Special Education Growth Boundaries Open Thread

Let's hear your thoughts (I haven't read them yet.)


Anonymous said…
How can you comment on "no plan"? There's no plan. They listed some schools that will have some programs, but which ones? How will students in schools now, be reassigned to those schools listed? How will anybody in a self-contained program get to use ACCESS unless it's in their building too? Will it be?

Is this it? Here.

From this list - kids are supposed to get all of ABCD. Right?

For the specifics of the "non-plan".

For the NE. We have Thornton Creek and OLY Hills. Will that be doing ABCD? What about JAK8? It has a lot of sped now. If it moves to Marshall building, how will all the accessibility issues in that building be addressed for students with mobility needs? How can this meager offering support the special education needs of 2 middle school service areas?

For NC/Hamilton. We have Bagley and View Ridge and BF Day. This would appear to have enough capacity. And oh look! Language immersion off scot free again!

For NW. We have BT and Loyal Heights. These are to offer all of ABCD for all of the NW? How can this provide all the sped needs for 2 middle school areas? Whitman and Wilson Pacific? What about Salmon Bay? It has a robust middle school special ed, but nothing for elementary? Still?

Only 1 "continuum" site for QA/Mag McClure? Will that 1 school (QA) be doing all of the ABCD? All of it? (not credible) Did John Hay fall off the map?

For Central (besides McClure). We have Leschi, Lowell, and Stevens - enough for 1 middle school area. Unfortunately that area now has 2 middle school service areas. We need ABCD in both Meany and Washington areas. 3 schools can not do it. What about Montlake? Is sped dead there?

In the S/SE/Aki/Mercer areas we have 6 sites: GH, Hawthorne, Highland Pk, South Shore, V.Asselt, Wing Luke. The south end looks to be a sped bonanza! Does the district again plan to send NE students where there is little sped... to a sped endowed south end? It better pony up some NE sites or that will be a reality.

W. Seattle. Arbor Heights. That's it. Schmitz Park is also listed as a preschool mega site. Seems unlikely it could do "continuum" and preschool.


Bottom line. These aren't enough sites to be a plan. Not close. From what we do see - S/SE is sped rich and NE/NW are sped poor, with nearly nothing planned for the new middle schools. Capacity for everyone else has been planned and discussed. Sped? Not a peep. W. Seattle has practically nothing planned.

Where's the real plan? Maybe there is one? If there is one, maybe people will comment.

-sped reader
mirmac1 said…
* Set aside enough classrooms round the district for new special education service delivery model (same as draft)

* Since the model hasn’t been finalized and will be phased in, do not necessarily hold all classrooms in units of four‐classroom set asides

* Assume some current classrooms remain (with annual changes as needed) pending finalization of the new model

* Restore capacity from previous set asides, especially at smaller elementary schools while maintaining availability of sufficient number of classrooms to implement the new model

* Maintain sufficient set aside capacity to implement the model when finalized and locate as appropriate based on up to date information on where students live who need the services
Anonymous said…
Where are the middle school & high school plans? Can we assume that all services will be available at every neighborhood middle & high school for the number of sped kids within the boundaries?

-HS parent
Anonymous said…
Yeah but Mirmac. In the NE and NW and W Seattle, everywhere that the space crunch is tightest - sped has not been accounted for. What is going to happen to them? 1 or (possibly 2) classrooms for all of West Seattle? And only 2 for the NE?

If they wait until the "model is finalized"... there will be no classrooms left. And if they add them, it will be to portables natch.

-sped reader


Anonymous said…
I like the idea of placing 4 special education programs at geographically targeted schools. I've worked in a district that housed a RR,a K-2 self-contained, a 3-5 self-contained, and one other more focused program, such as EBD, Autism...etc, all together. Having them together cut down on transportation and allowed the additional service providers, such as OT, PT, Adaptive PE, SLP and psychologist to work at one school full time. Of course, it was still no panacea. Dyslexic children with above average IQs were still placed in classrooms along with children with profound developmental delays or kids with severe behavioral concerns. On the plus side, it was so helpful to have so many trained colleagues next door for support.
Maureen said…
(Sorry for such an uninformed question.)

So are the self contained programs that served deaf/HH children dissolved under this plan? I went looking (in the linked doc) to see what will go on at TOPS and I can't find any reference to the three programs there. Does that mean that the children will remain in the building but spend full time in gen ed classrooms or that they will be dispersed to other buildings?
Anonymous said…
There's something called "unique assignment". Presumably that would include DH/H. Where will that be? Why move it? The current autism program looks like a D program in the new parlance. Will that remain at TOPs? If so, will they match it up with an A program? That's the beauty of nondisclosure. You don't have to say. I bet they'll do nothing. They should add an A, and call it good. It would provide more inclusion for all the students. Will they?

Will They
Anonymous said…
I get so depressed when I see over 100 posts on the APP threads and the special ed thread barely cracks a dozen. It is quite telling where the energy of the readership of this blog goes - both pro or con.

While others are duking it out about splits, equity and testing, I want to put some energy/advocacy towards special ed issues. Please continue to educate me - a general ed parent - so I know how to do that well for this underserved population.

Lynn said…

On the APP threads, there are two types of people posting. You have the APP parents who have questions/concerns/opinions about how the changes will affect their children - that's to be expected. The other posters are the same few people who never miss an opportunity to pop in and tell those parents that they are selfish racists and their children are either nothing special - or have a responsibility to stay in general ed classrooms and provide leadership there.

You can't really be hoping to see that kind of energy over here - can you?

I don't know why there haven't been many posts over here. I suspect it's because there's not enough information to even begin a discussion. Or maybe it's happening through the Special Ed PTA?
Lynn said…
Sigh. I should have said - let's not make this post about APP too.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Weirdness in Seattle Public Schools Abounds and Astounds

Anaylsis of Seattle School Board Decision to Bring "Student Outcome Focused Governance"