Updated Draft of Advanced Learning Policy Still Needs Improvement

The District has posted an updated draft of the proposed Advanced Learning Policy and Procedure.

The updated versions still contain the flaws of the previous drafts.


Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Greg said…
Reposting for Anonymous (because they will get deleted for not using a name and because I agree and was about to say the same thing):

That's because they didn't listen to input and hardly made any changes.

Why do we bother?
Anonymous said…
Sorry, that was me above. (And thanks for the save, Greg!)

Charlie Mas said…
Regarding the proposed policy 2190:

"The framework for such programs or services will encompass, but is not limited to, the following objectives:
A. Equitable access to academically challenging programs and services;
B. Continuous growth in academic and intellectual skills;
C. Stimulation of intellectual curiosity, independence and responsibility;
D. Development of a positive attitude toward self and others; and
E. Development of originality and creativity.

While this statement meets the requirements of Policy 2090, which requires the Board to state the objectives of each academic program, the degree to which these goals are achieved will be difficult, if not impossible, to assess. Could the Board not choose more readily measured objectives?

Also, how are these objectives unique to Highly Capable students? Wouldn't these objectives apply equally to all students?

The policy includes nothing about the teachers and their qualifications or professional development nor anything about the qualifications or professional development of other school staff like principals and counselors. That's a pretty bad oversight.

The policy is pretty vague about what the students are going to get. They will receive "one or more of the following: enhanced curriculum, appropriately differentiated instruction, deeper learning opportunities, and/or accelerated pacing."

Where is there any definition or quantification of these? Perhaps in the procedure? Nope. In the absence of that definition they are meaningless.
Charlie Mas said…
Regarding proposed Procedure 2190SP

The procedure promises “advanced curricula”, but tat isn't what’s promised in the policy. The policy does not include "advanced curricula" among the four possible deliverables.

Spectrum students don't get advanced curricula in writing, science or social studies? Why not?

These programs are also open to individual students who have been identified as ready for a more rigorous curriculum

Hmmm. Passive voice. Identified by whom? Does that include self-identified?

What is the make-up of the Multidisciplinary Selection Committee? That should be in the procedure.

What is the point of allowing students to test to qualify for HCC in grades 8-12 if entrance to the program ends at grade 8?

Access to Spectrum is not guaranteed, but were is there any assurance that the District will right-size the Spectrum programs to match the demand for them? We need that. Otherwise, there's nothing to keep the District from making Spectrum programs absurdly small.

students grouped within classrooms that have multiple Highly Capable and/or Advanced Learners” requires definition and clarification. In the absence of that definition this language is meaningless.
Anonymous said…
The Advanced Learning Dept. has also posted FAQs related to the feedback.

(see link under "More Information")

Anonymous said…
The 2E content is completely insufficient. They need to do more than to say they will support testing. They need a statement saying they will not screen out based on standardized measures. And there isn't a word about modifying curriculum to meet individual 2E learner needs which must be stated at the level of policy in my opinion. Where is this reluctance coming from? I don't get it.

Still trying
Anonymous said…
"Equitable access to academically challenging programs and services"

No, this hasn't happened before, unless you are satisfied that the demographics of APP represent the talents and potential of the students in this district. Seattle is not unique in underrepresenting non-privileged groups, but that is not an acceptable excuse, either.

That includes how 2E or others with disabilities are not included as they should be.

--enough already
Charlie Mas said…
@enough already,
It may not have happened before, but it certainly has been promised before. The promise is worthless if it isn't fulfilled.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools