Curriculum And Instruction Committee Meeting
I wanted to also update you on all the items discussed at the Curriculum&Instruction Committee meeting on Monday. The agenda was jam-packed and Director McLaren did an admirable job keeping it moving. Sadly, though, it meant truncated discussions. (Note; this will not be inclusive of all items on the agenda.)
Director Blanford, who is Chair of the committee, was absent so Director McLaren filled in with Director Peters also there as the third member of the committee. I also noted that Rick Burke, Jill Geary and Leslie Harris, newly elected members of the Board, were also in attendance.
ALE
There was discussion of the Alternative Learning Experience (ALE) at Interagency with Principal Kaaren Andrews. She told the committee that they served about 1,000 students with one-third of them homeless students and twice the number of boys than girls. Associate Superintendent Tolley pointed out that many of the students were "recovery" students and I believe he meant students who dropped out but came back into SPS.
Director Peters singled out Interagency's description of their program and said this could be the guide for most high schools:
Last school year was especially hard for the Interagency Academy staff and students. Between mid-October and late March, six students died. They were murdered or committed suicide. Over the summer, four more were killed and another took her own life. When asked about it, Andrews furrows her brow. “It’s pretty remarkable loss. It makes me crazy because they were amazing people.”
It is also troubling that a program like Middle College was trimmed down earlier this year without explanation.
C-SIPs
The Continuous School Improvement Plan (C-SIP) process was also discussed. From the WAC:
Use of Reasonable Force/Use of Isolation and Restraints of Students
Due to changes in law, the new law applies to ALL students. There is to be notification to parents and followup written report. If either restraint or isolation is in IEP/504 plans, then a parent has to give permission.
Pegi McAvoy said they are "looking at the notification to parents and how to do that.". As well, security staff may break up fights and put the combatants into two separate rooms and "is that isolation?"
Wyeth Jessee said there should be "no isolation relating to disobedience" but it is for "harm or destruction of property." He said the documentation is something to grapple with in our own depts. as well as collecting data and that they are not set up for this yet.
Peters asked patterns in data as well as teacherss access to discipline history Jessee said they already have that. McEvoy said they also want to look at where incidents happen in buildings and . how to prevent if there are patterns for locations.
Peters asked what term "unreasonable" meant. McEvoy said WSSDA (school board association) has some language but they still need to get those down. Erin Bennett said that would be in procedure and Peters asked how would policy and procedure be created at the same time. Bennett said there is sometimes "a lag between two" and how to reconcile direction they're going with best practices. There was also mention of the idea of "restorative justice."
SPED MOU
Wyeth Jessee said they hoped to hear back from OSPI next week on the sites reviewed (five of them.) Peters asked about the $3M being withheld and when the district might see this if OSPI signed off on the work the district has done. Jessee said it could be an "immediate release" but that it would not come in a lump sum.
I do want to call to your attention a list in the documents section of the agenda, starting on page 85. It is a list the grades/ages of students who drop-out/disappear from SPS. Interesting reading.
Native American Education Report
This was a great report from Mr. Ruiz and Ms. Morris. Ms. Morris is right on top of making sure that federal forms for each student are filled out properly. (If this doesn't happen, the feds will take money back and this happened several times to SPS.)
She stated that they hired a "secondary liaison" to help track NA students who are struggling. They track attendance, grades and discipline records and get the parents involved and updated. She said, somewhat wistfully, that if she "had one more person, that would be amazing." This is what they did in Everett and they had tremendous success.
This is exactly the kind of support schools need for all struggling students.
She also said it is a challenge to get these kids in after-school activities, mainly because of transportation.
Peters noted that the test score dips should have an asterisk because it's a new test. She said the on-time graduation rate is trending up and the expulsions are down.
I wish Ms. Morris was the one getting a raise.
Highly Capable
Head of HC, Stephen Martin, talked about the Advanced Learning Taskforce (I'm assuming he meant the second one, not the first one but the district acts like the first one never happened.) He said there would be two weeks of community engagement over the changes in the HC policy. See redline version staring on page 113 of the agenda.
One thing was was confusing to me was around appeals. It appears the district wants to clamp down on the appeals to a more narrow window. I don't have a problem with that but for this:
Mr. Martin stated that ALL appeals had been paid for by the district. This is news to me (and I am attempting to confirm this is what he meant.) It's an issue because it is a done with a different test and is not cheap. I had thought that if parents wanted an appeal, they paid for it themselves and that parents of F/RL students were the only ones that the district paid for to be retested.
Peters asked for numbers on the appeals.
Last year, 493 intent for appeals were filed. Most were from white families, with six from black families, 46 from Asian families and 50 from Hispanic families. The total number that DID appeal was 426. He said that roughly 166 appeals were successful.
Peters asked about the test being used and Martin acknowledged there were better ones but it would cost around $2.5M to use them.
Beyond that discussion, I have not had time to read the red-lined version of the policy. If anyone would like to chime in with the changes, please send them to me or put them in Comments and I will then insert them here.
Program Evaluation and Assessment
This was lead by program director, Eric Anderson. Special notice to page 150 of the agenda with the page - Where We Were and Are: Assessment Changes - that shows the number of assessments and tests.
Program Review
I missed this part of the meeting and regret that as it covered this (starts on page 163 of agenda):
Director Blanford, who is Chair of the committee, was absent so Director McLaren filled in with Director Peters also there as the third member of the committee. I also noted that Rick Burke, Jill Geary and Leslie Harris, newly elected members of the Board, were also in attendance.
ALE
There was discussion of the Alternative Learning Experience (ALE) at Interagency with Principal Kaaren Andrews. She told the committee that they served about 1,000 students with one-third of them homeless students and twice the number of boys than girls. Associate Superintendent Tolley pointed out that many of the students were "recovery" students and I believe he meant students who dropped out but came back into SPS.
Director Peters singled out Interagency's description of their program and said this could be the guide for most high schools:
Interagency Academy serves students who have not found success in other high schools, including many students who face complex and daunting barriers to success – poverty, domestic violence, homelessness, early parenthood, substance abuse and mental health issues, for example. By providing small, personal learning environments, focused instruction in math, reading and writing, and a variety of ALE courses to meet individualI want to note that Principal Andrews is one of our hardest working principals. She was recently awarded the Crosscut (online magazine of the NW) 2015 Courage Award for public service.
needs and interests, we support students to accelerate their progress toward graduation, and to prepare for college, careers and life.
Last school year was especially hard for the Interagency Academy staff and students. Between mid-October and late March, six students died. They were murdered or committed suicide. Over the summer, four more were killed and another took her own life. When asked about it, Andrews furrows her brow. “It’s pretty remarkable loss. It makes me crazy because they were amazing people.”
Kaaren Andrews is now in her 6th year as principal there.
What is troubling to me is that, while Crosscut covered this story about the number of students at Interagency who died in the last year, the district was silent. If that many students had died at any other high school, I suspect much, much more would have been said.“There’s no real road map for what we’re doing,” Andrews says. “Our school wouldn’t exist if anyone really knew how to serve the kids we’re serving. We’re trying to pave a totally new course.
It is also troubling that a program like Middle College was trimmed down earlier this year without explanation.
C-SIPs
The Continuous School Improvement Plan (C-SIP) process was also discussed. From the WAC:
A School Board’s annual approval of schools certifies to the State that each school has a school improvement plan in place. School improvement plans must be data driven, promote a positive impact on student learning, and include a continuous improvement process for monitoring, adjusting, and updating the plan.The C-SIPs should be available by Nov. 18th (right when the Board votes this item in and this seems to be a trend to get them in at the last minute.) It is unclear how many schools have theirs done and into the district. It will be at your school's webpage.
Use of Reasonable Force/Use of Isolation and Restraints of Students
Due to changes in law, the new law applies to ALL students. There is to be notification to parents and followup written report. If either restraint or isolation is in IEP/504 plans, then a parent has to give permission.
Pegi McAvoy said they are "looking at the notification to parents and how to do that.". As well, security staff may break up fights and put the combatants into two separate rooms and "is that isolation?"
Wyeth Jessee said there should be "no isolation relating to disobedience" but it is for "harm or destruction of property." He said the documentation is something to grapple with in our own depts. as well as collecting data and that they are not set up for this yet.
Peters asked patterns in data as well as teacherss access to discipline history Jessee said they already have that. McEvoy said they also want to look at where incidents happen in buildings and . how to prevent if there are patterns for locations.
Peters asked what term "unreasonable" meant. McEvoy said WSSDA (school board association) has some language but they still need to get those down. Erin Bennett said that would be in procedure and Peters asked how would policy and procedure be created at the same time. Bennett said there is sometimes "a lag between two" and how to reconcile direction they're going with best practices. There was also mention of the idea of "restorative justice."
SPED MOU
Wyeth Jessee said they hoped to hear back from OSPI next week on the sites reviewed (five of them.) Peters asked about the $3M being withheld and when the district might see this if OSPI signed off on the work the district has done. Jessee said it could be an "immediate release" but that it would not come in a lump sum.
I do want to call to your attention a list in the documents section of the agenda, starting on page 85. It is a list the grades/ages of students who drop-out/disappear from SPS. Interesting reading.
Native American Education Report
This was a great report from Mr. Ruiz and Ms. Morris. Ms. Morris is right on top of making sure that federal forms for each student are filled out properly. (If this doesn't happen, the feds will take money back and this happened several times to SPS.)
She stated that they hired a "secondary liaison" to help track NA students who are struggling. They track attendance, grades and discipline records and get the parents involved and updated. She said, somewhat wistfully, that if she "had one more person, that would be amazing." This is what they did in Everett and they had tremendous success.
This is exactly the kind of support schools need for all struggling students.
She also said it is a challenge to get these kids in after-school activities, mainly because of transportation.
Peters noted that the test score dips should have an asterisk because it's a new test. She said the on-time graduation rate is trending up and the expulsions are down.
I wish Ms. Morris was the one getting a raise.
Highly Capable
Head of HC, Stephen Martin, talked about the Advanced Learning Taskforce (I'm assuming he meant the second one, not the first one but the district acts like the first one never happened.) He said there would be two weeks of community engagement over the changes in the HC policy. See redline version staring on page 113 of the agenda.
One thing was was confusing to me was around appeals. It appears the district wants to clamp down on the appeals to a more narrow window. I don't have a problem with that but for this:
Mr. Martin stated that ALL appeals had been paid for by the district. This is news to me (and I am attempting to confirm this is what he meant.) It's an issue because it is a done with a different test and is not cheap. I had thought that if parents wanted an appeal, they paid for it themselves and that parents of F/RL students were the only ones that the district paid for to be retested.
Peters asked for numbers on the appeals.
Last year, 493 intent for appeals were filed. Most were from white families, with six from black families, 46 from Asian families and 50 from Hispanic families. The total number that DID appeal was 426. He said that roughly 166 appeals were successful.
Peters asked about the test being used and Martin acknowledged there were better ones but it would cost around $2.5M to use them.
Beyond that discussion, I have not had time to read the red-lined version of the policy. If anyone would like to chime in with the changes, please send them to me or put them in Comments and I will then insert them here.
Program Evaluation and Assessment
This was lead by program director, Eric Anderson. Special notice to page 150 of the agenda with the page - Where We Were and Are: Assessment Changes - that shows the number of assessments and tests.
Program Review
I missed this part of the meeting and regret that as it covered this (starts on page 163 of agenda):
Sample list of programs potentially eligible for review **
School Programs: e.g., Spectrum/ALO, International Schools, Montessori schools, STEM schools
Student Services: e.g., Special Education, ELL, Highly Capable
Intervention Programs: e.g., Read 18/System 44, Summer School
Community Partnerships: e.g., City Year, Communities in Schools
Strategic Programs: e.g., Seattle Teacher Residency, Family Engagement Action Teams (FEAT)
** Note: Criteria for selecting programs still under development
Student Services: e.g., Special Education, ELL, Highly Capable
Intervention Programs: e.g., Read 18/System 44, Summer School
Community Partnerships: e.g., City Year, Communities in Schools
Strategic Programs: e.g., Seattle Teacher Residency, Family Engagement Action Teams (FEAT)
** Note: Criteria for selecting programs still under development
Comments
cp
I have heard that there were a half dozen kids retested last year that were FRL so AL performed those test one-on-one at no charge.
I think, especially with the switch to SBAC for achievement this is no time to wholesale change the appeals process and that this is really feeling like a move to help staff not students to receive the best services available for them. In addition this will mean more computer literate affluent kids will will get in then prior years. So an attempt to make the program more equitable will have the exact opposite effect... Meaning more heat.
-Frown
and than not then.
-frown squared
CSIPs - Didn't the District promise to include advanced learning in CSIPs? Where is the CSIP for APP at Lincoln. I didn't see it in the list.
Program Review - Astonishing, but it looks like the district is actually going to review programs. I wonder what inspired that change. Well, at least they say that they intend to do it, in some future year. They aren't going to do it this year. First they need a planning year to decide which programs to review. Then they need a planning year to determine how to review the programs. Then they can start delivering completely inadequate program review documents that don't actually provide any meaningful information.
Reader
I wish the advanced learning staff would send out a survey (just something simple like Survey Monkey) to parents of children testing this year. If the district knew what parents think their kids need, and which school they attend, they'd be able to make the necessary changes.
As for the number of appeals - if they are a large percentage of the total students identified as highly capable, that's evidence that the district identification process isn't working well. Reducing appeals would make sense if only 10 in 500 were successful.
I think the proposed elimination of ability to appeal is very alarming. Many kids do not test well in a group setting or with a lot of distractions. Last year my child was tested the morning after a family pet had died the night before and before being diagnosed with ADHD. My child is very bright. Keeping my student in a classroom unchallenged and bored because they didn't test well is asking for a lot of behavior issues.
NB Parent
NB Parent, Martin did say that the more expensive testing worked better not only because it's a better test but it's one-on-one testing which works better for more types of kids (if not all).
Jujubee
Reader
Spectrum family
-Sleepless fight
1. Access to an appeal is being constrained without any data to support the change. Are students who appeal less successful in HCC than those who don't require an appeal? Are students who at the time of testing (or later) have a 504 plan or IEP more likely to require individual testing to qualify for the program? We should know the answers to these questions before making any changes.
2. We are using state highly capable funding to identify advanced learners. Identification of these students is not required by state law - and there is really no reason to be administering the CogAT to them. If the nomination process was only used to identify highly capable students, far fewer parents would nominate their children for testing. (This would reduce the number and cost of appeals.)
We should be looking at Spectrum. Is there a point to identifying Spectrum students? Is there any benefit to an elementary student if they are not placed in one of the three schools that offer self-contained classrooms?
If every elementary school was required to implement walk to math and group advanced readers so that they receive appropriate instruction, wouldn't that be better for everyone (except the students who currently score a spot in a self-contained classroom?) You don't need CogAT testing to do this - a quick beginning of year math assessment would do and teachers are already assessing reading levels.
Get that baby back in the kitchen!
-Sleepless fight
Just want to say thank you to Director Peters. I am impressed with the job she doing and the questions she asks. I wish she was running our school district instead of Nyland.
-nh
Reader
The rationale for providing "highly capable" services is because these students learn differently and have different needs. What works best for them doesn't work best for others, nor vice versa.
HCC is blowing up because Spectrum is essentially dead. This is classic SPS: When demand or success of a program gets too high, it's time to cut it down, in the name of equity. So has gone Spectrum, Montessori, and now HCC.
The district testing misses approximately 200 out of 500 kids who take the test. My God, with an error rate so high, how many gifted kids who don't even test are being overlooked and missing out? The old lie that people work the system and buy their kids way in is music to the district's ears, even though their own testing regime demonstrably sucks and they know it. Under the new policy, few to none of the 200 or so who got in would stand a chance of getting into the program that is appropriate for their needs. And the district would move forward, whistling Dixie, ignoring all of those kids not having their special needs met while knowing damn well they exist starving to have their needs met.
Someday, somebody needs to understand that true equity requires more avenues for student success, not less. But this is vintage SPS, where, once again, they say, "Something isn't fair and you're not getting what you want or need? Okay, we'll just tear down the good stuff others have, so everything can be equal." So, here we go, over, and over, and over again.
WSDWG
At my school, with a large HCC/AL component, staff doesn't even consider the private-tester-inners as legit, and doesn't use that information for placement in our cohort model. Truly, appeals must change, or they'll be changed on the ground.
Reader
But isn't that a requirement of the state constitution's definition of common school - it needs to be uniform for all students. The state Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that way throughout the years.
LisaG
My goodness, even saying HCC provides "extraordinary education" to HCC students proves that. Where is that happening? HCC gets the same crap curricula, in the same crap buildings, as every other student.
- moving on
Yeah Anon WSDawg's point though is that 40% who appeal get in with outside testing. We have no idea how many who didn't get in didn't appeal or had private testing that reflected was similar to the districts. What we do know is that 5% though are being missed that now will have no recourse for no real reason... Except to help enrollment get numbers quicker perhaps.
And no lisag that is not what common school means. And HC is now considered basic education.
-Sleepless
I don't believe that is the definition of "common school."
You may be confusing equity with equality. They are not the same thing.
Reader is lumping all AL together and HCC is not Spectrum. I actually would support Spectrum level teaching in all schools. Indeed, Maple Elementary tried it many years back, with great results, and then it died because the district did not support it.
Empl
Once again, misrepresentation of the data. We don't know if those that appealed used private testing, district testing, or no additional testing. An appeal can include a letter from a teacher, work samples, etc. The appeals process is also for both Spectrum/ALO and HCC, and the numbers provided aren't broken down based on program. It's also more like a third, as 166/493 = 34%. That's still less than 5% of those that go through the AL application process (around 5000 this year?).
anon again
Staff&Parent
Empl(staff and parent also)
This has been upheld for example in Bryan 498, "The system must be uniform in that every child shall have the same advantages and be subject to the same discipline as every other child."
LisaG
Reader, privilege is not enough to get a kid into HCC. You are dead wrong on that charge, once again. The district only admits kids into HCC who belong there, and when district testing has failed to identify them. They are the gatekeeper and there is not one fault with the appeal process as it stands now. The obvious fault is in the district testing.
Whether private or publicly granted appeals, the process exists to right wrongs and address mistakes, just like a Court of Appeals.
Spin it any way you want, Reader. But the facts show it's the testing, not the appeals therefrom, where the problem lies.
That was WSDWG's point.
WSDWG
I totally agree with you regarding appeals. Every year, I have bright,young students who do poorly on the district advanced learning group testing. When they test privately their scores mirror what I am seeing in class, unlike the district testing. If the appeals are taken away, or limited as proposed, these kids won't get the proper education they need.
Also, some people think that folks "buy" their way into advanced learning with private testing. That has not been my experience. Some kids who are privately tested do well in the testing and some don't. I have more faith in the integrity of the private evaluators.
Teacher
Instead of asking why are we getting and granting so many appeals, and what we can do to improve the testing process, they are only asking "how can we cut down on appeals(?)," which makes the admittedly error-prone district the sole determiner of placement, which completely undermines the idea of equity and fairness.
WSDWG
Again, I'm not playing private against public or rich against poor (as some do perpetually). The point is that the district is missing dozens, if not hundreds of kids through it's administration of the admissions tests. So, whether private or publicly granted, the appeals process is later appropriately placing a substantial number of kids who slipped through the cracks of the district's screening process, meaning appeals are likely a godsend for the 166 or so families who entered HCC through that process last year.
And the district is now proposing to slam the door in the face of similarly situated families in the coming years, instead of fixing or improving a very broken process. All this proposal does is reduce the work for SPS's AL Department while knowingly depriving hundreds of kids of an appropriate education. And some people will support such disdainful actions in the name of equity and fairness, while slamming and maligning other people's kids as "privileged little darlings" who get a "golden ticket," etc. Classy.
WSDWG
Reader.
Provide your source/data, please? I look forward to seeing it.
Some people don't "believe" in global warming either. Just because you can point to someone who holds a non-fact based belief doesn't make it so.
- fact believer
SW Mom
Please, I don't want to misquote or misunderstand you when I speak personally with JSCEE staff about this. So, do tell all you know. And thanks for your help.
WSDWG
Maybe it shows privilege, but it's also true. I've twice had children tested by the district when I already had private test results in hand. The cost to the district of testing my children was a waste.
But programs change over time and ALOs have become nothing and Spectrum has become ALO, which is nothing.
There are district officials, principals, and teachers who will tell you that they deliver Spectrum "services" or their ALO through differentiation in the inclusive setting of the general education classroom. When they say this, you need to ask them: "Isn't this just good teaching practice? Wouldn't you do this even if your school were not a designated Spectrum or ALO site?" They will say that it is. They always say that it is. They may even wax poetic about it.
Then you can ask them "So what's the difference between having Spectrum or ALO and not having Spectrum or ALO if you are doing nothing different than you would be doing if you didn't have Spectrum or ALO?" Suddenly they will become a lot less talkative.
Let's set aside - for the moment - the question of whether the delivery method of differentiated instruction in an inclusive general education classroom can reliably deliver the deeper, broader, further lessons that are promised by Spectrum and ALO. We can come back to that question later. Let's start with the admission that a Spectrum or ALO with that delivery method is no different from having no Spectrum or ALO at all.
Spectrum is dead. It no longer exists. It has been replaced by MTSS. That has been the District's plan for years, dating all the way back to Wendy London when MTSS was called RTI. There's only one thing wrong with this plan: they are taking away the Spectrum before the MTSS is in place.
Before the 520 bridge across Lake Washington there was a ferry service that ran from Madison Park to Kirkland. The ferry service continued until the bridge was complete. The District has dismantled Spectrum before MTSS is in place. That's like ending the ferry service before the bridge is in place. The result is predictable: cars running off the end of the bridge into the lake.
It's actually worse. Engineers knew that the bridge would work. The is much less cause for confidence in MTSS.
The cake is a lie.