Asking about Advanced Learning and Highly Capable Issues
Update: another parent wrote AL and asked this question about taking the SBAC or MAP as a requirement:
They are clearly just vamping answers until whatever rewrite of AL occurs. That they even say that opting out may mean opting out of AL shows you their mindset.
I think that may even be illegal for them to do this especially for HCC who are legally entitled to services. When that time comes, a call from a really good legal firm might change their minds.
Based on reader comments (as well as more than a few e-mails), I queried the district about several Advanced Learning issues. Here are the replies(italics are SPS.)
Thanks for reaching out to us about Advanced Learning. Some of these questions/statements are answered on our Advanced Learning pages, but for convenience sake, Stephen Martin has answered most of them below.
1. It is too difficult to understand the programs (especially Spectrum and how it is presented differently at nearly every single school in the district depending on principal).
Advanced Learner/Spectrum students are served according to the CSIP developed at each school. Some schools also have published ALO plans. The district embraces site-based decision making in meeting the needs of Advanced Learner/Spectrum students. Most schools have adopted the practice of grouping advanced students within general education classrooms rather than placing them in self-contained classrooms. This is consistent with existing policy and procedures. The AL office is committed to supporting schools in meeting the needs of their advanced students.
My reply to this answer: Site-based decision-making, as it seems to currently play out, sounds a lot like principals (and sometimes teachers as well) make the decisions. I have not heard of one Spectrum site where parents were asked what they want as part of any process.
I can understand doing this for ALOs because there is a wide variation of what a school could offer for more rigor. However, Spectrum is technically a program and there should be some consistency in what is done. Since there isn't, except for test scores, I have no idea how the district can make any concrete determinations about what is working for gifted learners in meeting their needs.
I have seen this attitude on the part of the district for years and I still don't get it.
2. It’s too difficult to access the testing, especially when the district makes errors in notification about times for testing.
For details about recent scheduling delays, please see our Testing page: http://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=14582 . All students who were referred by the October 8 deadline will be tested, and we have added testing dates and offer a makeup day to accommodate any families with conflicts.
3. Do students -either coming in the program and continuing in the program - have to take either/both SBAC and Amplify tests? Also, if either test is a requirement to enter/remain in AL, could you please provide documentation on how either test has been developed to test for giftedness. Meaning, if the test is a gatekeeper to enter/remain in an AL program, was it developed for that purpose?
We have always used district and state achievement testing (WASL, MSP, MAP, SBA) to satisfy the achievement eligibility criterion. We do not use Amplify data. Once identified as eligible for either Advanced Learner/Spectrum or Highly Capable services, no further assessment is required. Eligibility continues while enrolled in SPS.
My reply: So to be clear, your child has to have taken a test - district or state - to apply to be in the program. (I'd have to ask how this works for kindergarteners who clearly haven't taken anything.)
BUT, once you are in, you don't have to take any kind of state or district test to remain in so opt-out all you want.
You'll note that my question about how any of these tests have the ability to test for giftedness was not answered. I also note that it was stated that they had used MAP but are not going to use Amplify.
4. I also want to point out two large issues that I hear about at the blog over and over. One is a long-term issue that I have heard about for a decade or more. Namely, that schools in the south-end do NOT offer information to parents about the programs/testing, either at all or not in a timely fashion. I realize that this is not your area to control but rather that of Teaching & Learning and the Ex Directors.
All schools K-8 are provided with a flyer in eight languages that is required to be sent home in first-day packets. Additionally we provide language for school bulletins and newsletters throughout September. SPS Communications notifies all media outlets and pushes out social media reminders.
All that is great but what is the follow-up from the district when, over the years, there has been a constant complaint from south-end parents that no one in their school even told them about the program?
5. Another item is recent and that is the issue of parents in the program receiving information on testing/other issues about OTHER people's children enrolled in the program. This is a huge student data privacy issue and whether it is software-based or human-based, it needs to be controlled. Could you explain why this is happening?
No personal student data is contained in testing appointments. There have been very few misdirected appointments, and these have been immediately corrected upon notification. We have been sending out about 500 appointments manually each week since October. A modern automated system is in development and will be implemented as soon as possible.
I have to smile - SPS is going to get a "modern, automated system?" It never ceases to astonish me that the district says they are getting a new "system" from levy after levy and yet it never ends.
6. Lastly, if there are big changes coming to the program, could parents be allowed to know this sooner rather than later? Because it feels to many parents that the program, overall, is in flux and they feel uneasy about that.
Proposed changes to Superintendent Procedure 2190SP have been on our website since early November. We anticipate that these will be discussed in February at the C&I Policy Committee meeting and offered for community comment thereafter. If approved, we anticipate they would be implemented in 2016-17.
"And what if a parent has opted their students out of those tests?"
AL:
I believe that this year only, we will offer achievement testing to students who do not have district administered achievement scores but have CogAT scores in the qualifying range. It is my understanding that in the future, opting out of district achievement testing may constitute opting out of Advanced Learning.
I believe that this year only, we will offer achievement testing to students who do not have district administered achievement scores but have CogAT scores in the qualifying range. It is my understanding that in the future, opting out of district achievement testing may constitute opting out of Advanced Learning.
They are clearly just vamping answers until whatever rewrite of AL occurs. That they even say that opting out may mean opting out of AL shows you their mindset.
I think that may even be illegal for them to do this especially for HCC who are legally entitled to services. When that time comes, a call from a really good legal firm might change their minds.
A good lawyer could prove that neither the SBAC nor MAP are made to test giftedness and that all the district is doing is attempting to punish parents (and their kids) for not taking a test.
end of update
Based on reader comments (as well as more than a few e-mails), I queried the district about several Advanced Learning issues. Here are the replies(italics are SPS.)
Thanks for reaching out to us about Advanced Learning. Some of these questions/statements are answered on our Advanced Learning pages, but for convenience sake, Stephen Martin has answered most of them below.
1. It is too difficult to understand the programs (especially Spectrum and how it is presented differently at nearly every single school in the district depending on principal).
Advanced Learner/Spectrum students are served according to the CSIP developed at each school. Some schools also have published ALO plans. The district embraces site-based decision making in meeting the needs of Advanced Learner/Spectrum students. Most schools have adopted the practice of grouping advanced students within general education classrooms rather than placing them in self-contained classrooms. This is consistent with existing policy and procedures. The AL office is committed to supporting schools in meeting the needs of their advanced students.
My reply to this answer: Site-based decision-making, as it seems to currently play out, sounds a lot like principals (and sometimes teachers as well) make the decisions. I have not heard of one Spectrum site where parents were asked what they want as part of any process.
I can understand doing this for ALOs because there is a wide variation of what a school could offer for more rigor. However, Spectrum is technically a program and there should be some consistency in what is done. Since there isn't, except for test scores, I have no idea how the district can make any concrete determinations about what is working for gifted learners in meeting their needs.
I have seen this attitude on the part of the district for years and I still don't get it.
2. It’s too difficult to access the testing, especially when the district makes errors in notification about times for testing.
For details about recent scheduling delays, please see our Testing page: http://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=14582 . All students who were referred by the October 8 deadline will be tested, and we have added testing dates and offer a makeup day to accommodate any families with conflicts.
3. Do students -either coming in the program and continuing in the program - have to take either/both SBAC and Amplify tests? Also, if either test is a requirement to enter/remain in AL, could you please provide documentation on how either test has been developed to test for giftedness. Meaning, if the test is a gatekeeper to enter/remain in an AL program, was it developed for that purpose?
We have always used district and state achievement testing (WASL, MSP, MAP, SBA) to satisfy the achievement eligibility criterion. We do not use Amplify data. Once identified as eligible for either Advanced Learner/Spectrum or Highly Capable services, no further assessment is required. Eligibility continues while enrolled in SPS.
My reply: So to be clear, your child has to have taken a test - district or state - to apply to be in the program. (I'd have to ask how this works for kindergarteners who clearly haven't taken anything.)
BUT, once you are in, you don't have to take any kind of state or district test to remain in so opt-out all you want.
You'll note that my question about how any of these tests have the ability to test for giftedness was not answered. I also note that it was stated that they had used MAP but are not going to use Amplify.
4. I also want to point out two large issues that I hear about at the blog over and over. One is a long-term issue that I have heard about for a decade or more. Namely, that schools in the south-end do NOT offer information to parents about the programs/testing, either at all or not in a timely fashion. I realize that this is not your area to control but rather that of Teaching & Learning and the Ex Directors.
All schools K-8 are provided with a flyer in eight languages that is required to be sent home in first-day packets. Additionally we provide language for school bulletins and newsletters throughout September. SPS Communications notifies all media outlets and pushes out social media reminders.
All that is great but what is the follow-up from the district when, over the years, there has been a constant complaint from south-end parents that no one in their school even told them about the program?
5. Another item is recent and that is the issue of parents in the program receiving information on testing/other issues about OTHER people's children enrolled in the program. This is a huge student data privacy issue and whether it is software-based or human-based, it needs to be controlled. Could you explain why this is happening?
No personal student data is contained in testing appointments. There have been very few misdirected appointments, and these have been immediately corrected upon notification. We have been sending out about 500 appointments manually each week since October. A modern automated system is in development and will be implemented as soon as possible.
I have to smile - SPS is going to get a "modern, automated system?" It never ceases to astonish me that the district says they are getting a new "system" from levy after levy and yet it never ends.
6. Lastly, if there are big changes coming to the program, could parents be allowed to know this sooner rather than later? Because it feels to many parents that the program, overall, is in flux and they feel uneasy about that.
Proposed changes to Superintendent Procedure 2190SP have been on our website since early November. We anticipate that these will be discussed in February at the C&I Policy Committee meeting and offered for community comment thereafter. If approved, we anticipate they would be implemented in 2016-17.
Comments
Hmmm
I can't believe how messed up administration of Spectrum is. First it was self-contained, then it was faux cluster grouping, now it's nothing.
Parent of 2HC
On the topic of the CSIPs and the data they provide on services for advanced learners and highly capable students, I suggest reading Madison Middle Schools CSIP. Madison will be an option highly capable site next year so I've been eagerly waiting to hear their plan for these students. Will they have blended HC/AL classes? Have they made plans to ensure appropriate math and science courses can be offered? See page 19 of the CSIP: http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/Migration/Students/madison.pdf
Whether the new plan will be in place before open enrollment is the big question.
"Strategies for Advanced Learning Opportunity
Instructional Focus:
Teachers will create highly motivating classroom using Ginsberg's Motivational Framework.
We will implement a building-wide student management plan and communicate it to
staff, students and parents.
Progress Monitoring:
Teachers will implement strategies and observe in small groups to reflect on the
success of culturally responsive lessons.
We will teach the Bulldog Bark (Madison's code of conduct)build positive relationships and monitor student behavior.
We will contine student intervention programs and host events to feature student
work and presentations.
Professional Development for Advanced Learning Opportunity (Unspecified)
Family Engagement:
Targeted academic support for students who have not yet met standard.
Multiple intervention deliver academic interventions to students not yet meeting
standard.
The wellness center addresses non-academic barriers to learning through primary
health and mental health care.
Community Partners for Advanced Learning Opportunity (Unspecified)"
- Seriously?
What I would recommend is that if enough parents care about Spectrum and ALO across the district and not just in their own school, that we should ask the board to constitute a Spectrum/ALO Advisory Committee (aka task force) with a mandate to document where we are at and how we got here, to look at best practices from other districts, to survey parents, and to make recommendations for policy changes.
I think an advisory committee has precedence in the district and that that it’s probably the best way to organize parents into a single voice. I realize there are many negatives to the approach. For example, it could take a year to get the board to take action on forming a committee. And then the committee could take another year to meet and formulate recommendations. And the board might ignore the recommendations or the administration my hijack the committee. But I don’t see a better option.
Would anyone else support advocating for a taskforce / advisory committee? Would anyone be interested in meeting to discuss a possible mandate? Would people be willing to go to their school communities to ask parents write to the board in support of such an effort?
Spectrum/ALO Advocate
And what if it's not? The bulk of Spectrum schools have not described their program or service for advanced learners in their CSIP. It is disingenuous for Mr. Martin to offer this as a response when he knows (or should know) that the solution he offers is absent.
Middle Schools:
Aki Kurose - program described as "Extended learning opportunities to accelerate math and reading skills." That's the complete description.
Denny - Absolutely silent on advanced learning. Not a single reference anywhere in the document.
Eckstein - Absolutely silent on advanced learning. Not a single reference anywhere in the document.
Hamilton - There's a section for it, but it is completely blank.
Madison - There are some good bits here, but it is certainly not complete.
McClure - No coherent description of a plan, but some notes about MTSS and professional development.
Mercer - No mention whatsoever. NONE.
Washington - The only reference to Spectrum is to say that they eliminated it: "We combined our Spectrum and Scholars program in ELA in order to raise expectations and increase achievement and are working collaboratively at grade levels on common curriculum, common interim and summative assessments."
Whitman - The whole program description consists of clustering in ELA class with an "H" designation.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpectrumAPP/join
Helen
Isn't the real issue behind all of this is that the general ed classroom is SO inadequate in the first place?
3 of my 5 friends from (public) elementary school went on to ivy league schools. 2 came from divorced families, most of us were middle/lower-middle class and the school was more like a one-room school house with lots of grade mixing and plenty of recess..
Spectrum, more so than HCC, seems to be the dominant force (even if it's "dead") in demanding rigor and quality. It might not be the Spectrum program, per se, but why is a quality education so difficult in Seattle?
SW Mom
I deleted a comment that was off-topic and had rambling innuendo. Please stay on topic and if you want to complain about a situation, you'll have to be less vague.
Helen, kids give labels with or without any kind of program. Separation in school would happen even without Spectrum.
Mr. Martin knows what needs to be done but the senior management doesn't care. I doubt anyone listens to Martin except when they want him to check in. Of all the times, I've heard him speak, I've never heard anyone ask him, "What do you think about the status of this program and what could be done to make it better?"
While the APP community is fairly well-united, Spectrum never has been (and Charlie and I and others tried.) Of course, when Spectrum truly goes away and is replaced by whatever ALOs are (different from every school so good luck with whatever your principal thinks up), it will be too late to advocate.
But yet another committee? No thanks.
DisAPPointed
Questioner
In 2013/14 (the only year for which I've seen data) in these schools more than 40% of the 5th graders were Spectrum or APP qualified and receiving services:
Bryant 42 of 88
West Woodland 40 of 95
View Ridge 44 of 98
Whittier 28 of 51
Questioner
One of the criticisms of spectrum is that many education experts don't consider the 87% percentile to be "gifted," but rather "bright." When you get to the 98th % and above, you find that those kids learn differently and do need an advanced, compacted curriculum and one with more breadth.
Many kids are bored in the gen ed classrooms because the chosen curricula are so lacking. The district could be doing so much better if they would use good curricula and quit fiddling with it. They are so tempted by the shiny new curricula that they are constantly changing things.
-squirrel
Is the assumption that the level of instruction and rigor in gen ed are too low, and that a "Spectrum-level" curriculum would be a better fit for ALL gen ed kids? If that's right level for kids of average cognitive ability, is it also the right level for those who are very bright?
Is the assumption that it's somehow easier to provide differentiation to those below, at and above grade level if you have a larger percentage of students above grade level? Don't you still have to split your time between a lot of different levels?
Why does the exact percentage of AL kids in a school matter so much?
DisAPPointed
When will SPS realize that its curricula choices are simply not good enough?
DisAPPointed, I am simply surprised that so many students at some schools are testing at or above (at least in one academic category) the 87th percentile on the district tests. Either the tests are faulty or there is some other reason that so many students in one place would qualify for AL, right? Just seems a little Lake Wobegon to me.
For the record, my Spectrum-qualified kid, who does not receive instruction in any specific "Spectrum" class (because they don't exist at McClure) seems to be appropriately challenged at this point. I'm not in the classroom so I don't know how well the teachers' approaches to differentiation are going, but so far I am pleased with what I have seen. I haven't heard anything about online curriculum.
Questioner
I am aware of some new things coming (I mean from Martin's answers, clearly, there are changes coming) and when I have more clarity I'll let you know.
My belief is that parents and school communities should be involved in these discussions long before plans start being made. I think that because if the district chose to teach higher/deeper to everyone, it would probably benefit more kids AND the cost would be no greater. (If that's what parents want.)
When students primarily come from high-income, well-educated families, and many qualify for advanced learning programs, the general ed classes can and should be much more rigorous. Spectrum classes are less important in those schools.
Momof2
population since, as you stated, the other classes have disproportionally more students with needs, including disabilities. Students with IEPs have to be educated with their peers, not warehoused into highly impacted classrooms.
Spectrum students have no legal standing. The law for students with IEPs
is for students to be educated with their peers. Blended kindergartens
hit such a legal hurdle several years ago because warehousing students
with IEPs in one classroom is simply not legal.
There certainly are students with IEPs in Spectrum, but nothing like in
the general ed. population.
--about time
It doesn't surprise me that those schools are very heavily weighted towards spectrum/advanced learning. They're generally low FRL schools in affluent areas...those kids are (generally) well prepared coming in which create all sorts of advantages on early assessment and cognitive testing.
North Seattle
NE Mom
1. Self-contained Spectrum can't work because it creates illegal concentration of students with IEPs in the non-Spectrum classes. I think it is time for us all to accept this and move on. Self-contained Spectrum cannot continue - for no other reason than this. Honestly, HCC is stepping in the same direction. That cohort either needs to have a school building of its own or be divided further to avoid this problem. Since Spectrum creates this problem at a significant number of schools, then it is best to hold it true at all schools because Spectrum is a district program that should have consistency from school to school.
2. Spectrum should have consistency from school to school. It is long past time for the District to define Spectrum or Spectrum/ALO. Not just in its mission or population served, but in its curriculum and delivery method. Providing some students with a deeper, broader, faster, farther curriculum in a general education classroom is enough of a challenge that the district and the schools need to describe how they will accomplish it. It is not enough for them to simply say that they will.
It was asked why it is important or necessary to even have this label. It facilitates accountability. If a family is told that their child is in Spectrum, then the family can look for or ask about the presence of Spectrum features in their child's curriculum. In the absence of a label and a defined curriculum, the family doesn't know what their child is supposed to be getting and they don't know if their child is getting it. I hear stories from folks who had said that their bright child was well-served at their neighborhood school, with or without Spectrum or ALO, only to find that the child is well behind their Spectrum peers when they reach middle school. I think people put some pretty low ceilings on these kids and they don't really know what the children are capable of doing. What words are on a second-grader's vocabulary test? What words are on a Spectrum second-grader's vocabulary test? There should be a difference.
3. Spectrum/ALO needs to address an equity problem. It's is long past time for us all to stop denying this. The easiest, cheapest, and best way to fix the equity problem would be to allow students and families to self-select for entry into the program. This self-selection can and should come with clear exit criteria.
Despite these facts, we have schools where Spectrum classes are creating inappropriate concentrations of students with IEPs in the general education classrooms. We have no clear answer to the what or how of Spectrum/ALO, and we have a persistent equity failure. It is long past time for Mr. Martin, working with Ms. Heath and Mr. Tolley, to fix these problems.
-New Mom
A high level policy decision has been made to sacrifice most of the potential of bright and motivated kids in public schools, but it's OK. If we need smart and well-educated people in the future, we can get them from China or India. Our kids are better used as disposable fodder for social engineering schemes.
It's also OK because the rich aren't much affected. If you can afford a very expensive neighborhood or town, or private school, which means you are already rich, your child has a chance to be educated to full potential. AL promotes social mobility for the working and middle classes, so screw that.
No policy that is both politically correct and aligned with the interests of the rich will ever change. The only way out would be to dissolve the public schools and convert to a pure voucher system.
in theory kids could move back and forth between honors and not, but in reality it doesn't happen. blame the bureaucracy of managing classroom spaces and teacher schedules and parent demands and kid needs. celebrate the desire by education policy makers and managers a generation later than yours to eliminate economic class and race as educational destiny. bottom line is tracking results from the old system and tracking is no longer acceptable in education and equity circles.
it is true: advanced learning in seattle will remain an afterthought for the foreseeable years because the federal state and local decisionmakers are all far more concerned about bringing kids up from the bottom than further boosting kids at the top. this is no secret. educators and politicians are very up front about it.
argue rant cry stomp away as a parent of an advanced learning student. it won't change the system an iota. with limited resources i can't argue the validity of this priority and i wouldn't try in any case. pointless. seattle will do exactly as much as the law mandates it must for advanced learners and not a smidgen more.
do i expect the high school level advanced learning pathway to become moot in the next 3 years? yes. see above. kids will go to their home high schools and take ap classes there.
al realist
It's one thing to not have Spectrum at a high-achieving, high-income school, where most kids are above grade level and almost any kid with academic problems will get out-of-school tutoring at home or paid by parents. It's another thing entirely at schools with large numbers of kids performing below grade level, whether that be because of not speaking English fluently, not having many books or other enrichment at home or other reasons.
In those high-FRL schools, which often have few PTSA resources, how can a teacher actually differentiate to all the kids in her classroom? Won't high-achieving kids just get ignored?
From my experience, my kids have gotten ignored in general ed classrooms, and consistently given work that they have already mastered. It's painful for a parent to realize that their child has spent most of the year bored and not learning anything. It's even worse when your child starts developing behavioral and social problems related to being so bored at school. That's why parents are desperate for APP and Spectrum classes. And parents who don't know how to advocate for their children should have these opportunities available to their children as well.
Momof2
Outsider, states are now finally acknowledging that educating highly capable children is a legal right, and these students are now granted legal protection. In fact, they are guaranteed a continuum of services, BY LAW, that they didn't have in the past. That includes self-contained, when appropriate, and includes regualar monitoring for placement.
The laws in states, in fact, are actually starting to protect highly capable learners,
moving in the opposite direction from which you dread.
What, by law, needss to change (and will) in Seattle is: 1. All highly capable children must be identified and served to reflect the district's demographics. 2. There must be a continuum of services, and not just a self-contained program (like in elementary) for HC identified. 3. The students must be regularly monitored for appropriate placement, which may include getting more services all the way through being exited from the program.
Spectrum students are not highly capable students by SPS' definition, and are therefore general education students.
Progressive districts, including in the south, changed their policies to do the right thing on the own because it's fair and follows best practices. Too bad it took state law for SPS.
--about time
You might want the district to re-look at strictly neighborhood schools. They also should open more option schools and make them district wide.
Research is clear about the negative effects of having highly impacted numbers of FRL
students in a building.
Gerrymandering boundaries and having open option schools is what most progressive districts do in order to promote fairness.
--about time
students in a building."
But SPS gets that sweet, sweet Title I money for those schools over >40% FRL
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=ziZAx6R4LCl4.ktX0h2jfTpRs&hl=en_US
PervertedIncentives
Moved
Helen
@about time also suggested, Gerrymandering boundaries and having open option schools is what most progressive districts do in order to promote fairness.
Placement of HCC at JAMS? Garfield? IBX at Ingraham? APP at Thurgood Marshall? The APP/HCC cohort has historically had a low FRL rate compared to the district average. The district has done its fair share of manipulating the demographic balance of schools through the placement of APP/HCC students.
@al realist said, "do i expect the high school level advanced learning pathway to become moot in the next 3 years? yes. see above. kids will go to their home high schools and take ap classes there."
Well, except there is little room at schools like Ballard and Roosevelt for students to return to their neighborhood school.
another realist
There's this mindset that it's fine if a child has talent in music or athletics but tell someone your child is smart and you are in trouble. I have no idea why this is because when I was growing up being smart was a good thing. Apparently, if you think your kid is smart, then, to others, that means you think their kid is dumb. (Which is not true.)
I forgot I have these other interesting e-mails on AL. Here they come.
I would then make HCC based purely on potential, a lot smaller, and more geared to quirky outliers and 2E.
--JvA
aack
-New Mom
Historically the answer was to promise, in marketing materials and official reports, that the teachers will differentiate instruction in the general education classroom. But in the real world the teachers do little or no differentiation. That's simply unacceptable.
Currently the answer is to promise that MTSS will somehow magically translate into differentiated instruction. This is not in evidence. First of all, the District timeline for MTSS implementation is in year five of a three-year plan with about six years to go. We're all supposed to accept the total absence of service while they figure it out. It's unclear how, even three years from now, MTSS will perform this trick. There has never been a coherent explanation of how, exactly, MTSS allows a teacher to provide and manage differentiation when they have never had the time, energy, or resources to do so in the past. And, with MTSS, teachers will actually have to spend a significant part of their time analyzing data. So rather than providing teachers with more time, MTSS will take time away from teachers. We're all supposed to believe that MTSS is some kind of magic wand that you wave over the classroom to provide differentiated instruction, but we're never told how that will happen or what the teachers will do differently.
We need a new answer.
First the District needs to define Spectrum/ALO. They need to state a coherent mission for the program. They need to identify the students it will serve. They need to write a curriculum for it. They need to set a limited menu of delivery methods. It's just shameful that this work has not been done. It has been promised, repeatedly, for years.
Second, the District needs to confirm that the schools are actually doing it right. They need to confirm that the schools are identifying the students, teaching them the curriculum, and using an approved delivery method. It's just shameful that this work hasn't been done.
Then the District needs to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. You know, as Board Policy requires. It's shameful that this work hasn't been done.
Given that none of this work has been done, it kinda makes you wonder what the manager of Advanced Learning does. What is taking up 40 hours a week that is more urgent and more important than this? What does it mean to manage advanced learning if you aren't doing these basic tasks? The fact is that all of the focus in Advanced Learning is on testing kids for eligibility and worrying about how disproportionate the outcomes are. The quickest, cheapest, and best way to scrape that off the manager's plate is to allow families to self-select.
Providing some students with a deeper, broader, faster, farther curriculum in a general education classroom is enough of a challenge that the district and the schools need to describe how they will accomplish it.
It is not enough for them to simply say that they will.
The answer will not be the same in every school. We need a set of delivery method options. What works in a school in which 17 of 30 classroom students are in the program will not necessarily work in a school in which only 4 of 30 classroom students are in the program. I don't know what the solution will be for each school. That's up to the district and the school communities to determine for themselves. But doing nothing is not acceptable.
Maybe more explicit info a school's website would help, too.
Ben
I agree that the principal deciding AL delivery models is a terrible idea. Many principals and teachers don't "believe" there is a need to any type of AL. While there are still people in education thnk that there are children who don't deserve to be educated, we need strict, top-down rules so that all kids can get served.
-romeo
Self-contained Spectrum doesn't work because you can end up with waitlists. Schools with grades of 50% Spectrum run into the concentration of IEP kids under self-contained.
Clustering is pretty flexible and walk-to's can be great, but a school with not enough kids who are able to fill a year ahead math class are going to need something different, so site based makes a lot of sense.
Yes, there should be guidelines and yes, schools need to held accountable for keeping advanced kids on track and improving, as they should be for every single kid.
But each school is different and delivery needs to flexible.
I think self-contained classrooms at a neighborhood school are horrible for kid's self-image, in or out of the program. Granted, it's hard to have multiple vocab lists in a classroom, but I've seen it done well. Self-contained does give kids a more competitive environment and a place to shine without fear of being a show-off, but a good teacher can provide kids challenging work in a blended class and the social benefits of learning how to deal with other students of different abilities is immeasurable.
I think many parents get too obsessed with academics and forget about socialization. Kids need enough work to keep them busy and develop intellectual skills. Someone posted an article, here it is:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201506/how-early-academic-training-retards-intellectual-development
showing that too great an emphasis on academics at an early age does substantial harm to student's future intellectual life.
The district needs to be equitable to all students, regardless of ability. They should all reach as much of their potential as possible.
julliette
Really? Substantial harm?
If you read the linked article (and its comments), it seems to be promoting unschooling. Sure, unschooling proponents think structured academics are bad. It's hard to take the article seriously when it offers evidence from a 1930's experiment and the Sudbury School in MA. Placing value on academics (the primary purpose of school) does not necessarily mean socialization gets forgotten or ignored.
-sheesh
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201505/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm
which addresses early academics vs. play more directly with studies out of Germany in the 70's and a good study from the U.S. published in 1967 regarding the effects of early academics on later success among poor children. Pretty shocking stuff.
Kids who were fed academics rather than play in pre-school and kindergarten were substantially more likely to have behavioral problems later in life, including problems with criminal justice.
It cites studies showing kids taught to read and do math early lose interest later in life, they don't have the context to incorporate reading and number sense into their lives yet and they never find the spark that kids who develop their social skills first do.
You can poo-poo the research, but I think we've all seen kids who were reading strong in K or were studied up in numbers in pre-school, start to fade by 4th or 5th grade and lose interest in academics and display social difficulties.
When I read stories about parents in NYC schools cramming their kids with test prep to get them into the Gifted and Talented schools, it makes me shudder for the children and I hope we aren't fostering the same kind of race to achieve what is ultimately counter-productive.
I know there's been chatter about CoGAT prep for kinders to get them into HCC, but at what cost? These kids are going to pay a heavy price for it later.
julliette
But most of the kids in HCC are self-motivated learners who needed very little pushing from their parents - especially in preschool and early elementary. For example my son was constantly asking about how words were spelled before he could read - at age 4. He asked many, many questions about the concept of infinity at age 5. He was very interested in the number of atoms in a molecule - at age 6. He read children's encyclopedias back-to-back in early elementary. When a 2nd grade teacher discussed energy in his Spectrum class, he wanted to talk about nuclear fusion vs. fission.
And my son is not the prodigy that some of his HCC classmates are - like the 1st grader who loved reading the Census book for all the numerical facts in it. That boy taught himself high school math in early middle school, since he could only take Algebra 1 in 6th grade in the HCC program. He's now starting at the UW in 8th grade.
There are lots of kids in the HCC program precisely because they are outliers in a neighborhood school - the kids who want to talk about complex math, science or literature in early elementary, but can't find any friends who want to do that. There are many stories of parents who were heartbroken to see their kids flounder at their neighborhood school with no friends and totally bored. Then going to the HCC program, their child found friends who appreciated similar (quirky) interests, found teachers who understood them and taught them at their level, and were finally looking forward to going to school.
Momof2
The articles you linked to are focused on the difference between "academic" (direct instruction) vs. play-based preschools and kindergarten. This is NOT the same thing as HCC/Spectrum vs. gen ed. For one, the academic approaches between the various programs aren't that different. And second, these programs don't affect pre-K and K level students.
Your overall point seems to be that parents should chill out, and not worry so much about getting their children into advanced academic programs--just let them play, so they can develop their social skills! That doesn't make sense in the context of SPS. Gen Ed programs are not any more play-based than HCC or Spectrum, so kids in either have opportunities to develop their social skills. Highly gifted kids placed in gen en environments, however, don't often get all those nifty social development opportunities you might expect. Sure, they might learn to "deal with other students of different abilities," but they are a lot less likely to develop good friendships with them, or to be understood by them. Highly gifted kids are often the outcasts, not able to relate to their age peers. Gifted programming gives them access to intellectual peers, and helps them avoid those socialization problems you fear. Extracurricular activities, and just living in the world, ensures exposure to more typically developing peers as well. They are not in danger of thinking everyone is as smart as they are, believe me. They are very aware that they are different.
Even if there were data showing that kids who participate in HCC/Spectrum have more social development problems than those in gen ed, it would be a huge leap to assume that HCC or Spectrum self-contained classrooms cause those outcomes. A more likely explanation would be that kids who enter advanced learning programs have a higher prevalence of Asperger's, since the prevalence of giftedness is higher in the Asperger's population than the general population.
But your suggestion that kids in gifted programs are socially doomed? Talk about a leap! While I'm not a fan of test prep for gifted program entrance exams (although in some cases it might make sense), doing a bit of test prep is a far cry from putting a kid through two years of academics-focused pre-K and K instead of play-based--which is what the study looked at. I doubt a little test prep is going to do anyone irreparable harm, and since the test results don't have any impact on whether they end up in a play-based or an academic program in the future, that "heavy price" you worry about will likely not come to pass. Or at least not for AL kids more than anyone else in SPS. Phew.
Now none of this is to say that I oppose play-based preschool. I think it's great, and can be very intellectually stimulating and educational. I agree with the article that focusing on academics before kids are intellectually ready probably doesn't make a lot of sense. But in the context of gifted ed, this ignores the fact that many of these kids ARE intellectually ready at a very early age. They can have very deep, complex and intuitive understanding of topics of interest to them, and can be driven by an intense desire to know more about them. In fact, that's one of the common characteristics of gifted kids! Which is all to say, it's not about pushing them to learn--it's more about allowing them that opportunity. You're completely misapplying the research here, apparently to fit your own biases.
Parenting=Hard
However we decided to keep our daughter in a private school that wasnt necessarily for highly gifted kids, it worked out fine.
Im wondering about the tests the district uses to identify children as highly capable. I do not believe they were designed for that purpose. While my daughter was tested as being in the 0.03 % of the population using intelligence testing administered by Nancy Robinson, she did not qualify for any enrichment education in Seattle public schools using their chosen methods.
Makes me wonder about all the other kids who are highly capable but stuck in classrooms where they are not challenged.
I think the problem is parents who study up their own kids to get them into the HCC.
The district does them a disservice by allowing such a large program that appears to offer benefits to any kid who can make the cut. If you read anything about NYC's G&T program, it's appalling what parents do to get their kids in, believing it's a ticket to success. It starts with intense academics in preschool and through middle school aiming for a high enough score on the SHSAT to gain entry into the city's gifted high schools. This academic work is done either at home or at special private academies and summer camps.
I would love to see a small program full of naturally high IQ kids, but our HCC is looking more and more like the one in NYC.
Here's a story about prepping 4 year olds and some sample test prep,
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/10/19/new-york-city-gifted-and-talented-exam-sample-questions/
julliette
Do you teach highly capable children or are your own children receiving services? I ask because I don't believe your vision of math and reading drills and CogAT test prep classes for preschoolers is at all realistic in this area. Who would bother? The program isn't some super-enriched private-school-like program that every kid would benefit from.
P=H
As for Julliette's postings, Seattle isn't like NYC, Silicon Valley, or DC area in the G &T race, but it's showing gains. It's really not a G&T race, but a get into top-tier college race which starts awfully early these days. There's fear driving this engine.
another parent
It's not really about the education for those folks when you get to post high school, but towards the perception that you must have a brand that will impress the relatives in Dubuque or Shanghai.
Then they get bent out of shape because the most competitive schools only offer need based aid, and THEY determine need.
We can talk about the others, the few, but let's never think that they are representative of the group.