Board Meeting Ramps Up
First, there will be a meeting - called by the Superintendent - for discussion around renovating T.T. Minor to be the new home for World School. The meeting is tomorrow night, Monday the 18th, at JSCEE at 5:30 pm.
I'm not sure what form the discussion will take. The issue is two-fold. One, World School has been consistently ignored by the district and the Board (or takes a backseat to almost every other program, take your pick). At one point, their BEX III money had disappeared. When it reappeared, it was less than had been allotted with no explanation.
But the concern is that T.T. Minor may not end being their permanent home. Data indicates that the Central Area growth will need that space. At the Work Session last week, it was suggested if that happens, the district would be able to add a wing to Bailey-Gatzert. This may be true but for two issues.
One, B-G is not in the same place as T.T. Minor - it seems like this would add more transportation costs. Two, where would this capital money come from? If the enrollment grows in the next 3-5 years, that might indicate BEX IV money might have to come from somewhere to fulfill this need.
Next, there will be a rally in support of the Native American community at 3:30 pm on Wednesday before the School Board meeting. Wear a red shirt in support. They seek:
- revitalization of the Native Heritage program
- rename Indian Heritage as the "Robert Eaglestaff" school (as previously promised)
- preserve the murals at Wilson-Pacific
- address why 30% of youth are in Special Education
- address the issue of failing to comply with IEPs and 504s
Last (and a huge shout-out to Tracy Libros and her staff), information on the APP pathways plus a bonus of info on the amendment process.
What may be confusing people is that there was a lot of discussion about APP (particularly APP middle school) at the Board Work Session on November 13. Directors DeBell and Martin-Morris proposed locating APP at Hamilton, Jane Addams and Wilson-Pacific Middle Schools. APP pathway assignments would be formed by aggregating elementary attendance areas, instead of middle school service areas.
I'm not sure what form the discussion will take. The issue is two-fold. One, World School has been consistently ignored by the district and the Board (or takes a backseat to almost every other program, take your pick). At one point, their BEX III money had disappeared. When it reappeared, it was less than had been allotted with no explanation.
But the concern is that T.T. Minor may not end being their permanent home. Data indicates that the Central Area growth will need that space. At the Work Session last week, it was suggested if that happens, the district would be able to add a wing to Bailey-Gatzert. This may be true but for two issues.
One, B-G is not in the same place as T.T. Minor - it seems like this would add more transportation costs. Two, where would this capital money come from? If the enrollment grows in the next 3-5 years, that might indicate BEX IV money might have to come from somewhere to fulfill this need.
Next, there will be a rally in support of the Native American community at 3:30 pm on Wednesday before the School Board meeting. Wear a red shirt in support. They seek:
- revitalization of the Native Heritage program
- rename Indian Heritage as the "Robert Eaglestaff" school (as previously promised)
- preserve the murals at Wilson-Pacific
- address why 30% of youth are in Special Education
- address the issue of failing to comply with IEPs and 504s
Last (and a huge shout-out to Tracy Libros and her staff), information on the APP pathways plus a bonus of info on the amendment process.
What may be confusing people is that there was a lot of discussion about APP (particularly APP middle school) at the Board Work Session on November 13. Directors DeBell and Martin-Morris proposed locating APP at Hamilton, Jane Addams and Wilson-Pacific Middle Schools. APP pathway assignments would be formed by aggregating elementary attendance areas, instead of middle school service areas.
After Board discussion of the attached “MS APP Alternatives” information, they withdrew their proposed amendment and replaced it with Alternate 2 in the chart. This keeps APP at Hamilton, Jane Addams and Wilson-Pacific Middle School as they originally proposed. However, they eliminated the component that would have formed APP pathways by aggregating elementary attendance areas instead of middle school service areas.
Their amendment is now on the Board Agenda for Wednesday’s meeting as Amendment 4. This is the only amendment currently proposed regarding APP middle school.
As I’m sure you know, what will happen at the Board meeting is that Board Directors will propose their amendments one at a time. Each proposed amendment that is seconded will then be considered and voted up or down. The amendments that are approved will become part of the main motion. Then, the Board will vote on the main motion as amended.
After Board discussion of the attached “MS APP Alternatives” information, they withdrew their proposed amendment and replaced it with Alternate 2 in the chart. This keeps APP at Hamilton, Jane Addams and Wilson-Pacific Middle School as they originally proposed. However, they eliminated the component that would have formed APP pathways by aggregating elementary attendance areas instead of middle school service areas.
Their amendment is now on the Board Agenda for Wednesday’s meeting as Amendment 4. This is the only amendment currently proposed regarding APP middle school.
As I’m sure you know, what will happen at the Board meeting is that Board Directors will propose their amendments one at a time. Each proposed amendment that is seconded will then be considered and voted up or down. The amendments that are approved will become part of the main motion. Then, the Board will vote on the main motion as amended.
Comments
They've left lots of space at JAMS for APP and under the current proposal, those seats will remain empty.
Amendment 4 makes no sense. It only directs the school board to assign all 6-8 students in the new Jane Addams attendance area to JAMS next year - and to assign all 6-8 students in the HIMS zone to HIMS next year. It doesn't specify any other changes, and makes no reference to the attachment which actually shows what Director DeBell wants to happen with APP. If the amendment passes as written, next fall JAMS would open with 6-8 general education and Spectrum students - and 82 APP students. Eckstein, Whitman and HIMS APP students would remain at HIMS.
Amendment 3 moves three areas (A, C and D) into Madrona's assignment area. Students in Areas C and D are grandfathered at their current schools, but not those in area A.
Joe's ITCM BAR asks the Board to authorize the plan in Section VII. That palm includes placing APP at Eckstein and Whitman. Tracy's BAR doesn't leave room for this.
Who wrote these?
I was at the Board Work Session, and heard the decision for the HMM/MDB amendment to switch from their aggregate scheme to version 2 of the staff APP scenario (with both JAMS and Eckstein APP kids at JAMS), but that is not clearly stated anywhere in the current wording of the HMM/MDB amendment.
As a prospective JAMS parent, I find it incredibly-frustrating that it is three days before the vote, and the JAMS constituency is still pretty undetermined.
When Wedgwood was put in JAMS, I was happy (sorry, Wedgwood), because that meant that JAMS would have a decent-sized cohort of Spectrum-level advanced learners to support the smattering of advanced learners still at our neighborhood schools (lots of advanced learners have been sucked into the JA K-8 in recent years).
Now I'm wondering how (or even if) those kids will be supported, as cohort size matters for Spectrum, too, not just APP.
In the original post to this thread, Tracy states that HMM/MDB's amendment was going with the staff version 2, which has both JAMS and Eckstein APP at JAMS, along with John Rogers, Olympic Hills, Sac, and Cedar Park). The version 2 proposal is now attached to the HMM/MDB amendment.
The projections for the version 2 proposal show JAMS maxed-out in just 4 years (2017-18), and the other north-end middle schools, including Eckstein, are under-enrolled in 2017-18).
Will they just be moving all the Eckstein portables up to Jane Addams?
Also, I noticed that the Pinehurst-related amendments had been moved to the Pinehurst closure action item, so now the GB amendments have been re-numbered...adding to the confusion!
- North-end Mom
The Issues around Native Education are many, including the following:
Preservation of the Murals in their original state.
Over representation of Native Students in Special Education Programs.
Revitalization of The Indian Heritage School (as was promised) with resources provided.
Returning Indian Heritage School to its home at the Licton Springs (Wilson-Pacific)site.
Naming the buildings at the Licton Springs site after Robert Eaglestaff.
Spectrum students at Wedgwood (and View Ridge) come from all over the NE, not just the Wedgwood or View Ridge assignment areas because these are the Spectrum schools for the NE. So the above statement doesn't make sense. Wouldn't Spectrum qualified students in the JAMS reference area (that qualify for Spectrum at Wedgwood or View Ridge) still feed into JAMS? Hasn't Wedgwood's Spectrum also lost some students to APP due to their change in Spectrum delivery - those students may then feed into JAMS as APP middle school students.
-confused
Yes, there are Spectrum students at JAMS who live in the JAMS attendance area (John Rogers, Sac and Olympic Hills, at least for now) who go to Wedgwood (or View Ridge), and those kids will be assigned to JAMS. There are probably some at other NE schools too, who entered during the era of choice. They will be eligible for a feeder pattern tie-breaker to Eckstein, so who knows if they will actually show up at JAMS?
If I had a kid in Spectrum, I would want to be sure that there was an adequate cohort size. I think without that assurance, these families will go private if they don't get a feeder pattern tiebreaker to Eckstein.
The JA K-8 Spectrum program has been very popular, and I suspect that more neighborhood kids are going there for Spectrum now, than to Wedgwood or View Ridge.
What concerns me is the long-term stability of the Spectrum-level cohort.
How can you have long-term stability without a robust Spectrum feeder school? There will always be a handful of Spectrum-level kids at the ALO schools feeding into JAMS(John Rogers, Sac, and Olympic Hills), but it seems unlikely that there are enough kids to form a large-enough cohort for differentiated instruction, course scheduling, etc...
- North-end Mom
-Capt Stubing
-observer
Central
1. Take TT Minor, spend the capital money, and probably get moved out within 5 years. In the next move, there might not be capital money to improve the location.
2. Take an interim that might work, commute-wise for the majority of their students, but be absolutely miserable for some. Locate a permanent site (which could take a couple of years), and improve it with the capital money.
Neither option is desirable. And we can talk all we want about a wing on Gatzert, which raises questions of its own, but long-term, (the city estimates 300-500 new elementary students from Yesler Terrace), the district will need TT Minor AND a wing on Gatzert.
Maybe there's a third, much better, option for the World School. I hope so - but I don't see one.
Yes, math placement should be based upon ability level. I've spoken to the JAMS planning principal, and she seems very on top of it, and I don't think math will be a problem.
The JA K-8, with its jumbo-sized 6th grade (180 kids?) was able to offer "honors" LA/SS this year for 6th grade. There hasn't been much in the way of honors or Spectrum LA/SS there for the previous years at the middle school level, due to insufficient cohort sizes.
It's possible that a lot of the Spectrum/honors kids will stay in the building, at JAMS next year, but what about subsequent years?
"If you build it they will come" might work, but it sounds kind of risky.
- North-end Mom
I took another look at the DeBell/Martin-Morris amendment, and though the actual proposed action report is not clear, it looks like the attachments were updated (with the titles switched, by the way), and the attachment with the assignment info states that APP students living in both the Eckstein and JAMS attendance areas will be assigned to JAMS.
There's never been any meaningful discussions about APP or anything else program-related...if these discussions happened, the neighborhood families were not invited to participate. When we've asked to have these discussions (about JAMS programming), we are told we have to wait until we know who will be assigned to JAMS.
They put a Spectrum school into the feeder pattern, then took it out, leaving parents to wonder if they have to start looking into Shoreline or private schools to support their advanced learner currently at a neigbhorhood ALO school.
It is nuts!
- North-end Mom
Traditionally, the APP middle school pathway is composed of middle schools (eg, Hamilton currently is fed by Whitman, McClure, Eckstein and Hamilton).
Now, instead of 1 northern pathway, they are pretending there will be three: Hamilton (fed by Hamilton and McClure plus WP until WP is open) and Jane Adams ( fed by JAMS and Eckstein) and WP (fed by Whitman and WP). In about 2 years, Hamilton will collapse - and WP is suppose to start in the Marshall building.
So how does anyone get from this it is not Middle school - but a whole seperate scheme just for APP that is directly based on elementaries - where is the wording that makes this policy?? Charlie, Melissa, please, please answer.
Because, if that is the case, it is different than every other student, and because they'd cap it - which is what MD and HMM wanted to do, it means they would pull and yank and shuffle elementaries every year to avoid going beyond their caps. Like flying standby while everyone else loads on the plane.
A new low. And the fact that they said at the work session they withdrew that scheme, and now somehow it's back? Only it is not clear, and, only the blog authors are calling it out so that it might be detected?
DeBell sold schools, gave Maria Goodloe Johnson a raise, adopted Singapore materials to complement Every Day Math (which NEVER happened), let capacity get so bad the District places more than 30 portables a year, has utterly failed Special Ed, has pushed World School around, and now is capping APP, stealthily so?
Clearly, he is a guy who has no political ambitions whatsoever, because he is never going to be able to escape the mess he has made and is bequeathing to the new Board and to SPS families. His 'swan song' is leaving things a mess. Polarizing would be putting it mildly.
-clear as mud
I'm pretty sure Spectrum is guaranteed at the MS level but not at the elementary level. So even if Wedgwood were drawn into the JAMS area, the Spectrum kids might still be going to Eckstein. Plus, the Spectrum kids at OH and JR could choose Eckstein too, right?
You might be looking at an old version of the DeBell/Martin-Morris amendment? Here is a link to their post-work session amendment:
http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Departmental%20Content/school%20board/13-14%20agendas/112013agenda/20131120_Action_Report_AmendmentMDBHMM.pdf
To me, this reads (in the attachment) that they are going by middle school attendance area, not aggregates, with Eckstein and JAMS APP kids feeding into JAMS.
The feeder patterns they are apparently using are those is alternate 2 from the attachment, where the feeder patterns for JAMS, Hamiton, and Eckstein are the same as in the Growth Boundaries BAR.
- North-end Mom
Every middle school is required to provide a Spectrum program. JAMS-area Spectrum students will not have an option to attend Eckstein.
We were told that ALL comprehensive middle schools offer Spectrum, so that would include JAMS. It is part of what makes a comprehensive middle school "comprehensive," right?
It is my understanding that if you live in the JAMS attendance area and your kid qualifies for Spectrum, then JAMS is your Spectrum school.
From what I can tell, beginning next fall, all kids living in the JAMS attendance will lose their assignment to Eckstein, including Spectrum kids (except for kids who may need special Sped services provided at Eckstein, but not at JAMS). I'm pretty sure this includes any Spectrum 7th and 8th graders pulled off by the geo-split.
Incoming 6th grader Spectrum kids who live within the JAMS attendance area, but attended Wedgwood or View Ridge for elementary Spectrum would be assigned (by address) to JAMS, but could apply for a feeder pattern tiebreaker to Eckstein, since they went to elementary school at an Eckstein feeder school.
Spectrum kids who attend the Jane Addams K-8 (for elementary) will be able to stay at JA K-8 for middle school (they don't automatically go to JAMS, they will have to chose JAMS during Open Enrollment if they want to go there).
My point, is that, even if there are enough Spectrum kids pulled out of Eckstein or staying in the JA building from the K-8, for long-term stability, it is crazy to say that JAMS will "offer" Spectrum, but then not back that up by having a Spectrum school feeding into JAMS. If they eventually put Spectrum in at Olympic Hills, or somewhere else in the feeder pattern, that would be great, but we are years away from those kids entering JAMS.
- North-end Mom
The most important things are a strong principal and teaching staff. If you have good teachers but no spectrum program, your kid is better off anyway.
-ML Mama
Good point, but it's rather depressing, isn't it, that Principals can just scrap these programs? But then, Spectrum has become a joke anyway, it seems to me.
-ML Mama
ALO is well-supported at my kid's school (John Rogers), but we have noticed a decline in advanced learners since JA K-8 opened (1/2 mile away). Maybe it is a perception thing (Spectrum- vs - ALO), or what works for one kid doesn't work for the other, I don't know.
A lot of it has to do with resources, for example, as a small school, we haven't been able to afford a math specialist (one year, our principal taught an advanced math group, in the hallway!), and for the past two years, our PTA has been covering the counselor through grants.
I understand that families will do what they think will be best for their child when looking for a school for their child, some go to the JA K-8, and some are well-served at the neighborhood assignment schools.
On a previous thread, it was reported that there was something like 15 spectrum-qualified kids, school-wide, at John Rogers compared to over 130 at the JA K-8. Those K-8 Spectrum kids may chose to stay with the K-8, or possibly go to JAMS. Either way, I think there has to be a more robust feed of Spectrum-level learners at JAMS to have a large enough cohort for the JAMS Spectrum kids to be served.
- North-end Mom
It's great that JR has a robust ALO program. I wish all schools had that (and I really don't understand why they don't)!
When we were looking at our school choices, OV (our assignment school) didn't offer anything (not even WTM) and we got the impression from the then-Principal that he wasn't supportive of advanced learners, so we didn't feel we had a choice, since we didn't want our kid to be bored in school. I gather things have changed a bit at that school since then, but I still hear of new kids coming over to JA K-8 from OV for Spectrum. I do agree that JAMS needs to have the right mix of feeder schools and that's why I think it's such a shame that WW gets a free pass to stay at Eckstein. I suspect a lot of the JA K-8 kids who came as elementary kids for Spectrum will want to stay at JA K-8 because they already know the staff etc, but it's so hard for anyone to make decisions with no information about the JAMS programming. This really has to be known before Open Enrollment to be fair on 5th grade families (not just at JA K-8, but at all the NNE schools).
-ML Mama
Ben
Ben
One "honors" class per year?
Seriously? Are you proposing that middle school kids (who are taking any number of elective combinations, including advanced math, band, language, etc...) will be able to manipulate their schedules to take honors LA/SS if there is only enough kids for one LA/SS class? How can the schedules for those 30 kids magically gel so they can take LA/SS during the same periods?
Help me out, middle school (and former middle school parents), is this feasible???
I hear APP parents talking all the time about how 270 is their minimum cohort size. Do any of you AL people know how big a Spectrum cohort needs to be viable at a comprehensive middle school?
Eckstein's Spectrum program is pretty healthy, since it has two large Spectrum programs feeding into it (Wedgwood and View Ridge), so I'm sure there are ample numbers there, but what about at other schools?
- North-end Mom
-sleeper
Thanks.
BTW, I've heard that the Registrar is the most important staff person at a middle school. I am beginning to understand that now. I hope JAMS lands a good one!
- North-end Mom
Is that correct?
- North-end Mom
These Spectrum numbers look quite small to me. I would want some assurances the district intends to keep it self contained (the classes would be small- how would that affect the rest of the populations? At other Spectrum schools the spectrum classes are the largest, and gene d is smaller). If it intends to disperse it, I'd assume that would be yet another thing sending Spectrum families clamoring to get into Eckstein.
-sleeper
Ant
Crown Hill Mom.
Advanced learners at ALO schools, such as the JAMS feeder schools, don't necessarily take the AL test to qualify for ALO. Those kids won't have an official Spectrum designation, but they should still be served at their ability level. Still, it seems like you need a good-sized cohort of students capable of advanced work to make even non-self-contained classes work.
- North-end Mom
-sleeper
Madronna is a K-8 that appears to have a shrinking enrollment and could accommodate the world school population at no cost. It seems simple.
Don't even want to bring up the issue that the kids who are going to go to Meany could then be housed at TT minor until Meany is done. This would help Washington, Madronna and the world school with a lot less cost than projected. It keeps TT minor free to be used for the growing need that will be there in a few years.
"By moving to a cluster grouping model, Spectrum-identified students will be integrated into mixed-ability classrooms with rigorous instruction and teachers who will provide appropriate differentiation opportunities for any students who need them. Differentiation will occur as teachers modify the curriculum and their instructional strategies to meet the needs, strengths, learning styles, and interests of individual students so that ALL students will have the opportunity to learn to their full potential."
The only reason that this mixed ability grouping isn't done in 6th grade is because the principal eliminated Spectrum after open enrollment last spring and incoming 6th grade parents were upset at the bait and switch. So for this year it is only being done to 7th and 8th grade students. But you can bet that next year it will be school-wide no real Spectrum. Let's call it what it is, ALO, but it ain't Spectrum.
You also can test into any math but Whitman doesn't make it easy. They administer a beginning and end of the year placement test. Who came up with this test? Not sure anyone knows. This test isn't given at any other Seattle middle school, it's just something that Whitman cooked up. From their website:
"Accelerated math placement at Whitman has been an ongoing concern. Experience shows that even if they are recommended by the District for advanced math, students who don't have a strong foundation in sixth- grade math concepts have difficulties being successful in Whitman's accelerated math program. 40% of last year's sixth- graders placed into accelerated math by district recommendation did not pass the year-end placement test or receive teacher recommendations to continue in accelerated math, and are now repeating the seventh- grade math curriculum. Prior to the district recommendation process, over 90% of all accelerated math students at Whitman passed the year-end placement test on a consistent basis."
To pass this end of the year test, you have to score a 92% or higher to move on to the next level for the next school year. If you score lower than 92% then your child will be repeating math the following year. Doesn't matter if you got good grades all year. Get a 91% and you will repeat your math class. Awesome.
This isn't a Spectrum issue, this is a lack of district oversight issue.
NorthBallard
And discussing just capacity doesn't address whether or not co-housing a K-8 and a 6-12 is best for the kids in either program.
It seems like setting aside a whole building for 120 kids isn't really workable in a district as crowded as this one. I know promises were made, but they were made at a time when we had lots of extra inventory and a choice system. Services are getting spread out for AL and SPED too. The world has changed.
Combine the budgets for the Mann renovation and World school buil out and build an addition, or seperate building at the Mann building site for the World school. Then the World school and Nova would continue their connection that they currently have. This would allow the World school students to be able to have access to the resources of Nova and Garfield.
-185, not 600
World School need a real home, not someplace they'll get shuffled out of again and again.
Central
As far as a placement test, it is valuable to have a test other than MAP in which you can check performance on specific skills. MAP scores can't tell you if a student is struggling with dividing fractions or multiplying decimals. So beginning and end of year tests are valuable, I just question their use as a single determinant in placement.
From the district:
In early spring, schools will receive placement recommendations for students based on each student’s current math course, grade in that course (for 8th grade students), teacher recommendation, most recent state test scores, and MAP data.
Is it the use of MAP that is misidentifying students for placement?
-parent
I was able to see it from your link, but strangely I can't seem to find it on the link to the agenda.
Did it go away again or? Are you still seeing a revised agenda with a link to the updated BAR?
At any rate, B is not actually in the motion that was there the last time I looked, so unless they changed it to read that both Attachments A and B are approved, I'm not sure how these rules get accepted. I guess that the "optional" assignment to a "program" alleviates the need for board approval of student assignment rules.
Expect that Option schools have geozones, so that doesn't follow. What are the rules for student assignment for the optional APP programs?
Anyway, this does not actually mention North APP at all, so I think there is STILL NO NORTH APP boundaries or pathways up for approval in this BAR. Am I missing something somewhere?
"ACCELERATED PROGRESS PROGRAM (APP)
Current south end APP pathways remain in place, with eligible students guaranteed pathway assignments at Thurgood Marshall, Washington, and Garfield.
APP will be offered as an option for eligible students at Fairmount Park in West Seattle
beginning in 2014-15 (and subsequently at Madison). This will be a different service delivery model, which is why enrollment is optional. It is anticipated that this will serve students who live in West Seattle who may not have participated in APP previously because of the distance to their pathway schools.
APP may be offered as an option in Southeast Seattle in the future if eligibility and enrollment increases warrant additional sites. There are no plans to implement additional such sites at this time."
Eden
The world has not changed that much.
First, World School is the middle/high school for recent immigrant students. It would be very difficult for some to just walk into a regular middle or high school.
Two, oh, so when do we decide which promises we keep and those we don't?
It's ironic that you say "the world has changed" and I'm sure that's exactly how the students and parents of World School feel.
The Islamic School idea might be good. There is no room to build on at Mann so that's not an option.
It is entirely credible to say that World School could easily grow to 300-400 IF they had the right programming and services. That's not aspirational. We hear this discussion about JAMS and its growth.. ALL parents want their students at schools that can serve their needs.
I still see the new attachment on the Agenda found here.
I don't think you're missing anything. If DeBell's amendment doesn't pass this week, the Superintendent can decide anytime before open enrollment where middle school APP is placed.
--definitions please
Selective enforcement of "the law" or justice for all?