Washington Middle School Meeting on Spectrum
Washington Middle School principal, Susan Follmer, will be holding a parent meeting about Spectrum La/SS on Monday, June 8th from 4:30-5:30 pm at WMS. It does not seem that AL staff will be there.
Tuesday Open Thread
The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested. It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio. (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Comments
toxictesting
The question is: how are Spectrum classrooms NOT serving spectrum identified kids? If they are being served, and are learning, then why take it apart?
If there are behavior issues in the Scholars' classrooms, shouldn't teachers just work their classroom managment skills magic on those students who need guidence? This principal instead, thinks 'no'! Her strategy is about pushing in higher achieving students who happen to behave well to serve as 'models'... and expect teachers will now work their classroom differentiation skills?
This is all about optics.
Parents, if you don't show up and stand up, advocating in favor of having the needs of your students met, your students' needs will not be met.
Mediocracy 4All
--another lurker
curious if anyone has the actual announcement for the meeting?
#genius
Your prejudice is showing when you imply that IEP and Spectrum services are mutually exclusive. Yes, there are IEP students in all levels of advanced learning programs. Please don't insult my children.
Mediocracy 4All
IEPs are part of federal law and are currently exclusive to children in Special Education. Spectrum is not part of HC and is NOT covered even by state law. Diluting
general education classrooms by making Spectrum exclusive has been a violation of federal law that is currently being enforced by OSPI.
--another lurker
If the change is being made to provide the LRE, are general education students not typically developing peers?
Washington is going to look very different in two years when only HCC, Gatzert, Thurgood Marshall and Kimball students are assigned to the school. How is she going to deal with that?
If a child has an IEP and is in Spectrum, the child qualifies for the services
in their IEP only, by law.
--another lurker
Are parents advocating for this change? If so, is it the parents of children in general education classrooms with or without IEPs? I think that makes a difference.
The law is the law. Whether the principal is opposed to, or for, Spectrum "philosophically" no longer matters.
Maybe the district can look at balancing the socioeconomic distribution in middle (and other) schools in order to avoid warehousing students living in poverty. Research is clear that the outcomes of these students improve significantly when they are not ghettoized in school in addition to housing. Your comment "How is she going to deal with them?" sounds very perjorative to the population of students you are referring to.
Educators more than "deal" with students. We love and educate them.
Another Lurker,
Some, not many, students in HC and Spectrum have IEP's but they don't have an IEP for HC. Apparently, the number is so low that the self-contained Spectrum has been violating federal laws.
--enough already
Which law says that only the highly gifted can be taught in self contained classes? Does that law require advanced learners to be placed in heterogenous classes for every subject? Spectrum in middle school is only two subjects. Does the law allow that?
How does the district you currently work (and live?) in handle advanced and gifted students? Maybe we can learn from another successful program.
I keep hearing this over and over. Where is that coming from because I get the press releases from SPS and OSPI and have seen nothing about it? (Also, exclusive is not the same thing as self-contained, no matter how much you say it.)
Anybody have the announcement yet, it would be interesting perhaps to see the exact wording.
#genius
Scroll down to the "natural proportions" section. That is clearly
being violated when Spectrum students are in self-contained, exclusive,
separate classrooms (whatever you want to call them) from the general
population, even though they have no legal standing for such placement.
When this occurs, there is an over-percentage of students with IEPs in
the remaining classrooms, which is a violation of LRE. Since Spectrum
students are legally general education students, separating them creates
a warehousing of students with IEPs--not legal at all.
--enough already
"Research is clear that the outcomes of these students improve significantly when they are not ghettoized in school in addition to housing. "
So, the 'ghettozing' (your word) problem lays at the feet at Spectrum? Specifically, Spectrum at Washington? What exactly is the 'ghetto' you are referring to?
Is Spectrum at Eckstein is fine, because, the something is different there?
What about Baily G. or Emerson? No more Spectrum at Muir? Extrapolating, should schools with very, very high Free and Reduced Lunch populations mean that no students with IEPs should be there? Because, inferring from your statement, the problem is really about having blended economic backgrounds in all classes, and, if that is not there, then, being in such a class would violate LRE? Can you cite a case law with that? You really are conflating so many things, ghettos, housing, schools, IEPs, etc, that to apply your preferred solution, I guess we must scrap the New Student Assignment Plan (that is neighborhood based) I go back to transporting students hither and yon?
Mediocrity 4All
The question is will self-contained be allowed to stay at Whittier and other elementary schools that still have it. Seems like they would have the same issue and need to be disbanded pronto.
Fairness 4All
parent
Proactive in regards lawsuits and settlements. I think we can all agree that the payouts for remediation and legal fees would best be spent elsewhere. Your cynical tone is so much like Mr Mas and WSDWG and HF and others, I wonder if you all compare talking points or what?
Sixth graders at WMS can take four different levels of math. Is this legal?
Interestingly, early in the growth boundaries process staff recommended linking Gatzert to Meany. This was changed because it was determined that the ability of these students to walk to school and access Seattle U's tutoring program was more important than the demographics of the school they attend.
wiffle ball
Louisville, another city in the Supreme Court case, took a very different approach to the outcome by adhering to Kennedy et al and making diversity a goal without using race as a tie breaker. So much for "enlightened" Seattle.
The irony of the the request on a recent thread requesting desegregation and redlining info was likely not lost on many people who are currently lamenting the resegregation of SPS and its still manifesting redlining history.
Regardless, Spectrum has long been a legal eyesore. HCC isn't currently following the law either, but OSPI is giving districts a five year grace period. HC needs to reflect the demographics of the district, according to the state law.
As I mentioned above, large percentages of low income students in one building almost always lead to worse outcomes. Seattle currently doesn't care enough to deal with this truth and that will not sit well with history. However, it doesn't excuse or allow SPS to continually thumb its nose at federal LRE laws.
--enough already
I keep finding references to the "principle" of natural proportions, generally noting it as the ideal. If you could please point out where it is actually required by law, that would be helpful.
As per the link you noted above, "natural proportions means that children with disabilities aren't lumped together in one general education class but distributed throughout all general education classes." Getting rid of Spectrum might help a little in some cases, although I would imagine that in many others there will just be an even greater exodus to HCC.
And what about the fact that general ed refers to typically developing peers? Are you saying that Spectrum students are typically developing and legally defined as gen ed, whereas HCC students are not? Under federal law??? I'm not aware of any federal mandates or definitions re: gifted ed, so am unclear on how that distinction would be made on where exactly one can draw the line between gen ed and gifted. Or maybe it's either gen ed or special ed, and that's it? Everyone who's not in special ed is officially gen ed, and thus HC programs are all illegal? Is that what you're saying?
Half Full
Saying something is illegal doesn't make it so.
I'd say that high concentrations of low income children in one neighborhood rarely leads to academic success.
Citation? The WAC states: These [highly capable] students are present not only in the general populace, but are present within all protected classes, but where does it specify or mandate what you claim? How could it when testing is optional, as is enrollment in the program?
-?
WAC 392-170-080
Agency filings affecting this section
Educational program for highly capable students.
¨Each student identified as a highly capable student shall be provided educational opportunities which take into account such student's unique needs and capabilities. Such program shall recognize the limits of the resources provided by the state and the program options available to the district, including programs in adjoining districts and public institutions of higher education. Districts shall keep on file a description of the educational programs provided for students selected.¨
there is no requirement for self-contained for the HC students, much less for Spectrum which is a district program
ugh
parent
Agency filings affecting this section
Least restrictive environment.
¨Subject to the exceptions for students in adult correctional facilities, school districts shall ensure that the provision of services to each student eligible for special education, including preschool students and students in public or private institutions or other care facilities, shall be provided:
(1) To the maximum extent appropriate in the general education environment with students who are nondisabled; and
(2) Special classes, separate schooling or other removal of students eligible for special education from the general educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in general education classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 28A.155.090(7) and 42 U.S.C. 1400 et. seq. WSR 07-14-078, § 392-172A-02050, filed 6/29/07, effective 7/30/07.]¨
ugh
LRE requires that special ed students be served in the gen ed environment, with typically developing peers, whenever possible. Is there a legal definition of "the general education environment"? Is it based on the standard curriculum, kids working at or near grade level, etc.? Is it based on other services provided (or not provided)? Is the definition of GE environment constant for a district, or does it vary by school based on the student body? Or is it everyone who's not in special ed? If the latter, it seems like any higher level classes (e.g., honors, AP, etc.) would be illegal, as would remedial classes.
What about a legal definition of "typically developing peers"? Does it simply mean non-disabled? Does it include gifted students--highly gifted, profoundly gifted, etc.?
Or do these terms not have legal definitions, and things are open to interpretation? I suspect this is the case, but want to better understand.
Half Full
So every student not special ed is general ed, the HC service is to match the needs of HC students but it is general ed
so unless a compelling case can be made for exclusion, same for special ed, HC students need to be in inclusion classrooms
ugh
"...request on a recent thread requesting desegregation and redlining info..."
What? I missed that. What thread is that (given I'm mostly the one who answers thread requests)?
HC, by state law, needs to have a continuum of services, which SPS is currently not providing. Some HC students will, and should, receive self-contained services if that is appropriate to their needs. Many will not need self-contained. Again, none of this applies to Spectrum, which is general ed. by legal status.
Typically developing peers means general education, including Spectrum.
Here's where the state law states that HC must reflect district demographics:http://www.k12.wa.us/HighlyCapable/
Look at Identify Your Highly Capable Student
parent, correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that you have neither Sped or children being warehoused in low SES schools. Were this the case, the issues at hand wouldn't be mere political correctness annoyances but a survival issues.
--enough already
Talk to Mirmac about OSPI and SPS compliance.
--enough already
--enough already
Sped Reader
Selection of most highly capable.
Each school district's board of directors shall adopt policies and procedures for the selection of the most highly capable students by the multidisciplinary selection committee. Such policies and selection procedures:
(1) Shall not violate federal and state civil rights laws including, without limitation, chapters 28A.640 and 28A.642 RCW;
(2) Shall be based on professional judgment as to which students will benefit the most from inclusion in the district's program; and
(3) Shall be based on a selection system that determines which students are the most highly capable as defined under WAC 392-170-055, and other data collected in the assessment process.
I don't think the law is interpreted as you suggest, @enough already.
-?
parent
@ enough already, "typically developing peers" is in relation to LRE and comes from the feds, right? While your distinction between HC and Spectrum is based on how SPS has decided to interpret WA state law? I'm confused about how state and federal requirements are pieced together here. Are you saying that wherever a district opts to the draw the line for its state-mandated HC services thus defines what constitutes gen ed for federal special ed LRE purposes?
And can you PLEASE explain what exactly you mean by continuum of services in this case? You keep saying that, and a number of people have asked you to clarify, but all you ever do is say look at Fairfax Co! How exactly does what SPS has not represent a continuum of services? We have a range of services available, from gen ed to ALOs to Spectrum to HCC. Perfect? No. A continuum of services? Seems like it. Is there an OSPI document that lays out what this continuum has to include so we can see how ours is out of compliance?
Half Full
Districts shall make a variety of appropriate program services available to students who participate in the district's program for highly capable students. Once services are started, a continuum of services shall be provided to the student from K-12. Districts shall periodically review services for each student to ensure that the services are appropriate.
According to the recent review by OSPI, the district is in compliance.
I can't help but think Spectrum is stuck in this misguided hierarchical system where Gen Ed is the standard bearer for the middle. Funny, I have yet to meet a child who was "general" or "average" in all things, just like the advanced students are not advanced in all things. My experience has been that some students are good at some things and others are good at other things. Every single SPS student is advanced in something and there needs to be a program to meet it. This really isn't that hard. A previous post mentioned having schools of excellence with an emphasis on the arts, the environment, academics, music, etc. Yes! And if we have 52,000 students then we need to have 52,000 opportunities. So that every single child receives an advanced education in something. Instead of a hierarchical IQ model, we could (with my magic wand) move horizontal model that actually mimics the diversity in humanity. In this way, we would look for ways to add opportunities rather than looking for ways to cut them (which seems to be the Spectrum trajectory?). The more insidious problem with the Gen Ed-in-the-middle model is that if you don't fit into it we have psychologists on stand by ready to give you a mental health diagnosis and doctors willing to give you pharmaceuticals to ensure compliance. The "least restrictive" language may be one of the worst offenders of this as it assumes SPS Gen Ed is THE standard for high quality student welfare.
As long as "gen ed" is considered the middle and as long as the mentality of providing the least education reigns, the entire district continues on in their race to the bottom.
Does Spectrum have any chance at all?
SE Mom
"Funny, I have yet to meet a child who was "general" or "average" in all things, just like the advanced students are not advanced in all things. My experience has been that some students are good at some things and others are good at other things."
My experience as well.
SE Mom, no, I don't think Spectrum has a chance. It has no champion, principals who don't like it are glad to get rid of it and AL seems to have no ability to give input on this decision.
maybe they want to push HC back into neighborhood schools and keep just a very small program for extreme outliers
not saying they don't want to serve gifted, just serve far less in cohort?
they have been talking about it for awhile, testing the waters
high school is now neighborhood only for kids who test in at 9th or later, unless they run out of AP classes there
is middle school next? go local unless your scores are 4 sd?
would not be surprised
it might be that only capacity issues are keeping HCC so big
The lifelong issues that children and parents must live with are highly underrepresented in these programs.
Is a child who needs help to learn how to say Ls, Rs, etc. or a child who develops the small muscles and skills for handwriting and exits the program considered 2E? I don't know but it's certainly disingenuous to compare their temporary needs with the lifelong ones.
--enough already
EA = MC
No EA. 10% of the HC kids have IEPs which as we know aren't given away easily and especially to those kids with high achievement numbers. The majority of them have dyslexia, dysgraphia or dyscalculia which are life long impairments. And those are the ones who were able to get identified... I would think that if you have a high IQ and can't spell, do math or even write a letter you probably are in a poor state in a gen Ed class.
But again the last EA post is way off the Spectrum thread and should be deleted. MW, CM?
I'm sure there are those who would like APP (HCC) to be small. But if you keep getting larger and larger numbers of kids testing, then it's unlikely to be very small.
it might be that only capacity issues are keeping HCC so big."
Interesting thought.
My son has a lifelong disability and got into Spectrum and stayed there.
Yes, Charlie, I keep asking the same question about how Spectrum is illegal and where this force from OSPI and fed is coming from and when? Crickets
Enough enough already, you are correct. Rather than eliminate everything here's what I'll do:
Enough Already, you have made your position on Advance Learning pretty clear. Over and over. This is now the second thread that you have hijacked with you views. Do not do it again. I would hate to have to eliminate any future comments you make but you need to respect the rules of the blog and the threads at hand.
I will also note that there are a few people who seem to change their name but honestly, your style of writing is still there. No one is really fooled by this.
Then, assuming we are about to hear Spectrum is going away, we have the issue of how to deal with all of these kids and their varying needs in one classroom. There are those on this blog who say "why, the teacher will differentiate, of course," completely ignoring the fact that it rarely happens. It did not happen in my child's classroom. We also have a district where principals can do pretty much what they like as far as AL goes and nothing happens to force them to do otherwise. We all know the district couldn't care less about the parents and their views.
Spectrum parents are right to complain that their kids' needs aren't being met, HCC parents are right to complain, SPED parents are right to complain and Gen Ed parents are right to complain, so where does that leave us? The district is not working for a what seems to be a large percentage of kids.
If we had this differentiation that is so lauded in these threads, I think kids would be happier and parents would be less likely to move their kids. Principals or teachers cannot be allowed to not "believe" in AL differentiation. Then there is the issue of parents complaining that it's not "fair" for some kids to have different work than other kids (yes, I have seen it and read it on this very blog). That's a hurdle I don't know how to get over and it doesn't help that the district doesn't seem to believe in AL.
This would be a massive change for the district and one that I don't see happening. I didn't even mention the poor curricula the district is using for many subjects. It's hard to teach kids well with dreadful curricula.
-Harrison Bergeron
--Beacon Hill Mom
I can argue both ways about the Spectrum/ALO issue. But, truthfully, isn't that top ten percent a little different? I'm not talking about the quirky truly gifted - perhaps top 2% if that. I'm talking Spectrum - that group of kids who come to school ready to learn, wanting to engage, and who really benefit from faster-paced higher- level and more challenging learning. I won't say higher "curriculum" because Seattle doesn't have it. It is up to the teacher. But putting the teacher aside, don't these children deserve an education that groups them with their peers - a group of students who are hungry to learn and ready? If any of you had faced a group of these students day after day, you would understand that they, too, are different.
Instead of asking schools to be the social-change agent for the evils of an unfair economic system, let's go back to the business of education for all children. Perhaps the LRE makes every one feel good but it doesn't do diddly for the real purpose of public schools which is to educate. Perhaps the definition of "to educate" has become so broad as to be meaningless.
And then again, perhaps I'll change my mind yet again. I'm not even sure what I said above makes sense . . . I hope it does. It's a complicated set of issues.
Raising the capacity issues for the district if Spectrum were to go away is a valid part of the topic.
I regret that I have to delete some comments but you need to follow the thread. It's now pretty much off point and yes, I will have to start - at the first off-topic comment on any thread - start deleting.
This is an open forum but I'm the moderator.
Principals should not be given the autonomy to redesign programs - if they are we need strong, talented executive directors watching over them. I don't get the impression that's true right now.
I don't believe in-classroom differentiation is going to work for the Spectrum students at WMS. I doubt their parents do either, and as parents do, they'll begin to look for other options. Maybe not for these kids, because it's not likely they'd be able to find a private middle school at this point, but for their younger kids. Their neighbors will watch this and learn that our public schools aren't the place for bright, prepared eager learners. Maybe not kids who live in Eckstein's attendance area, but in areas like the central district where we have more diversity in school readiness, we'll lose those kids. Then again, most of these families will be assigned to Meany and probably be happy enough there. Ms. Follmer won't have to deal with them anymore and she'll be happy too.
As far as blending Spectrum and Scholars/general ed at WMS, that's the same as removing the program entirely, and it seems completely unfair to dismantle a program after open enrollment and without grandfathering existing kids. Is this really going to be allowed by the district?
Is WMS the only school planning this immediate change? Why is it up to a particular principal to choose this and to implement it without any discussion, grandfathering, etc? Will this also occur at Madison, a school that currently has self-contained Spectrum and is supposedly gearing up to have self-contained HCC in the next two years? What about Denny? What about elementary schools like Lafayette?
If this direction is indeed coming from Nyland, and if it's in reaction to some new legal interpretation, shouldn't there be a bigger announcement from him and wouldn't the change occur across the entire district? I don't want Spectrum to be dismantled, but I'm really confused about what's happening with this.
-WS parent
Everyone is free to start their own blog and post whatever they would like. It's a free country.
WS Parent- I am really surprised to learn that as a WMS parent you were not aware of this meeting. I don't have a child at WMS, but I am sure they have the means to inform parents of upcoming meetings... Odd. Maybe they prefer parents don't go.
-fromage
The parents I know don't want their kids warehoused and isolated. People want integration WITH meaningful services that will help children thrive, not just be a warm body to be labelled and counted in a regular classroom. There are so many moving parts and personnel which changes all the time and this take a toll on families. There are some wonderful and well meaning people in SPS. There are also people who are gatekeepers and many who are in way over their head.
The commonality, no matter what program you are in or how you are labelled, is this district doesn't have enough resource and what resource it does have is not well used. It's hampered by its centralized operation and lack of continuity from the bottom up. How well do you think students learn or make progress when they get a series of SPED teachers in a year or get new principals who don't understand the programs they are overseeing or whose agenda drives away or split staff which in turn affects program delivery? If the district is going to used a program (spectrum, IB, etc.) to draw in students or say it's ready to accomodate with SPED and now ELL at local schools, then it better do so fully. Otherwise, all it does is confuse and anger people.
parent
I find the difference between Spectrum and HC to be fascinating. Spectrum isn't "legally" required and it appears to be facing some rocky times.
SPS is legally required to provide something to HC and so they do. They are not legally required to provide anything effective or meaningful and so they don't.
It is exactly like minimum wage discussions. Corporations WILL pay you less if they can get away with it. The law, however, prevents them from doing this. But it clearly is the intention of many businesses to use people as commodities and turn a blind eye to reality.
SPS seems to have the exact same mentality by only providing the bare minimum (and then pushing those boundaries as well.)
With this as the culture, every single student is ill-served and quality programs suffer.
Spectrum strikes me as the canary in the coal mine.
SE Mom
(not Beacon Hill mom, not sure what do to about my tag line here...)
@Lynn- You're right that my child is in HCC, not Spectrum, but as part of the school community I'm surprised that such an important meeting wouldn't be communicated to the community as a whole, and/or would only be communicated to Spectrum families by email.
Seems like Ms. Follmer may be trying to keep this change quiet. I also wonder how this is being communicated to incoming Spectrum families. Could any WMS Spectrum families share info about how/what they've heard on this? Are families at other schools, such as Madison hearing any rumblings?
-WS parent
I received this via a parent so I do not know where/if it might be posted publicly for the Washington Middle School community.
"The commonality, no matter what program you are in or how you are labelled, is this district doesn't have enough resource and what resource it does have is not well used. It's hampered by its centralized operation and lack of continuity from the bottom up."
I would also say, that like Spectrum, there are many in senior leadership who are not interested in this at all. And it shows.
Enough of enough,your comment about principals not supporting district programs is well taken. It's a mystery to me where the line is between what the district expects principals to do versus what leeway principals have. I think if the district has a program and your school is assigned that program, the principal has to support it. That is what is irritating about Spectrum - either pull the bandaid off or stop allowing principals to do their own thing.
N is correct on what should be happening if Spectrum is being eliminated.
NE Parent
Also, just my 2 cents here, but choosing a moniker that directly targets another commenter on this blog is (in my opinion) obnoxious and verges on bullying. -NP
Spectrum worked for thousands of kids and that was clustering of another name. Call it bulk clustering. Call it what you will just don't stop it after parents have decided.
I think this is a 2 verses a 9 of incompetence like the SPED data breach; WMS will be fine. Great kids and a great history of learning but if an Admin doesn't support AL why were they put at WMS?
-NP look for tone for bullying not moniker. Enough Already is only one moniker that is represented behind the troll-post. I argue against them all. Besides EA said itis better to not post anymore... Do you think it because of bullying.
Seen It
Seen It
While it's always possible the rules could change, there has been no announcement that any middle school will no longer be required to provide a Spectrum program.
Nevermind that Board policy 2090 requires annual program evaluations.
Nevermind that Shauna Heath promised the Board that Spectrum programs would be evaluated.
Nevermind that the program manager somehow gets an evaluation without any program evaluations.
None of that matters. The District adamantly and expressly refuses to evaluate the quality and efficacy of its programs. Not just Spectrum, but all of them.
If the "cluster grouping" is just as effective as self-contained, then let's see the data that supports that belief. No data? Then you're just talking smack.
West Parent
So, we left him there throughout elementary, and decided we would test during 5th grade testing cycle. Results? No surprise, HCC qualified.
Here's the thing, though. He has coasted throughout elementary, because he has never been pushed. Study habits need a lot of work, because he's never had to study. In class, he has trouble giving other kids a chance. He's always answering before everyone else, although we've been working on this with him since 3rd grade. He's very fidgety and always talking - because he's bored.
We chose Spectrum for middle school, although we could send him to HCC. Same reasoning as for elementary school. We want to support our local school, and we want him to be with all kinds of kids.
Get rid of/dilute Spectrum though - 1) differentiation will never really happen (hasn't so far, K-5); 2) my kid's needs will never be met; 3) my know it all, can't sit still, can't keep quiet because he's so bored kid will actively interfere with your kid's education in many ways.
We want to support our local schools. We don't want to leave, but my kid needs to be pushed, and no one seems ready to do it at the neighborhood school.