And the Hits Keep Coming for Enrollment
Update: I just went in to correct the link to the new document (see paragraph below) and found that the Board Agenda looks like a crazy quilt. I'm not sure what I have seen or not seen.
I would say - with no hesitation - that at the end of the voting on the Growth Plan and the Intermediate Capacity Management Plan that will not be one single person in the room who could really tell you what will happen. I'm sure that there are staff and parents who know certain parts well but the whole thing? It will unfold as it will.
The district has just unleashed (and yes, that's the word I'm using) a new document for pathways for the North/NE.
I'm trying desperately to keep up so did I miss this? Two days before the Growth Boundaries and Intermediate Capacity Plan is NOT the time to hand this out. Who can really digest what this means?
They say this on the last page about "program placement":
I would say - with no hesitation - that at the end of the voting on the Growth Plan and the Intermediate Capacity Management Plan that will not be one single person in the room who could really tell you what will happen. I'm sure that there are staff and parents who know certain parts well but the whole thing? It will unfold as it will.
The district has just unleashed (and yes, that's the word I'm using) a new document for pathways for the North/NE.
I'm trying desperately to keep up so did I miss this? Two days before the Growth Boundaries and Intermediate Capacity Plan is NOT the time to hand this out. Who can really digest what this means?
They say this on the last page about "program placement":
Board Policy F21.00 delegates to the Superintendent the authority to make all program placement decisions. Board Policy 2200 directs the Superintendent to place programs or services:
- In support of district-wide academic goals.
- Equitably across the district.
- Where students reside.
- In accordance with the student assignment plan.
- Equitably across each middle school region as appropriate.
Yes, that is true BUT the Board has been asking - for YEARS now - for an Equitable Access Framework so that they can help guide this work. This is squarely on Michael Tolley desk and yet, nothing. Banda should not let this continue. I'm looking for the new Board members to add their name to this chorus.
Here's the analysis from a Bagley parent about what the Intermediate Capacity Plan means to their area:
- In support of district-wide academic goals.
- Equitably across the district.
- Where students reside.
- In accordance with the student assignment plan.
- Equitably across each middle school region as appropriate.
Yes, that is true BUT the Board has been asking - for YEARS now - for an Equitable Access Framework so that they can help guide this work. This is squarely on Michael Tolley desk and yet, nothing. Banda should not let this continue. I'm looking for the new Board members to add their name to this chorus.
Here's the analysis from a Bagley parent about what the Intermediate Capacity Plan means to their area:
15 AMENDMENTS TO ROUND 3 PROPOSAL- Including one that would move APP to JAMS and WilPac MWIth some questionable parliamentary procedure, the Board will vote on these this Wed. November 20th.None of the amendments addressed the Bagley Attendance area directly.There is nothing in the plan that stabilizes the Bagley attendance area (and those of other other schools near I-5 and Green Lake).There is no fix to the area west of Wallingford Ave and east of I-5 that is now poised to go to Green Lake Elementary and then,I'm hearing, but can't confirm, off to Eckstein MS rather than Hamilton. Can anyone confirm that?So the Bagley maps remain the same:Round 3 proposed Bagley Attendance Area -- go to page 18From Bagley's perspective, the most high impact amendment would ditch the Advanced Placement Program (APP) at Whitmanand Eckstein Middle Schools that were proposed in Round 3 and instead open APP programs at Wilson Pacific (WilPac MS ) & Jane Addams Middle Schools (JAMS in 2014-15).So it's possible all middle school bound Bagley kids could be together at WilPac MS when WilPac MS with APP opens in the fall of 2017.At the end of this email is a summary of each amendment with my best interpretation for impact on Bagley Attendance Area families.THE INTERIM CAPACITY MANAGEMENT PLAN is the bigger story for Bagley and WilPac MS attendance area families."Tweak at will" on annual basisFIrst off, the district is keeping their options open and have changed their planning assumptions. They are now looking ahead only 5 years, instead of 10 and allowing for yearly changes.This could be very hard on the schools near I-5 and Green Lake like Bagley. It does not provide for stable boundaries for schools around Green Lake and near I-5, I'm sorry to say.Second, there will be "No change to current Hamilton, Whitman or new WilPac MS assignments through 2015-16" -- a year longer than before. (Interim Capacity Management Plan, Attachment 2)However, they have introduced a couple of changes to the Round 3 transition plan for WilPac middle schoolers (our current 3rd, 4th and 5th graders.)1) INTERIM APP AT WHITMAN - Beginning in 2016-17, WilPac MS & Whitman MS APP students who live in the WilPac MS & Whitman MS will attend APP at Whitman as an interim APP site until WilPac MS opens in 2017-18.2) Staff prefer keeping kids at Whitman in 2016-17 and bypassing the stint at Marshall that year. Instead they would move all 6-8th grades plus APP into new WilPac building in the fall of 2017. However, capacity pressures may not allow that. The attached file has the chart that shows both scenarios for Bagley kids– stay at Whitman for 2016-17 or temporarily gather General Ed WilPac MS middle school students at Marshall. This will be a Wait and See situation.So current 4th graders could attend Whitman for two years and then move to WilPac MS in 8th grade. The district was sympathetic, but say the numbers do not work out for keeping 8th graders where they are. They do offer a cohort tiebreaker but thinking is the capacity issues are so huge, it will be nearly impossible to invoke a cohort tiebreaker.While I see how this helps the district, in my view this isn't helpful to the current 4th and 5th graders who will get immersed at Whitman with the Ballard HS -bound kids + WilPac bound kids only to be moved out of that cohort to WilPac MS -- especially since this same group of kids will likely be asked to go to more than one high school as Lincoln High School is remodeled and comes online. It would be very useful for all the WilPac MS feeder schools to meet with the district to mitigate the impact on this group of kids.Attached is file that updates the charts showing year by year what is happening and then the chart for current 3rd, 4th and 5th graders. Current 2nd graders will be the first grade to enter into the new WilPac MS building at 6th graders
Here are the pertinent middle schools maps:
Comments
the multiple hits on this geographic area are a problem. first middle school and then high school. The board could slow down and consider all of these changes in the context of the new high school coming on line, but they won't. there will be several years of kids with multiple middle schools and a new high school and some kids will absolutely be lost in this shuffle.
it doesn't have to be this way but the board members cannot seem to swallow their pride and say this is out of hand.
the emperor has no clothes - except in this case the public is shouting at the naked board-emperors who continue to parade on.
time to start checking out real estate elsewhere...not every family has that option
-uncertain
-AL
I've been learning that while it might be easy for kids to move to an interim site, it is not easy to begin a new school that way. Very undesirable for teachers and attracting a fantastic principal. I heard that the schools that have started in interim sites have had a slog digging out and flourishing in their new building. Are there specific examples of this?
stumped
But I could open it from the link that Lynn provided, so it is live somewhere.
wonder why the new link is dead? Did they pull it again?
It is Monday night before the board meeting, and the materials are still incomplete.
Eden
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/school%20board/13-14%20agendas/112013agenda/20131120_GrowthBoundaries_AttachmentB.pdf
-uncertain
Sorry - at this point I don't have anything more intelligible to add, but then, I'm not sure the Board or District does either.
(Am still flabbergasted by Melissa's comment last week that Tracy Libros had told her that it would be too hard to move to geographical boundaries for MS because of software. Did I say "flabbergasted"? I meant to say "stunned into silence".)
-flibbertigibbet
2153 dtargyh
The other table shows the transition path for current 3rd, 4th and 5th graders to middle school -- especially the 3 years, 3 schools model for current 4th graders once they hit middle school. Although now there is a preference to remove the interim stint at Marshall if possible.
What is the APP/Spectrum model - and what do you like about it? Will it be different in any way from the current Lafayette Spectrum program which also serves both Spectrum and APP students?
information is not meant to be comprehensive or final; rather, it is intended to answer questions about
location of various services and programs that have arisen during discussion of Growth Boundaries"
Which I read to mean that hey, the district can change these placements whenever they wish, even after open enrollment if they think it is necessary.
-uncertain
Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that Wilson Pacific Elementary does not show up in the Attachment A Maps? If the recommendation is that app@lincoln elementary will be it's main (only) tenant, shouldn't the staff recommendation actually define that somewhere, like in the attachment A?
Why is it missing?
Also, I'm still confused as to why the plan does not actually define any recommendations for APP in the North, but it does of the south.
Seriously, am I missing something here? I asked Tracy and her response was that APP can be found in the amendments.
I followed up and asked "what happens if none of the amendments get passed related to APP?" then what?
I was sort of expecting them to slip in a new APP pathway map into Attachment A, and add back in the WP elem map.
But they still aren't there.
huh.
Eden
Thanks for explaining that. Either I misunderstood your earlier comment, or I missed a clarification of your earlier comment.
-flibbertigibbet
Stacy
I'm under the impression Whitman dismantled its Spectrum program. Has it? Is "blended program" code for doing away with Spectrum?
-Bueller
Stacy - what happens to APP North middle school students next year if that amendment doesn't pass?
I don't know what it means. I don't think the Board knows either. (And yes, Whitman is moving from Spectrum classrooms to "differentiation" in mixed-ability classrooms.) If that actually happened, families wouldn't be going to the trouble to test their kids for Spectrum.
Stacy
Like so many families, I have big decisions to make for my kids this February during open enrollment. I'm trying to understand the district intention as to if the Spectrum program will still also remain at Lafayette AND Arbor Heights, AND also at Fairmount Park APP/Spectrum blend. The FP boundary looks pretty small, the Lafayette boundary is big, and the AH Spectrum program has been notoriously capped and is not self contained. Does this perhaps indicate that they plan to only offer Spectrum at FP in an APP/Spectrum blend? Or maybe Spectrum only at Lafayette and FP, not AH? Just trying to read between lines.
@Lynn, the reason I said I like the idea of APP/Spectrum blend is strictly referring to my own personal situation. My family MAY choose to go the FP route because it may turn out to meet the needs of both my kids in WS at one school. Obviously I don't know what the blend would look like. I don't have the skill set to design Advanced learning programs. I have to be open to numerous possibilities in life and make the choice of where my kids needs will best be met.
-AL
I read this on the APP blog:
I agree. It's as if they've wisely seen the light of day and backed off. Maybe there is now still hope that the 542-student north APP middle school body will not be split.
Obviously, it's best for program unity that DeBell & Martin-Morris's Amendment 4 should fail, thus leaving the north APP middle school placement decision to be made by Superintendent Banda sometime before open enrollment.
I'm not sure where DeBell and Martin-Morris will get those two extra votes they need. Right now, Patu may be APP's staunchest friend, although her Amendment 9 is so far limited to her own district. Carr did seem reconciled to a split, but also put in her own unsuccessful amendment to keep north APP middle school together during the meantime. Smith-Blum is on the record for waiting on advanced learning task force reports and avoiding student disruption. McLaren has made similar remarks, although no doubt those who favor a West Seattle elementary APP location are seeking her support. Peaslee might seem the most likely vote to support the DeBell/Martin-Morris Amendment 4 because of her own desire to break up north APP elementary, but even she has said she does want to minimise student disruption.
In sum, there may well be four or even five directors other than DeBell and Martin-Morris who would be much happier to have Superintendent Banda assign north Seattle APP middle school after advanced learning task force meetings and before open enrollment.
Frankly, this would really allow the APP-AC, the appointed task forces, and APP families to be heard much more clearly than being pulled willy nilly into the thick of this hectic growth boundaries process.
-AL
It looks like you got your question answered, and here's the deal (which I probably don't need to repeat for you or anyone else whose spent any time on this blog):
APP elementary in the north is presently in Lincoln high school. these 600 1st-5th grader kids were promised a real elementary school in Wilson Pacific elementary during the BEX process, planned for 2017.
And now, there is NO mention of APP elementary going to WP elem in the plan.
If the amendments don't pass (which they might not), APP STILL does not get a home. This is year 3 in a "temp" location. it would be FINE with me if it became the permanent location, but the Nomad thing is draining on our kids and community.
Basically it looks like either split into one of two scenarios (into schools that don't have space and don't want APP) or continue being nomads are the options presently on the table.
Unless a board member steps up and adds an amendment.
The PTA has rallied and written a letter that basically repeats the same thing that's been said over and over...
But more rallying may be needed. Its just really hard because this community has been split and moved already so many times that everyone is really tired. I'm already tired and I just joined this party in September.
Eden
That's the end game here, right? Because no superintendent in his right mind has three different versions with untold iterations hidden in nested documents that are unsearchable and exceedingly difficult to ferret out of a non-indexed website, and all done without community engagement WITH, as some sort of cherry on top, a Board the responds with more than 20 amendments, which themselves have been iterated several times over.
This is shameful.
Teaching and learning's performance has been abysmal. They know it's all about kids, right?
I can hardly wait for Mr. Murray to take over. He could not do any worse. NOBODY could.
-scared & scarred
In the staff proposal there is no mention of where APP middle school will attend next year if you live in the Eckstein or JAMS areas. As no change is mentioned will they just attend Hamilton next year unless the HMM/MDB amendment passes? And even if the HMM/MDB amendment passes will the ominous and vague last paragraph hold sway and the Superintendent will declare last moment changes just prior to Open Enrollment?
The same with JAK-8. In the interim capacity document there are some items like JAK-8 moving to John Marshall next year in the "NOVEMBER 6 INTRO" column. But, in the "NOVEMBER 20 ACTION" column the verbatim wording is all in red and lined out.
There are other interim items such as "Interim Capacity Management - Central Region Middle School that are repeated verbatim in the "NOVEMBER 6 INTRO" column and the "NOVEMBER 20 ACTION" column "Keep students at Washington MS until Meany opens 2017-2018.
It gives the impression that items in red and lined out in the Nov. 20 column are not a part of the Nov. 20 vote for action. But, items repeated in both the Nov. 6 and Nov. 20 columns are included in the Nov. 20 vote for action?
Maybe, postpone this vote until the next Board meeting and give staff a day or few to get some sleep?
As they exist the BARS do not make sense. Even if there is a verbal explanation otherwise, what is in writing will rule if there is a disagreement. For our Board Directors - please make sure that what you have been told or explained verbally is clearly outlined in writing before voting yes.
xxoo
-StepJ
What does that mean? I see the same terminology used for grandfathering throughout the document. Does it mean that students who are currently in the boundaries (1-5) but won't be after the change can go to Laurelhurst, but only if they apply through open enrollment? So, say, you're a 2nd grader who lives in an area that will be drawn out of Laurelhurst: if you do nothing? (-> to new school) but if you fill out open enrollment forms (-> stay at Laurelhurst)? I find the words themselves confusing, not to mention the plan.
zb
- North-end Mom
I think that's an area that is being added to Laurelhurst. So if you live in that area and are attending another school, you can stay at your current school. You can decide to switch to Laurelhurst anytime through September 30th.
Yes, it's blended at JA K-8.
NEM
MC
I meant to say define a blended model please and exactly how is it being done a JA K-8 that distinguishes it from gen. ed.
My apologies for the first attempt. I Hit publish before edit aack
MC
Blended means cluster-grouped according to the AL webpage.
Where did you find that? All I see is:
On APP - Service delivery is through a self-contained program during grades 1-8.
On Spectrum - Bring district-identified students together through self-contained or cluster-grouping strategies to form classroom rosters.
Which means nothing in SPS. "Cluster grouping" by the literature (Brulles) means something very clear and specific. "Cluster grouping" at some schools (Wedgwood) essentially means mixing everyone up randomly to avoid any clustering, because the principal doesn't believe in the benefits. He used the terminology to very effectively dissolve Spectrum at his school, so don't believe what you read without details.
AL's response: Lynn, the reason I said I like the idea of APP/Spectrum blend is strictly referring to my own personal situation. My family MAY choose to go the FP route because it may turn out to meet the needs of both my kids in WS at one school. Obviously I don't know what the blend would look like. I don't have the skill set to design Advanced learning programs. I have to be open to numerous possibilities in life and make the choice of where my kids needs will best be met.
This all sounds well and good from a naive perspective. Sorry. Of course you should do what's best for your own kids, that's a given. What's not a given is that you'll have anything different from what's in WS already, and it helps push APP down its path of dissolution.
The blend will, at the very best look just like Lynn said, i.e. Spectrum, with a blend of APP-qualified kids (if you're lucky). That model works for some kids and families, but the important thing to understand is that IT IS NOT APP! It's Spectrum with a mix of APP-qualified kids. Not the same thing at all, and that option already exists in WS and other areas.
Could another WS school attempt to beef up their Spectrum program to "compete" with Lafayette? Sure, and I'd support that in a heartbeat. But to call some undefined, optional, who-knows-what "APP" is misinformed, mislabeling, and let's be honest, agenda-based. It's the label that's the problem.
The reason none of us should be supporting these splits and "optional" buildings is that it's clear the district is trying to eliminate APP. Factions within the district staff and administration have been trying to do this for years. They have finally found a strategy that works, which is to keep stuffing more kids into the program and splitting it at every available opportunity. What looks good to you (the "APP" label in your neighborhood), is nothing of the sort, but it does help to dissolve APP, the program, city wide. I wish more people understood the full ramifications.
After they've finished putting APP in every school, maybe we can get a new, small, stand-alone program that serves the highly gifted at the nth percentile.
/Not helping, I know, I know...
--DistrictWatcher
Just received this in response to my email to district staff and board members:
I am not proposing a three way split of elementary APP in the north end. I am proposing one north APP elementary program east of I-5, in addition to the one that will stay at Lincoln until Wilson Pacific is built (2017). The confusion has come from the fact that I posted two amendments so that staff could vet both to determine which would work better. I will propose only one at the School Board meeting on Nov 20.
Staff recommended an APP program at Olympic Hills in earlier versions of the Capacity and Boundary plans. This recommendation is fully consistent with the letter sent out by Superintendent Banda on Sept. 28. (http://seattlenorthapp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Letter-from-Superintendent-Banda.pdf)
As an alternative to this recommendation I have asked that they consider Thornton Creek. I proposed this as an amendment because many APP students live in the area around Thornton Creek and we are building a larger school on that site. However, staff has recently informed me that capacity in this area would make it impossible to fit an APP program in the new school. I plan to withdraw this amendment at the School Board meeting on Nov 20.
Since staff has already recommended an APP program at Olympic Hills it’s clear that this is feasible, although I’m still waiting to hear if it will require some adjustments to current boundary proposals. Even if this is the case I will put forth this amendment for a vote by the Board on Nov 20.
All APP programs throughout SPS are within larger schools, with the exception of the program at Lincoln, which is an interim situation. APP within larger schools aligns with our Highly Capable Policy- D12.00, with “program sites distributed geographically and among clusters to provide equitable opportunities for program access.” It also makes it possible for APP students to be, “main streamed with other students for non-core academic subjects such as music, art, and physical education, and shall be encouraged to interact with other students through tutoring and other activities.” (Policy D12.00)
An all APP elementary school does not align with these policies or with the Mission of our Strategic Plan, which ensures “equitable access, closing the opportunity gaps and excellence in education for every student.” An APP program at Wilson Pacific, within a larger elementary school aligns with our policies. Creating a second program within a larger school on the east side of I-5 also aligns. This is the plan proposed in each of my amendments.
Staff is in the process of developing an Advanced Learning Plan for the district, but it’s not ready now. This plan must ensure the stability of all our advanced learning programs so that they are not repeatedly moved and split. However we need to accomplish this in alignment with our policies and Strategic Plan so that all eligible students have access to APP, and so that APP students have access to non-core academic subjects with other students who are not in APP.
If you would like to read the posted amendments here are the link:
Amendment 5 to Action Item 7: Elementary APP pathway to Wilson Pacific and Olympic Hills
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/school%20board/13-14%20agendas/112013agenda/20131120_Action_Report_Amendment_PeasleeOHAPP.pdf
Amendment 6 to Action Item 7: Elementary APP pathway to Wilson Pacific and Thornton Creek http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/school%20board/13-14%20agendas/112013agenda/20131120_Action_Report_Amendment_PeasleeTCAPP.pdf
Sharon Peaslee
Seattle School Board Director
The least restrictive environment means that students will be in the company of their peers to the utmost extent possible, except when the placement is detrimental to the child or others. This is also the foundation for public schools.
No one is forcing friendships here, but being in the company of peers is consistent with being part of the community. Private schools are for those who are seeking exclusivity.
--enough already
Grouping gifted children is one of the foundations of exemplary gifted education practice. The research on the many grouping strategies available to educators of these children is long, consistent, and overwhelmingly positive (Rogers, 2006; Tieso, 2003). Nonetheless, the “press” from general educators, both teachers and administrators, has been consistently less supportive. Myths abound that grouping these children damages the self-esteem of struggling learners, creates an “elite” group who may think too highly of themselves, and is actually undemocratic and, at times, racist. None of these statements have any founding in actual research, but the arguments continue decade after decade (Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner, 2002).
From an NAGC position paper.
I am reposting the above comment because it violated the blog's Name Policy. Really, I am reposting it because it says almost exactly what I posted on the APP Blog a few minutes ago. Great Minds Think Alike? :-) I will repost my own APP thoughts shortly. Here is the above comment again:
Anonymous said...
What about the least restrictive environment and serving students close to where they live whenever possible? DO all students who are APP qualified really need to be segregated from all other students all day (even other AL students) and moved out of their communities to be served? Some may absolutely need this and should have it. I recall comments suggesting that some APP students' academic needs were not being met because they were being held back by APP students flooding in who could have been well served in a quality Spectrum or ALO program. Imagine you have a early elementary APP qualified student at a neighborhood school in WS that is good at what it does but has no AL, no walk to math, nothing. Imagine you are very involved in your children's schools, but don't have a private vehicle or a flexible schedule to get to PTA meetings, etc. outside your community. For these families an APP program in WS is a long-awaited solution. APP at FP will not be like applying for the self-contained Spectrum at Lafayette because if a student qualifies they will get access and because it will be an actual APP program. If a design team and planning principal are put in place now they can select a staff, school policies, scheduling, library, and technology that will support a strong APP program. No parent who supports WS APP wants to dismantle APP, they want access to a working AL program without sacrificing many many hours of family-time and playtime for their children each week like the rest of this city has. They want their family to be able to take part in a school community that serves their children even if they aren't economically privileged enough to easily commute across town, and don't already live in the "right" zipcodes. Another side
<
This latest APP plan is clear as mud. That said, I am not concerned about APP remaining self-contained if that means leaving it in one school per area. I am glad the district is shaking up the current format.
I would like APP to be available at all middle schools. I would like advanced learning opportunities in math and language arts to be available at all grade schools.
At the grade school level, I do not care if the classes are APP-identified together with opt in or teacher recommended.
I quite like the idea of grade school kids being able to access either/or advanced reading/math classes, as development profiles can be quite uneven in the grade school years.
This final boundary plan looks to be moving the delivery of APP in my preferred direction. I wish the district were more forthcoming with their thoughts, because this is an awful process for current APP families. But the end result in a few years may be more accelerated classes offered to more students closer to where they live. That is great.
One Parent
This only applies to APP and language immersion because, as the transition document states, they are guaranteed assignments.
Before you enroll your child in an APP/Spectrum hybrid program, be sure to find out how many grades will be included in the classroom and which curriculum will be used. Will the 2nd grade APP students be using 2nd, 3rd or 4th grade science kits?
I hope the program does work for the children who enroll. Getting in on the planning team will be important - as will choosing a principal whose vision for the program is acceptable to you. An undefined program like this one is defined by the principal.
Yes - I too want advanced math, science, language arts and social studies classes available at every middle school. Students should be able to take as many of those classes are they want and are prepared for.
It's fine with me too if APP-eligible elementary students stay in their neighborhood school and depend on their principals and teachers to meet their educational needs.
You're describing ALOs. Go ahead and ask the district to provide real ALOs at all schools - but please don't call it APP.
District staff will absolutely use that as an opportunity to get rid of APP. You don't have to destroy APP to create a program that meets the needs of other kids.
There are, in fact, several comments in the Growth Boundaries public feedback indicating that APP at Olympic Hills is not compatible with inclusive methodologies already in place at Olympic Hills, as well as how the boundaries needed to accommodate APP at Olympic Hills (Growth Boundaries version 1, Sept 17) bisect the Olympic Hills neighborhood, and restrict neighborhood children from access to the new building.
Olympic Hills has approximately 73% FRL, and a high proportion of non-English-speaking families. It is a vulnerable community, and it is a community that is not able to voice opposition as loudly as the more vocal and organized neighborhoods of NE Seattle.
If Director Peaslee is concerned about access to advanced learning throughout the NE, then perhaps a better cause would be to advocate for a strong Spectrum program at Olympic Hills, when space is available in the new building (2017).
As it will take a while for the new Spectrum program at Olympic Hills to establish, she could advocate NOW for the inclusion of a Spectrum feeder school at JAMS, in order help JAMS be a successful, well-rounded comprehensive middle school.
Director Peaslee's most recent community meeting was held September 5th, prior to the release of Growth Boundaries Version 1. I am concerned that Director Peaslee is losing touch with her constituents, especially those whose children attend neighborhood attendance-area schools within her district.
IMO, the amendment to place APP at Olympic Hills should be withdrawn, because it proposes to dramatically alter the culture and programming of an established school community, Olympic Hills Elementary, without proper engagement with that school community.
- North-end Mom
HU
I for one agree. I am willing to lose an APP cohesive cohort in favor of nearby access to the service. I would much rather have all my kids served in the same building. I do not need my children to be self-contained with other APPers. I want them to have a wide variety of friends.
With APP curriculum distributed throughout SPS, ultimately, it means APP kids would not be pushed around on space available reasoning, because they would already be in their neighborhood schools, along with their Gen Ed and SPED peers.
No more ridiculous enrollment machinations that harm all segments of learners.
No more special transportation trips.
And capital building plans (grow, contract)that are matched to the needs of the nearby residents.
Eureka.
I guess my rambling is to say that not everyone in the APP community is sold on "The APP Community". Some of us just want the service of accelerated learning.
I do agree with you, though, that the district needs to get this current mess and future direction straightened out and communicated pronto.
Another Parent
That was a lovely list of what you want, what you need and what you are willing to take away from other people's children to get your wish list fulfilled.
Can you spare a moment to share what happens in that scenario to the children who need more than "accelerated instruction?" Really - if APP is the only thing that works for a kid, where do they go now?
If what you want is APP curriculum in every neighborhood, have you considered having your child skip a grade or two? This would get them the exact curriculum they would receive in APP - without creating ridiculous scheduling machinations that would harm all segments of learners.
You post continuously on every single thread these days and I thought, as we're coming down to this final board meeting, that having a different perspective from the same community would be a good discussion point.
Your hostility and your entitlement to wanting the program to look exactly like it does right now does not leave much room for conversation.
Nor does it make you much of a public advocate for a level of learning that extends beyond your own kid. No wonder the district tunes out APP parents.
Wow. Just wow.
Another Parent
Wow, I can say that to you also. Just wow.
Because what you say is showing me that you don't have a true outlier student whose educational needs couldn't be met in the neighbor school.
I have one and I tried and I know it is impossible. And I also know we are not the only ones. That is why I am leaving SPS now before it is too late.
Sad but true
What I'm trying to say is that some kids absolutely need the current program. Please consider that when you're advocating for getting rid of the current program.
For other kids, I can see your perspective. I do think every middle school should be required to offer separate honors classes in all the core subjects. I think at many middle schools, you wouldn't be able to come up with enough kids ready to work two years ahead to make up more than one class - and that would be a major scheduling problem.
Isn't there a way we can meet the needs of the kids in both groups? If we work on getting those classes set up at every middle school, families could choose which works best for them. The self-contained program would shrink and would be less of a problem to house.
Ideally, APP in neighborhood schools existing harmoniously together would be great and would save many families from sending their kids on long bus rides. However, I don't know how long your child has been APP but there has been a long battle fought by successive APP parents trying to keep the educational integrity of the APP program intact as they get kicked and split and then kicked to the curbside again due to over-crowding in neighborhood schools.
The ideal APP program you and others describe resembles Spectrum/ALO program more than APP. That is probably what you should be advocating for in your neighborhood school.
What many APP parents fear when ideas like yours finds support is that APP will go the way of Spectrum/ALO - fade and basically be compromised to non-existance. The APP program in the north is not what it was before the split. It is beginning to get its bearings and figure out a way to deliver the APP education it is supposed to. Is it too much to ask that it be given some reprieve to strengthen its program before splitting it to be sent to foster homes?
If you try splitting the program into tiny bite size pieces just so no one has to do longer bus rides, you basically destroy the program. If you doubt, look at the history of Spectrum and see how it is implemented or NOT implemented in the district.
If the SPS delivers on real spectrum and ALO throughout the district, I think you will get what you are looking for, as will many other APP families who want to remain in their neighborhood schools. And those who truly need APP can stay in APP school as they should.
Equitable Access Framework
Ann D.
Are you still in your neighborhood school? What good would not having self contained APP do for you? Do you just want those kids back in class with your kid? Even if it's bad for them? Or are you at APP and want to be back in your neighborhood school? If so, maybe you should try it. The district already offers what you are suggesting, so if it is currently working the way it will always work. I think with the right principal, small class sizes, right philosophy, and right teachers, it can work. But since the district doesn't really like to focus energy on advanced learners (except during capacity crises), those supports are in short supply here.
-sleeper
In Green Lake
-sleeper
William
Is it fair to override other families's decisions about their children's needs to make your life more convenient?
He wants it to be an "attendance area school" with an international focus for kindergarten. And then, NEXT year decide if the whole school goes international.
First, I'll check with Tracy Libros, but I don't think this has been done before. Second, the big money for int'l IS in year one so we spend this money and then decide, "never mind." Three, I see this as a sop to DP families who had zero input on this but really, once they have started down this road, they're going to stay on it.
Rigor is a top down decision- your principal sets the tone. Parents have very little impact. If you don't have a supportive one, don't just ask other people to share your misery- move, or supplement.
-sleeper
The reason that you group APP students together is that it's much more efficient for the district and works out better for the kids.
Momof2
A continuum of services means that some students with stronger needs go to a designated school that has services for their needs (which is the equivalent of clustering and, for the most gifted, self- contained). However, they participate in PE, lunch, etc. in which they can interact with same age peers to the greatest extent possible. Only in the most extreme cases are students removed entirely from their peers and put into a separate school.
Lynn, your tendency to pigeon-hole people who don't agree with you has caused you to miss my point entirely, it seems.
--enough already
"Assign JAMS and Eckstein APP 6, 7, & 8 to Eckstein in 2014-15."
Oops.
HIMSmom
There are 10-12% of students in the northend who are APP. That's over 100 per middle school. And sleeper, your altruism is exceeded only by your humility. If you have a child actually doing schoolwork 5-6 years above age-based grade level, then you indeed have need for special self-contained environment with other students of comparable ability. Are you maybe referring to MAP scores? Cause 5 or 6 years ahead is pretty common.
Teacher
That's bad for our school system. If that many kids are that bright surely we can increase the overall rigor of the system! My kids can do more!
Gen Ed Mom
HIMSmom
Good golly, if I were staff I'd probably be laying on the floor doing the hysterical laughing/crying thing right now.
The agenda is looking very pretty. Today's color is purple!
-StepJ
10-12% is Hamilton, middle school, and only that middle school. It's an outlier. Elementary is a smaller percentage. People want to stay in their neighborhoods, until that doesn't work. Overall 4% of the district is APP.
And the Brulles system recommends a slightly lower same cut off we do- 97th percentile- and calls that "extreme." She also only recommends any kind of clustering in districts that are too small to support self contained, which she recommends as the standard.
-sleeper
Thank you for the clarification. I did miss that connection. (What I have read on the LRE as it relates to special education services doesn't include any mention of peer tutoring though.)
Isn't the LRE required in special education to provide the greatest benefit to the child with a disability? Can you help me understand who benefits from mixing highly capable and other students in PE and music classes?
I have read a bit on Brulles's school district. They do provide a range of services to gifted students. They do it by employing the following personnel to support Gifted Education Services in the District:
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
It probably is possible to educate a portion of our APP students in their neighborhood schools. It's expensive though. I'm really defensive about this issue for good reason. APP is the program in Seattle Public Schools that it's OK to hate. There is just no way the district is going to hire the necessary staff and reduce class sizes to make cluster-grouping of highly capable children in every school work. APP is a really inexpensive program - I think APP @ Lincoln has the lowest per-student budget in the district. Is the cost of replacing it with another model the best use of district funds?
"The Building Leadership Team of JA-K8 has mapped classroom usage when they relocate to John Marshall, finding that no classrooms will be available.
There is no information to substantiate that cost savings would be greater locating this program at John Marshall vs Lincoln.
• It should also be noted that the BLT of Jane Addams K-8 has already considered “whether to incorporate any of the instructional strategies, vision, mission, cultures, values and expectations in use at Pinehurst K-8 should be applied to Jane Addams K-8” as recommended in the BAR. The BLT determined that the two programs are fundamentally different and distinct in pedagogy and there is no gain for either program to attempt a partnered or blended model. Even the BAR contradicts this recommendation, as follows: “Instructional Analysis: It has been suggested that the Pinehurst program become a “program within a school” at either Thornton Creek or Jane Addams K-8, or Wilson-Pacific. This is not recommended. The concept behind option schools is that each school offers a unique alternative to the attendance schools in each region. Thus, merging two option schools is the most incongruous combination possible; by definition they are more different from one another than two attendance area schools would be. Not only do option schools have different visions, missions, cultures, values, behavior expectations, academic approaches – option schools have defined these beliefs into their identities as well as into their program. Unique identities are what makes each school special.”
-optioned out
But even 100 kids at a middle school is just one classroom per grade. If you send them to their neighborhood school, they'd have to take their four core classes with the same students every year. That seems very limiting socially. No middle school attendance area had enough students in each grade to make up two classes.
Not very nice - and you missed my point. If you want to educate highly capable students in their neighborhoods, using cluster grouping, it will be more expensive. You'll need smaller classes and you'll need teachers with special training and gifted program staff to advise those teachers. The current program is the most cost-efficient way to educate these children.
The argument you make is funny considering the arguments that have been made for keeping spectrum self-contained.
-been there.
That's where APP needs to head, serving strongly outlying kids. I agree 80% could be sent back to neighborhoods and cluster grouped or blocked with other strong students blended( that word strikes fear like miscegenation does to Umar Johnson) together. And all Brulles 's "specialists" are just regular teachers with some PD on gifted.
Keep the HC kids who cannot be accommodated, like sleepers 6 grade level above student, in APP self-contained. That is precisely the student we want to help. That is truly a special need. Working two years ahead is not.
Winnie
Eagle Scout
No splitting right now.
Walk tos standard in every school, for reading and math, up to three years ahead if the school is big enough.
Some kind of mandate from the district that schools have a plan for advanced learners aside from extra report cards and another worksheet, with some kind of stick if you don't do it. A plan for k-5, pathway for middle school.
After two years of this, ratchet up APP qualifications, 98+ on all 3. No retesting kids in the program, but for new kids, to minimize disruption. This is still probably slightly lower than absolutely necessary, but the test is a little squishy, and then assuming there is more rigor in neighborhood schools, fewer parents are going to choose to send their kids elsewhere- really just if it's clear they need it.
I have been poking around, and it seems like in other places that have appeals, the private appeal cut off is higher than the school cut off. I wonder if that is an option. I want to school cut off to err on the side of inclusion, so be a little low, but private appeals should be more accurate. Or to put it better- an appeal to get in should have the cut off be who we think it most necessary to serve, not kids who get captured by the fuzz at the margins because of group tests. Free appeals for up to 200% FRL, not just FRL.
What I don't think we should do is just dismantle the program that is the only option that works at all for many families because there is theoretically another way to do it. The program has grown because the district has systematically abolished advanced learning all over the district. On here the venom is saved for APP, but at the district level ANY advanced learning is segregation, special for this kid whose parents obviously cheated somehow, suspect, bad, not allowed until all other kids catch up. Parents are powerless to fight that in individual schools, and until the district decides to turn that around, APP is going to be the only place to serve kids who are ahead at all. So there will be overwhelming demand, and who can blame those parents? Their kids actually aren't being and won't be served in their neighborhood schools, even if it's possible they could be, under some other regime.
This will sound hopelessly naive, but I actually think if McCleary really happens, and class sizes get smaller, we'll see enormous improvement in both how advanced learners get served in neighborhood schools and who chooses self contained right there, even with nothing else.
-sleeper
I recently heard that the group CogAT testing uses the grade level for the norm rather than age. That is, all first graders, regardless of age, are compared to the national sample of first graders who took the test and comprise the normed group.
If true, does this bias the outcome toward older kids? You could have a child who was held back and starts Kindergarten at age 6, but a child who just turned 5 on August 31 might be in that same class.
With private testing, I believe that children are compared to other children their same age, right down to year and month.
As someone who likes looking at numbers, I'm curious if the appeal rate is higher for the young-for-grade kids versus the old-for-grade kids and whether this is something worth changing in the future (ie, evaluate kids versus age peers, not grade peers)
Interested
I'll put this on my list of questions for Stephen Martin, who is visiting Lincoln for a Q&A some time in December.
Also, any task force members our there who read this, please look into it! Thanks.
Then of course they have to decide what happens when you get designation.
I have a kid with a summer birthday in 3rd grade at Lincoln. We sent our kid to school on time, meaning started Kindergarten at 5 years old. The vast majority of kids in the same class at Lincoln are 9-14 months older than my child. This always made me wonder about the testing so I inquired. So, I know how the testing works. Yes, it definitely benefits children older for their grade.
The MAP scores, which are the gatekeepers to further testing, are GRADE based. If a kid with a May birthday is held back from starting K at 5 years old, that kid is 14 months older than many children who start on time. The parents think their kid is brilliant due to high MAP scores and have them CoGat tested. The CoGat test is AGE based within 3 months of the kid's bday. This is where the private testing comes into play so often.
Here's the example: little Johnny doesn't make the 98th eCoGat cut-off, but the parents think the kid is brilliant based on the MAP scores. Something must be amiss so they have him privately tested just for the CoGat. Who can blame those parents since the teachers (that I've encountered) don't even know how the AL testing system works.
Much of this would work itself out if testing didn't start until later. My experience is the benefits from holding a kid back start to disappear by mid-elementary school. Of course a kid who starts K at 6 years old will crush the K MAP test getting them a label that stays forever if they are in ALO/Spectrum/APP.
On another note, my other kid is GenEd at our neighborhood school. The math placement is a total crock-of-****. Once placed, kids stay on that track and there is no room for other kids. This placement happens at the beginning of 1st grade and is based on a 10 question test! Many of the kids in the advanced math are the PTA Board kids or kids with older siblings. They know how the system works and game it to get their kid into the class. Parents of 3rd graders at our school have been told their kid should be in the advanced walk-to-math class, but there's no room. They get extra worksheets.
A better approach than this walk-to-math BS would probably be to skip 1st grade math for ALL kids, or do K & 1st in K and then put all 1st graders right into 2nd grade math. The kids who struggle could be pulled out for tutoring to get caught-up. This worked for my GenEd kid who was behind in reading in K. Now, he is ahead of grade level.
People bag on APP, but the walk-to-math and differentiation is, for the most part save a few excellent teachers, a total CROCK! My kid at Lincoln does not need it for social reasons. I will say, however, MANY boys at Lincoln and a small handful of girls do need it for social reasons. For us, it was a way to challenge our very smart kid who may have been OK at our neighborhood school, but even the advanced math is a joke.
I know, I need a therapist.
P.S. What's the deal with the crazy need for equitable access to AL, but there's no such push for equality when it comes to language immersion? I know, they are adding more schools to say it's equitable, but McDonald and JSIS are still not accessible to anyone other than those in the geozones.