What's a Program? Why does it matter?
The Board will soon adopt a new Program Placement policy. The new policy, if it isn't amended, won't do much. It won't give the superintendent any guidance on how to make program placement decisions, it won't direct him to make good ones, and it won't require transparency. But it will do one thing: it will define a program. You will be very surprised to learn what is a program and what is not. Very surprised.
The new policy defines a program this way:
But that's not all. Montessori programs don't impact budgets, or staffing, or space, so they aren't programs either; they, too, are a curricular focus. Language Immersion programs don't have an impact on budgets staffing or space, and the staffs for these programs do not have specific credentials. So they, too, are a curricular focus and not programs.
One more thing that people might assume was a program but is not - according to this definition: A.L.O.s. There is no budget, no staffing, no space, and no specific credentials needed to teach it. ALOs are not programs, they are not services, they are nothing. Which, as it turns out, is largely true. Same goes for Spectrum programs if they use the cluster model instead of the self-contained model.
Actually, the only things that you think are programs and services that actually meet the definition set by this policy are Special Education programs and services, APP, self-contained Spectrum, bilingual programs and services, and six non-traditional schools: The Center School, The NOVA Project, South Lake High School, Interagency, and the Homeschool Resource Center. Those schools meet the definition because they are not funded through the usual WSS.
So what? What difference does it make if they are programs or not? So this: if these schools and programs are not programs, then the Superintendent has no authority to open, close, or move them. This policy makes it clear that each of these - a school's curricular focus rather than a program - is a site-based decision. So if Sand Point - or any other school - wants to start a language immersion program, they are free to do so. If Roxhill - or any other school - wants to start a Montessori program, they are free to do so. McClure can choose to adopt experiential learning and they don't have to get the superintendent's permission to do it because, according to this policy, that is a site-based decision.
Again, from the School Board Action Report:
But there's more. There are things that we don't generally regard as programs or services that will, following the adoption of this policy, fall into the definition. Once that happens, schools will not be allowed to decide to replace self-contained Spectrum with a cluster model because it will impact the use of space in the school. That decision belongs to the superintendent alone. Also, once MTSS is implemented, any student who is in Tier 3 and is getting some sort of intervention that includes service from anyone other than the classroom teacher or using any materials that cost money, that will represent a change in service, it will require superintendent approval, and it will have to be included on the quarterly report to the Board. That's going to be a lot of reporting work for Wendy London and a lot of approvals for the superintendent.
This policy's meaning and impact hinges on the definition of "program" and "service" but the words aren't defined anywhere but in this policy. And the definition in this policy doesn't appear to draw the line where any reasonable person would want it drawn. Academic opportunities that we want outside the authority of this policy are left within it and some we want included are left out. Definitions are sorely needed. Regardless of the intent, the words of this policy refer only and strictly to the non-traditional schools, APP, self-contained Spectrum, bilingual programs and services, and programs and services for students with disabilities. Those are the only ones that "have an impact on budgets, hiring or placement of staff, or on space within a building." which is the stated limitations of the policy. It does not appear to govern anything else that we commonly believe to be a "program" or "service", such as language immersion, Montessori, STEM, ALO, non-self-contained Spectrum, or the alternative programs (other than the few not funded through WSS) because they do not have any impact on budgets, hiring, staff credentials, or class size. This policy, intentionally or otherwise, makes the creation or discontinuation of a curricular focus like these into site-based decisions outside the superintendent's authority. The Board really need to think about that before they move forward with it.
The new policy defines a program this way:
"This policy addresses the development of new programs or services, the replication of existing programs or services, as well as the closing and/or relocation of existing programs or services throughout the district, to the extent that those programs or services have an impact on budgets, hiring or placement of staff, or on space within a building."A program, according to this, must have an impact on budgets, staffing, or space. All of those alternative programs? Most of them aren't programs. Since most of the alternative schools are budgeted and staffed just like the traditional schools, they are not programs. What are they? They are schools with a specific curricular focus. See the School Board Action Report for the explanation:
"Generally the committee would focus on programs or services that would have a facility, fiscal or human resources impact, such as needing additional space, or needing to hire staff with specific credentials. The program placement committee did not address curricular focuses, such as a school that wanted an arts focus—that sort of change would be worked out with the school community, the principal, and the education director."So ORCA, with its arts focus? Not a program. Cleveland with its STEM focus? Not a program. Pathfinder, Thornton Creek, Pinehurst, Salmon Bay, Queen Anne, and Southshore? Not programs. Not even The Option Program at Seward (TOPS) is a program. It should more accurately be called The Option Curricular Focus at Seward (TOCFS).
But that's not all. Montessori programs don't impact budgets, or staffing, or space, so they aren't programs either; they, too, are a curricular focus. Language Immersion programs don't have an impact on budgets staffing or space, and the staffs for these programs do not have specific credentials. So they, too, are a curricular focus and not programs.
One more thing that people might assume was a program but is not - according to this definition: A.L.O.s. There is no budget, no staffing, no space, and no specific credentials needed to teach it. ALOs are not programs, they are not services, they are nothing. Which, as it turns out, is largely true. Same goes for Spectrum programs if they use the cluster model instead of the self-contained model.
Actually, the only things that you think are programs and services that actually meet the definition set by this policy are Special Education programs and services, APP, self-contained Spectrum, bilingual programs and services, and six non-traditional schools: The Center School, The NOVA Project, South Lake High School, Interagency, and the Homeschool Resource Center. Those schools meet the definition because they are not funded through the usual WSS.
So what? What difference does it make if they are programs or not? So this: if these schools and programs are not programs, then the Superintendent has no authority to open, close, or move them. This policy makes it clear that each of these - a school's curricular focus rather than a program - is a site-based decision. So if Sand Point - or any other school - wants to start a language immersion program, they are free to do so. If Roxhill - or any other school - wants to start a Montessori program, they are free to do so. McClure can choose to adopt experiential learning and they don't have to get the superintendent's permission to do it because, according to this policy, that is a site-based decision.
Again, from the School Board Action Report:
"Last, it is hoped that these amendments can help bring the focus back to the original meaning behind the policy, and that curricular focuses can remain community driven, rather than imposed by the district."It's clear that this policy means to make those types of decisions - curricular focus, defined as any change that does not impact budgets, staffing or space - site-based and outside the superintendent's authority. By policy, they will be community driven and not imposed by the District.
But there's more. There are things that we don't generally regard as programs or services that will, following the adoption of this policy, fall into the definition. Once that happens, schools will not be allowed to decide to replace self-contained Spectrum with a cluster model because it will impact the use of space in the school. That decision belongs to the superintendent alone. Also, once MTSS is implemented, any student who is in Tier 3 and is getting some sort of intervention that includes service from anyone other than the classroom teacher or using any materials that cost money, that will represent a change in service, it will require superintendent approval, and it will have to be included on the quarterly report to the Board. That's going to be a lot of reporting work for Wendy London and a lot of approvals for the superintendent.
This policy's meaning and impact hinges on the definition of "program" and "service" but the words aren't defined anywhere but in this policy. And the definition in this policy doesn't appear to draw the line where any reasonable person would want it drawn. Academic opportunities that we want outside the authority of this policy are left within it and some we want included are left out. Definitions are sorely needed. Regardless of the intent, the words of this policy refer only and strictly to the non-traditional schools, APP, self-contained Spectrum, bilingual programs and services, and programs and services for students with disabilities. Those are the only ones that "have an impact on budgets, hiring or placement of staff, or on space within a building." which is the stated limitations of the policy. It does not appear to govern anything else that we commonly believe to be a "program" or "service", such as language immersion, Montessori, STEM, ALO, non-self-contained Spectrum, or the alternative programs (other than the few not funded through WSS) because they do not have any impact on budgets, hiring, staff credentials, or class size. This policy, intentionally or otherwise, makes the creation or discontinuation of a curricular focus like these into site-based decisions outside the superintendent's authority. The Board really need to think about that before they move forward with it.
Comments
A Wedgwood Parent
Of course, it should have always been that way. Spectrum is a District program, not a school program, and should have followed the District's structure, which is self-contained.
Without regard to what happened in the past, if this policy is adopted as written, self-contained Spectrum meets the definition of a program and therefore is one and cluster Spectrum (or whatever they are doing at Wedgwood) does not meet the definition of a program and therefore is NOT one.
If the Wedgwood community, on its own, either changes from self-contained to cluster or from cluster to self-contained, they will be either ending or creating a program, and, according to this policy, they do not have the authority to do that. That authority is held (see policy F21.00) by the superintendent alone.
Now there is no rule anywhere that says that the District has to follow its own rules, but there would certainly be grounds for a complaint. Real grounds - found in policy F21.00 that says that only the superintendent has the authority to create or close programs and this policy, when adopted, that defines a program such that self-contained Spectrum is one and cluster Spectrum is not.
-Annie
-Annie
Is the SPS website the governing document with respect to district definitions and procedures?
-Oompah
-Annie
Are you new to the district? Not only will they do things other than what is says on the website, they will also knowingly do things that are against their own rules and procedures. As a parent in the north APP program, I have seen all sorts things that are other than what the rules say.
-been around
-Annie
Both Self contained and cluster-grouping is mentioned. To me I read that as, if we have enough students to create a self contained classroom we will, if not we will cluster.
In practice however, it seems that the principal decides how to group, regardless of the numbers.
The problem is the lack of consistancy from site to site year to year.
"3) Bring district-identified students together through self-contained or cluster-grouping strategies to form classroom rosters."
perhaps you would like to amend your statement that:
"Words self-contained never were publsihed on their website"
Regardless of the above, make no mistake, what you're reading on the SPS web site is a recent change that reflects the way SPS works: first, make a change, then search for some kind of rationale to justify it, then update the web site and/or send out information to those affected. Or alternatively, staff makes a decision, then holds faux-community meetings to justify their decision.
What I think most of us would rather see is a process whereby a problem is identified, then a group comes together that includes staff and stakeholders who suggest solutions. The solutions are vetted for feasibility, cost, unintended consequences, etc. Then, and only then, significant programmatic changes like this could take place. Unfortunately, what Chris did was to open old wounds and rub salt in them, making it difficult to implement any solution without pissing off some portion of his community. Really stupid move, both for the community and for the kids.
None of them are described on the district web site.
A good example is comparing the math pathway info with the 2012 grad requirements. Math pathway indicates students need three years of math to graduate; HS grad requirements only state 2 credits are needed (which is 2 years not three).
I clearly remember the changes showing up, unannounced, on the website, just after someone asked Robert Vaughan at a summer meeting how these program changes could happen overnight, when Spectrum was clearly listed on the website as a self-contained program. The website also seemed to be the only available document describing the program, as no one could produce anything else for the parents at that meeting. I assumed, as did many of us, that Dr. Vaughan made the program policy changes via a website update as a direct response to the questions at those meetings.
It was my first exposure with the random, unannounced policy changes that so many people discuss here on this forum. When I first came here, I simply could not believe that such a large school district would tolerate such unprofessional program management, or display such casual disregard for parents, students, and staff needs. I have to say, it has been a year now, and I am still quite shocked at how this district conducts itself on a routine basis. I am really hoping for change with the new superintendent, because otherwise I do not see how this district will keep from imploding.
-Still Shocked One Year Later
--TC
These days, though, everything is highly unpredictable at both schools. Parents and students really have no idea what they will get in the fall when they sign up for the program in the spring. Very sad to watch good programs be torn up like this.
This policy raises serious questions about which schools can have language immersion programs. I think it opens the door for any school that wants one to have one. Same for Montessori. They don't have to ask the District for permission.
This policy also takes the decision about where to locate the next language immersion and Montessori programs (and STEM programs) out of the superintendent's hands. This policy clearly says that those are site-based decisions. Apparently the District has no obligation to create equitable access to these programs because... they are not programs.
This policy allows any school that wants to become an alternative school to do so. We are back to old idea of each school developing its own identity, culture, and curriculum like in the choice days.
That is not only the letter of this rule, but the spirit of it. And it is not some accidental oversight; it is one of the specifically named goals of the policy.
It doesn't matter what this policy says. It doesn't matter how this policy defines programs or divides the authority.
The policy doesn't matter because no one in Seattle Public Schools pays any attention to policies. The culture of lawlessness in the district makes all policies meaningless.
Yes. It is THIS unpredictability and constant change that is killing this district. I am all for having a variety of options in our district -- in fact I strongly support that -- but they need to be somewhat stable, predictable, and announced well in advance. When families sign up for a school or program in the spring, only to have it radically change in the fall, and to have this pattern repeated over and over, is what will drive the involved families out of our district.
Stability, advance notice of change (so families can easily migrate to a good fit when change happens), and program variety ARE achievable goals. Many other districts seem to get this. It is time, more than time, that we start pressing to making this a goal as well.
To me, it seems the ideal program for kids and parents. For staff, a lot of extra work, maybe. Maybe you uhave a third grade teacher teaching two or even three math classes a,day. For some,teachers thatnisnti what they signed up for in elementary school. They like one group al day every day. Other teachers may see it as a way to,work with more kids, really learn to teach one subject xtremely wheel and somewhat simplifying paperwork
Such programs would keep more APP kids local as welll.
More kids served, kids who don't meet the double hurdles odnSpectrum and APP served. As good as a full self contained classroom? With fully implemented walk to in read wing and math it should be better. You're math whizzes who can't read well enough to make a program would be with the other mathees, making for a stronger class. Likewise with reading.
Another issue is that not all kids do well with that much change and disruption during the day. There are lots of kids who need the predictability and social stability that comes from continuity of teachers and classmates -- and who learn much less effectively in a "walk to" environment.
Finally, I suspect "walk to" is a weak solution for most APP kids. They are, at a MINIMUM, two years ahead, so you are talking putting 1st graders with 3rd graders, 2nd graders with 4th, etc. I think the social/emotional span is too great for it to work well for most APP kids. They may be smart first graders, but they are, still, 6 -- not 8 or 9. And many APP kids are still bored with 2 years of acceleration. They really need 3 or 4. Some are ready for college math, and are reading at a college level, by the end of 5th grade. No amount of "walk to" math is going to adequately meet these kids' needs in a "regular" ed setting.
But I totally agree that your proposal works best for kids who excel by only a year or so, or only in one, but not both, of the tested areas (reading and math). The latter are kids that we don't do anything for at all, unless they serendipitously "fall into" a "real" ALO (assuming those exist).