Further thoughts on Highly Capable Policy

My thinking about the proposed Highly Capable policy 2190 has evolved.

At first I just wanted the Board to fix the obvious flaws in the policy. Clarify the "school-age" language and the language about "individual learning rates and styles", remove the superfluous second paragraph that isn't specific to highly capable students, and change the third paragraph so it requires the superintendent to submit a grant application rather than requiring the Board to approve it. Once fixed, the policy won't do any good, but at least it won't do any harm.

Then I thought that this policy, even when fixed, will, in fact, do harm. It will create the illusion that the topic has been addressed and stall the action that really needs to be taken. I believed that the Board should reject the proposed policy until the proper process has been followed. The Board needs to first articulate a Vision for all of Advanced Learning before drafting any policy to implement it. Then the Board should adopt a policy that speaks to all of Advanced Learning - not just APP. That's what I used to think.

Now I dread that possibility. I thought about what Vision the Board might have for Advanced Learning. Given the indisputable fact that the entire district leadership hates Advanced Learning - at all levels - and wants to dissolve it, perhaps it is better for the students if the Board does not articulate that Vision or write a policy to implement it. That has brought me full circle back to my original position - fix the obvious flaws in the policy and adopt it. The Board should not articulate their Vision for the dissolution of Advanced Learning.

Spare me any protests or claims that district leaders support advanced learning. They might say that, but where is there any evidence of this support? There is not a single action taken by anyone in the district leadership that demonstrates any support for the students or the programs at any level. Maybe you're thinking of the creation of APP @ Lincoln. Really? Does anyone want to suggest that the best thing the district leadership ever did for Advanced Learning was to stuff elementary APP into Lincoln with no notice at the end of the school year? Take a moment and consider whether any other school would have been subjected to that treatment. If View Ridge, Bryant, or Eckstein were over subscribed would they move half of it to John Marshall in June? Would they move half of Schmitz Park into the Hughes building over the summer? Please also remember that the District rejected a proposal to do exactly the same move as part of the normal program placement process just three months earlier.

Would the District toy with the idea of splitting a school with grades 1-3 in one building and grades 4-5 in another? Was this suggested for JSIS? Would the District consider creating a "6th grade academy" for students leaving any other elementary school? Would they consider putting rising 5th graders from Bryant at John Marshall as a solution for overcrowding at Eckstein?

The district leadership has:

• allowed the creation and continuation of false Spectrum programs
• allowed the dissolution of once legitimate Spectrum programs
• waitlisted students for access to half-full Spectrum programs
• allowed ALOs to be a fiction from the start
• subjected APP to almost intolerable instability
• broken every promise ever made to advanced learning students and communities
• no APP curriculum
• no higher math available after the split
• no collaboration among teachers between sites
• no advisory committee formed
• no program descriptions available
• placed programs inconveniently for students and families
• refused to form promised advisory committees
• dissolved existing advisory committees
• dropped advanced learning from the strategic plan
• used inappropriate eligibility criteria
• never responded to the APP audit
• kept the programs secret

No wonder there has never been any assessment of the quality or efficacy of these programs - they don't care about their quality or efficacy. Given their clear animosity it is probably better for the students served by these programs if the Board does not codify their intention to dismantle them or direct the superintendent to accelerate their dissolution. Of course, you would want the Board to codify that intention if you agree with the district leadership and think that the programs should be dissolved.