Follow up Q & A from Highly Capable Oversight meeting
The Friday memo to the Board for May 6 includes answers to questions from the Board that could not be answered at the Curriculum and Instruction Management Oversight meeting. It makes for interesting (and odd) reading.
1. The first question is about the student performance and growth and how it is measured. The answer is the familiar Denver method in which student scores for this year are compared to the other scores for this year by students who had the same score last year, and then the scores are ranked on a percentile basis. This method provides an entirely relative measure without any objective measure. By this method one-third of all students will be labeled as slow growth, one-third as average growth, and one-third as high growth, without regard to whether the cohort as a whole experience low, average, or high growth. In other words, if the median growth for the cohort as a whole was three grade levels in a single year, the student who advanced only two grade levels in that year would be labeled as having slow growth. Similarly, if the average growth for the cohort was negative, the student who maintained their level would be viewed as high growth.
2. There were a lot of questions about the racial breakdown of students in HCC. People are really obsessed with this. There is no breakdown of students in HCC by socio-economic status. Why are people ignoring that?
3. The district misrepresented the review of APP done by the University of Virginia in 2007. The staff claim that the review recommended doing away with the self-contained model in grades K-8. This is not true. I have no idea why the staff would tell such a blatant and easily disproved lie.
6. The staff are asked to estimate the ratio of MTSS interventions for support vs the number for enrichment. The staff refused to make any such estimate and acknowledged that they have absolutely no means of assessing how much, if any, MTSS work is done or what is done.
8. More of the same: "Our CAI staff work to provide curricular support to buildings but cannot create accountability structures." It's pretty clear that the staff have no real method of implementing MTSS, and no method of even knowing if it has been implemented. How, exactly, will they measure its progress or know when to declare it done?
9. The district wants to take credit for eliminating pre-qualifications for participation in eligibility evaluation for HCC and Advanced Learning, but they want to impose a pre-qualification: the Smarter Balanced Assessment. So... they're lying.
10. Why were Spectrum/ALO not discussed? "These were not part of the work session. This was a Curriculum, Assessment & Instruction and Highly Capable work session." So when WILL Spectrum and ALO be discussed? Oh, right. Never. Here's a funny thing: look at the next question and answer.
11. "For example, an issue we have had to address multiple times is the claim that “they [AL and district] have done away with Spectrum.” This is simply false. Schools are moving away from a self-contained model, but the Spectrum program very much exists." Waitaminute. I thought that this work session wasn't about Spectrum and ALO and they would not be discussed? Also, how does anyone at the district know that the Spectrum program exists since they don't assess for it?
12. Where is the curriculum for HCC? Nowhere. The staff try, again, to make contradictory statements. They want to say, on one hand, that they are working to align the curriculum among all of the sites and then, on the other hand, say that all of the schools have autonomy in the decision making process. This is a big, fat lie. Schools should not have any more autonomy in setting curriculum for HCC than they have when it comes to general education - none.
1. The first question is about the student performance and growth and how it is measured. The answer is the familiar Denver method in which student scores for this year are compared to the other scores for this year by students who had the same score last year, and then the scores are ranked on a percentile basis. This method provides an entirely relative measure without any objective measure. By this method one-third of all students will be labeled as slow growth, one-third as average growth, and one-third as high growth, without regard to whether the cohort as a whole experience low, average, or high growth. In other words, if the median growth for the cohort as a whole was three grade levels in a single year, the student who advanced only two grade levels in that year would be labeled as having slow growth. Similarly, if the average growth for the cohort was negative, the student who maintained their level would be viewed as high growth.
2. There were a lot of questions about the racial breakdown of students in HCC. People are really obsessed with this. There is no breakdown of students in HCC by socio-economic status. Why are people ignoring that?
3. The district misrepresented the review of APP done by the University of Virginia in 2007. The staff claim that the review recommended doing away with the self-contained model in grades K-8. This is not true. I have no idea why the staff would tell such a blatant and easily disproved lie.
6. The staff are asked to estimate the ratio of MTSS interventions for support vs the number for enrichment. The staff refused to make any such estimate and acknowledged that they have absolutely no means of assessing how much, if any, MTSS work is done or what is done.
"Curriculum, Assessment & Instruction teams do not approve and cannot require interventions at the building level. Our teams are able to offer suggested academic interventions and support/training for them, but their implementation is a building-level decision."7. The staff acknowledges, again, that they have no data at all on the implementation of MTSS.
8. More of the same: "Our CAI staff work to provide curricular support to buildings but cannot create accountability structures." It's pretty clear that the staff have no real method of implementing MTSS, and no method of even knowing if it has been implemented. How, exactly, will they measure its progress or know when to declare it done?
9. The district wants to take credit for eliminating pre-qualifications for participation in eligibility evaluation for HCC and Advanced Learning, but they want to impose a pre-qualification: the Smarter Balanced Assessment. So... they're lying.
10. Why were Spectrum/ALO not discussed? "These were not part of the work session. This was a Curriculum, Assessment & Instruction and Highly Capable work session." So when WILL Spectrum and ALO be discussed? Oh, right. Never. Here's a funny thing: look at the next question and answer.
11. "For example, an issue we have had to address multiple times is the claim that “they [AL and district] have done away with Spectrum.” This is simply false. Schools are moving away from a self-contained model, but the Spectrum program very much exists." Waitaminute. I thought that this work session wasn't about Spectrum and ALO and they would not be discussed? Also, how does anyone at the district know that the Spectrum program exists since they don't assess for it?
12. Where is the curriculum for HCC? Nowhere. The staff try, again, to make contradictory statements. They want to say, on one hand, that they are working to align the curriculum among all of the sites and then, on the other hand, say that all of the schools have autonomy in the decision making process. This is a big, fat lie. Schools should not have any more autonomy in setting curriculum for HCC than they have when it comes to general education - none.
Comments
-tp
-tp
It could be that it shows that the programs are not effective.
It could be that it shows that grade-level assessments are not a good measure of advanced work.
It could be that students are self-selecting to stay in strong neighborhood programs and to leave weak ones.
It could be that this is just one year's assessment and data and it is a statistical outlier.
There are so many possible interpretations of the data that there is no possible interpretation of the data.
Well there is one conclusion that the >80% ELA sure looks bad for HC services.
Are opt outs included in the totals used to calculate "Row N"?
Why didn't they include third grade data, and why didn't they at least break it out by elementary HCC (which is truly cohorted) versus MS (where the cohorting is fuzzier)? Also, I though math in grades 6-8 wasn't even part of the cohort pathway? So they are breaking out the math score according to who is in the LA pathway in middle school?
NP
No news
The data is absolutely stunning.
In both English/Language Arts and in Math, students who are HCC and Spectrum qualified did better in terms of cohort achievement (percent meeting highest SBAC standard) and cohort growth (year over year) when they remained in SPS general ed classrooms vs. moving into the HCC/Spectrum program.
In the English/Language Arts area, the numbers aren't even close. The HCC/Spectrum-qualified students in general ed are killing the scores of the self-contained students. Students don't 'forget' English/Language Arts skills over two years, which is the standard argument for why self-contained, accelerated HCC students may not score top of game on grade level math examinations.
The data shows that the current HCC model needs a reboot. We can disagree on what that looks like, as I am in agreement that next steps cannot be gleaned from that data. Maybe it is more training for the HCC teachers. Maybe it is a different curricular approach. Maybe it really is taking a look at the self-contained model. But the message from that data is something has to change.
Shocked
ANSWER:
Our district’s culture of autonomy at the building level means that information and
messages coming from schools sometimes differ from our understandings within central
office. Our CAI staff work to provide curricular support to buildings but cannot create
accountability structures.
Um....what?? Can't or don't want to or what??? That is one of the more blatantly weird things I've seen from SPS admin in a while...
reader47
This is not a comment on the students within the program. It is a comment on AL Administration or lack thereof.
I'd like to get rid of SBAC altogether. But if it's going to be used as a qualification for getting in, it stands to reason that results within the program will have that measuring stick.
It is an hour after I first looked at that data and I am still shaking my head. It is not not good.
Shocked
No news
I keep waiting for the smart person (with a sheriff mentality) to come into SPS, look around deeply and say, "Wait, what? Nope, that's not how we're doing it."
There is so much that needs to change and we have the Board to do it but if the leadership isn't there, it's not going to happen.
On pg. 17 they state students who were "APP eligible but not attending Lowell or Washington [the only APP sites at the time] had significantly higher reading WASL scores than the APP group who attended Lowell and Washington. There was no significant difference between groups on the math scale scores."...not too different from the SBAC scores reported in the recent Friday Memo. It goes on to stress the need for a curricular framework should additional self contained sites be created, especially given the issue of "highly-variable teachers."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/12/03/2004051224.pdf
-tp
That this underperformance has been noted for at least a decade is even more shocking. After that 2007 report, was the issue ever addressed by staff? I don't think so, but I don't know so. Has the issue ever been daylighted in the APP now HCC community of parents? Again, I don't think so but I don't know so.
This district is so messed up in so many ways. Now I am adding to the list "SPS HCC - Where talented students go to underperform." Maybe we don't want to push the students on the low end of the achievement gap into HCC. I do not believe that but what an irony.
Shocked
Data.
Most folks can make data say whatever they want it to. Without a much further breakdown of these numbers, we can't really get too upset by it. For example:
How many kids opted out? I opted my kid in the cohort out, but not at our neighborhood school. So, the cohort kid had a score of 0 that is included in these results. That kid is excelling in every way. My other kid has scores included in the numbers.
What is the breakdown of girls/boys? My girl child tests MUCH better than my boy child since he couldn't care less. She cares and tries.
What is the breakdown of my original point, how many kids need some sort of support?
Our local tutoring center is packed to the gills daily with kids from our neighborhood school, but I don't see the cohort kids there. Are parents who stay local supplementing more than the cohort parents? No idea, but that's not answered.
Someone else pointed this out, but what schools are the APP kids staying at instead of leaving for the cohort and what are the "average" test scores at those schools? Maybe they are almost in a cohort in their neighborhood school.
Lastly, I don't see my kid in the cohort being "taught to the test" as much as my kid in the neighborhood school is. The results could simply be some kids are only learning stuff that will help them on the test. Others in the cohort might be getting a different education since the teachers know they will do well enough on the tests for them not to get fired.
I'm not saying any of this is better or worse. I just feel strongly that we can make any numbers say what we want them to say. These sorts of presentations that say "gotcha" would never fly in my private sector job. I'd get eaten alive if I presented something and tried to make a correlation without significantly more data.
Level 1 - 0
Level 2 - 11
Level 3 - 97
Level 4 - 1409
They add to 1517, and 1409/1517 = 92.9%, as shown in the table. If opt outs were included, the percentage would be even lower.
-numbers
People might be "obsessed" because of SPS's treatment of children of color. We pay strict attention to disparities because we know that SPS has a long way to go towards achieving equity for its students.
See other thread discussing Seattle's black-white achievement gap and Seattle coming in fifth out of 200 school districts.
Also: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/why-are-there-so-few-black-children-in-gifted-and-talented-programs/424707/
Also: http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/race-dramatically-skews-discipline-even-in-elementary-school/
L.I.N.O.
Reader
As always, you post inflammatory statements regarding HCC.
You said: "Neighborhood HCC students are those who don't want a segregated environment so badly that they will do anything to get it. Contrast that to those who are in the segregated program.
I am very interested and would like to see the source for your statements. Citation please? I would like to see documentation showing that privately tested kids are NOT in neighborhood schools.
-yawn
"So what do we know about those 175 or so kids who are HC-qualified but not in the cohort, and who did so well on the SBA? Not much! Is their neighborhood school providing a rockin' curriculum for HC kids? Are their teachers awesome at differentiation? Are these kids even taking math and English at the neighborhood school, or are they perhaps homeschooled in some subjects? Are these kids receiving high levels or supplementation outside of school, to make up for an insufficiently challenging GE curriculum? We have no idea, so we can't interpret these data in any meaningful way.
My kid, for example, was very advanced in math. The neighborhood school couldn't meet his need--but neither could HCC, so we didn't move. We opted out of school-based math instruction altogether, doing it by independent study instead. But we needed to do an assessment (part of the homeschooling contract), so the school got "credit" for his score, which was the top score they'd seen. Other families are in the same boat.
Suggesting that these data demonstrate GE classes are working well--or better!--for HC kids is flawed logic."
"The fundamental problem is that the Advanced Learning office today is a testing service and a resource for teacher training, and when asked they say as much. People have raised a ton of very valid questions about the SBAC data. If there was truly an empowered Advanced Learning Office instead of an Advanced Learning Testing Office, the questions would have already been addressed because someone would be advocating for the program and showing the data for what it is, meaningless. Special Ed has an Executive Director. There’s a director for ELL and International Programs. Athletics has an Executive Director. But on the district’s org chart (see pg. 52 of 2015-2016 budget doc), Advanced Learning doesn’t even rate its own box."
Charlie and I have said this last point for years, thanks for saying it again.
Whitman has one of the best advanced math teachers in the city. All of her students go into high school honor math classes and they are two years ahead of their peers.
2. I agree that this as SBA is a new test and that report without much analysis is of limited value. But. If other readers say this pattern of higher test achievement of APP students in general education v self-contained has persisted for years, across multiple tests, and across different total sizes of self-contained cohorts, then yes. Yes it is of significance.
3. Does this data indeed exist? Or is it just hearsay?
4. I hope this new issue does not overshadow the issue of lack of some minority and possibly lack of some socio-economic tiers of students in APP. Here we also need more data to understand the issue and come up with achievable fixes.
5. The lack of current public data and analysis on these points is p-poor given the $$$$$$ diverted to the "data warehouse" and "data analysis" initiatives and away from our classrooms these past 10 years.
Aghast
" Here's the publication link again:
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec94/vol52/num04/Why-Gifted-Students-Belong-in-Inclusive-Schools.aspx
Here is the author's conclusion:
"Advocates of full inclusion and those who struggle for appropriate education for students identified as gifted must not become entrenched enemies. There is little that is incompatible in the vision of both groups: schools that teach, challenge, and honor children for who they are. If we must settle for classrooms as they are now organized and staffed, curriculum as it is currently defined, and teaching strategies limited to lecture and whole-group instruction, then it is no wonder that advocates for gifted students see the students' removal and segregation as the only viable solution.
If, however, we can envision new models of school organization, curriculum, and pedagogy, then we can embrace within that vision classrooms that meet the needs of all students, including those identified as gifted. If we can see our goal as not just saving those students for whom educational marginality or failure is considered intolerable, but as assuring educational success for all children, then there are other possibilities. And, if we can look at aspects of the current system that are not working for students labeled as gifted as barometers of an unsuccessful system rather than as justification for removing students to a better subsystem, then we can work together toward far-reaching, comprehensive school reform for all students."
I'd guess SPS is moving in this direction.
VG"
Albert Swenson
I also want to point out that SBAC state tests are grade-level and HCC is supposedly working ahead. So a) the SBAC content may not be a recent curricular focus for the cohort and may in fact have been something they skipped b) there may be differing approaches to test prep in the cohort versus the neighborhood school.
So. The HCC "identified" students remaining in local schools are the ones who DON'T NEED an appeal. (duh)
One would expect (and data reveals) that HCC students (including the private-tester/appealers) in HCC schools perform less well than HCC students, all of whom didn't need an appeal. You don't need an appeal if you are staying local and aren't enrolling in an HCC school. The data includes the same info in the 2007 audit. Any reasonable person could predict that those who need an appeal to get into an HCC - are likely to be those who don't do as well further on down the road.
Let me guess - the new excuse for segregation.... "Testing doesn't matter - except for the testing to get my kid into the program. That's the only valid testing. The tests to stay in, or prove that the kid benefits from the program more than regular ed - irrelevant."
Reader
Only slightly relevant but totally fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?sns=tw&v=0Rnq1NpHdmw&app=desktop
This memo doesn't even count as p-hacking because there is no real statistical significance involved, no attempt to even address variability and measurement error. It might be worth pointing out that the non-cohort group is pretty small and therefore their numbers would be expected to vary more over the years, but that's about all I can say.
Ok. Go for it. I am as stupid as you imply in your post. Treat me as such and prove your claim. I want to see numbers and a link to where you got them.
For us morons out here, prove this: "The HCC "identified" students remaining in local schools are the ones who DON'T NEED an appeal. (duh)"
While you're at it, I want proof of this: "...{Privtely tested} are likely to be those who don't do as well further on down the road."
Pulling garbage out of thin air and sending it through your fingers as you type, does not make it fact. Duh.
I await your proof, but I will not be holding my breath.
-yawn
Why are parents who fight so hard to get kids into the program so reluctant to examine the program? What is the program, really, other than messed up? What curricular advantage does the program really offer to "HCC-identified kids" other than, as Charlie always says, the cohort itself? As the hamburger commercial used to ask, "Where's the Beef?"
Wendy
If people who I trusted were interested in the needs of advanced learners and in Seattle having a strong program for advanced learners(self contained or otherwise) were the ones doing this data exploration I would trust 1) that they would find better data and 2) that they weren't just looking for anything and everything to possibly justify splitting it up(and almost certainly NOT replacing it with anything in home schools- if we split it up all I expect is one size fits all for everyone. I have things I would like to improve about the program, but it's miles better than the one size fits all approach was for my kid. 2 years advanced is a closer fit.). As it stands, Blanford is as hostile a director towards advanced learners as we have had(and Michael Tolley is no better), and this data is clearly so cruddy. The only reason I can think of for them using it is they found some kind of "gotcha!" with the ELA data. I would love to be proven wrong, but I have been around the district for a long time now. Running out of faith that I am going to be surprised by staff this way.
Can't speak for everyone, but that is where I am coming from, Wendy. It's a lack of faith in the district, not so much blind faith in the program, if that makes sense.
-sleeper
What significance? Can you explain what it means? What exactly can you glean from these data about the educational experience of those in GE vs. self-contained?
The scores don't tell you anything if you don't also know what the kids in each setting are getting in--and out--of school.
Context Matters
We almost had that with Dr. Goodloe-Johnson. She DID order audits into various departments including HCC (but only for HCC kids, not Spectrum or ALOs.)
I need to get a new link for the Moss Adams report but that is what I want. I want an objective, outside look at the operations of this district and that the Board hands it to the Superintendent and says, "Go forth and heal this district."
Operations limps along, both with facilities and academics.
Work session after work session from various departments and nearly ALL of them state as "risks" that data cannot be properly accessed and systems cannot communicate with each other. And, worst of all, we have people doing a lot of manual work.
I have heard this for 15 years. We spend and spend on technology and I remember we were promised - for various BEX/BTA spending - that "this time we'll get it right." And it's not and it's costing time and money this district doesn't have.
Charles Wright knew this. I honestly believe he did try. We DO have some smart people in SPS and yet somehow, it still doesn't work.
And, as the Moss Adams report so brilliantly pointed out, if you do not change the culture of a bureaucracy, you change nothing.
JSCEE needs its own personal earthquake and superintendent after superintendent, I hold my breath and hope. It never happens.
Why are parents who fight so hard to get kids into the program so reluctant to examine the program?"
Parents would LOVE to examine all the Advanced Learning programs. We've had two taskforces and yet, the power remains with the district so what parents think doesn't seem to matter. But many parents don't want to rock the boat for fear that they will lose the one thing they do have - a cohort. They don't have a curriculum, only a few trained teachers and their class sizes are the same as any others. So it's the cohort.
Reader, I ask you again to watch your tone. Please don't imply other people are Homer Simpson.
I call BS on that. Wanting a program so badly that you're willing to pay for private testing is probably due to ACADEMIC NEEDS, not a wish for segregation. Really. Get over it.
And maybe 20-30% are privately testing in as you suggest, who knows. I haven't seen those data though, have you? (If so, please post!) But even if that's the case, it doesn't tell you much. There's no evidence that the privately tested kids are the ones scoring lower on the SBA. And even if there were, maybe those kids are cognitively gifted and really need the program, but don't always do so well on tests for whatever reason (e.g., special needs). Are you really suggesting that SBA results are the best long-term measure of whether or not HCC is the most appropriate placement for any given kid?
Evidence Please
What is the program, really, other than messed up?
Exactly. I would welcome an examination of the program from an academic perspective, starting with some of the issues brought forth with the 2007 report - teacher training, curriculum framework, etc. I continue to be amazed by how much energy is focused on who gets into the program, while the program itself languishes.
-2cents
The article also mentions how CollegeBoard is distorting high school curricula (IMO, purely in the pursuit of making money).
LisaG
I simply gave what I believe to be a plausible explanation for the performance discrepancy (meaning: lack of significant measurable academic gain for those in HCC-segregation, and lower performance in some areas) - HCC students remaining in general ed are MORE highly capable to start with than those in the segregated schools. Another plausible explanation - segregated education doesn't really produce better results. HCC parents seem to have problems with either reason. They do have an axe to grind.
Reader
The venom for HCC seems odd to me. Here we have a successful program both parents and students like that doesn't cost more money.
What exactly is accomplished by destroying this? Is this all about "fixing" the achievement gap by no longer educating the top achievers, which reduces the spread? That's a pretty cynical view, that it's okay to hurt children as long as you can falsify your metrics.
mt
I still want proof that privately tested kids do not do as well in HCC as kids who test in via the district. Can you please let me know when to expect it?
This is classic coming from you: "They do have an axe to grind." You come on to virtually every post about HCC (and you have for years and years) and make sweeping generalizations about how awful the program is. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.
-yawn
and posted at the APP blog. Not sure why it wasn't posted
or linked on this blog by one of the numerous cross posters
between this blog and the APP one.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/12/03/2004051224.pdf
Here's a link to the APP blog:
http://discussapp.blogspot.jp
--about time
-double yawn
I don't see the logic. Whatever motivated these families to have their child tested in the first place would provide the same motivation to appeal an adverse decision. If they didn't want their child to qualify, then why have them tested at all?
1. The program is ineffective.
2. The students in the program don't take the test as seriously as their peers in general education classes.
3. The students in general education classes get more test prep.
4. The students in general education classes get more grade level instruction so the test topics are fresher in their minds.
5. Changing schools disrupts students education temporarily.
6. Some neighborhood schools do a fine job of educating highly capable students.
7. HC students outside the program are supplementing.
There are probably a number of other possible explanations and, of course, there is the possibility of a mix of these.
Given the ambiguity around the test results and the complete absence of any meaning in them, they should not be the focus of the discussion. The discussion should focus instead on the fact that the District is dismantling programs saying that MTSS will replace them, but the District is not, in fact, checking that MTSS evens exists, let alone provides an effective replacement.
Why does this district keep trying to cut high achievers off at the knees? Let's meet all children where they are and help them all move forward. Is this really such a terrible goal?
West
We had our son tested privately & he qualified for HCC but we're keeping him at his current elementary (not neighborhood school).
Also, I used to be wary of the private testing results too! But that's before we had our daughter tested and she qualified for HCC as well. I think the test AL uses to identify kids misses many many kids who should be in these programs. I say blame the testing, not the kids or their parents.
Mag mom
here's their appeal procedure:
http://wwwnew.nsd.org/Page/21303
All we know is many, many HC kids do very well without the cohort.
That's all we can say without more data.
Yawning Two
There's a chart on page 33 which reports their satisfaction with services received in neighborhood schools vs their locations with self-contaIned classrooms. They are not surprising. Given the district's limited appeal process, we can assume there are many gifted students in neighborhood schools receiving no services at all. Oh - and guess what services as provided to highly capable students who choose to remain in their neighborhood middle schools? They are cluster-grouped in Challenge classrooms. (Which have been discontinued.)
I'm not sure this is wholly accurate.
First, the data indicate that only about 175 HC kids grades 4-8 aren't in the cohort--so while I guess this could technically be considered "many, many kids," it's a small portion of those who qualify. Ninety percent of HC-qualified students in this grade range have opted INTO the cohort, presumably because these parents thought it would better meet their children's needs. Only 10% stay at the neighborhood school--and it's probably a small number of schools that retain many HC kids.
Second, while they may not be officially participating in "the HCC cohort", the kids who stay in their neighborhood school may still be part of an HC-qualified cohort. Families often stay where they are because the school does a good job of meeting the needs of these kids (because the school has a lot of them), or because their kid has finally found a couple good friends (often other HC-qualified kids). I didn't move my son in elementary because his best (practically only) friend, who was also academically gifted, wanted to stay at the neighborhood school due to family convenience. Our families both agreed to stay put, so they could be together. We figured they got a lot more out of the work they initiated together than they would from a slightly more advanced (but still insufficient) curriculum.
Context Matters
-SPS Tired
the survey of Northshore parents was not done by the district and was not limited to how many times a family or even parents in the program.
"This survey was conducted by the HiCap PARENT Advisory Board, and is NOT sponsored in any way by the Northshore School District. We will use the results to guide our parent advocacy efforts next year, and will share aggregate/anonymized results with the district as well.
Please answer this survey with one particular childin mind. If you have multiple children who have the need for "highly capable" services, please take the survey again for each child.This survey is anonymous."
Really Yawning
@reader: Your generalizations and accusations about the HCC cohort and the families and students involved are entirely too negative and I find them to be inaccurate. Calling people prejudice who attend north Seattle homogeneous schools is out of line. We live in north Seattle, loved our neighborhood school, but moved to Cascadia when our child suggested the idea to us. We had him tested through SPS and he easily qualified first time through, scoring 99% in at least four areas. His grandmother is 1/2 Black and Native American, his other grandparents grew up dirt poor in Highland Park and Tacoma, attending Sealth and Wilson high schools, and his parents worked their fingers to the bone from very young ages and paid their way through graduate school and were proud to buy their first little fixer upper before turning 30. Little did they know they would be squeezing a growing family into this little home, but moving to a big house in the burbs was not appealing. To now be accused of being racist elitist people because we live in a little old home in north Seattle with a kiddo in the HCC cohort strikes me as absurd. We love having the environment-saving option of biking to work, and enjoy having such close proximity to restaurants and GREAT schools. Our child was doing very well in our neighborhood school, and is now flourishing at Cascadia -- we were not desperate to move to the cohort, quite the opposite in fact. We are not prejudice for living where we live, and though I have no idea who you are - I would venture to guess we are much more accepting, open-minded and kind that you imagine yourself to be with your "HCC is elitist and racist" comments.
-bait taken
Well said bait!
Many of those students will eventually end up in the cohort. Just because their parents chose to leave them in a neighborhood school this year does not mean they will next year.
Many, many years ago when I was in elementary school I tested just one or two percentiles short of the APP (or whatever it was called then cut-off). I was Horizon/Spectrum qualified, and it was self contained but a one hour bus ride across town to our "cluster"
Spectrum site.
Each year, a couple kids from my elementary school would slip away for Spectrum. By the time I wrapped up fourth grade, my teacher really pushed my parents to send me down there as well as I consistently ahead of the class in my neighborhood school. When I finally went, for fifth grade, it was incredible to see how many kids had trickled down there for third and fourth grade. They were all kids I knew from K-2, but after that point, they, a couple of kids at a time, shifted schools and programs.
northwesterner
"Many of those students will eventually end up in the cohort."
Evidence?
Catwalk
"We do have to stick with the facts. What we can't do is cherry-pick data or use anecdotal evidence to drive policy or to feed political agendas."
The School Board is going to have to deal with the HCC issue soon and I hope they use facts not emotion.
Yawning
Since we don't have information on individual kids, we don't know specific, detailed information. What we do know, however, is that HCC enrollment gets bigger each grade you go up (until 7th grade when people have mostly already moved to MS). As their kids get older, more and more parents choose the program over the neighborhood school. Just look at enrollment data for proof of this.
dogwalk
open ears
Maybe we could have a "Data and Reports" thread, where people can just post links to frequently requested info?
HF
Of course, that assumes that the test scores mean anything at all (other than that kids who are good at tests and whose parents let them take tests score high on tests.)
(*)It's obviously somewhat more complicated than I am implying here in three sentences without the ability to type Greek letters!
open ears
I don't want to take it away from these non cohort students by saying they did well by test prep (If it was all test prep, then the non APP kids will benefit too) or they didn't buy into rejecting the standardized tests and thus did better because they were more motivated to do well on the tests. There are parents, APP and non-APP, who rejected standardized testing on principle and excused their children from taking them. Parents from many groups, including SPED, supplement outside schools. So what? I guess I'm not ready to dive off into an empty pool over this.
geoduck
LisaG
Context Matters
Maybe this is just a reading comprehension problem on my part, but I don't get it. If instead of similar graduation rates between OptionA/OptionB, the data showed that one option had a 50% graduation rate and the other option had a 100% graduation rate, would you seriously say the comparison didn't mean anything? Wouldn't you want to try to figure out whether something in the option programs might be affecting the graduation rate?
The AAP recommends later start times for middle schools and high schools because studies showed later start times gave adolescents more sleep time. And more sleep time led to fewer car accidents, less depression, better grades, etc. The AAP did NOT say the results of the comparisons don't mean anything because we don't know why schools chose different start times.
LisaG
Here's what is conclusive: the District Staff are telling us that they are replacing Spectrum with MTSS, but they are also telling us that they have no way of implementing MTSS, measuring the use of MTSS, determining the efficacy of MTSS, or holding schools accountable for implementing MTSS. In other words, MTSS exists only in the JSCEE, not in the schools. They are swapping something real for something hypothetical.
If we feel a member(s) of the Board is using the data in a selective manner to achieve their political agenda, what's the most effective way to make our voice heard?
Thank you for all the hard work you do to keep us aware and informed.
- Concerned
It was eye-opening when my son's Spectrum teacher explained that to me many years ago.
Momof2
I'll repeat some of the posters above. If this is a one year anomaly on a new test then so be it. If their is a trend of ELA scores within the self-contained cohort noticeably lower than those HCCers staying in their home schools, I want to see that data and I want that portion of HCC to be examined and improved. I see no need for excuses, especially having spent time in the classrooms. The test results mirror my impression: weak ELA. I expect my kids to come out of self-contained HCC doing more than reading big books. I want them to comprehend the themes of the books and I want them to write well. If there is data anywhere that says this is happening for the cohort, great. Let's see it. Otherwise, fix the curriculum and upgrade the teaching presentation.
No excuses
I would first ask the Board director if he/she is also aware of evidence A, B, C on the given topic. Perhaps he or she didn't get enough information (or didn't do enough research.)
If he or she doesn't respond or brushes it off, then you might sign up to testify on the subject and point out that the Board (without naming names) doesn't seem to be aware of evidence A, B, C and that you worry that other city leaders or community members are not being truly informed of all the data.
You could let me or Charlie know more details and we could look into it.
(I'll be honest; I can only think of one person on the Board who seems to have or support a political agenda but I could be wrong.)
-underwhelmed
I don't mean to imply that there's no point to doing such comparisons if one were willing to then go to the next level and try to figure out what the differences mean. However, I don't have the sense that SPS staff want to do that. I think the general sense is that they are content to draw conclusions from these superficial data. When the data come as an attachment to a Friday memo that ignores a laundry list of recommendations from the 2007 evaluation that were never implemented and instead chooses to "spin" a recommendation that there not be a single or two regional self-contained 1-8 arrangement (elem PLUS middle school) into a recommendation to eliminate self-containment altogether, it's hard to believe that staff want to dig deeper and figure out why scores of the small percentage of HC kids who remain in their neighborhood school are a little better than those in the cohort. And if they had any curiosity about it, you think they'd at least break things down by middle school and elementary as a first step instead or presenting data like this.
As presented, these data don't tell us anything aside from what we already knew--that it would be good to dig deeper.
Context Matters
Yep. Let's hope members of the Board ask for a more detailed summary of the data. You know you've been in this district too long when you can't take info at face value...
-what's next?