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.  
Comments on the proposed DRAFT can be sent to with the subject line 2190SP.

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.
There are a number of documents to read. 

 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.


Anonymous said…

"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.

Anonymous said…
@FWIW, OSPI has commended SPS for going above and beyond other districts in their attempts to identify students from underrepresented groups. The identification procedure is even being rewritten to add wording about considerations being given for ELL, FRL, and special education status. SPS is in compliance. The services provided may be of uneven quality (just like the rest of SPS), but your insinuation that they are somehow out of compliance is unwarranted.

-get real
Anonymous said…
Another problem with a point you keep repeating, FWIW, is the use of local norms to eliminate hot spots for HCC would only work if the non-HCC schools that serve those neighborhoods adjusted their curriculum to meet the needs of the kids who currently qualify as HC. They do not.

Jan said…
I am not sure I understand the use of the term local norms. Could a faster mind out there illuminate? And specifically expand on the concept of "use of local norms to eliminate hotspots for HCC -- and how it relates to non-HCC schools?

I should probably be able to understand this -- but am somehow not tracking.

Anonymous said…
He wants to norm the cogat by each school (which would mean every student taking it- unlikely and not legal without parent consent). And then only students who are two standard deviations away from the norm at each school would go to hcc, a similar number from each school. Of course then schools would need to teach curriculum to the population it has, instead of the median sps student, which is what it does now. It would probably maximize education for more students, but I think the equity losses are too great. Wing Luke would be years behind North Beach; trying to blend students in middle school would be chaos.

Anonymous said…
Report on hypothetical use of local norms (Madison, WI):

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
Anonymous said…
The continuum of services model provides for a range: self-contained, clustering, school pullouts, all down to the minimum of classroom differentiation. Equity losses are not correct since there would be pull-outs in schools for students who need the service. Students who are achieving well beyond the norms of their school would be placed in a self-contained program, which is why it should exist.

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.


Anonymous said…
That is why sub-group norms are part of Lohman's best practices. FRL students would have a sub-group norm added in the schools with demographics you referenced, in addition to the local and national norm numbers. ELL students may have two sub-norms (for both ELL and FRL). They did not use Professor Lohman's algorithms correctly.

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.

Anonymous said…
the madison study concluded a combo of school and race norming was needed

read the study


Anonymous said…
The "study" was a hypothetical exercise in one school district that compared numbers identified by 1) top 5% overall, 2) top 5% within each race, and 3) top 5% within each school.

"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
Anonymous said…
The problem with the current SPS identification is that not only do they use the CogAT national norms as one qualifier for low SPS students (albeit one test, not two), but they are mis-using CogAT to over-identify many students from advantaged demographics.

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.

Anonymous said…
correction: low FRL

Anonymous said…
FWIW said: " significant test prep of this demographic."

I am not familiar with this being a "significant" issue. Please link to a source.


Anonymous said…
Ability tests, the internet, and practice tests: A recipe for invalidity
David Lohman Professor Emeritus, The University of Iowa
September 2013

Anonymous said…
Quote from the referenced article by the author of CogAT:

"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."

Anonymous said…
that is why there is no single test to qualify and al has accommodations for life situations like ell/2e/frl. knowing the hcc community as i do this is not a major issue.

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
Anonymous said…
FWIW - I would highly recommend against parents gaming the system to get into the HCC program. The main reason is that then you are placing your child into a group where they will constantly underperform and struggle to keep up with the class. If they are in math classes that are several grades over their head, with classmates who pick up new concepts very quickly and are eager to move on to the next concept, they will get left behind and painfully struggle to even understand what's going on.

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.

T in Ballard said…
Hi, this is my first comment on this forum. I hope this is not too far off the topic at hand, but i'm wondering if there are any recommendations re: preparing for advanced placement testing? My daughter is going into 5th grade and has tested previously, coming very close both times. Her lower scores in both cases were math related. Thanks in advance, i appreciate any input on your experiences. If there is another more appropriate spot for this comment on this blog please direct me.
Anonymous said…
My interpretation of Lohman’s work is that he is advocating use of local norms to improve identification and talent development for under-represented populations in order to provide appropriate instruction and enrichment. He's NOT saying that everyone should be ability grouped together regardless of score. Interesting find considering Garfield's move towards Honors for All...

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.”

“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.”

Note: Caps emphasis my own

T in Ballard, did your daughter test in a group or individually? You can get better results with individual testing but it costs a lot of money.

Another good place to ask that question is the HCCblog.
Anonymous said…
Funny, I thought "T in Ballard" was just baiting to prove a point about parents prepping their children for testing...

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
Anonymous said…

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.

Anonymous said…
By the way, HC2 is someone else.

Jan said…
Thanks to everyone who provided enlightenment on local norming. Off to go read the APP blog.

T in Ballard said…
Melissa Westbrook, thanks! She tested in the group setting that SPS provides. We did no advanced prep on either year, and in both cases she was sick for our testing time slot (Nov/Dec is so bad for that). So i am starting to see the advantage of private testing. I feel like this is our only real chance to get a decent educational framework for our kid and this year we will make an all out effort. That is why i'm thinking of prepping in some way, either tutor, or by taking practice tests. This goes against my instinct which is to minimize planning for this to keep her loose and comfortable....Any advice from this forum would be appreciated. And thanks for the note on the HCC blog, i will check that out as well.
Anonymous said…
Test prep and retesting invalidities are so widespread that Lohman,the CogAT author, believes the tests have no validity as a high stakes entry point.

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.

Anonymous said…
p.s. I hope board members are reading this and seeing Lohman's article about "savvy parents" playing out in real time.

"Virtually assure their child a high score"...equity issues galore

Anonymous said…
FWIW, test prep is more likely to happen in places like Bellevue, where there is no option to appeal based on secondary results. CogAT really is a high-stakes test there. In Seattle, for now anyway, families have the option to appeal with private testing.

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.

Anonymous said…
Multiple retests are the IQ tests which are then invalidated and can go up 5 points or more per retest. Those are invalid scores.

It happens in Seattle. Here is one thread of many, easily accessed by googling:

Charlie Mas said…
@T in Ballard, I suggest you prepare your child with a good night's sleep and a hearty breakfast. Nothing more is necessary or desirable.
Anonymous said…
A few points:
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
Anonymous said…
math or spatial ability?

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

Charlie Mas said…
Regarding the proposed superintendent's procedure -

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.
Anonymous said…
Waded through the thread @FWIW linked above...can't say there's some smoking gun about test prep run amok...lots of the same criticisms of AL that have been voiced many times over - lots of energy spent on identification and not enough energy spent on program services.

-move on
Anonymous said…
Apparently the CogAT is given in large groups. Not all kids do well in situations like that. I could understand why someone would want to have their kid tested individually.

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.

Anonymous said…
Melissa, a redlined, earlier draft of the 2190SP changes appears on p 302 of this document:

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.

Anonymous said…
Additionally, regarding middle school, this is what they wrote in last year's document:
"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.

Anonymous said…
Thanks, 2HC, for getting back to the original topic of the thread.

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
Charlie Mas said…
Given the fact that there are four core subjects (English, Math, Social Studies, and Science), saying that "most" of them are self-contained, is the same as saying that three of them are. Since math is not, all of the other three must be. Still, it would be better if they simply wrote "The HC Cohort service model is also self-contained in Language Arts, Social Studies, and Science in Grades 6-8"
NESeattleMom said…
So, what I learned above, is if an HCC student who has been in HCC from 2nd grade through 8th grade, decides to try out private school in 9th grade, that kid can no longer get into the HCC pathway school? So that would mean that kid could not go to Garfield or Ingraham for 10th grade if it turned out that they didn't like private school. (unless it was their reference high school) I mean this as a question rather than a statement.
Anonymous said…
In middle school, aren't they allowing single subject qualification, so a student with HC qualifying math/quantitative scores (or taking math at the level of most HC students) may be able to access HC level science, or HC LA/SS with HC qualifying reading/verbal scores? At JAMS, weren't Spectrum students placed in HCC LA/SS classes because the Spectrum cohort was too small to also have self-contained Spectrum classes? Saying "most" provides schools with more flexibility.

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
Lynn said…
In middle school, students are now able to qualify for Spectrum ELA and social studies without consideration of their math scores. HCC remains all or nothing.

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.
Anonymous said…
Lynn, HCC identification may be all or nothing, but access to HC level classes in middle school is possible without being identified HC in both math/verbal, provided you are attending HIMS, JAMS, or WMS. JAMS is purposely aligning both LA/SS and science to some extent by grade level (something like physical science topics in 7th, biology topics in 8th). Last year they had some common teacher selected texts they read in both Gen Ed and Spectrum/HC LA/SS classes (some at a fairly low reading level). It has been repeatedly stressed that math placement is separate from AL status. What's happening at JAMS is probably the direction the district would like to move.

-moving on
Anonymous said…
Many of the above questions are answered in the SAP, here:

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.

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
Reposting for anonymous:
"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.

Lynn said…
I'm aware that JAMS is breaking the rules. Are all of their students taking the biology EOC exam in 8th grade now?

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?
Anonymous said…
The Biology EOC may be phased out with the new high school NGSS test. Last year's 8th graders may have been the last group to take the EOC in middle school.

Charlie Mas said…
I think that the word "most" will allow the district to end self-contained science in the future and, at that time, claim that science is not a core class.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools