Friday Open Thread
Off to the Murray/Nyland press conference this morning at Madrona K-8.
And speaking of Madrona, there is to be a meeting next Wed, the 21st for "future families" for the to-be-reopened Meany Middle School at the Miller Community Center at 7 p.m.
Meany Middle School will house both general education and Spectrum programs. ALL students who live within the reference areas of Montlake, Stevens, Lowell, McGilvra, Madrona, Leschi and John Muir Elementary schools (including those in 7th and 8th grades) will be assigned to attend Meany in 2017. This means that current 5th graders will start at Meany in 8th grade. When it opens, Meany will have around 700 students, and it is projected that Meany will eventually house up to 850 students, allowing the school district to be able to serve the increasing number of school-age children in central Seattle and alleviating the current overcrowding at Washington Middle School.
For questions contact Jennifer Emrich (Montlake & Garfield parent), jen.emrich@comcast.net
Event next week not to be missed - Thursday, Jan. 22nd at 7 pm in the Quincy Jones Auditorium at Garfield High, 1968 Olympic bronze medalist, John Carlos, will be speaking on a community panel about the current Black Lives Matter movement. The panel also includes Garfield teacher/activist, Jesse Hagopian.
Arizona has become the first state in the country to require students to pass part of the U.S. Citizenship test on civics in order to graduate. Their law requires students to get 60 (out of 100) questions right. I'm not sure passing this test will make anyone a better citizen but we need better informed citizens.
What's on your mind?
And speaking of Madrona, there is to be a meeting next Wed, the 21st for "future families" for the to-be-reopened Meany Middle School at the Miller Community Center at 7 p.m.
Meany Middle School will house both general education and Spectrum programs. ALL students who live within the reference areas of Montlake, Stevens, Lowell, McGilvra, Madrona, Leschi and John Muir Elementary schools (including those in 7th and 8th grades) will be assigned to attend Meany in 2017. This means that current 5th graders will start at Meany in 8th grade. When it opens, Meany will have around 700 students, and it is projected that Meany will eventually house up to 850 students, allowing the school district to be able to serve the increasing number of school-age children in central Seattle and alleviating the current overcrowding at Washington Middle School.
For questions contact Jennifer Emrich (Montlake & Garfield parent), jen.emrich@comcast.net
Event next week not to be missed - Thursday, Jan. 22nd at 7 pm in the Quincy Jones Auditorium at Garfield High, 1968 Olympic bronze medalist, John Carlos, will be speaking on a community panel about the current Black Lives Matter movement. The panel also includes Garfield teacher/activist, Jesse Hagopian.
Arizona has become the first state in the country to require students to pass part of the U.S. Citizenship test on civics in order to graduate. Their law requires students to get 60 (out of 100) questions right. I'm not sure passing this test will make anyone a better citizen but we need better informed citizens.
What's on your mind?
Comments
The expectation of everybody should be that Meany Middle School will "house" the full continuum of services for special needs students too. It's really distressing that this basic announcement fails to acknowledge this important and so frequently/consistently excluded constituency in the central area. Hoping planners are on top of this one.
Watching
Also, it is interesting to hear that 8th graders will be pulled out of Washington and sent to Meany that first year. I think there will be a lot of unhappy students and surprised adults.
Mid-Capitol Hill
The financial tally and displacement of students due to those ill-conceived closures continues.
What a depressing statistic. Even more depressing: the degree to which state and national legislators, thinktanks and foundations fail to create and fund human services that are <b>intertwined</b> with classroom services. Without this pairing, public schools can't overcome poverty on a large scale.
In our own legislature, the Pay for Education by Starving Human Services push has already begun, as proposed by Republican (of course) Andy Hill.
I truly fear for the human services cuts likely to come out of this WA legislation session in the name of education. It will make matters worse, not better.
Bigger picture: the national public school poverty statistic is crushing. This country is on a downward slide. Class warfare, brought about by the hubris of the rich and the grinding poverty of the rest, with no middle class left, is quite likely our grandkids' economic and social destiny.
EdVoter
This is where it pays to watch what is happening in the rest of the district.
Remember, the initial proposal was to start new schools as 6th grade only & roll up. But that caused a huge parent outcry about 6th graders not getting a comprehensive middle school. So it was changed to move all grades to the new middle schools at once.
When Jane Adams middle school was opened this year, the boundaries increased economic disparity between the area middle schools. Also 7th & 8th graders were reassigned to the new middle school. I would not assume anything different in the opening of other new middle schools. Also disruptive was what happened to staff/teachers & programs.
-HS Parent
the majority of students in public schools live in poverty.
EdVoter
And now the PARCC testing consortium is down to 11 members.
I like it.
http://www.joannejacobs.com/2015/01/laser-like-focus-on-mission-critical-paradigms/
parent
Wow, I had major deja vu' moment of recent staff briefings.....
Of course, as is typical of OSPI (Toothless from HTTY-Dragon, just not adorable) the required corrective action was only applied to Roosevelt. It's been common-knowledge among parents for years that SPS secondary special education is, for the most part, a wasteland. The Memo hints that SPS might actually start following the law?! This I gotta see.
for 2015-16 on the agenda for yesterday's Operations Committee meeting.
From my reading of Leschi's webpage, the school has a mostly white, affluent Montessori program and a mostly black, not-so affluent general education program. School staff want to address inequitable education outcomes of these two populations by blending the programs so that every child receives math, phonics, grammar and geography instruction using Montessori methods and reading and writing instruction using the Readers and Writers workshop methods.
Here are some points from the school staff:
Evidence shows that in order to have an equitable learning opportunity for every child, our classrooms must be heterogeneous—integrated by race, culture, home language, and economics. Right now, they are not. Leschi currently has 387 students. We have 211 students in the Contemporary program and 176 students in the Montessori program. We have 9 Contemporary classes and 7 Montessori classes. Racial, cultural, home language, and socio-economic segregation has come to define the two programs. The Blended Model curricular approach offers the best approach to accelerating all students’ learning, starting from their just-right level.
Research shows that teacher morale has a huge impact on student performance. Teacher morale is really challenged by the current two-program system. The faculty has said that this proposed change is a start. This is getting rid of some of the barriers, so we can start really addressing the inequitable outcomes for students from a place where we are bringing all of the resources of our school to bear on a common problem.
I don't know much about Montessori methods - is the Readers/Writers workshop method superior?
This is reminiscent of the end of self-contained Spectrum at Lawton.
Is this split true at the other Montessori sites?
HP
One of the biggest problem with public Montessori schools is finding qualified teachers who are certified to teach grades 1–5+ When we were at Graham Hill, it was a nightmare—hopefully there are more now. But only a handful of schools even offer upper-grade training/certification for Montessori teachers. There is one south of Seattle (Federal Way—honestly can't remember).
The Montessori method is not a one-size-fits all program. It works great for some kids (like mine) and terribly for others (friend's children).
It CAN segregate classrooms because it is usually a "choice" option often selected more by "white" families than those of color. At Graham Hill, this was because of a lack of understanding by the uninformed. Many families and their kids thought it was some form of Special Ed (and it can be a great environment for kids who are kinetic and/or can't sit still at a desk for hours at a time).
Having separate programs is often unpopular with principals and staff. There are no easy or equitable solutions. I do not, however, believe that any "assignment" school should be 100% some special program (Montessori, Waldorf, Language, etc.). It's not fair to the families whose kids don't fit that mold.
- Neighborhood Parent
So where's the accountability? Who is being held accountable for this and how?
The school had to be somewhere and the boundaries should not be drawn to accommodate some notion of forced economic equality. Remember, we are moving to a neighborhood system and should not bus kids to far from where they live.
If we really want to bus fewer children, APP should be placed at Meany.
- Neighborhood Parent
skeptic
I would be angry if I'd enrolled my child in either program at this school.
Not quite.
APP kids are in separate classes for their LA/SS block and their science. Not the whole day.
Health, music, art, world languages, & PE are all blended. Math is by ability placement.
open ears
Old Timer
Go to the schools to "volunteer" and then have a wander to see the APP classes composition and the Gen Ed classes composition. Take a look at the lesson plans and demands on those kids and in turn the lesson plans and demands for the Gen Ed. Just talked to a student teacher who said he never gets homework from the Gen Ed kids and they seem to struggle over the APP classes and have less attention spans and behavior issues.
GHS has eliminated detention, suspension or any discipline as a result of the DOJ complaint so now kids who actually need a focus have no carrot or stick to encourage academics... they are utterly ignored. Hey no one wants kids kicked out but how about Saturday or Night School or some way of pushing kids into realizing that they need a push to make it as they don't have the APP label that gives one group an advantage over the other.
APP and IB causes the numbers to skew upwards when it comes to testing and disproportionately reflects a school. It is akin to adding a billionaire into a room of fast food workers and then the average or median income is suddenly raised to reflect an artificial high.
Gen Ed vs Advanced Ed are two schools in one school.
- Asking questions
The APP label doesn't give kids an advantage, and the label doesn't do the work for them. If other kids don't do their work, don't blame APP. Kids in APP aren't receiving something "better" than everyone else at school.
HF
You state that Garfield has "eliminated detention, suspension or any discipline as a result of the DOJ complaint."
I cannot imagine that "any discipline" is eliminated....could it be that that a positive/creative discipline approach is used as a response to offenses. It has been my experience that positive/creative discipline approaches are much more effective in correcting student behavior.
@ HF, your discussion of APP labeling is true on the surface. It can be PRISM, HCC, G& T, etc. But there's a lot beyond the name that makes the discussion very complex and such a flashpoint among educators, parents, and students. It certainly isn't just about kids who work for it and others who don't.
B&G
--- swk
As for any "program" that draws in the highly capable it levels the playing field so that the school can keep its enrollment numbers up. When you see such programs eliminated or non existent, Aki, comes to mind you see a school badly underenrolled and academically struggling.
So when you look at the real stats of the American schools as they currently have there are a lot of poor kids who need a lot not just academically and what school can provide that? So we add more acronyms, STEM, APP, IB, pick a letter and put it together and when all else fails add sports and the sports culture it provides. Colleges are now making money on their teams to rival NFL ones. Go team.
So if you aren't in one of those groups and sadly just "average" what does that do for you?
- Just asking questions
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_470200_000/
parent
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/01/17/chicago-school-district-refuses-to-give-parcc-common-core-test-as-mandated-by-the-state-of-illinois/
The idea - and pardon me if I have it wrong - is that APP (or Spectrum, Montessori, language immersion, or any other specialized program within a neighborhood attendance school) creates a school within in a school - two separate schools - and that there is no benefit to housing two schools in one building. More than that, that real harm is done by housing these two schools together and pretending that they are one school. This harm comes in a variety of ways:
* Children living in poverty lose Title I funding for their school because the children in the co-housed school are from affluent homes.
* Children can see the difference in lessons given the children in the other school.
* Children can see the difference in discipline for the children in the other school.
* District, state, and federal authorities judge the two schools as if they were a single school, resulting is a number of mismeasures of the school's activity.
* All sorts of statistical measures - like test scores, discipline rates, participation in advanced classes or music programs, etc. - that are supposed to have a normal distribution (bell curve), and are presumed to have a normal distribution, actually have a bi-modal distribution (with two peaks) and so all statistical averages and even medians are misleading. And all references and responses to those averages are based on a mistaken understanding of the data.
All of this is true and sound reasoning. So what do we do about it?
Do we eliminate APP, Spectrum, language immersion, Montessori, and the like? Do we standardize all classes across all schools? That would solve some problems, but it would create others. Would we rather have those problems instead?
Do we put these special programs in a stand-alone buildings instead of co-housing them in attendance area schools? That would solve all of these problems, but it would create others. Would we rather have those problems instead?
How can we achieve equity when there are children who are so different in their needs? How can we create equity when some sixth graders are ready for and Algebra and others in the same school still need their basic math facts? How can we create equity when some sixth graders have been schooled in music since the age of seven and others are picking up the instrument for the first time? How can we create equity when some children share a culture and a set of social norms with the teachers and other students come from a different culture with a different set of social norms?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know that this is one of the discussions that we should be having. And we can't shirk away from those discussions or dodge them by sniping at imperfect details, word choice, or rhetoric. We have to start by listening and thinking when someone starts just asking questions.
I think you got to the root of the problem with education thinking today. The questions you posed are the most serious problems we face in education, but they can't be solved easily and are ignored. If we don't solve hard issues like poverty, we won't get anywhere, yet the billionaires don't like to talk about it because there's no curricula or bubble test to be produced that can solve it. Worse yet, you can't blame it on the teachers.
The current state of education thinking is so depressing.
-resigned
observer
We have to tackle poverty. I good way would be to work to break the cycle of poverty by discouraging girls and women from having babies before they are able to raise them emotionally and financially, and backing up that discouragement with free and easily accessible means to prevent those pregnancies.
There are so many issues in play here that there are no simple, single answers. Empowering girls and women is making some headway in other parts of the world.
You can't make up for centuries of oppression and discrimination with simply providing equal access. There must be remediation.
It's analogous to cleaning up the Duwamish river.Just giving it a cessation of pollution is not going to ever turn into a viable environment for fish and clams, etc. It takes active steps to correct the neglect and abuse committed in the past.
Latest article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/montgomery-county-neglect-inquiry-shines-spotlight-on-free-range-parenting/2015/01/17/352d4b30-9d99-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html
Every child deserves an education that will give them the resources they need to survive and thrive in the world. That education should open them up to a wealth of possibilities in everything from STEM to the arts, as well as skilled trades.
But we are talking publicly funded education, and too many children start out disadvantaged because no one read to them when they were toddlers (parents either couldn't—ESL, didn't have the time, or didn't see the value). Or no one talked to them much (at least not in English).
There are a myriad of reasons why kindergarteners don't all start on a level playing ground. It's up to the public school system to try and make up the difference. Poverty is a huge contributor to this difference. We must work on that.
Parenting is the hardest job on the planet even when one is in a comfortable–exceptional financial situation giving parents the time and resources to devote to child rearing. I can only imagine how difficult that job is when a parent is worry about putting food on the table or paying for utilities.
We're moved on, but my student attended Bagley Elementary, which has both Montessori and Contemporary (the non-Montessori program). It is very tricky to have one school with two programs, but Bagley has managed it well (and we were there through something like 4 principals over a long period of time). It is a little separate, because kids are either in the one or the other, but lunch, recess, after-school, school family events, etc. are whole school. I think both programs are strong and I think there is at least a little benefit from the Montessori program being there for the school at large. So, it can work, I think. APP plus neighborhood school might be harder. Also good to have both programs for parents with two or more kids -- sometimes Montessori works well for one, but not another, and this offers a good match for different learning styles at one school. For us, public Montessori worked very well.
--Public Montessori Parent
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/17/koch_brotherscharter_school_nightmare_white_kids_get_to_go_to_a_school_with_a_montessori_approach_while_children_of_color_get_eye_control/
CCA
How do we identify the potential of each student and know when we've achieved it? And which potential outcomes are we talking about --- academic, social-emotional, athletic, financial, artistic, etc.?
And we've tried these things to some degree in the past and it's led to disaster, mostly for minority and low-income students who were pushed (i.e., advised) into vocational and general track courses and pathways because the powers that be believed this was their potential. It's called tracking.
--- swk
You might be surprised that achieving student potential is in fact included in the school board policies.
"The Board of Directors of Seattle Public Schools believes that every student can and must learn at grade level and beyond, and that all students will be afforded the opportunity to reach their potential and graduate from high school ready for college, career, and life."
"Programs designed to promote the full development of each student’s capabilities, including social/emotional capabilities, to ensure that all students can meet or exceed college ready standards in addition to state and district performance standards, regardless of the student’s skills upon entering school"
You an call them platitudes, but they are in fact policy.
--- swk
Blite, there may be Board policies but our Board certainly doesn't enforce them and, of course, they are not laws.
I also have seen that the board, as well as staff, believe in these ideals and work hard to achieve them.
Certainly for students with disabilities it is legally required.
I think that we have to meet each student where they are. That may mean giving them breakfast, teaching ELL, teaching school culture,teaching social skills, giving students extra time to learn things, second chances to learn things, different learning strategies.
I was in one school that agreed that they would provide equal access but they did not think it was their job to offer any different support for different students. So if your parent could teach you to read a text book, take notes & memorize them for a test, then you did fine. If your parents didn't teach you that, then you fail. If you needed extra help or remediation for a skill not mastered in an earlier grade it was up to your parents to teach it or hire a tutor. Fortunately those students mostly came from parents who were college educated & could afford tutoring. I'm guessing that 25% of those students had a private tutor at some point. What would have happened to a different population meeting those expectations?
If we are going to get all kids to graduation then remediation must be part of the job. Whether it is Saturday school, opportunities to repeat classes with no penalty, or small groups within a class working on skills.
-HS Parent
And swk, "opportunity to reach potential" and "maximize potential" are the same thing. Reaching vs. maximizing doesn't make any sense in the context of one's potential, since potential implies the maximum. Unless you're suggesting that the board's use of "afforded the opportunity" is board doublespeak for "hey, we're not going to help, but we're not standing in your way of learning on your own..." Was that your point?
Half Full
In my reading of these policies --- "...all students will be afforded the opportunity to reach their potential...." along with "Programs designed to promote the full development of each student’s capabilities.." --- indicates to me that the board will ensure that there will be courses of study and programs made available that provide all students the opportunity to maximize their potential. However, the board is not ensuring outcomes. In other words, programs and courses of study (plus supports) will be made available to students. There is no guarantee, however, that students will avail themselves of these opportunities nor is there a guarantee of college and career readiness for all students.
That is the difference between equity of opportunity and equity of outcomes IMO.
And despite blite's inappropriate but ultimately ineffective insults, there is some bit of word-smithing to written policy and how this policy is written clearly indicates a focus on opportunity, not outcomes.
--- swk
This all goes back to that dreaded word: equity. What does it mean in public education? Equity of outcomes--even though not all have the same potential? Equity of access--even though some need more in order to reach a lower bar, and others will exceed that bar if they get that same level of access?
What about equity of opportunity, whatever that even means? Would equity of opportunity mean everyone gets the exact same program/service? Or would it mean that everyone has equal opportunity to learn, so that those who start higher have the opportunity to continue growing just as much? That doesn't solve the gap, but it seems equally unfair to hold some kids back...
The board throws this equity thing around all the time, but it's never clear what they mean. Equity and equality are not the same thing, and equity can be understood in many different ways. What is their intent/goal--and are they even on the same page?
Half Full
Equitable Acess Framework
For example, slide 7 says they should (a) "place programs or services equitably across the district" (#2 on the list); and (b) "place programs or services where students reside" (#3). So which is it? APP/HCC is a good example of a service in which placing it where most students reside means it will be clustered in certain areas of the district. What exactly does placing them "equitably" across the district mean?
Or how about slide 9, which reads:
Equitable Access – “the district shall provide every student with equitable access to a high quality curriculum, support, facilities, and other educational resources, even when this means differentiating resource allocation”
For one thing, that's completely untrue given the NSAP and the clear differences in curricula and offerings across schools. For another, what does "equitable access" mean? That everyone has the same chance of getting in, regardless of other factors? Or could equitable access be dependent upon other factors, e.g., geography, sibling preference, qualifying for HCC, etc.?
From what I can tell, the Equitable Access Framework never once defines what they mean by equitable access. Am I wrong?
Half Full