult or impossible.
Your comment shows a profound lack of understanding.
First, I'll quote Pragmatist: Also, there have been studies showing that ability grouping benefits those working below level as well, as they are more likely to get instruction at their level.
Let's think for a minute about a classroom with a lot of struggling kids. Do you really think having 2-3 gifted kids in that classroom is going to help them?
1) Just because some kids understand the material quickly (or previously) doesn't mean they can effectively help disburse that knowledge to their classmates. In fact, because they learn in very different ways, it's most likely to cause frustration to all parties. Besides, it's not their job to teach other kids, every child should be allowed to learn every day, not teach.
2) Those 2-3 kids will necessarily draw some portion of the teacher's attention away from giving the struggling kids the extra support they need. Unless the teacher completely ignores the needs of the gifted kids (which happens all too often). This is not helping "OTHER" kids, it's harming them.
3) How do you think it affects the self esteem of the kids who aren't quite struggling, but just managing to master the material with a good bit of effort. They are forced to watch other kids around them smart off because they already understood the material long before it was presented.
4) The gifted kids learn that school is a place to be bored and goof off. They learn that they don't need to study. This is why a lot of gifted kids end up causing problems in class (again, harming the "OTHER" kids) AND doing poorly later in their schooling.
Please stop and think about what you're saying before perpetuating inaccurate myths.
Also, if you think there aren't behavioral problems in Spectrum/APP, then you obviously haven't spent time in those classes. On the plus side, some of the behavioral issues are reduced because the kids are no longer in a classroom where they immediately understand all the material and are totally bored out of their minds. Having an appropriate classroom with appropriate material can help many of these kids be at least somewhat less disruptive.
My son was twice-gifted and I've met others like him as well in the Spectrum program. And while Spectrum classes tend to be more focused, if you think there aren't behavior issues, you'd be wrong.
You seem to operate under illusion that gift kids never have disabilities and, at least in class, are angels. It's not true.
Also, Seattle Parent, I would watch that trying to make gifted programming akin to racists in the South. Doesn't work as an argument.
Charlie, that's verbatim by the way. Rather cryptic here. Isn't assured to whom? The minimally-gifted - meaning 90% percentile, or so - or children with real or perceived disabilities, and or disadvantaged living situations? Privilege can be special to some and impossible to others. What I find interesting is how, other than Robin Lake's good friends, parents can think charters concentrate the less privileged in traditional schools, but that is not true with self-contained classes for the minimally gifted?
curious
Highly recommended for parents and teachers of nerd-labeled and non-nerd labeled kids.
What does that mean? Because as the parent of a child with a disability, I don't particularly care for someone saying we could be "perceiving" it.
I think what they are saying is not exactly "I don't dispute your choice, so you can't dispute mine." I think it is more -- the fact that your choice (ALO, or maintaining a bright child in a gen ed classroom) works for you is a "child specific" observation. It is not a basis for concluding that it would work for my child, or for all (or even most) gifted kids generally. We need to have opportunities out there both for gifted kids who can thrive in regular classes AND for those who cannot. And then, we need to let parents choose.
I think what they are saying is not exactly "I don't dispute your choice, so you can't dispute mine." I think it is more -- the fact that your choice (ALO, or maintaining a bright child in a gen ed classroom) works for you is a "child specific" observation. It is not a basis for concluding that it would work for my child, or for all (or even most) gifted kids generally. We need to have opportunities out there both for gifted kids who can thrive in regular classes AND for those who cannot. And then, we need to let parents choose.
curious
1. It's not for my sensibilities' sake. It isn't even about choices because you can say this nation allowed slavery, segregation and integration to exist at varying point in history. It's about history and about the people who suffered under segregation, who fought to end it, who were killed because of it. That's not overly dramatic. That's what happened. There are monuments galore dotting the South to attest to that. Go to parts of Alabama, Virginia, Georgia, S. Carolina, Mississippi. If you dig but a little, that history is still very alive on all sides. That's why it's important not to belittle the history of it or take those voting rights acts for granted.
And as our nation has become more diverse, the idea of race relation, gender identity, nationhood, citizenship which accord some with more rights and advantages than others have expanded to capture new groups. We are writing new laws (once again) to make voting more difficult and for citizens who may not look or sound "American" to carry proof of their citizenships or risk being arrested. If you check who gets arrested, charged, get off, go to jail and on death row, well justice is indeed a fickle thing.
2. Good sense. If your point is good, it will stand on its own without the over-reaching hyperbole. You will also convince more people, even me.
3. Inequity. We have inequity in SPS. There are many groups who are protected and have real programs (e.g. spec ed, ELL), but don't get what they should get to thrive and learn. (Heck we have a Supreme Court ruling that say the same thing about funding our basic ed and boy, what do our elected reps CHOSE to do? Charter legislation!) We have schools in this city where there are no real ALOs for whatever reasons so even if you have students who can do better, that child may not have an opportunity to do so. There are big fight and small fights to be had, but it does seem odd that what really rev the motor on this blog often fuels on advanced learning.
Personally, everytime I read this stuff, it appears the fight is over sensibilities and feelings, perception of exclusivity and exclusion. But to really get at fixing it-- if you are talking about learning opportunities, it's about meeting the individual student academic needs. If that's not done because it's not possible due to class size, budget issues, poor PD, poor curriculum, poor program management or hell hasn't freezes over at HQ, then why not fight or better yet, work together to find solutions to fix those causes. And leave out the white segregationist stuff.
reader
I didn't mean to make it sound like you were just touchy! I think you are right.
Have fun for another 20 years with this same conversation.
-See ya
To settle it, the district needs to have a policy, a program and stick to it. That their programs are all over the place for gifted programming speaks volumes.
Cluster grouping didn't go over too well at Wedgwood, but Spectrum classes have some issues as well - kids are siloed in one class for years, the identification process adds a year or more to getting services, there aren't enough spots to serve all identified kids, etc. Come middle school, should students be able to self select honors classes (if they have the grades)?
Then there's APP - would it be seeing such growth if neighborhood schools provided strong options? There is also a lack of a coherent curriculum for both APP and Spectrum. Right now, it's based on accelerating the basic district materials, with little done to make them more appropriate for gifted learners.
Thoughts?
I think there is a place for both self-contained classes and inclusion, but like Melisssa said, they need to decide on something and deliver it - without principals going rogue and letting their personal beliefs determine what's offered (or not offered) at each school.
another reader