Advanced Learning Service Delivery Models
The District will appoint a Task Force this fall to answer the question:
What service delivery model should we use for Advanced Learning?
It's a question that can have only one answer. There can be only one answer because there is a bigger question that takes precedence:
Will we deliver service or not?
Students and families don't care if they get no service from a small group instruction model or whether they get no service from a "walk to" model. Either way they are getting no service.
We can't know what decisions the District will make about the future of advanced learning, but we do know that the actual service will have to be delivered in the schools, not in the JSCEE. We also know that no one in the JSCEE can - or will - guarantee the quality and efficacy of the service. In fact, they cannot even guarantee the existence of that service.
They never have guaranteed service delivery and they never will. Do they give any assurance of the quality or efficacy of ALOs or Spectrum? No, they do not. They don't even measure the quality or efficacy of these programs.
There is, however, one service delivery model that guarantees service: cohort. Ask anyone. Even when the instruction isn't there, the cohort will deliver value. over the years there have been dozens of classrooms where the instruction wasn't there, but the cohort made it work. So that's one service delivery model that assures families of service delivery.
What about the others? I think I can say that every other service delivery model assures families of no service. Sure, a teacher here or there will do it, or the service will be there for a while, but eventually that service will stop and it won't start again.
So we have one service delivery model that guarantees service and every other service delivery model that guarantees an end to service. Kinda makes the question easy to answer, doesn't it?
What service delivery model should we use for Advanced Learning?
It's a question that can have only one answer. There can be only one answer because there is a bigger question that takes precedence:
Will we deliver service or not?
Students and families don't care if they get no service from a small group instruction model or whether they get no service from a "walk to" model. Either way they are getting no service.
We can't know what decisions the District will make about the future of advanced learning, but we do know that the actual service will have to be delivered in the schools, not in the JSCEE. We also know that no one in the JSCEE can - or will - guarantee the quality and efficacy of the service. In fact, they cannot even guarantee the existence of that service.
They never have guaranteed service delivery and they never will. Do they give any assurance of the quality or efficacy of ALOs or Spectrum? No, they do not. They don't even measure the quality or efficacy of these programs.
There is, however, one service delivery model that guarantees service: cohort. Ask anyone. Even when the instruction isn't there, the cohort will deliver value. over the years there have been dozens of classrooms where the instruction wasn't there, but the cohort made it work. So that's one service delivery model that assures families of service delivery.
What about the others? I think I can say that every other service delivery model assures families of no service. Sure, a teacher here or there will do it, or the service will be there for a while, but eventually that service will stop and it won't start again.
So we have one service delivery model that guarantees service and every other service delivery model that guarantees an end to service. Kinda makes the question easy to answer, doesn't it?
Comments
-reader
Who might Charlie be avoiding in your dripping with sarcasm assessment?
Funny, though, Charlie isn't asking for more money or one way to serve these students and yet, first thing out the gate...
ALTF
And, happy Friday to you too.
-reader
What exactly are the problems with the cohort model?
I agree with you - hiring Ms. Brulles would be great. Did you know her district has self-contained gifted programs for preschool through eighth grade? And another self-contained program for twice-exceptional students? That she suggests cluster grouping be used only in cases where there are not enough students for a self-contained class? That her program employs:
Gifted Education Specialists at each elementary school
Gifted Cluster Teachers at each elementary school
Gifted Education Liaisons at each middle and high school
Self-contained Gifted Program Teachers at the elementary and middle school levels
Self-contained Teachers for the Uniquely Gifted Program at the elementary and middle school levels.
I think she would be a wonderful asset to us. I doubt that taking on an advanced learning program in Seattle would be an improvement on her current situation - given parents' attitudes toward the program.
Lynn
I'm all for dismantling APP and starting over.
Mutiny!
Easily solved for your kids - no?
Lynn
Like it's working at Wedgwood and Lawton?
If you believe that public schools are for the public, as in everyone regardless of skin color, background, or beliefs, you need to fight for that. Or these people who want to limit or dismantle public education will succeed.
Lefty, I like your idea about Brulles. Hmm.
Okay, Starting Over, any thoughts on what that would look like?
If we did cluster grouping a la Brulles, I would be fine with it but Cronas over at Wedgwood does not. In fact, I find him to be one of the more disingenuous staff in this district (and I predict he becomes headquarters staff at some point, probably Ex Dir).
"No More Elitism" is obviously a troll. APP is certainly not a good fit for every last kid who qualifies, but no one with two kids in APP would ever write something like that, the language gives it away. Not really worth responding; sometimes I wish posts like that were deleted.
As for parents, we made some good friends, others were less interested in meeting new people. That doesn't surprise me-any group that's been together for a long time isn't always going to welcome and accept everyone.
I wouldn't want APP dismantled, but just because someone had a bad experience, I wouldn't call them a troll. If everyone loved it, there would be a 100% retention rate, and that isn't the case.
Righty
Boston Public Schools seem to offer Advanced Work Classes for 4,5,6th graders only in certain schools. As far as I can see, that is it. I could definitely be missing something. From a quick read, it looks like Brookline Public Schools seem not to identify "gifted" students at all and do all enrichment in regular classrooms.
You can play with NAEP scores here if you wonder why I picked Massachusetts. I just thought Massachusetts and went looking. I'm honestly surprised they do so little. (And as I said, I could be missing something.)
There are only 7,112 students enrolled in Brookline Public Schools. Diana Brulles's district has 33,000 students and provides all of the services I listed above. I don't think we'd even need to hire her - just print out their gifted education department information and hire someone to implement it. Oh - and reassign principals at school with gifted programs who are not on board.
Lynn
L
Just because someone has a viewpoint that is different from yours doesn't mean it's not true.
I welcome different viewpoints, and I wouldn't dream of calling you a troll for having a different experience. I believe your tale (although I don't believe it's typical from all the tales I've heard and seen over the years). APP is not a perfect fit for all kids, and separately, some kids just take more time to acclimate socially.
However, read No More's post again and see the kind of charged language used, and nothing but "dismantle APP" for a "solution" (which you obviously didn't advocate). It reeks of troll; if I was forced to guess, I'd say they're not even an APP parent.
How many years has your child been in APP, and has it improved? I hope so! I can't think of any group or program, school-related or otherwise, that has a 100% retention, but APP is awfully high.
Also, as for making friends, remember that many parents of these unusual kids are cut from the same cloth, i.e. not highly socialized, or rather, "differently socialized". Perhaps it's best I leave it at that! ;-)
-sleeper
Yes - the Paradise Valley Unified School District's self-contained programs would only serve our current APP students. They require scores at the 97th% or higher in two of three areas (verbal, quantitative and nonverbal) on one of a list of state-approved tests - or an IQ of 140. I can't access their state website right now - but one of those tests is the CogAT. You also need to demonstrate accelerated learning needs that are two years beyond grade level. It is true that their individual program sites look small - but given our population, we could have programs with more than one class per grade.
The best thing about their programs is that they have a curriculum - and it looks like a great one.
What do Spectrum parents want for their kids? Whatever it is, it needs to be offered at every school. If 30% of students in a neighborhood qualify, we should be able to meet their needs close to home. In some areas, only the students already attending a Spectrum school can get into the program. If - for example you live in Gatewood's attendance area, your Spectrum kid is out of luck.
Isn't the solution for the district to accept responsibility for ensuring every child makes academic progress every year? To do that, we need to reduce class sizes and bring in reading and math tutors for kids who need them. If we don't do this, kids who are ready to move ahead will continue to wait for their turn to learn.
Lynn
BTW, a method to reduce students in APP is to slightly shift the age component of the CogAT, so if a 9 year old takes the test 6 months is added to her age making her 9 1/2 on paper and needing a higher score to qualify.
L
The self-contained delivery model didn't work well for their child, or for them, or for someone else they know, therefore that delivery model should be ended.
People with APP- and Spectrum-eligible children are not required to enroll their children in the program. If it doesn't work for you or if you are opposed to it, then you don't have to choose it. But I don't understand why that choice should be taken away from all of the families that find it effective.
Is the cohort model the only delivery model that assures students of service? Do you believe that the District can or will assure students will be served in any other delivery model?
If there can be no assurance of service in any other delivery model, then doesn't that eliminate the need for any discussion and limit the selection to the cohort model?
Agree or disagree?
Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right: Sacrificing the Needs of Gifted Students Does Not Solve Society's Unsolved Problems
Written 10 years ago, but timely nonetheless.
fyi
Wow,DJ, sounds like ALO in your child's classroom was a disaster. I fear that would be the case district-wide if the whole system moves toward more of an ALO approach.
These are all cohort models. It means that the students' classrooms are disproportionately populated with their intellectual peers.
dj's ALO experience is a perfect example of the concern with any delivery model other than cohort: it depends on the teacher to actually provide the instruction. That's not dependable.
Actually, it is dependable. You can depend on the inevitability that it will fail.
Unless the District can come up with some kind of effective guarantee. I'm not aware of any promise they could make that anyone would or could believe.
Since you asked, I would assume anything other than the cohort model would be equivalent to no services at all. I wish the district would put together an appropriate curriculum for APP elementary and middle school too - but I'm not holding my breath.
Lynn
Thanks for the linked article! Such a well-reasoned response to so many questions we see here over and over again.
Lynn
I don't see this as assuring service. They offered a program, if your student didn't fit, too bad. No flexibility. Just like many APP parents complain about in their neighborhood schools.
I would like to see more interest in meeting student academic needs & less emphasis on a standard program.
- Not enamored
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know!:
Because, as Sam Rayburn said, Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.
If it works in SPS, then it's Elitist!
WSDWG
Is your child still in SPS? I'd like to know what others do when private school isn't an option financially, and APP isn't serving a student's needs. What is working for families? There's a limit to what we can do at home.
-advice welcome
Again, even if the instruction isn't there, the cohort can help, and two grade levels ahead is still better than not two grade levels ahead.
We keep hearing that differentiation is hard - if not impossible. That's true in the industrial-style instructional delivery system traditionally used in schools. There are, however, other instructional strategies that are more accommodating to differentiation. Project Based Learning, which I'm told is employed at Thurgood Marshall, allows for differentiation much more easily than the traditional instructional style.
Lynn
The remaining students who are not gifted but are currently in APP and Spectrum need be taught at their instruction levels. The district needs to implement a strong PD program to help make this happen.
Also, since the demographics have changed with the neighborhood schools, more students will be with their peers anyway (a double edged sword, in other ways).
BTW, WSDWG: There have been many historical precedents where a group of people have been very happy with their share of the pie, even though the system was not ethical. Unjustifiable segregation, based mainly on race and family income, is one of these cases.
Gifted students should be placed in an appropriate setting. Public schools have certain basic values that do not include putting well prepared students who are not gifted into a special school or classroom all day.
--enough already
If it's former (or really should still be?) Spectrum kids you're pointing at, then I'm not sure how you justify "segration" for truly "gifted" kids, but not those who qualify and enter the program, but aren't truly "gifted" in your mind, or by some other measure.
History has also shown that too many APP kids could not be served in traditional classrooms, and very recent history - and parents voting with their feet - indicates that many folks don't feel cluster grouping of Spectrum kids works as well as self-containment did at Lawton and Wedgewood, for example, where many former Spectrum families left for APP or private schools. Do their wants and needs not count for anything?
It's easy to use loaded terms like "segregation" to malign people who are just trying to do right by their kids, and who deserve an appropriate education for them. But to call it "unjustifiable" is even more loaded.
Show me the proof that total inclusion in one classroom works best for all kids, and my eyes and ears will be wide open. But it didn't work before, which is why and how we wound up with self-contained classrooms in the first place.
If you don't like the idea of "segregation" by ability grouping, fine. But kids experience that in every aspect of their lives, from sports, to scouts, to grades in school. Why is AGE "segregation" okay, but ABILITY or capability "segregation" inherently wrong? Is cluster grouping not segregation in itself, btw? Will those clustered not be seen as "the smarter" kids in the class?
It's a huge can of worms, but I'd like to hear about the "certain basic values" you're referring to.
WSDWG
I am also interested in what people see as a minimum effective cohort size for an individual child. I believe I have see it said here (by Charlie?) that a cohort must have two full classrooms per grade level (so 50-60 kids). In my limited experience (two data points over nine years each) a cohort size of about six per classroom combined with experienced teachers with a project based style can be effective. Though it can be undermined easily by the District (aligned curriculum, Discovery math).
Of course I can imagine it depends on the kid. I guess some kids will sink to whatever the lowest common denominator is, and some kids will rise. Is that why an effective cohort may have to be a complete classroom? I'm honestly asking. My kid #1 was very peer dependent, but six was enough. Kid #2 was more self directed. They had classmates who probably could have been academic peers, but chose to focus on relationships with other kids in the class, so probably didn't meet their full academic potential (though they seemed to benefit socially and were often class leaders.)
Or is a classroom size cohort necessary because we don't trust teachers or the District? So little of K-5 instruction requires teachers to lecture to all the kids at once these days. So much classroom work is done in small groups or individually, that it's not clear to me why all 25-30 kids have to be on the same page at any given time. (Different in High School of course.) Is the large cohort necessary so there are enough parents to pressure the admin to meet their kids' needs?
Part of my concern with self contained APP is that it skims off 12 % of the kids so leaves no peer group for the ones (1st-12%) left behind and nothing for the 13th percentile to aspire to. I don't think the current system is so perfect that it couldn't be tweaked to provide a chance for all kids to have a motivated peer group. If only 2-5% of the kids were being skimmed, I wouldn't worry so much, but 12% is a significant chunk of motivated kids to remove. (And please don't say that I want to trash your kid's education for some nebulous (and, you'll say, disputable) positive impact on the other 88%. We are comparing possible delivery models. What are the system wide pros and cons? Why is the current system preferable to other models?)
We talked to our local elementary about it. They basically cobbled together different learning opportunities every year. Sometimes it was volunteer tutors or independent work or special projects with the librarian or walking to another teacher who was doing a unit that was appropriate. We usually had teachers who put together special materials & sought out learning opportunities. Often my child learned from the gen ed material like a unit on civil rights poetry or public speaking. I would say that my child was learning academically 50% of the time that the class spent on academics. Better than what APP offered us. She did most of her learning outside of school on her own just pursuing things she was interested in. We did not do workbooks or courses of any kind.
Middle school & high school were much less flexible. At middle school they offered appropriate math through independent study in class with teacher support. And of course, electives that were challenging & fun. That is 3 classes out of six but it seemed like less learning, so we added some online coursework in those years. High school allowed online coursework & running start, & electives were again the most engaging. Being able to test out of required classes would have helped a lot. I don't understand why they don't allow that.
If we had home schooled, it would have been much more academically appropriate, a completely individualized curriculum. The main reason for my child to attend school was to gain social skills, to be able to work with & communicate with different kinds of people. Working on projects with ELL kids & sped kids & gen ed kids as well as other advanced learners was the most valuable learning experience that my child had at school.
So not perfect, but better than nothing.
-not enamored
From the Supreme Court's ruling on Brown v. Board of Education:
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0347_0483_ZO.html
These are the values I am referring to.
--enough already
Could you answer a few questions for me too? I'd like to understand where you're coming from.
1. What professional qualifications do you have to identify gifted children?
2. What data are you using to identify children (other than your own) as gifted or not gifted?
3. Do you have a child enrolled in APP? Or eligible but not enrolled?
4. If you do not have a child enrolled in APP, how do you believe students currently in self-contained APP classes could improve your child's educational experience if they were returned to your neighborhood school?
5. How do you believe returning APP students to neighborhood schools would improve their educational experience?
6. If you have a child in APP, why did you enroll them in the program?
7. Do you believe the district spends more of it's money on APP students than non-APP students?
8. Where does your child attend school? (I would like to tell you if you've made the correct choice.)
9. I would love to enroll my child in a language immersion elementary school - but there is no opportunity for that in our attendance area. Do you think we should shut down our immersion programs?
10. One of my children plays a musical instrument but is actually not very talented. Do you think his school should rearrange it's musical program so that each group has a cluster of very talented musicians who can be good examples/leaders to the others?
11. Is there something your school could do differently that would improve your child's exerience? If it does not require moving someone else's children - I'll bet there are people here who would help you advocate for that change.
I'm eager to hear your responses.
Lynn
I'd hoped for more sincerity in your responses, than to label everyone in APP as racist segregationists. But if that's how you see it, then that's that.
WSDWG
Let us remember that 12% is one middle school, where we'd geographically expect an outlier population. The other is 6%. Elementary is lower.
It also allows the 13th percent to be leaders(why do they need kids above them to aspire to? Do APP kids need that? If so, cohorting them is just about the only way to get it for them, right? Since they'll all be ahead of the kids in their gen ed class in everything, but more likely to have other kids better in some subjects when they are put together?), when otherwise they're shouted down a lot. That is one of Brulles' big insights with that cluster model.
I have a lot to say about cohorts in classes(my kids also go to a project based school), which mostly is that I hear and believe it worked quite well for many APP kids several years ago, before class sizes ballooned and resources were quite so strapped. It also worked quite well for one of my children for several years(until it didn't, if that makes sense), having a little to do with her, but mostly to do with classroom dynamics and way above average teacher skill. It worked not at all-not one bit-for another one. Works great for my solidly gen ed kid, who has a few areas of strength.
-sleeper
Reader
befuddled
I suspect that "true Brulles style cluster grouping" would be a legitimate form of cluster grouping. But who is going to police it?
I think that flipped classrooms and computer based acceleration are among the organizational strategies that facilitate differentiated instruction, but they don't guarantee it. What assurances would come with those structures?
It is district officials who have said that a cohort must have two full classrooms per grade level (so 50-60 kids), but the strong elementary Spectrum programs have only one class per grade. District officials say that at middle school it takes three or four classes per grade to form the needed critical mass.
I think we all acknowledge that there are structures, instructional strategies, and individual teachers who are capable of providing an appropriate academic opportunity for advanced learners outside of a self-contained classroom. What also needs to be acknowledged is how fragile and ephemeral those situations are and how the District cannot assure the quality or efficacy of these situations.
So, yes, the classroom size cohort is necessary because we don't trust teachers or the District.
It's not just lecture. Listen to the experiences of APP families. The Standards-based classroom puts a ceiling on student achievement in the name of horizontal and vertical alignment.
It's not political, but that can become an issue.
If self contained APP skimmed off 2 % of the kids and left no peer group for the ones (1st-2%) left behind and nothing for the 3rd percentile to aspire to, would that be okay?
I agree that the current system is not so perfect that it couldn't be tweaked to provide a chance for all kids to have a motivated peer group. The District is free to set the eligibility criteria for APP and Spectrum however they like.
Let's face it. The District is also free to assure appropriate academic opportunities for advanced learners in general education classrooms, but they haven't. That's the biggest system-wide con. That's why the current system is preferable to other models.
Presented with a situation in the the people who really have all of the power and really control everything won't do the one thing that they should do, advocates for advanced learners have to find a safe island in the flood. Self-contained is that island.
It has benefits over testing in that there is a lot more data, so a bad day doesn't skew results, and it's easier to spot patterns and address them. The downside, of course, is privacy. This stuff is coming. Parents, students, teachers and the community need to have a discussion about where the balance should be.
I'm sure all the teachers out there appreciate this comment. Sounds like Michelle Rhee on steroids.
--enough already
A computer-based test to determine progress? Or would the students who were prepared to move ahead be working independently on the computer? I think that kind of system is only justified if the district can't pull together more than one or two advanced students. Otherwise, they deserve to be taught be a teacher.
Lynn
I'll be honest here. I'm drawn to such systems because they fit my own learning style very well. My best educational experience was in an experimental self-paced school in the 70's. Without the technology, self-paced teaching requires lower ratios, as teachers need to help students one on one, rather than in groups. Montessori is also self-paced, though I believe there is more group teaching in sps Montessori classrooms than in many. I don't know if there is peer reviewed research on the effectiveness of blended learning and flipped classrooms.
I suspect part of the reason software people like them is that they have similar learning styles to mine, and were frustrated with lack of acceleration and deepening opportunities in their own educations. Anecdotally, that's true of a lot of the people I work with and know socially. The trick with these systems is to figure out how to get the "I love my teacher" aspect that's so important in elementary, and maybe less important in the learning style of kids like me who ended up in software than it is for some other kids.
But, my original point... These systems, if designed well, can facilitate acceleration, deepening, and branching into new subject matter. They can also measure how much that happens, at a student, classroom, school and district level. Maybe this can help get more kids theses opportunities. I, like any other data, could also be misused if the system is not designed well.
Maybe those kids, the hard to teach, will be clustered in classrooms with the gifted and high achievers.
Eldon
Equity within the school for kids who are not in advanced learning programs? They already have access to classrooms set up just for them - evey non-AL classroom is designed for general ed students.
Why is this the perfect time to revamp Advanced Learning? And what changes would you like to see? And what would be the benefit of those changes?
Lynn
I can see the appeal of that kind of an environment for some kids. I also attended a school during that period where the work was all self-paced. It was the least painful part of my early education.
I would have much preferred to have a classroom full of kids working at about the same pace as me. I think that would have been very helpful in improving my social skills too.
I think what you're describing would be great for some kids. It would make an interesting option school - but I woudn't want it to be the only way to access acceleration.
Lynn
Eleven "Steve Jobs schools" will open this fall in the Netherlands
Not even sure what to make of this. It seems like it could allow some atypical kids to thrive, but somehow I see "Fail" written all over this if it were to be implemented on any kind of wide scale.
I do see the possibility that systems like this could work well in specific areas, like math, where there is a well-defined path of topics to work through and master. I don't see it working nearly as well in social studies (the conversations with teachers and among peers need to be fluid and shared), and not very well at all in writing.
Also, when you say that the "data could also be misused if the system is not designed well", I'll slightly modify that to the "data will eventually be misused if the system is not designed well". In fact, I'll say that any large-scale data that can be tracked down to individual students is extremely likely to be misused no matter how it's designed. The only way to prevent abuse is to never let the data be distributed beyond the individual school or district data systems, and to attach "kill dates" when the data is automatically and irrecoverably destroyed.
"They already have access to classrooms set up just for them - evey non-AL classroom is designed for general ed students."
"they" have classrooms filled with everybody who isn't gifted, i.e., every kid under 90% percentile who can operate outside of a selfcontained program. Maybe a range of 5 percentile thru 90. I hope my kid isn't in there. He is at about 88 percentile and will be the one who "doesn't need any attention because he'll do just fine". And the teacher needs to help boost up those under 50 percentile to close the "gap". Sucks for my kid, but, hey, those gifted kids are going to run the planet and deserve extra care and feeding. I can't remember, is that fascism or communism or meritocracy? Will those 10%ers see the rest of us as fully human?
Eldon
uneven
I apologize - I assumed that you were one of the many posters whose only plan is to dissolve self-contained APP classrooms. At the 88th percentile, your child qualifies for Spectrum. If you are at a school with self-contained Spectrum, and didn't test in early enough to get a place in that classroom, I feel for you. A general ed classroom in that school is probably not a good fit for your kid.
What would you like to see changed in advanced learning? If you could have a Spectrum designation for math or language arts only, would that help? If students were guaranteed an advanced class? If Spectrum isn't self-contained, we could set up a system like that without CogAT testing. (Placement could be based on performance in each subject in the prior year/trimester/quarter.)
Lynn
I think Lynn's idea of a Spectrum for one subject type alone would have been ideal for him and others like him. I would not have wanted self-contained though. His best friends were always kids with adventure in their hearts, regardless of ability in school.
Sad Mom
Eldon
Dear Eldon,
If you act fully human, and treat them as fully human; I expect that they will see you as fully human.
Prudie
I don't doubt anyone's humanity or willingness to see it in others, I'm afraid that sell contained classrooms create an environment where kids are prevented from interacting on a daily basis in school with kids outside the cohort. And of course it works both ways, the non-gifted "regulars" view the self contained classrooms as being populated by snobby smart kids. It's a two way street where nobody gets out of their car to talk to each other. The needs of the gifted should be as important as any other students and if self contained is the only way to meet them and all parties are willing to deal with any and all consequences, then we should do it that way. However, I would suggest that we try to compromise and give cluster grouping a chance. In fact, the AL dept. was supposed to be following the performance of kids who switched from self contained to clustering. Where is that data?
Eldon
The district isn't doing actual cluster grouping anywhere. Any data they come up with would be a comparison between self-contained Spectrum and Spectrum-eligible students who were evenly dispersed through general education classrooms. So - a comparison of services and no services.
This is why parents are skeptical of any suggestion of reconfiguring AL programs.
Lynn
We already have the compromise you seek. Families that want self-contained have it and those who want inclusion have that. Self-contained Spectrum exists in only a very few schools.
So you have what you wanted. Please stop asking for more.
Eldon
Effective cluster grouping seems to be quite a bit more expensive than our current system. Paradise Valley's gifted program employs the following personnel:
Gifted Education Specialists at each elementary school
Gifted Cluster Teachers at each elementary school
Gifted Education Liaisons at each middle and high school
Self-contained Gifted Program Teachers at the elementary and middle school levels
Self-contained Teachers for the Uniquely Gifted Program at the elementary and middle school levels
Honors, Advanced Placement, & International Baccalaureate Teachers, K-12
Administrative Assistant
Gifted Testing Technicians
You must realize that there is no way our district will spend extra money to educate the kids in an "elitist" gifted program. Any changes they make will be to remove services - not to replace them. Currently, they're talking about adding new elementary Spectrum programs for the Meany and Wilson Pacific attendance areas and expanding ALOs.
What do you think your school could do differently next year to challenge your child?
Lynn
Eldon,
1) What on earth would lead you to believe that any kind of cluster-grouping-in-name-only that our district is doing would be "effective"? Quite the opposite has been happening, and absolutely nothing the district has done in this area would lead any sane person to have these expectations.
2) Why should we embrace it when there's a better solution available?
3) "it's coming." Are you privy to inside information? Or just guessing based on circumstances?
I think so. (Although 2% is a somewhat arbitrary cut point). I'm thinking about the shape of the tail of the distribution. From what I understand, 2% is way out there and each individual child who is on that part of the tail could be very isolated. Once you get down below 2% (and certainly once you get to 12%) the tail is much 'taller' and those kids have more company on that part of the distribution. Once you start factoring in kids who tested in at different ages and through multiple chances, the error bar around the 12th to (say) 3rd percentile is probably big enough that those kids would have peers in almost any school (or certainly within a MS service area). The ones at the absolute top won't have academic peers anywhere, so need a very different sort of advanced learning model.
I'm with Techymom on the programmed learning thing--I loved that model (had some version from about 4th-8th) and think it could be much better now with technology given proper teacher training and support. (Especially in math and reading, but even in social studies and science, technology could provide more depth of information and more complicated questions to answer.) It seems to me that if the random teachers in my small town Catholic school could handle it, the Seattle teachers could too. Is QA Elementary doing anything like this?
Parent
The only caveat is from what I've read about middle schools, nationally schools don't serve this population well overall. Students can stumble a bit here resulting in MS academics taking a hit. So if you have a large cohort such as APP with very engaged, focused parents, these students may have better academics outcome.
curious
Yet, once again, the APP critics rejoice in any such finding, as a reason to say, "see, see, see how unfair/broken/inequitable/etc., etc." APP is!!" One area of lesser scores between groups that include 100% APP eligible kids is a reason to "abolish" an entire special needs program?
What's completely missed, once again, by APP critics, is that, as a special needs program, most kids in APP simply didn't function in the typical classroom environment, and for a variety of reasons, needed to switch cohorts. To the many kids in the top 2% who do fine in their neighborhood schools, good for them, as they do fine without needing a different cohort. That is not the case, however, for hundreds of APP's students who can give unending testimony of the challenges and failures they went through for years, before entering APP.
As a special needs program, APP is not all about performance and high marks that its critics imply are unfairly gained at someone else's expense. It's called a "special needs" program for a reason.
Perhaps its the case that, without APP for a large portion of it's students, those kids would be in deep trouble in their neighborhood schools, or driving their parents into poverty to get their needs met at a private school. I don't see how that would be helpful for the SPS community in the long run.
WSDWG
WSDWG - I couldn't agree more. I read comments by critics of APP and think they don't know my kids. Nobody is missing them in their neighborhood school classrooms. My oldest was a friendless, depressed bundle of anxiety before we moved him to APP. He was not improving the educational environment for anyone. The peer group improved his life in a way nothing else could.
His test scores were the least of our troubles - they were high enough to begin with - and that was in spite of rather than due to his early educational experiences.
Lynn
I can see why you would be annoyed by parent's comment:
If self containment doesn't yield significantly different academic results as measured by higher test scores for participants vs eligible nonpartcipants it should be abolished.
As you point out, there are nonacademic and/or unmeasured reasons for APP to exist. But don't you think it is kind of strange that unenrolled high testers do at least as well in reading as enrolled APP students overall? I understand that the ones whose schools are working for them are more likely to stay, but still...two years acceleration plus a population self selected to value APP and no significant positive difference in reading OR math scores? Could that imply that neighborhood schools have developed curricula that better address the needs of advanced learners than two years of acceleration (what ever that means in reading)? Should we look into that?
Go to page 16 of the report to read the concern:
Analysis of data on student achievement on the WASL indicates that both students in APP and those eligible for APP, but choosing not to participate, is very high relative to overall SPS performance. However, an ANOVA comparing APP eligible but not
attending versus APP eligible and also attending that compares the groups’ mean scale scores on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning is discouraging. The
ANOVA reveals APP eligible but not attending Lowell or Washington had
significantly higher WASL reading scores than the APP group who attended Lowell and Washington. There was no significant difference between groups on the math scale scores. Reasons for this discrepancy are unknown but cause for concern. It would be expected that an advanced curriculum would result in higher scores. Perhaps the curriculum of the APP program fails to address the standards measured by WASL fully or at least as directly or fully as the general education curriculum. It is possible that the students at Lowell and Washington do not take the test as
seriously. This difference, in any case, is cause for concern and suggestive of need to re-examine curriculum.
I'm not personally concerned about the reading scores. I believe they looked at scores for just one year - so were measuring reading skills on one day. It looks like a year ago APP students at TM and Lincoln were 99% and 100% proficient on the state reading test.
Lynn
What it may also imply is that many others who resent APP can find many examples of others who do just fine without it. So, why the resentment toward others?
WSDWG
Eldon
What does your child need? Brulles-style cluster grouping would put more Spectrum kids back in his or her classroom. Would that help? APP kids and Spectrum kids would not be placed in the same room - so how would dissolving APP affect you?
If all the kids in self-contained Spectrum classrooms were returned to their neighborhood schools - how could we ensure their teachers will differentiate instruction for them?
I feel for you. Can we work together on a realistic solution? My kids will not be returning to a general ed classroom. I think the disproportionate number of APP students in the north end is proof that we're not the only family in SPS only for APP.
Lynn
The legacy of APP is one of parents finding a safe and rigorous path for kids who otherwise languished at lackluster neighborhood schools. The district needs to convince parents that their kids will not just do as well, but do better staying closer to home. So far, parents in APP are far from convinced and the wagons are circling. Sue Peters is their great white hope. I am very curious what her thoughts are on this issue.
Eldon
If that's so, perhaps there should be another special designation-highly gifted kids who also have special non-academic needs over and above being in a classroom with other bright children.
I'm not really up on this-is APP actually designated as a program for gifted AND social/emotional/other special needs? I don't mean 2e-that doesn't seem to fit what you're saying.
If that's the case, it should be very clearly stated in all district literature as some kids, no matter how bright they are, wouldn't need it. If it is NOT, but such a program is NEEDED, then perhaps that's the answer-split APP into a gifted but typical cohort and gifted but special needs cohort. Or am I misunderstanding you?
My ex, for example, is highly gifted. Had he grown up in Seattle, he most certainly would have qualified for APP. He also found out only recently that he has Asberger's. The special needs cohort would have suited him as well. My current husband is also tested as gifted but has always been able to adapt in "gen ed" classrooms and work with "typical" people. My ex prefers to surround himself with others like him. School was a special kind of hell for him. Using these two as an example, I can surely see the need for more than one kind of highly capable program.
Call me Confused
mud
Confused
One of the four guiding principles of the program is "Support student social/emotional development as well as academic development."
So, if the district is correct and these children require the program to achieve educational benefit, what are the possible negative repercussions if we do not provide it? Some become lazy. What is the point of working really hard on something you can already do? Some develop the superior attitude people are always afraid APP will give them. Moving from a situation where you're the one who always knows the answer to a classroom where everyone is as smart as you cures this. Some become perfectionists. If you have no experience with working on things that are hard, failure can be terrifying. I have seen all of these in my house.
The point is that these kids are learning in their APP classrooms, and the district and their parents believe that is the best place for them. They all need it for educational reasons. Some of them suffer more from not having their educational needs met than others.
I really do not understand why so many of you are so invested in shrinking/dissolving/canceling a program that meets someone else's needs.
If you don't want your kids in a self contained class - don't put them there.
Lynn
The AL website has a link to Resources for Gifted Students. I recommend checking out the National Association for Gifted Children and Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted if you'd like to learn more.
Lynn
And my 50 percentile, exactly average kid needs a cohort of 5 percentile points on either side to maximize his academic success. Where is his self contained classroom? Yes Lynn, I want self contained and a cohort year after year but I can't get it.
Eldon
In fact,ability grouping at all levels is supported by research. also research show teaching all kids as gifted produces favorable results. Gifted kids deserve as much as anybody else and as I have said, if they can only do well in self contained, they should get it. And that reddest of herrings about if I don't like it, don't do it, well Lynn, WSDWG et al., it seems that the public part of public school wanders from your minds at times. We are all in this together and we all want the best for all kids and all our society. and if you don't like that, then get the hell out of public school.
Eldon
Eldon
Now you're just being obtuse. Kids at the outer edge of the bell curve think and learn differently than those near the middle. We can debate where cutoffs might be best set to meet the needs of highly gifted kids while maintaining a robust cohort, but you don't seriously think that your 50%-ile kid has significantly different needs from a peer at the 40 or 60 %-ile, do you?
Prudie
mud
mud
"if she just needs harder work to stay challenged, she should get it in a mixed class like everybody else. Differentiation is doable and it is equitable."
No. It isn't doable. That's the point. It may be "doable" in theory, but not in practice.
When the District demonstrates that differentiation is real and reliable, then we can have this conversation. We're a long way from there. A long way.
Right now, we have a majority of teachers who adamantly REFUSE to differentiate in their classrooms to accommodate the needs of advanced learners. Their focus is on bringing all students up to the standards, not on supporting students working beyond the standards.
"dissolving APP is not the goal, saving it for those who truly need it, is."
Since differentiation is not doable, the number of students who "truly need it" goes way, way up. It's 6% of the middle school students in the south-end and 12% of the middle school students in the north-end.
Before the bridges were built across Lake Washington, there was a ferry. The bridges are clearly better. I'm all for building a bridge, but let's keep the ferry service running until the bridge is built. Otherwise you'll have people driving off the end of a half-built bridge.
I may be missing some smaller single posts but from the amount of energy (at least words typed) put into the current system's defense here it sounds to me like current APP families think that the optimal Delivery Model is a self contained cohort that works towards (say by 4th grade) teaching the standard district curriculum accelerated by two years. The cohort is chosen by a combination of MAP/Cogat (or similar private testing.) The model is provided at the most at two K-5 and two 6-8 schools in the city and entry before 8th grade ensures enrollment at one of two cohort based HS models. Correct?
People who didn't choose to enroll their kids in that current model (or withdrew them) think some version of differentiation, classroom by classroom (perhaps with a cluster model?) would be better. Correct?
Personally, I think some version of what I think of as IPP should be available for kids who are way out there. They would be transported to a single centrally located school (close to a HS and a college) K-8 and provided with teachers that serve as guides for self study in different subject areas. (Nova ish? or like home schooling?) Technology would be utilized to make sure they all advanced at their own rate. Age groupings would be irrelevant. The model would be so out there, that only the kids who really 'need it' would enroll. I'm not sure testing would even be necessary (except maybe to get state funding for transportation?)
I have to think harder about what I think the model should be for more run of the mill advanced learners. But I think there should be an opt in element and that it should be offered more widely than APP currently is. Students would be welcome to move back and forth between IPP and the other advanced learner centers at any time. IPP students could participate in activities and sports at those schools as well.
IPP served 75 children in it's early years. I think for those kids who are in the 99.9th percentile, this sounds like a lovely solution. APP is no more able to meet their needs than our neighborhood schools are prepared to meet the needs of the other 2,000 or so children in APP.
I don't think the current delivery method is perfect. There should be more differentiation in the classroom for the wide range of abilities. There should be an actual curriculum chosen to meet the particular needs of these kids.
I think the cohort sizes suggested by the district would be appropriate. If we had a curriculum and teachers and administrators who chose to work in the program - and supported it - and were encouraged to work together, we would be more comfortable with splitting up into three sites per level and eventually four.
I'm curious to hear what someone with kids in Spectrum would like to see for their progam.
Lynn
I don't think APP should be just two years ahead. I think it should be 2-5 or more, start at 2(which is why I think there should be some achievement testing to get in) and be able to differentiate up. But this requires fewer sites for the program (so that my kid who needs more like 5 years acceleration has learning group peers), and a stronger set of Spectrum programs for kids up to 2 years ahead in neighborhood clusters. And hopefully standard walk to math and reading, and clusters for peer writing projects after second or third grade, while I'm dreaming.
I would also like to hear from Spectrum parents.
-sleeper
The social/emotional component of the program is required because many of the HC kids shoulder far more concern about the world around them than the average kids, leading to perfectionism, depression, anxiety, stress, and a host of other complicating factors that come with a kid who can read and understand the A and B sections of the newspaper, but not put in in perspective like adults can, due to the wisdom of experience that comes with years of living these kids haven't had yet.
Some HC kids can and will succeed anywhere, and don't go the APP route because they don't have to. Most APP kids have run out of options and its a god-send for parents who've had misdiagnosed and mislabeled "problem kids" in their regular classrooms.
Now, with the change of the Spectrum delivery models to apparent faux cluster grouping, APP has swelled far beyond where it would have been, I think, with essentially displaced, former self-contained Spectrum kids from other schools. I'd like to see if and how cluster grouping is working at Lawton and Wedgewood with the Spectrum kids, but the majority of the feedback I've gotten is resoundingly negative.
If you have two kids who are average or above average, their needs should be met in a regular classroom. For your 88% child, if the district was doing what it promised, he or she would have a Spectrum school in your area as an option, or ALO's within his or her own school to ensure your child is properly challenged and thriving.
As it appears that is not happening for your family, the fault is not on APP or self-containment, but with the offerings, or lack of appropriate "differentiation" in your classroom, which, ironically, is what your arguments depend upon.
If differentiation works so well, what's the problem?
I don't understand the animosity or charges of entitlement toward others who are happy in their schools or programs. Must everyone be displeased and miserable for public schools to be truly public? Or can we not just insist on better functioning schools district-wide?
WSDWG
The bottom line is this IMO,
Does the APP program currently have any adverse affect on students in SDS whether in or out of the program?
I think the deal breaker is the increased concentration of hard goo teach kids, and the range of abilities in the schools after APP kids leave. 12% leave northend middle schools for APP, leaving remaining 88% with increased percentage of kids below grade level, sped, ell, etc.
as far as Charlie's analogy, yes something effective should be in place before shrinking APP and I believe that is what some of talk about here a lot. Walk to math, walk to reading and writing, cluster grouping. It is being tried, but how can it be tried out if there are no kids left to try it?
As far as Lawton and Wedgwood, my info is different. Walk tos in math and reading are in fact happening and they are quite popular with many parents. Whereas self contained Spectrum at Whittier continues to be a nightmare for those who can't get in a classroom. There are no walk tos so qualified kids get no advanced classes and non qualified but capable in one or two subjects also get nothing advanced. By your analogy, Charlie, we would never send anything into space or initiate a science experiment, because we haven't done it before. Sometimes a need creates a solution, I'm sure you would agree. The old adage that things have to get worse to get better may apply here. I hope not, and if folks were more solution oriented and proactive instead of wagon-circling, it might be better for all the kids.
Eldon
The flip side of that argument is the exploitation of other children to be used as pawns to increase demand and services at your school so your kids can benefit, is it not? And that's okay and ethical? I don't think so.
Most want what's best for their kids, granted, and are willing to adapt and bend over backwards to get the best they can. Fine. No problem.
But disrupting a solid program that works incredibly well for many families in order to feather one's own nest is pretty unseemly, and that appears to be the crux of your arguments.
If the only way you think we can increase educational opportunities for more kids is to distribute the student-body (literally) "talent pool" (for lack of a better term) across the district in clusters, then I think we've surrendered the notion that any kid anywhere in the district can still get a good education in SPS. Seems you're qualifying that by saying, "only if you go to school with the 'right' people."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but when we start advocating using others' kids as pawns to get what we want or need for our own, it looks a lot like "who you know" vs. "what you know" matters a little too much, which to me is surrendering to aristocratic notions and ideas about success that I hoped, by now, we'd gotten past. Yes, I know many people still think and operate that way, but I'd hoped we were more progressive than that around here.
WSDWG
I like to think you misspoke here. If not, I want a lot of proof to back that up. I work with kids who care a great deal. They may never be national merit scholars, but they take on such life's responsibilities at such a young age while living in constant state of anxiety and turmoil and still they remain caring, loving, and giving. They give back to their community through volunteering at their church, temple, and mosque. They volunteer their summer as math/reading tutors, translators, at local food bank (which some of them at the end of their shift take a bag of food home), and by making hot meals for elders in their community. None of this is an extraordinary act of kindness by these kids' standard. This is what you are supposed to do! They worry about their cousins in refugee camps and are far more aware of life's fickleness and misfortunes of war than my HC kid will ever understand.
mud
Eldon
Eldon
The middle school service area with the highest percentage of app students also has the lowest percentage of sped students, so even with the app students taken out has disproportionately few hard to teach students. In order to even it out, what you'll need to do is bus in some "hard to teach" students from other parts of town, in addition to getting rid of the the "easy to teach" app students (which, by the way, I'm not sure of. They are easy to get to standard, because they are already there. That's not the same as being easy to have in a classroom or make progress with). This is not an issue with the advanced learning program, but with inequality and urban living generally. Getting rid of advanced learning will not help those problems and will just educate fewer students.
I have children in general Ed classrooms, and they are not noisier or harder to learn in than the app classrooms I have been in. There are more adults per child, and they are usually smaller. They are just two years behind, where the kids in them are. I didn't want my app kid out of them because they were "bad." I wanted the kid out because I wanted the kid to learn math and reading at school.
Sleeper
The overwhelming absence of differentiation is, however, evidence that the District cannot take it to scale without making some kind of radical change. I don't see any radical change coming, do you?
I agree there are many great teachers out there, and many who could be teaching at a higher level. But there are also some elementary teachers who don't have the background to be effective at the middle school level--whether via actually teaching middle school, or via "differentiating" up to that level.
HIMSmom
The schools are economically segregated because we live in segregated neighborhoods. Barring bussing kids between regions, I don't know how the district can change this. Kids living in poverty are generally not as prepared for school in kindergarten and they rarely catch up.
We need to improve the environments around these schools if we want to improve educational outcomes in them.
Lynn
Besides you'll get all the usual push back with such comparison like the school getting more $ per student than View Ridge, SIG grant, and full day K paid for too! And of course the usual inequity issues like affordable housing, lack of better paying jobs, etc. which leads to economic segregation (in this post racial society of course) and all these inherent problems appear insurmountable (so why even try?) and voila, hands are tied, nothing can be done, move along.....
Cue back to buzz filled discussions like which system has smarter kids: private or public, which city is smarter and the app that can get you there, APP critics, W-P for APP, APP splits, etc.
hornet
hornet
Hawthorne had the very worst outcomes in the District just a few years ago. The issue HAS been noticed and it has been addressed. The school has seen a lot of effort and investment and we need to give that time to work.
HP
HP
HIMSmom