Friday Open Thread
I attended the Assessment Taskforce meeting yesterday. It was a good meeting that was very well organized (kudos to staff) and the talk by Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University who phoned in was stellar. I'll put up a thread this weekend. (If only the Advanced Learning taskforce work had been organized this well.)
The Garfield teachers are having a press conference today at 3:15 p.m. to talk about the coming consequences of their MAP boycott action. Those consequences could start as soon as today as this is the last day of the winter testing window. From the press release:
"Of the over 800 MAP tests that were supposed to be administered at Garfield during the winter testing window, only around 180 valid tests were administered - further demonstrating the unity of the Garfield community in the pursuit of quality assessment."
It is confusing as the Superintendent told the teachers that, despite his plans to suspend them without pay for 10 days, that he would NOT do it. But they couldn't get that in writing so it is unclear what will happen.
Community meetings with Director DeBell (9-11 am) and Director Patu (10 am to noon) on Saturday.
Something for the kids to do - name those new lion cubs at the Woodland Park Zoo. It's looks like a fun contest. Boy, these cubs are cute - I've got to get to the zoo to see them while they are still little.
Friday funny (that you could share but with older students) - in a mass knife fight to the death among our presidents, who would win? Could be a good way for kids to learn about our presidents (I recall that my kids learned the presidents, in order, via the Animaniacs.) The author, Geoff Micks (suspiciously a Canadian), goes through the known strengths of each president and it's all good historical entertainment.
Here are the parameters of the fight:
The Garfield teachers are having a press conference today at 3:15 p.m. to talk about the coming consequences of their MAP boycott action. Those consequences could start as soon as today as this is the last day of the winter testing window. From the press release:
"Of the over 800 MAP tests that were supposed to be administered at Garfield during the winter testing window, only around 180 valid tests were administered - further demonstrating the unity of the Garfield community in the pursuit of quality assessment."
It is confusing as the Superintendent told the teachers that, despite his plans to suspend them without pay for 10 days, that he would NOT do it. But they couldn't get that in writing so it is unclear what will happen.
Community meetings with Director DeBell (9-11 am) and Director Patu (10 am to noon) on Saturday.
Something for the kids to do - name those new lion cubs at the Woodland Park Zoo. It's looks like a fun contest. Boy, these cubs are cute - I've got to get to the zoo to see them while they are still little.
Friday funny (that you could share but with older students) - in a mass knife fight to the death among our presidents, who would win? Could be a good way for kids to learn about our presidents (I recall that my kids learned the presidents, in order, via the Animaniacs.) The author, Geoff Micks (suspiciously a Canadian), goes through the known strengths of each president and it's all good historical entertainment.
Here are the parameters of the fight:
To begin, here were the original conditions of the hypothetical, as suggested by the redditor Xineph:
- Every president is in the best physical and mental condition they were ever in throughout the course of their presidency. Fatal maladies have been cured, but any lifelong conditions or chronic illnesses (e.g. FDR’s polio) remain.
- The presidents are fighting in an ovular arena 287 feet long and 180 feet wide (the dimensions of the [1] Roman Colosseum). The floor is concrete. Assume that weather is not a factor.
- Each president has been given one standard-issue [2] Gerber LHR Combat Knife , the knife [3] presented to each graduate of the United States Army Special Forces Qualification Course. Assume the presidents have no training outside any combat experiences they may have had in their own lives.
- There is no penalty for avoiding combat for an extended period of time. Hiding and/or playing dead could be valid strategies, but there can be only one winner. The melee will go on as long as it needs to.
- FDR has been outfitted with a [4] Bound Plus H-Frame Power Wheelchair, and can travel at a maximum speed of around 11.5 MPH. The wheelchair has been customized so that he is holding his knife with his dominant hand. This is to compensate for his almost certain and immediate defeat in the face of an overwhelming disadvantage.
- Each president will be deposited in the arena regardless of their own will to fight, however, personal ethics, leadership ability, tactical expertise etc., should all be taken into account. Alliances are allowed.
Comments
I'm hoping someone can clarify a question I have about the open enrollment process. I've spoken with two different people at Enrollment Services, and have received two different answers. I'd like to know what model the computer uses for selecting open choice schools. This is about the lottery, after any tiebreakers have been determined. There are two scenarios:
Method 1) The computer randomly selects a student ID. If the student's first choice is full, the computer moves on to their second choice, then third, etc, until the student is placed. That student is not set aside until they have a school placement, even if it is their neighborhood school.
Method 2) The computer randomly selects a student ID. If the student's first choice is full, the computer sets that student aside and goes on to the next randomly selected student to see their first choice. After all students' first choices have been looked at, a second round starts with the students still left to be assigned, and the computer randomly selects a student. If the student's second choice is open, they are placed in that school; if full then the student is then set aside for round three (assuming they have a third choice). The computer then goes onto the next randomly selected student to see their second choice. Etc, etc.
I read the Transition Plan on the district website and it states: All first choices will be processed first, all second choices next, etc etc. I read that as being Method #2, but I'm not certain. When I called, the first person I spoke with said that this is the method the district has been using, and she would basically only repeat the line, "All first choices will be processed first, all second choices next." She wouldn't clarify scenarios I put forth. The second person I spoke with went into great detail about the open enrollment process. She eventually said that it's Method #1 that the district uses.
The distinction is important in what we put for our #1 and #2 choices as one is a highly desired school. Our chances of getting in are not great. Our second choice had a waitlist last year and is anticipated to have one again this year. If indeed the district uses the second method, we would most likely miss out on both schools.
I really hope someone can confirm for me which method is used so we can more carefully weigh our school choice options.
I can try to ask Tracy Libros but I want to make sure I understand the question.
I'm out of the house for the morning, so if I don't reply to comments or questions, that's why. I'll try to check the board from my phone, but not sure I'll have time.
Thanks,
Gretchen
Contact Brandon Holst. He heads up the open enrollment process and should be able to give you a difinitive answer.
Best,
Just passing by.....
This is my best understanding of the process…I don’t know definitively as I have not seen all of the computer code.
Your application for your first choice submission will be processed along with everyone else that listed the school as their first choice. Each applicant is given a randomly selected Lottery Number (one of the tiebreakers.) Student ID does not come into play in the process unless you are enrolling twins.
All of the tiebreakers are taken into account (including the randomly selected lottery number) and a score for your applicant is calculated. Then all of the applicants are ordered for that school based on their calculated score.
If you don’t get your first choice then the process will continue for you when a new randomly assigned lottery will be given to you for your second choice, score determined, and your applicant ordered along with everyone else that also listed that specific school as their second choice.
Once all of your choices have been processed, if you do not receive an assignment to any of the choices on your application, you will automatically be assigned to your attendance area school. You do not even need to list your attendance area school on your application as it is the default.
You will then be ordered on the wait list for the school you listed as first choice based on your score from the calculation of the tie-breakers.
If you truly do not want to attend a school do not list it on your application. If you receive an assignment to a school on your application you give up your seat at your attendance area school.
A new consideration this year is the distance tie-breaker so don’t overlook that.
Another consideration is our current capacity issues at most schools. Unless your second, third, etc. choices are schools that are dramatically under enrolled the odds are super slim that you would get in after all of the first choice applications for that school have been processed.
If you are fine with your attendance area school as a back-up – go for it and list your real first choice first. If you don’t get in during open enrollment you will still be placed on the wait list.
Good luck!
-StepJ
-Laura
That the Board had a John Marshall renovation item on the the Board agenda this week in order to open it this fall may be a tip-off to something coming for W-P. The agenda item did not identify why they wanted it ready.
-Music Supporter
(My interest isn't limited to Option Schools, but tours and open houses seem most important for them to get right.)
A set of proposed standards for teacher-preparation programs unveiled today by the Washington-based Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation are leaner, more specific, and more outcomes-focused than any prior set in the 60-year history of national teacher-college accreditation.
Put together by a CAEP-commissioned panel of some 40 members, including teacher educators from both traditional and alternative programs, representatives from advocacy organizations, states, and districts, the standards would for the first time require accredited programs to adhere to a prescribed minimum-admissions standard.
CAEP is the newly created successor to two former national teacher-college-accreditation bodies.
The proposed standards would also require programs to consider "value added" test-score-growth data alongside other measures to examine graduates' ability to boost P-12 academic achievement, and to continue refining existing quality-assurance measures. (Value-added attempts to isolate the specific contributions of teachers or, in the context of teacher preparation, groups of teachers, on student learning.)
Some of those requirements touch on hotly debated topics within the teacher-preparation field, and as such, the standards are likely to meet with a diverse response from the field. As evidenced by a federal effort to write new teacher-training-accountability rules last year, there are deep ideological divides in the field about these ideas. It is generally split between those who favor an emphasis on outcomes-based on such measures as test scores and employer-statisfaction surveys, and others who see such requirements as too expensive, burdensome, and error-prone.
SPS seeks input on updating the Strategic Plan
In June 2008, the Seattle School Board adopted a five-year strategic plan, Excellence for All. As the fifth year comes to a close, the Board has directed Superintendent José Banda to develop an updated version to guide the District for the next three-to-five years. The District has hired Pivot Learning Partners to assist in the development of a revised plan.
Your voice is essential as the strategic plan is updated. Seattle Public Schools is asking members of the community to share their feedback through an online survey, which closes on February 27th. This survey focuses on prior and/or current experiences with Excellence for All and will ask you to share perceptions and assessments of the plan, as well as your level of involvement and connection with the plan.
We hope that you’ll take 5-10 minutes to complete the survey. We want to hear from everyone, so please spread the word and complete it as soon as possible. We will produce a summary of the results to share with the community.
If you have questions about the survey, you may contact info@pivotlearningpartners.org.
Thank you again for this important feedback.
English
Spanish - Español
Chinese -
Vietnamese - Tiếng Việt
Somali - Af Soomaliga (Luqadda af Soomaliga)
Tagalog
Fey
Update on cluster grouping at Wedgwood
Hello Families, I wanted to update you on the timeline for our continued integration of students from self-contained to cluster grouped classrooms. Wedgwood's Building Leadership Team (BLT) which consists of staff members, a parent representative, and me recently settled on the following recommendation to staff for the continued integration of our student population:
BLT's recommendation to staff is that we continue at the current pace of year by year roll-up of cluster grouped classrooms on the condition that capacity issues across grades do not supersede this pace. Capacity issues may impact the current pace of integration and it may be necessary to accelerate the integration of grade 4 next year.
The original timeline presented to families and staff two years ago was to have the entire school integrated by the beginning of next year. Based on feedback I received last year from families, staff and central office, we decided to slow our pace and integrate only grades 1 & 2 this school year (instead of grades 1-3). In response to BLT's recommendation, we intend to continue integrating at a rate of one grade level per year on the condition that capacity does not impact our ability to maintain a self-contained spectrum classroom. Should our enrollment figures for the 2013-14 school year indicate attrition in grade 4, I must seriously consider integrating all of grade 4 in order to manage our teacher load effectively and responsibly.
Please expect that students will continue to participate in both self-contained and general education classrooms for the 2013-14 school year in grades 4 & 5. However, please understand that may change, depending on enrollment and budget projections. If any changes to our model become necessary as a consequence of the 2013-14 budget, I will let families know.
Thank you and if you would like to discuss this or have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Chris Cronas
Sidebar from Cronas' email:
--
What exactly is cluster grouping?
A method of grouping gifted students (gifted being identified as students who score in the 98th – 99th percentile on a cognitive ability test) into clusters of 6 students in one classroom that also include high achievers and above average students. The remaining students would be clustered so that the highest achieving students and lowest achieving students are not in the same classroom.
The Wedgwood implementation is based on a model developed by Dr. Dina Brulles, PhD, a highly respected gifted educator and administrator. Click here for her website including bio and publications. [ link referred to is here: http://www.giftededucationconsultants.com/bio.html ]
Also, a bill I have been working on, 1688, which would require parents be notified if restraint or seclusion is used on their child made it out of the House Education Committee yesterday. http://www.king5.com/news/education/Bill-would-make-educators-tell-parents-when-student-is-isolated-restrained-192085021.html. Some parents are not happy because they feel this bill does not go far enough, and they are right. I feel that it is morally wrong and violates best practice research to use aversive interventions on children with disabilities, particularly children with developmental or intellectual disabilities. But I am also a pragmatist, and I'm going for incremental change.
NE parent
Based on 3 classes per grade level:
APP, Average, Below Average
Spectrum, Average, Really Below Average
I hate all these labels ... just trying to understand the model.
Ballard Family
Are students in seclusion required to have a camera on them? Are staff required to check on a student in seclusion every 15 minutes and provide documentation?
There are no requirements isolation if the student is not special education. If a special education student is not able to get out of a room by himself, there must be constant visual monitoring. If the student is able to leave himself, then the student must be within visual or auditory range of the supervising adult.
I, and everyone else, get that there are capacity issues. But that is being used as an excuse to dismantle the program. There is no need to evenly distribute the kids. That is where the 6 kids per classroom comes from-- deliberately dividing up the Spectrum kids among all the classrooms in the grade. There is no legitimate reason to do this.
If Wedgwood no longer wants to host a Spectrum program, I truly wish everyone would just be upfront and say so, and let the kids who need a program with critical mass move on to one that supports their needs.
The news of this change came the same day we got our enrollment letter, so we are once again faced with wondering whether there is support at the school for a geeky elementary aged girl in need of similar peers. I swear to God this district is doing everything within their power to discourage girls in STEM. It is already bad enough finding support and peers for a child who likes Tinkerbell, Legos, chess, and Doctor Who. Breaking up the geeky girl gang is just going to alienate the small amount of traction that they've been able to carve out for themselves. We left our previous school precisely because there was not cultural support for science and math oriented girls. This latest move is a swing backwards for girls like her.
Or is he doing what the majority of his community wants? It's hard to tell.
WSDWG
I understand how hard is for "geeky" girls to find friends with similar interests. I would suggest that the best way to find like-minded friends for your daughter is through participating in activities and your daughter not being afraid to let others know what she's into.
My daughter, who loves Star Wars, Legos, robotics, and computer programming, was in Spectrum at Wedgwood. There wasn't a girl in her class who shared her interests. When she got to Eckstein she took tech classes and joined the robotics team. There she met her best friend, who shares her interests. Guess what elementary her friend attended - Wedgwood. She was just in a different class. So it isn't always necessary to be in APP or Spectrum to find other geeky girls.
I have heard some parents have expressed an interest in starting a First Lego League robotics team at Wedgwood. Laurelhurst has a team and it had girls on it this year. Perhaps this is something you could take on.
You could also look into IGNITE.
http://www.ignite-us.org/
It's a Seattle non-profit whose focus is to show girls possibilities in STEM careers. Perhaps a chapter could be started at Wedgwood. Through IGNITE my Eckstein daughter went on a tour of Microsoft, which inspired her and it was an opportunity to meet other girls with similar interests.
Wedgwood & Eckstein Parent
...But Should a principal "just do what the majority (of the school's parent community) want?
Think about it. Certain educational best practices that apply to 'minority learners' (not talking about race, creed, ethnicity, etc; I'm referring to learning style or learning needs) are best determined by professional educators and the parents of the minority children, not by a 'mob vote'.
So, for example, if a school has a special ed program that is self-contained, and the school is under a massive capacity crunch, such that they are about to switch to 'art on a cart' AND 'music on a cart', so the parents - the vast majority - are really upset, should they demand the special ed students who 'absorb more space' and 'are not neighborhood kids anyway' get kicked out so that they can all continue to enjoy their music and art?
My point is 'majority rules' is a terrible way to make educational decisions about minorities, whether they are ELL, SpEd, or gifted learners. No, I am *not* comparing ELL or Sped to advanced programs -- merely the fact that students in those programs *system wide* are not the majority of learners within SSD's schools.
--curious
Equity for math is not adding up
Wed. Night is the advanced learners discussion at JA. I'm not sure if it will fit better for you or not but it might be worth looking at.
Meanwhile, the head of Teaching and Learning is an interim, and the position for Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction sits vacant.
fix the math
Ben
It feels like reading tea leaves to understand the district on many occasions, and I guess I understand not wanting to get tied up in a debate at the district level about every decision. Take the 6th grade Algebra 1 issue. It was " decreed" that a score of 252 winter MAP was needed in 5 th grade. Many parents were upset that their kids missed by a point or a few points. Some went homeschool for math, some are just mad. But this decision came down without a task force or any discussion that I am aware of occurring. Should many hours or days be spent on listening to parents at school meetings be spent on such an action? I don't think so. That's what we pay Bob and hhis staff to do.
The decision to let individual Spectrum schools plot their own courses is another one that seems strange in that delivery is so different around the district, but can also be seen as a way to incubate new ideas. As I said before, if AL is using the data they have, MAP and MSP, to evaluate delivery options, that's great. I for one would like to hear about it. On the flip side, however, what are the different models doing for all the kids at these different schools. Tough questions, worthy of a real scientific study.
To sum up, whether one agrees with the approach taken by AL and the district as a whole or not, there seems to be some intentionality to what's happening. I like Bob and would rather have a dynamic situation for all its faults and uncertainties than a rigid system like in NYC for example, that seems to have devolved in many respects to methods of gaming it.
Sonny
That is the big picture and in our system of representative democracy each group advocates and things work out in the end, sometimes.
Math equity not adding up
For what it's worth, my child usually scored 98-99% on math MAP tests, but plateaued for 2 years at thurgood Marshall under the everyday math curriculum (with high percentiles but little to no improvement). This winter, my child scored 99% again, but the RIT score jumped about 40 points from last winter, much more than typical progression. Anecdotally, families are reporting big leaps in winter math MAP scores at Thurgood Marshall with the implementation of Envision. The MAP scores, standing alone, have little meaning or importance but they confirm what I already knew. My child is learning a lot of new material this year, and understanding the material well.
-- Happy with Envision
Will the teacher evaluations consider them "highly effective," whereas with EDM, they were just "average?" It's not just equity for the students, but for the teachers as well.
Highline is using Math in Focus (Singapore Math) and an online program (ST Math) from the Mind Research Institute..... This will be the first year for this combination district wide after a one year pilot of the combo at one elementary school.
MSP test results were very good at the one school last year. It will be interesting to see the district wide MSP results for 2012-2013.
-reader
Advanced learning, ELL, SpEd - they all have the resentment issue form parents who aren't in the programs. The fact is that society is better with gifted kids reaching their potential while maintaining a social conscience [blah blah blah]
BB, the fact is that this type of segregation ALWAYS results in the illegal clustering of special education students together. When some classes have 0% (or close to 0%) disability rates, the remaining classes will be disproportionately disabled - and very often other classes are highly disproportionately disabled. Especially true when the number of minimally gifted population (ie... not very gifted as in Spectrum) reaches a high percentage at any given school. And that happens typically in wealthy neighborhoods where a large group of kids are either "gifted" or "disabled". That is illegal because it is a more restrictive setting for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities are entitled to an LRE under IDEA. Eg. It isn't an "LRE", least restrictive environment, it becomes a more restrictive environment because students with disabilities are restricted to disproportionately disabled populations.
And while some people believe with passion that "best practice" is segregation - there is no entitlement to that. And as the law has found - nobody is entitled to a cadillac, only a basic floor of opportunity.
-just saying
You are absolutely correct and I agree. Why doesn't anyone call the district on self contained Spectrum? It is unfair and apparently illegal. APP can avoid the legal problem I guess because it meets a federal definition of gifted? So the walk to models that group students for a class or two each day are OK I presume. Can we not all have "Cadillacs"?
http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/ejmontini/2013/02/23/the-secret-lives-of-charter-schools/
And they're supposed to be at the head of the pack for accountability. 20 years with charters and what do they have to show? Lots of corruption - unable to be proven though, since the financial records are not public - nepotism, cherry-picking (even though it is NOT allowed), greasing palms, etc. The comments are pretty telling. Washington's in for so much fun!
APP yes, Spectrum hmmm.
The Seattle Times will require digital subscriptions for full online access to the Seattle Times.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020414873_boardmancolumnxml.html
-- Dan Dempsey
The NY Times online is $15 per month... so what is access to the Seattle Times worth?
Really? Are we going to have this argument....again?
If you think that APP or Spectrum kids are getting more/better, go sit in a classroom and see for yourself. They aren't.
As for Spectrum being illegal, I doubt it. The district would not have been able to use the format for so long if it was.
The way things are now, Advanced Learning is mostly a joke/afterthought anyway.
I don't know if I think it's worth it especially for their brand of journalism.
For those not familiar with Brulles-her model places kids with similar learning needs in one classroom "cluster" if there are not enough to form a self-contained class. It was developed and studied as a better model that isolating students in small groups among multiple classes. In other words, what Wedgwood is proposing for 4th grade, and what's been done to the lower grades.
Wedgwood&Eckstein parent: We already do most of those things, and thank you for the reminder about IGNITE. My issue is a school environment that is becoming less supportive of its STEM-focused kids, particularly girls. I mean, it's school, for crying out loud -- they *should* be finding ways to encourage academically-interested kids while *at school*. I should not be having to seek extensive outside supplementation for my geeky girl to feel comfortable about basic science and math related subjects, or for her to feel ok about about discussing her reading choices with her classmates.
Ben: We looked long and hard at Jane Addams. I really liked the K-8 aspect, and liked very much how they structured their Spectrum program (its an integrated model, but they actually cluster the kids, and don't try and break them up evenly and separate them from their counterparts). However, there was simply too much instability surrounding JA's future to move my 3rd and 6th graders to the school. We have been through too many school changes, and stability was crucial for our family. That had a lot to do with our decision to stay at Wedgwood. It is also why I am frustrated with this announcement that Spectrum and other academically advanced kids are going to be isolated and divided up into small groups of 6 in each classroom, like so many party favors.
TraceyS
I really do get that there are people out there who don't understand the kids who need this program. But I have two children, one of whom deeply self-identifies as an engineering oriented, geeky girl, and one who does not. Both are similarly capable. But my younger one, the engineer-in-training, happily spends the majority of her free time on chess, Legos, and math puzzles, as well as on dolls and hamsters. We saw a huge difference in her school motivation once we transferred her into a program where she spent part of her school day with like-minded *girls*. My other child would die of boredom and frustration in a similar environment. It is essential that these kids, particularly girls, be supported in their early years if we want them to retain that enthusiasm and interest all the way to college.
Other school districts are able to provide these advanced learning/gifted/talented/honors/accelerated/nom-de-jour opportunities with far less sturm and drung than SPS. There are a variety of best practices out there. So far though, we seem to be doing our level best to run off or isolate or denigrate or otherwise demotivate the students who actively want to pursue their interests. There are few enough girls who self-identify as "geeks", and that critical mass is essential for them to feel it is safe to speak up and be heard and to develop and harden their talents. School should not be a isolating, demoralizing experience for girls who want to be engineers. Not in the 21st century. Why this district seems hell-bent on discouraging them is beyond me.
TraceyS
I'm so sorry to hear that this is still happening, and may even be accelerated. It's appalling, and I don't even have a kid there. I have a few questions:
- Was there any real assessment of how the dissolution of (self-contained) Spectrum has affected the kids that stayed? There was supposed to be a gathering of data to see if the (faux) clustering was working. This would ideally be not just based on test scores, but kid/parent satisfaction and psychological/emotional states of the kids.
- Has there been any kind of data gathered to see how many parents "ran away", to APP or elsewhere? Difficult to get precise data, but shouldn't be hard to get enough data to make a point.
- When this issue was run up the flagpole in the beginning, was it ultimately determined that a principal can basically do anything they want with placement of students and mixing of programs? Phil was involved to some degree, right? Is there anyone overseeing the principals on these matters today? Are the attitudes any different?
- Is there anything we can do as a community to prevent this disaster from playing through to its completion? This is actually a question for others as well; I'm happy to gripe to administrators on behalf of others, especially because I don't have to take any fallout crap from a misguided principal like Chris.
What a disaster.
It's a "right" to have that? According to who? I think everybody can agree with safety. But "academically challenged" is both highly subjective and is nowhere specified as a right for anybody. "Floor of opportunity" is the actual right children have, according to courts. And Melissa, the court (not me) have already said specifically that you are not entitled a "Cadillac". I know you want one, it's simply not an entitlement because you want it. And no, we definitely aren't done with that conversation. Geeky girls are doing well is SPS, they aren't the ones falling through the cracks. Sitting with 6 people just like you, or 30 people just like you - isn't something we should even attempt to provide.
-just saying
Great and I'm posting this again but Anonymous, you must have a moniker to post here.
"Other school districts are able to provide these advanced learning/gifted/talented/honors/accelerated/nom-de-jour opportunities with far less sturm and drung than SPS. There are a variety of best practices out there."
Yup, it's a mystery.
Just sayin', YOU are calling APP and Spectrum a "Cadillac". Is that what the court said?
Every single child has the right to have their academic needs met. All of them.
"Sitting with 6 people just like you, or 30 people just like you - isn't something we should even attempt to provide."
Really? So why the anger over the make-up of APP? Advanced Learning has known for decades that many minority parents will simply not enroll their child because there is no other child or teacher that looks like them.
It no, it isn't actually anger, it's just another view point. Why are other NON-AL viewpoints always called "angry"?
-just saying
I agree with just saying
Spectrum Parent
your point is accurate also very utopian. What society will spend excessive resources on goods(student) that will only produce diminishing returns? The best and brightest, or at least brighter, are a very good investment for the future of all of us. The question is, in my mind, the dehumanization of the disabled student, or the elderly or mentally impaired; doesn't that degrade our culture more than anything? To talk about what a group deserves is irrelevant, we can all have cadillacs, a humane and caring environment that teaches kids both compassion and understanding of other types of people and academics to teach them how to manage and improve our world. we need advocates from all groups to work together and find the answers. put the SpEd parents who are pissed at the district with the AL parents who are pissed and some progressive teachers and principals and let them try out a program at a school. That what happens at elementary schools, or it could. if parents make a noise to their principal, get some staff who wants to try something new' it can happen.
For advanced learners an appropriate educational environment absolutely has to include accelerated curriculum, and has every time it has been litigated, mostly at the state level. I am a little shocked by philosophy being espoused here- do we actually consider education just a memorization of a collection of facts? That is actually where you think the law stands? Good heavens I am so glad you are wrong. Students who are sufficiently advanced have zero facts to learn within general education classrooms, is that just supposed to be it for them? Because they know the facts so are at "standard" they are just supposed to sit there all year? How could that not churn out a bunch of disaffected, underachieving, disengaged high school graduates? Aren't we trying to avoid that with all our milestones and strategic plans? Of course not- they have the right to learn SOMETHING at school. I have no desire for my children to be sitting "with children like them." I specifically do not send them to private school to avoid that fate. Except, of course, insofar as we as a nation group educate our children I prefer that the group be educated in a way that is helpful for that group. Which is going to mean a group with similar enough educational levels that they can benefit in some way from one curriculum. That's not complicated or malicious. It is just what we have to do since we don't have individual tutors for every single child.
-yes, it's true, students other than yours have rights
On the other end of the spectrum, there's a very well defined mechanism for students with disabilities for determining "appropriate" and "appropriate environment", (the IEP process) and a legislated mandate to provide that, under both IDEA and ADA. (and funds incidently at both the state and federal levels - beyond transportation).
Exactly right Spectrum Parent. Getting your child into a spectrum program constituted a less restrictive environment - because it isn't disproportionately disabled, like the non-Spectrum remainders. That's the point. Disproportionately disabled classes tend to become more challenging behaviorwise - because they are disproportionate. That disproportionality is inevitable when you increase segregation.
-just saying.
BB, I guess I just don't understand this viewpoint at all. Lots of the "bottom" performancewise are the best investment of all. Failure to educate them constitute the largest drain to the society. Why wouldn't you want to turn that around? Why would you want to continue investing in groups that have already benefitted? In that case, you only provide a marginal increase with more investment? Imagine the large percentage of jail-bound students we have now. Wouldn't turning that around be a good investment? Continuing to "benefit the well-benefitted" seems like the smaller return, if you have to quantify it and look at from an "investment" perspective.
-just saying
-I was there.
Spectrum Parent
Sure, it is, if that district takes federal money. Not for Spectrum, but most districts either have more differentiation than Seattle does or a program like Seattle's. But they don't have to. They just do because every iota of research on educational practices out there says unequivocally that children need to be grouped by ability sometimes, and occasionally, if not often, the district does use research based practices. Self contained programs is a philosophical way of delivering education (which is more generally defined as teaching learners how to learn and meeting children where they are- including, almost always- advanced learners- everywhere except NCLB).
But for the top 2.5% there are absolutely guidelines and strings on money that we receive, same as for special ed, though it is not nearly as well fleshed out as special ed. There is not a self contained requirement, of course, because districts provide advanced learning in as many different models as districts provide special education (some of which do better than others on both accounts. Don't worry- Seattle already does terribly on advanced learning compared to its peer cities.), but plenty of parents have sued and won because their child was denied a grade acceleration, for example, or denied access to gifted programs (and on educational grounds, not discrimination ones). An appropriate learning environment is one in which the student can progress, not maximize, but progress, which for some children is not a general education classroom. McCleary requires ample, not just adequate, funding for these programs, so even within our own state there's plenty of precedent and rights.
-yes, they do have rights
And your proof of that is...?
What a big and sweeping assumption you make here. Especially for those who, like one reader, struggle with a twice-gifted child.
-just saying
IMHO much too much is made of children's perceived rank and abilities instead of whether they are happy and learning at a pace that keeps them interested. Too much is also made about how the "other group" has it so much better, is privileged, or already has what they need, etc. Whether my need is for a plumber or a heart surgeon, I want the best educated one I can get.
And we didn't go APP because of the perceived better school. We were in a good school, but my kid was suffering in her class because she was bored, misunderstood, and had enough preK and family reading experience that it was either that, or grade-skip. Fortunately her 1st grade teacher informed us that APP might be good for her, and it was. She was happy again and felt like she belonged. About 50% of APP's kids are like that, btw, going the APP route for social/adjustment issues, versus academics.
What I'd really like to see is parents ably and creatively advocating for their own child without making sweeping generalizations about others' children. With all this talk about what's morally right and fair, there's a lot of tone deafness and willingness to impose suffering on other groups, as if that satisfies equity or fairness by somehow spreading the pain around. How exactly is that going to improve the lot for anyone?
The argument was made that Spectrum is supposedly free from burdens of other classrooms, so they are educated better. Isn't that an argument not against Spectrum, but rather of how ineffectively the education is being offered in the non-Spectrum classroom?
Are the ALO's serving kids as well as self-contained programs? Not even close.
It's easy to throw other groups under the bus, and it may call some attention to inequities, but I have never seen one child's educational opportunity improved by lessening that of another child elsewhere.
That philosophy also provides the district with an easy cop-out from its own responsibilities to the most needy and under-served groups. Don't fix anything, just blame it on another group, then wash their hands of it as if there's nothing they can do. Great.
WSDWG
You can still go ahead and hate it, or denigrate it, or call it a Cadillac or whatever, but, know this: APP and Spectrum both have a HIGHER rate of 504s than general ed, and, of the students in Seattle School District who have MAP scores at the 95th percentile for BOTH reading AND math, the majority of them with IEPs or 504 opt in to APP, compared to those who don't opt-in. In other words, AL is comparatively disproportionately representative of students with accomodations.
Just the facts. Now, if you still want to complain about that, go ahead. But, you are not speaking about reality when you say:
"the fact is that this type of segregation ALWAYS results in the illegal clustering of special education students together. When some classes have 0% (or close to 0%) disability rates, the remaining classes will be disproportionately disabled - and very often other classes are highly disproportionately disabled. Especially true when the number of minimally gifted population (ie... not very gifted as in Spectrum) reaches a high percentage at any given school..."
-just saying 2/23/13, 8:52 PM
It really is about meeting students' needs, all students, every single one. And, what they need is to learn. That is the primary duty of education: to educate. I expect our academic institutions, AKA schools, to do just that.
I am not trying to convince you, I am not trying to win an argument, just injecting some facts so that there is a level playing field of background information.
-bowing out
You say that gifted kids are already benefitting. What did you mean?
Classroom and library improvements, toilet room ADA upgrades, kitchen upgrades, general interior repairs and refurbishing, limited exterior repairs and painting, miscellaneous electrical, mechanical and plumbing upgrades. Work will take place in both the main building and the adjacent portable.
Complete plans and specifications can be found here.
--Future BF Day Dad.
(Bowing Out - 504 plans are not special education.)
-just saying
thanks
-query
Peter Maier was quoted as saying MGJ was an SI who was "finally going to do something about APP" whatever the hell that meant. But the fact that APP was "getting theirs too" enabled that board to look the Cooper and Summit folks in the face and say, "too bad, everybody is giving up their pound of flesh, even APP" to quash dissent.
Throwing people under the bus doesn't remedy your situation, but it does make it that much easier for the district to look you in the face and smile as they screw your child out of yet another need or opportunity, saying, "Everybody has to feel the pain. You said so yourself."
Think about it.
WSDWG
Now, it goes on to say that districts have leeway in how to identify students and how to design accelerated programs, but at the very least, it is codified into state law that in order for gifted kids to get a basic education, learning must be accelerated and enhanced.
Just saying may not like this or agree with it, but that's the current law.