Boundaries and Capacity Management Work Session

This Work Session had a larger-than-normal audience which is a good thing because now there are other witnesses to what was discussed.  

Charlie and I both went and came armed with ideas for the Board to consider.  (He outdid me, of course, with his sheet with 23(!) questions.  He checked them off as they went along.  At least five of them got asked but not necessarily answered.)  I gave them a sheet with comments copped from Charlie's previous thread. 

And, with apologies to all other programs, somehow Advanced Learning/Highly Capable got the lion's share of discussion.

Michael Tolley started the session, outlining the higher level thinking.  However, the presentation, on slide 3, says that one goal of the process is to "include access to services and programs as a key component in boundary revisions."  To which Charlie wrote in the margin "except Montessori."  And, he's right.  Montessori is in neighborhood schools but is an optional program.  There are three of them in the district- north, central and SE - but there is nothing about equitable access to this program.  (I would say that parents aren't clamoring for it but I could also say that about foreign language immersion.)

President Smith-Blum asked about the notation on Slide 9 about the Guiding Principles being in conflict.  Tracy Libros said one was balancing diversity versus walkability.  Smith-Blum disagreed, saying that they had "tools in the kit" to do this.  Tracy asked her to hold that thought as she would come back to the issue.

Charlie saw one question - where is the rationale for siting EOC and The World School at their project locations - asked but not really answered.  Pegi McEvoy offered that TT Minor - the site for The World School - has "services" for students in the area but didn't name them.  The Board did not follow up.

They zipped right thru Special Education which surprised me.

Then we got to Advanced Learning.  (You may wonder why the district is using the term "highly capable" in this discussion when it got rid of using that name for the overall program years ago.  Highly Capable is the term the state uses and is the name used in the grant that supplies money for APP.  So when you see "highly capable", they mean APP. )

Highlights:

• Pegi McEvoy said that they had previously made the decision to keep APP Elementary North at Lincoln for five years.  Then those students would move to the new Wilson-Pacific elementary building and, if there is more growth, other pathways.  
• It was noted that changes to the program could impact the number of students and/or locations.
• Director Patu noted that the presentation said there would be no "free-standing" APP school but didn't the numbers look like APP North students could fill up W-P?  She didn't get a direct answer but it led to a discussion about the number of APP students (but she's right).  Here's where it got interesting.

Director DeBell, speaking carefully, said that if the reality is increasing APP enrollment, they need to consider other sites.

Director Peaslee asked why the pathway at Ingraham is optional but not Garfield?  The answer was that the new program at Ingraham was optional to test the waters with a different model of delivery.  (I had to smile as I don't really consider what APP is at Garfield to be any sort of a "model of delivery.")

President Smith-Blum then said that she didn't think the new taskforces for Advanced Learning would be considering testing models (meaning, that's the purview of the district).  She did ask if there was some hybrid model of testing that could be used this coming year to see what might happen if there was a different kind of testing?

Shauna Heath, director of T&L/C&I, said they were using the Cogat 6 but were going to the Cogat 7 which should work better for ELL learners.  She said that Cogat 7 offers a "screener" and that the taskforce could consider all the ID criteria.  (My thought is that if the Cogat 7 offers such a screener, maybe they could use that instead of MAP.)

DeBell then chimed in that he had been talking to a local legislator about this issue. He said there seems to be some confusion over the guidelines from the state and the legislator said they are flexible.  DeBell then asked, "Do we have some control over this capacity?" 

Link to WAC.  The legislature funds 2.314% of each school district's population.  PDF on this issue.

Key info:  the WAC says each school district's board of director "shall adopt policies and procedures for the selection of highly capable students." It says a district "shall make a variety of appropriate program services available to students."  What I find interesting is that the PDF on the WAC says this is not supposed to be just based on test scores but "multiple sources of  information" and yet I don't think anything but test scores are considered.  (Maybe others are on appeal.)  It also says that districts should "avoid using tests for purposes other than those for which they are explicitly stated."  Hello, MAP?

It states that "access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education."  But access to these programs/instruction through a highly capable program "does not constitute an individual entitlement" for any particular student. 

At one point, there seemed to be a sticking point on what Spectrum is and, for some reason, Ms Heath was stuck on Spectrum being just one grade ahead.  And, like APP, it's not just a grade(s) ahead program.  The PDF clearly explains that it's about "levels of abstraction and complexity", "intense concentration" and not just "learning quickly."

There was an amendment to this WAC as of April 2013.  However, it does not talk about numbers/percentages of students.   This is key to the following discussion.

DeBell went on, saying that our district was currently qualifying more than 2% of its population and do we "potentially have the ability to set a cut point where we want."  He was looking for parameters.

Heath said she was not sure.  (And the answer is the state funding is set and the district can set its own enrollment policies.  That's my read of the WAC.)

DeBell hastened to say that the latest amendments in the WAC should be looked at, perhaps as a tool they can use "not that we should but good to know about."

Director Carr jumped in and said they needed to be careful.  She said the state has a cut point for funding Sped and the district serves more students than the state will fund.  She said she didn't see highly capable as much different from that.  President Smith-Blum concurred on any idea of a cut point for number of students served.

Director McLaren asked whether the state requires that students test in the top 2% for math and reading?  Ms Heath said yes (but Charlie says no and I agree).

Ms Heath pointed out that with the use of the Cogat 7, they may reach more APP and Spectrum students because of the non-verbal component.

Director Patu voiced concern over the lack of APP in the SE.  Tracy pointed out that there was a north/south aspect to APP and there was Spectrum at Hawthorne and several ALOs scattered around in the SE.

Then they got to cohort sizes for APP schools.  Ms Heath said they referenced the work of the AL Taskforce for this work (and hey, for once, that WAS something we did work on).

Director Carr said that she was surprised to see the cohort size was for middle school and not elementary.  She said the program has no real curriculum so the cohort seems to be important.  She said that if there is a small group of students at one school, it might change how they are served.

They had Rachel Cassidy, the district demographer, come and explain a sheet with potential growth in APP and pathways.  (I do not have a link for this one.)  One key factor she points out is not just who qualifies for APP but do they enroll.  She had some amazing stats.

In Hamilton's region, the growth is at 12% of kids being in APP.  This is versus 6% at Washington.  She said in 6th grade alone at Hamilton, 7% of the 6th graders are newly enrolled APP students.  She was asked why this might be and she said a child might test into APP in elementary but the parents already like the school but that 6th grade is obviously a transition so they feel okay about moving to a different school for APP.

She also said there were 1000 students in K-8 in the district who got a recruitment letter from AL based on their MAP scores.  She said that they have a 70% participation rate but that the 30% is a large number who never test.  (I'd love to see the demographics on that.)

One issue that President Smith-Blum brought up is how difficult it is for APP students in West Seattle to get to Thurgood Marshall and couldn't there be a model like Ingraham at K-5 STEM in West Seattle? 

There seems to be a push/pull issue here.  Staff worries about opening programs that start small (and might stay small).  But the Board seems to believe that there is latent desire for these programs but available nearer to home (or at least in an easier location to get to).  

Then DeBell hit on a theme that got said by several Board members.  "The quality of the Spectrum programs is the missing variable here.  We can achieve more equitable access if we have good programs."  He said making Spectrum better could serve more students and lower the expansion of APP. 

Tracy Libros then got back to President Smith-Blum's earlier question about conflicting guiding principles.  She said that Meany will have more APP students than Washington within walking distance.  So is the walkability to Meany more important or creating diversity at Washington?   (As Charlie points out, this is somewhat limited thinking as neither Washington nor Meany are in the south.  If you wanted more equity, APP would be at a south end middle school like Mercer.)

Director Carr then said that, basically, Hamilton has too many programs.  She said it is difficult for staff to keep up.

Both DeBell and Smith-Blum felt that, looking at the sheet that Cassidy handed out, the numbers on growth didn't jive correctly.   Smith-Blum also echoed DeBell's previous remarks on Spectrum.  She said the problem is inconsistency in Spectrum and it needs to be corrected.  (Peaslee even suggested they strengthen Spectrum and ditch ALOs since they, too, are inconsistent and not available everywhere.)  Martin-Morris said he didn't even know what Spectrum was supposed to be. 

(And to note, staff said NOTHING on this issue the entire time.  I think this idea of getting rid of Spectrum might not work out for them.)

Peaslee and Heath then had a back-and-forth on Spectrum with Heath sticking with Spectrum being one grade ahead.  Peaslee asked well, if that is true, why not have this at all the elementaries?  Carr jumped in saying it wasn't just accelerated but also had compacting of curriculum and enrichment.  DeBell stopped the conversation saying they were off topic.

They then moved on to Option Schools.  There was some discussion of foreign language immersion schools.  (And I am still baffled over changing both McDonald and JSIS, leaving a big area without attendance area schools.  The program at McDonald could be moved - it's pretty young - to say, Green Lake.)  It is also interesting that whenever this topic (option schools) comes up, the discussion is always about foreign language immersion, almost as if there are no other option schools.

They had Karen Kodoma, a district staff person and long-time creator of JSIS, come to the mic.  She talked about some kind of hybrid model of FL enrollment with siblings, geozones and then native speakers.  It sounded like an awful lot of tiebreakers.   Good luck, Tracy.  Director Carr stated that it is important to help families in the JSIS and McDonald programs to understand what the geozones are.

Director Patu came in, wondering why Rainier Beach High School got left out of these discussions.

They then moved onto STEM with Tolley saying that there are no changes to the Cleveland "program", thereby driving Charlie nuts as Cleveland doesn't have a program but a curricular focus.

Then they got to capacity management.  Director McLaren asked about interim siting for JA K-8.  McEvoy said they don't have the final requirements and are still working on them.  President Smith-Blum said that she was worried about the long distance for Meany students to be at Van Asselt while Meany is overhauled.

I also note that the presentation says that Cedar Park's notation says, "attendance area school after use as interim site."  That is NOT what was said previously and, in fact, Superintendent Banda told me that it was only being considered.  I see this as a push for Cedar Park when they have no real idea if that is a certainty.  I say this because the district is going to completely change that neighborhood, in many ways and with a huge amount of capital dollars, and I worry it will be just for interim use.  And, that you really need the capacity in Lake City. 

I'm going on record to say that if they proceed with Cedar Park, I believe they are making a huge and costly mistake (on the order of building for South Shore over Pathfinder).

Director McLaren timidly brought this up but got a vague answer about it (except that the Lake City property has long-term leases but I'd bet there's a contingency clause for the district to take them back when needed). 

President Smith-Blum asked that definitions be given for a school versus a program, curricular foci, etc.  Good for her.  She also worried outloud about infrastructure near Thornton Creek for parking and traffic.

Boy, do I have news for her about Wilson-Pacific. That thread to come.

My assessment of this Work Session is that there was not much, if any, boundary talk.  But, I believe the staff got the message about Advanced Learning and it will be quite interesting to see how the capacity management issues may finally bring about badly needed changes to this program.