Advanced Learning Wants Your Input
I still have to do my write-up about my talk with Wyeth Jessee about his new role as head of Student Supports, overseeing AL, Special Education, ELL, counseling, nurses, etc.
One thing I will say now is that I asked him about changes in AL and he said he had just gotten the job (absolutely true) but it wouldn't happen without stakeholder input. I reminded him that Spectrum disappeared like sugar dissolving in iced tea but he smiled and shrugged.
But now a reader has alerted us that the AL department wants our input.
Two are the old Superintendent procedure and the new superintendent procedure. (It sure would have been helpful to just have one document red-lined so you could more clearly see what has changed. )
I also note there is another document about the changes but I believe there are more changes than they list (if my cross-referencing of the two documents is correct.)
The new procedure more clearly calls out the HCC group. I note the phrasing for what happens if a parent of an identified HCC student chooses to leave their child at their neighborhood school or option school:
I have no idea what HCC kids get at a regular school today but I'm thinking that phrase could mean many things to many principals and, as long as they document something, they are good with the district.
They are still claiming Spectrum exists - I guess it does but not in the same way it did even a couple of years ago. Ditto on ALO which is truly a joke but they want us to believe they are taking it seriously.
They took out this sentence:
These programs are also open to individual students who have been identified as ready for a more rigorous curriculum.
So apparently only kids who take the test can access either Spectrum or ALO. I don't get that at all.
Plus they don't put the grade range for HCC. Hmm.
The new document also says:
Advanced Learner eligibility is maintained through participation in an Advanced Learning program.
I would assume that a parent would have to enroll their child in either HCC or Spectrum or ask for the ALO services at their school. If they didn't, their child would lose eligibility.
Spectrum is described in the same way as ALOs which is a big change which would beg the question of why they both exist.
They also have a "Continuing Eligibility" section in the procedure that was not in the old procedure.
I'll be interested in what other people have to say about these changes. Help me out if I got anything wrong.
One thing I will say now is that I asked him about changes in AL and he said he had just gotten the job (absolutely true) but it wouldn't happen without stakeholder input. I reminded him that Spectrum disappeared like sugar dissolving in iced tea but he smiled and shrugged.
But now a reader has alerted us that the AL department wants our input.
Comments on the proposed DRAFT can be sent to advlearn@seattleschools.org with the subject line 2190SP.There are a number of documents to read.
The proposed DRAFT will be reviewed by the Curriculum and Instruction Policy Committee at their meeting on Monday, August 15, 2017. Please send your comments in before July 31 to assure it will be reviewed prior to the meeting.
Two are the old Superintendent procedure and the new superintendent procedure. (It sure would have been helpful to just have one document red-lined so you could more clearly see what has changed. )
I also note there is another document about the changes but I believe there are more changes than they list (if my cross-referencing of the two documents is correct.)
The new procedure more clearly calls out the HCC group. I note the phrasing for what happens if a parent of an identified HCC student chooses to leave their child at their neighborhood school or option school:
Any Highly Capable student choosing not ot enroll in the Highly Capable Cohort will receive services available at the school in which he or she is enrolled. Per state mandate, these services will be appropriated documented by school administration."services available"
I have no idea what HCC kids get at a regular school today but I'm thinking that phrase could mean many things to many principals and, as long as they document something, they are good with the district.
They are still claiming Spectrum exists - I guess it does but not in the same way it did even a couple of years ago. Ditto on ALO which is truly a joke but they want us to believe they are taking it seriously.
They took out this sentence:
These programs are also open to individual students who have been identified as ready for a more rigorous curriculum.
So apparently only kids who take the test can access either Spectrum or ALO. I don't get that at all.
Plus they don't put the grade range for HCC. Hmm.
The new document also says:
Advanced Learner eligibility is maintained through participation in an Advanced Learning program.
I would assume that a parent would have to enroll their child in either HCC or Spectrum or ask for the ALO services at their school. If they didn't, their child would lose eligibility.
Spectrum is described in the same way as ALOs which is a big change which would beg the question of why they both exist.
They also have a "Continuing Eligibility" section in the procedure that was not in the old procedure.
I'll be interested in what other people have to say about these changes. Help me out if I got anything wrong.
Comments
"The district identification process must apply equitably to all enrolled students and families from every racial, ethnic and socio-economic population present in the public school population they serve. Districts must review identification procedures to make sure student selection reflects the demographics of the area they serve. These specific requirements for compliance — and related activities — appear here in the WACs we list below.
392-170-042 Annual notification, 392-170-045 Nomination process for highly capable students, 392-170-045 Nomination process (screening procedures), 392-170-047 Parent/legal guardian permission, 392-170-055 Assessment process, 392-170-060 Nondiscrimination in the use of tests, 392-170-070 Multidisciplinary selection committee, 392-170-075 Selection of most highly capable, 392-170-076 Process for appeal Identification must be nondiscriminatory and observance the requirements set in RCW 28A.640 Sexual Equality, RCW 28A.642 Discrimination Prohibition, WAC 392-190 Equal Educational Opportunity."
The current SPS approach that allows one qualifying score for FRL isn't going to cut it in terms of compliance. The inherent CogAT biases remain. The "hot zones" also should not exist (according to this wording). Some local districts try to control for advantage bias by using a 99% qualifier. This won't work in Seattle because it would further discriminate against FRL and ELL students. Parsing the wording does not change the intent which is clear (and mirrors Lohman's regarding talent identification). The district will have to adopt local and sub-norms (like ELL) input into scoring algorithms in order to be in compliance with State Law.
Continuum of services is not an opt-in program. Student needs determine placement.
The district was given a grace period due to HC being a recent mandate, but knows the time is up.
FWIW
-get real
HC2
I should probably be able to understand this -- but am somehow not tracking.
Jan
-sleeper
https://accountability.madison.k12.wi.us/files/accountability/2013-4-3%20CogAT%20Local%20Norms%20Report_0_0.pdf
They concluded "using local norms by school alone is extremely unlikely to accomplish that goal [to increase the diversity of TAG students]. Even in schools with racial diversity, the top performers in each school are largely white."
-googled it
When, not if, SPS starts using an actual "continuum of services" model, services will be included at each school, as needed. A very much smaller self-contained program would exist only for extreme outliers from their home schools.
Quoting someone at OSPI giving a high five to Seattle for their "attempts" is not impressive or consoling. The language is clear: It says "selection". Ask SPED parents about OSPI accolades. They do not stand up in court. That's why people besides just me will keep "talking about it."
It's interesting that this state directive is being questioned and pushed back when it is part of the law, includes currently underrepresented talent, follows best practices, and is clearly the direction SPS must move. Wyeth Jessee is very aware of this, which is why he has given Melissa and others the heads-up about changes. The state language is very much based on a SPED model and Lohman's norms. The capacity crisis might force them to do it sooner rather than later, but it's inevitable because it's HC law and part of basic education.
FWIW
Jan, I suggest you read the current APP blog in the most recent thread. A parent gives an excellent synopsis of Lohman's use of norms and the rationale. The parent does not include sub-group norms, but they are definitely part of Lohman's best practices. He is the author of CogAT.
https://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/docs/default-source/dlohman/best-practices-in-using-standardized-tests-for-talent-identification.pdf?sfvrsn=0
FWIW
read the study
tiger
"Using race norms alone naturally would produce a group of high performing students that mirrors the racial composition of the district. However, race norms would exclude students from traditionally high performing groups who are among the top performers nationally..."
Using school norms alone would not accomplish the goal, and using race norms alone could deny services to students who exceed the qualification criteria. "The data indicates using multiple identification approaches could result in identifying the students who score highest overall, as well as a larger underrepresented minority presence." They concluded a combination of approaches could increase diversity, but not the particular combo you suggested, @tiger. They suggested identifying the top 5% overall, plus something else, which is what SPS identification procedures allow. SPS criteria selects for those in the top 5% overall, but then gives special consideration to those with ELL, FRL, and special education status "if there is strong teacher/educator input to do so...SPS's established criteria are not absolute disqualifiers." The committee "will give special consideration to and assess the impact of the following factors: cultural diversity, socio-economic status, linguistic background, and identified disability."
-read it
This has led to an explosion in HCC but one with virtually segregated demographics. Allowing retests doesn't help since it causes invalidity. Using local norms/sub-norms will help (but not fully control for) the significant test prep of this demographic.
State law requires identification that goes beyond test scores. They aren't doing FRL/ELL students any favors by stating this. The current language follows the state law in words, not effects.
As long as they have "hot zones" and demographic have and have nots in HCC, the law is clearly not being followed.
The district changed the wording because they are aware of the state language that I quoted. The next step is to actually manifest the language into their identification of students. They know that needs to happen, too, because the grace period is coming to an end.
FWIW
FWIW
I am not familiar with this being a "significant" issue. Please link to a source.
-sceptical
David Lohman Professor Emeritus, The University of Iowa
September 2013
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/docs/default-source/dlohman/thoughts-on-policies-to-mitigate-effects-of-practice-tests-and-coaching.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3D2&ved=0ahUKEwjzk-D_-ozOAhXM1IMKHZGCDF4QFgggMAA&usg=AFQjCNFv-rBxomf7UVpZ72szqLFWSyYEDg&sig2=A0bAvokwj4iPClfv8O5cUQ
FWIW
"The recent proliferation of practice materials sold over the
internet and of coaching schools that operate in many urban areas has seriously
undermined the fairness of both group and individually administered ability tests
when test scores are used as the primary criterion for high-stakes admissions
decisions. For a price, savvy parents with resources can virtually assure their child
a high score and thus of placement in the gifted program."
FWIW
also wasn't it just a couple years ago that the district adopted the recommendations from the altf based on the states recommendations? why are we talking big changes again if they haven't gotten the first ones in place. i anticipate you are right though.
no caps
In reading and social studies, the child whose parents gamed the system will struggle to be able to read material that the other children understand easily, since the rest of the class is reading several grades ahead.
I think that "gaming the system" doesn't happen that often - and would be very painful for the child.
Also, I would hope that teachers and administrators would counsel those families to leave the HCC for a school that's more appropriate for the child. Anything else would be child abuse.
Momof2
Lohman states this:
“Similarly, the ELL child who scores at the 95th PR when compared to other ELL children may only score at the 50th PR when compared to non-ELL children. Although we may be able to support the inference that the ELL child has displayed talent, THERE IS LITTLE JUSTIFICATION FOR PLACING HER IN THE SAME INSTRUCTIONAL SITUATION as her higher scoring classmates. Always, instruction should start at the child’s current level of achievement or development.”
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/docs/dlohman/The_Contextual_Assessment_of_Talent.pdf
“The need for precise estimates of ability is a direct consequence of trying to determine whether or not a child is truly gifted. However, if the goal is merely to identify poor or ELL children who might profit from special encouragement, projects, or enrichment, then THERE IS NO NEED FOR SUCH PRECISION.”
“One of the major stumbling blocks for effective talent identification among poor and ELL children is the presumption that all talented students must receive the same kind of special instruction. In athletics, we would expect that some children who had little experience swimming might have talent for the sport. But we would not think it reasonable to immediately expect them to swim at the same pace as children who had had many years of practice in the sport. Clearly, the inference of talent is distinguishable from a judgment about the current level of development of that talent. Thus, any attempt to identify talent within OTL groups must also be accompanied by a redesign of the programs that serve the children who will be identified as talented.”
“Therefore, some form of enrichment may be most appropriate for many of these students whose academic development is similar to that of their classmates but who exhibit undeveloped talent.”
https://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/docs/dlohman/Nontraditional-uses-of-traditional-measures-_-single-space.pdf
Note: Caps emphasis my own
- NEM
Another good place to ask that question is the HCCblog.
For our children, SPS's poor choices in elementary math curriculum (TERC and EDM) ultimately resulted in higher math achievement, because we wised up and starting teaching/supplementing at home. Our objective was to provide them with a solid foundation in math, not prep them for some tests. Several of our neighbors used Kumon - once again, not to prep for the tests, but to ensure basic coverage of math concepts. Current 4th-5th graders have had a mish mash of different math programs, from EDM to Math in Focus to SPS's "scope and sequence," and who knows what else. It wouldn't surprise me if students had gaps in their learning due to the move from one curriculum to another. If your child's achievement on standardized tests is not reflective of performance in class, it could be that they haven't adequately covered some of the tested concepts.
-another opinion
FWIW, test prep is not really an issue in Seattle, for a few reasons:
1. CogAT is only offered once per year, so any retesting that happens is very spread out by age, growth and time.
2. Our appeals process does a reasonable job of catching kids who belong in HCC. If a family wants to appeal the results of CogAT testing, they must seek additional IQ testing from a licensed psychologist. Test-prep disqualifies results of a private test, so scrupulous testers prevent cheating. They would be in danger of losing their licenses otherwise. (For the same reason you can't really "buy" your way in). To Melissa's point, testing can be pricey, but rates do vary, and it's free for FRL families.
3. Like Momof2 said, a kid who prepped would quickly be out of their depth and it would not be a good fit.
2HC
2HC
Local districts no longer allow retests for this reason. Seattle allows multiple retests.
HCC blog has named the local test prep sites by name. They advertise for this purpose. The blog has also referred people to Amazon for specific test prep materials.
HCC blog has been complaining endlessly about the range of students and how the program is watered down.
I'll take Lohman's eminent research on this topic over conjecture--by those who have a self-interest in claiming that what is happening everywhere else, on a wide scale, just isn't happening here in Seattle.
FWIW
"Virtually assure their child a high score"...equity issues galore
FWIW
Further, the "multiple retests" you mention are no more than once per year. In the past annual tests were required in order to keep eligibility, unless a child was enrolled in an advanced learning program.
T in Ballard, I too am suspicious of your topic. Please reread points 2 & 3 in my post above. Sure, appeal. CogAT doesn't catch everyone. If your kid qualifies based on private test scores, then HCC might be a good fit. But if not, then it's not.
2HC
It happens in Seattle. Here is one thread of many, easily accessed by googling:
http://discussapp.blogspot.com/2014/11/hcs-ac-on-challenges-to-hcc.html
FWIW
1) If parents appeal, private testers are not necessarily using the same tests as the district, nor are they necessarily appealing because their child missed the cut-off for the CogAT portion. They might have high scores on the CogAT, but miss the achievement cut-off.
2) 5 points? If a child's score placed them within 5 points of the cut-off, an appeal might make sense, given the error in testing (notice the confidence interval on sample score reports?). Remember the tests are estimates of abilities, not exact measures. If a student retook a test their score may go up or down.
FWIW, we get that you have some issues with the district testing, but it's not going to change anytime soon. For the foreseeable future, SPS will continue to use the CogAT and district achievement testing. If parents were "gaming the system" as some continue to suggest, wouldn't there be noticeable underachievement in AL classrooms? You do realize some students are quietly counseled if they are struggling and not working to standard? The ultimate goal of the parents and the district is a proper educational placement. Are there some parents that prep their children for the tests? Perhaps, but most likely that takes the form of reading to them from a young age, limiting TV watching, encouraging them to count and play with numbers, etc.
-move on
i guess i am old school and my bias is we never had a private test validate our kids hc capabilities. math scores are achievement map/sbac spatial ability are iq. i will never profess to know as much as 'for while i watch' ( i believe that is because they watch so many things we will never see without tin foil hats propped on our heads) about gaming the system. but you should be anticipated to prep for the achievement portion of the test. i.e. preschool; good schools - north beach had more math al students at one time because of curriculum. oh and before anyone says anything that is why frl/2e/ell get special consideration when the panel of experts look at the numbers.
as for iq sorry contact fwiw directly on that as they know all the tricks. doesn't seem to be working for them though. strange.
no caps
The description of Highly Capable Services is so deliberately vague that it could mean anything or nothing. Consequently it is neither actionable nor enforceable. It doesn't provide schools or teachers with guidance and doesn't tell families what they have a right to expect.
There is a reference to curriculum. What curriculum is that? Is there a fixed definition for that word?
The description of Spectrum/ALO is even vaguer. It is meaningless. Likewise the delivery models for Spectrum/ALO are meaningless. It is good that the District acknowledges that there is no difference between Spectrum and ALO anymore and that self-contained is no longer an approved delivery model.
The community and family engagement is exclusively with the families of Highly Capable students. There is no effort to engage the families of Spectrum/ALO students. That should be addressed. These families deserve an equitable opportunity to share information and provide feedback.
There is no reference anywhere in this procedure to an annual evaluation of the quality or efficacy of the programs and services. That's a grave oversight. The district staff has promised an annual review of the programs and the procedure is the place to describe that review.
-move on
I was in a gifted program a long time ago and it is really where I first met people of different races and backgrounds. In order to get into the gifted program you had to first do well on the Iowa Basic Skills Test or have a teacher recommendation. The teacher recommendation was there because some kids don't test well. After that, we took an IQ test. It was a one on one test. The point is, I think there needs to be multiple ways to access these programs because one size does not fit all.
HP
http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/committees/C&I/2015-16/June%2013%202016%20CI%20Agenda.pdf
There are a few changes from this earlier draft from last month, and the one currently presented for review:
1. "Eligibility continues for students identified as Advanced Learners or as Highly Capable from the time of identification, as long as the student remains in SPS." (changed from "remains in SPS and in his/her pathway schools."
2. They added this line to the enrollment section:
"The Student Assignment Plan (3130SP) governs all Highly Capable and Advanced Learner program enrollment options."
3. They added this line about the HS pathway:
"If a student chooses not to attend the pathway high school at any time, enrollment in the pathway high school is no longer guaranteed."
4. They added this change in light of the Thurgood Marshall proposed social studies change:
"Highly Capable Cohort (HCC) service model is self-contained in Grades 1-5 in ELA, math, science, and social studies. A formal waiver to allow flexible grouping of Gen Ed., AL and HC students for social studies may be requested by HC Cohort elementary schools."
5. They changed language around exiting the program:
"Students may be exited from Highly Capable Services if the services are no longer appropriate. A meeting of the parent/guardian, teacher, administrator, a representative from the Advanced Learning Office, and the student (at parent/guardian discretion) shall precede such a service delivery change." (revised from "shall precede such an eligibility change")
And an issue that remains from the last version:
They still say "individual progress for Highly Capable students is reviewed annually as part of parent/teacher conferences at elementary and middle schools." As far as I know, middle schools don't have parent teacher conferences.
2HC
"This self-contained, K-8 program provides a rigorous curriculum in language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science."
They've changed it to this:
"The HC Cohort service model is also self-contained in most core subjects in Grades 6-8."
This is intentionally vague about which subjects are self-contained in middle school.
2HC
3. "If a student chooses not to attend the pathway high school at any time, enrollment in the pathway high school is no longer guaranteed."
Is this any different from previous guidelines? I thought this was always the case.
1. "Eligibility continues for students identified as Advanced Learners or as Highly Capable from the time of identification, as long as the student remains in SPS." (changed from "remains in SPS and in his/her pathway schools."
Do students still need to be enrolled in an HC pathway school in 8th grade to access the default HS pathway? What's interesting is that in some parts the language is "the pathway high school," in another place it is "their pathway high school." There's just one default pathway school, yes? Is Ingraham considered a "pathway?" There's an "accelerated AP pathway" at Garfield, and an "accelerated IB pathway" at Ingraham. When they reference "the pathway high school" do they mean Garfield?
If a student is enrolled in HCC in 5th, is assignment to the HC pathway middle school automatic, or do families need to select the pathway school during open enrollment (the wording isn't very clear to me)?
-moving on
NESeattleMom, that may be true for Garfield, but for Ingraham, couldn't students try to enroll on a space available basis (like any other student) and simply take IB classes on the normal schedule in 11th/12th grade?
-moving on
JAMS has not been following the Superintendent's Procedure when blended Spectrum/HCC classes were created. The fact that no one has stepped in to require the school to follow the procedure leads me to believe this exercise is pointless.
I agree that the procedure should include more concrete details. I'd like to see an actual definition of the accelerated AP pathway at Garfield. In addition. I'd like to see this statement supported with details for the 9th and 10th grades.The curriculum is presented at an accelerated learning pace and/or advanced level of complexity and depth, requiring students to perform significantly above grade level.
Garfield has been accustomed to telling everyone the students are no longer in APP once they reach high school. Now they remain identified as highly capable and must be provided with a curriculum that requires students to perform significantly above grade level.
-moving on
The SAP makes it clear that Ingraham is not a pathway. "Ingraham also offers the advanced HCC/IBX program, but is not a pathway school." And because HC 9th graders at Ingraham take separate Social Studies and English classes to prepare them for the IB program, I would not count on being able to transfer in after 9th grade.
With the increase in demand I think the district needs to be prepared to answer many questions about Ingraham IB/IBX, starting with how it is funded and how seats are assigned.
2HC
"Using the words "accelerated AP pathway" (Garfield) and "accelerated IB pathway" (Ingraham) but not considering Ingraham a pathway sure leads to a bit of confusion."
Yes. I think that's a mistake in the 2190SP that they will need to fix. The SAP never refers to Ingraham as a pathway, only as the "optional HCC/IBX program." The only HS pathway school is Garfield.
2HC
Aren't ELA, social studies and science self-contained at HIMS and WMS?
Again, why waste the time discussing this in C&I committee meetings if everyone knows the rules won't be followed?
The district is planning to add 500 seats at Ingraham. Will that be enough to meet the demand?
-parent