"De-Tracking" on Track in SPS
The Times has an article this morning on "de-tracking" which is quite illuminating.
First, the expert they site, Carol Burris, is the head of a group I belong to, the Network for Public Education.
The Times' article cites her work in New York where she helped her district's de-track middle/high school students and that work showed an increase for African-American students as well as white, Latinos and Asian students, for the Regents Diploma (for A-A students, the rise was from 32-82% in four years.)
I again note that Maple Elementary tried this in 2006 by having Spectrum-level teaching in all their classrooms. It worked but Maple had to fund this on their own and when they found they could not carry on, the district did not step in to support this pilot effort. That's too bad.
Washington Middle School, in their own attempt, seems to be seeing results.
The article cites "a districtwide plan to eliminate all Spectrum-only classrooms in elementary schools" by this fall. Their link is to a late June Friday Memo authored by Michael Tolley. The problem with this - that the Times' article doesn't state, either because they didn't ask or didn't know - is that PARENTS were not informed that this was "the plan." And shame on the district for that.
Here's what the article says happens in the classroom - teachers give an assignment - the same content/topic - that has been differentiation for students with advanced vocabularies and those with lesser reading skills.
Principal Follmer at Washington says something that is key, "Role models are critical," "Take away role models and that's the best way to have low expectations."
First, it is absolutely true that teachers like high achievers in their classrooms. Those students tend to drive interest and dialog. (And, while some teachers may say they want all kids in the classroom for diversity, it also serves to help their teaching.)
But that second quote from the principal? It does not speak well of either a principal or teachers to say that if the high achievers are gone, that means the school has low expectations. Charlie says this over and over - there is absolutely no reason that schools cannot teach classes at whatever level they want.
But the key seems to be making sure the high achievers are in that classroom. Studies show that it does help but the kids it helps are the students on the low end. The students on the high end tend to stagnate.
Again, I have no problem with classes with multiple ability ranges. But it takes a lot more work for teachers, the ability to know how to differentiate the curriculum and, I believe, smaller class sizes.
First, the expert they site, Carol Burris, is the head of a group I belong to, the Network for Public Education.
Carol Corbett Burris became Executive Director of the Network for Public Education Foundation in August 2015, after serving as principal of South Side High School in the Rockville Centre School District in NY since 2000. Prior to becoming a principal, she was a teacher at both the middle and high school level.She is one of the brightest lights in pushing back on corporate ed reform and a great thinker on public education.
Dr. Burris co-authored Detracking for Excellence and Equity (2008) and Opening the Common Core: How to Bring ALL Students to College and Career Readiness (2012), and authored On the Same Track: How Schools Can Join the 21st Century Struggle against Re-segregation (2014).
The Times' article cites her work in New York where she helped her district's de-track middle/high school students and that work showed an increase for African-American students as well as white, Latinos and Asian students, for the Regents Diploma (for A-A students, the rise was from 32-82% in four years.)
I again note that Maple Elementary tried this in 2006 by having Spectrum-level teaching in all their classrooms. It worked but Maple had to fund this on their own and when they found they could not carry on, the district did not step in to support this pilot effort. That's too bad.
Washington Middle School, in their own attempt, seems to be seeing results.
The article cites "a districtwide plan to eliminate all Spectrum-only classrooms in elementary schools" by this fall. Their link is to a late June Friday Memo authored by Michael Tolley. The problem with this - that the Times' article doesn't state, either because they didn't ask or didn't know - is that PARENTS were not informed that this was "the plan." And shame on the district for that.
Here's what the article says happens in the classroom - teachers give an assignment - the same content/topic - that has been differentiation for students with advanced vocabularies and those with lesser reading skills.
Principal Follmer at Washington says something that is key, "Role models are critical," "Take away role models and that's the best way to have low expectations."
First, it is absolutely true that teachers like high achievers in their classrooms. Those students tend to drive interest and dialog. (And, while some teachers may say they want all kids in the classroom for diversity, it also serves to help their teaching.)
But that second quote from the principal? It does not speak well of either a principal or teachers to say that if the high achievers are gone, that means the school has low expectations. Charlie says this over and over - there is absolutely no reason that schools cannot teach classes at whatever level they want.
But the key seems to be making sure the high achievers are in that classroom. Studies show that it does help but the kids it helps are the students on the low end. The students on the high end tend to stagnate.
Again, I have no problem with classes with multiple ability ranges. But it takes a lot more work for teachers, the ability to know how to differentiate the curriculum and, I believe, smaller class sizes.
Comments
Sad Mom
FWIW, Seattle Schools never used the word "gifted" (I think because of PR problems but yes, HCC is the gifted program.
Sped Parent, what do you mean by "some segregation?" Are you talking about AP classes?
No one is fooling them with appeals to the importance of "cohorts" or "rigor" or "academic challenge" for some but not for all
One, I don't think anyone is trying to "fool" anyone. Two, if it were true that there is only "academic challenge" for some then the district would have had a lawsuit on its hands a long time ago. You can certainly make the case (if this was your belief) that HCC uses a biased test to find students or perhaps students of color have not been encouraged/supported in taking harder classes. But I don't believe the district has done anything illegal.
This brings me to one other choice that the Garfield adm and teachers could have made; encourage and support more students to take the more rigorous classes. No one has said that has been the case and that might be another way forward.
Except, I don't think this is just about academics. I think it's about integrating students more. I'd be willing to bet it will happen in these classes but not in the halls. Time will tell.
Garfield Mom, personally I do trust teachers. But, even Jesse Hagopian, probably the most famous teacher in Seattle, has tweeted that the adm and teachers have been working on this all year.
So when you speak of trust, how come the students and parents haven't been told them? Why do they learn of it after school is out and from a newspaper article? I do not believe this is any accident and that the adm/teachers wanted to present this as a fait accompli. Problem is, this is a change that is a big change and could have ripple effects throughout the district.
Are HCC changes to be like Spectrum - death by a thousand paper cuts? And the silence from the district is quite noticeable. And those cuts are the MO of Michael Tolley so I think this is just one major step for changes in AL.
Please! Cut the drama, boss.
Spectrum was systematically removed as a self-contained program, starting at Lawton, then Wedgwood, Whittier, etc. Each school where it was removed has done fine, better in fact. The open sore of segregation by "ability" has been healed and the families and students are very happy that the labeling and animosity are gone.
Go to the website of any of the Spectrum schools and you'll find a content community where kids of a wide range learn and grow together.
Where are all the unhappy parents? There in the cohort! And they're still miserable!
Tom
If the kids themselves want blending then can't they opt for honors or non-honors themselves, without being all forced into one class? They're already allowed to do that, right?
The thing is, this has been handled so badly by GHS teachers that it really makes a lot of people not trust them (obviously, the FB post doesn't help). Maybe the stress of doing their job under those conditions is getting to be unhealthy. The odd thing is I'm sure most of them are white but maybe the environment actually stresses out white people more? Because they feel more to blame?
GarfieldMom, almost no one wants HCC "segregation" for racial reasons. I can't believe that's true. Especially in liberal Seattle. If HCC had a bunch more black and Latino kids I think most parents would be thrilled. I truly do.
Ambushed
My experience is the exact opposite of yours. I also talk to Garfield students all the time, both HCC and non-HCC, including my own child. And I also have heard that the school is segregated, both academically and socially. But not a single one of them I've spoken to recently (in my own informal "poll") believes that detracking or "Honors For All" is a realistic or desirable solution to that segregation, and every one of them stated that they thought the standards of the LA and Social Studies classes would be decline in quality (and they had many reasons why, some of which have been touched on in this blog).
And interestingly, none of them had taken or even heard of that alleged poll of Garfield kids mentioned in the latest mailing from GHS, stating that "students are overwhelmingly in support of this change." That is a broad and unsubstantiated statement, to put it mildly. Which students? Not the ones I've spoken to.
-another Garfield mom
Parents in AL were never informed this was the case. The AL department never acknowledged this. It may have been "systematically" done but with no notice. As for your second sentence, what is the data to show that? As well, the numbers for HCC have grown and this is very likely because of the end of Spectrum.
Ambushed
I don't know anyone working to "maintain the segregation," nor is there anyone pretending it doesn't exist. (But remember, it's largely self-segregation, not SPS-imposed segregation. Honors and AP classes are not limited to HC students.)
I don't know anyone who is "appealing for 'academic challenge' for some but not for all," either. I think HC parents, probably more than any other group, value academic challenge for all. Most value it over social engineering even.
That's great that the GHS students with whom you talk are "not hung up on having blended classes at all." There are probably some incoming HC 9th graders who would feel the same, had they any clue this was about to happen. However, I'm pretty darn sure there's another group who would be very upset to hear about this. Not because they want or expect HC-segregated classes, but because they DO want the most challenging class available--and it's not clear that this change will provide that. Many of these kids have be bored beyond tears in HCC middle school, and they need--finally--some challenging work.
Are you serious that you "can't fathom why it is that some of the same people who criticize education reformers and standardized testing proponents for failing to respect teachers' professional experience and autonomy are now second-guessing those very teachers and deciding that they know better"? Have you watched the way this has played out, with the apparently premeditated "bait and switch" of class registration, the principal's comment about chipping away at a system that tracks gifted middle schoolers into AP classes, the teacher's obnoxious rant about HC students and their parents, and lack of a clearly communicated plan for how students will be appropriately challenged and supported under the new approach? Your disbelief of parent concerns is what's hard to fathom.
Finally, that's great that you have such respect for the teachers. You presumably have some knowledge of them and their abilities, so it's good to hear that kids are in what you perceive to be capable hands. But it's not really "THEIR school and THEIR student body"--as taxpayers and parents, it's OUR school and OUR student body. We are happy to let them do their jobs and will trust them to teach our kids, but only if they acknowledge that we are partners in these efforts. We also need to know that they are considering the needs of all kids--including those who are highly gifted academically. Blind trust in teachers hasn't always worked well in middle and elementary school, so why would we expect it to now?
Stunned
• All advanced learning is eliminated in the name of desegregation, including HCC
• Garfield enrollment plummets and becomes resegregated as kids choose neighborhood HS because there's no point to going to Garfield any more
• North end schools' enrollment continues to boom - yet with advanced learning gone, kids' needs aren't met
• Enrollment at private schools also booms
• Middle class parents who can't afford private schools look around desperately for another option
• Many of them move to the suburbs
• Most who can't or don't have only one option given to them: Charter Schools.
• Seattle sees mass privatization of its public schools, cheered on by parents of advanced learners
This all became inevitable the moment that defenders of the Garfield detracking plan chose to attack their critics, rather than persuade them and/or work with them.
-Done Deal
This whole debate has gone off the rails into an anti-HCC rant. But there IS no HCC in high school. Anyone can take honors classes. Honors classes are opt-in. If the school wants honors classes to be more diverse, why don't they encourage middle school LA/SS teachers to counsel more students to opt in?
Also, high school is not the time to try to solve all of HCCs inequity problems. High school is the time all kids need to learn as much as they can and find where they excel (be it sports, drama, music, or yes, academics). Not everyone is going to be equally talented in all these areas. Why vilify the ones who are academically inclined?
Worried
Also, from the Sped Facebook page:
"I had a conversation with Wyeth Jessee this morning about his changing positions and the intentions around a new Executive Director of Special Education. Wyeth has been promoted to Chief of Student Services. He will continue to have oversight of Special Education but will also have oversight with ELL, HCC, and other services such as discipline, counselors, and mental health. It sounds as though his intention is working toward deconstructing the silos that exist in this district by integrating "special services" across different domains, increasing accountability and increasing strategic planning and data driven decision making. The hiring process for the position of Executive Director will be handled by Wyeth and he has started to assemble a hiring team, which includes parents. He sounds committed to finding the right person for this job, and has included a search for external candidates.
Again, I would urge those with concerns to go directly to Wyeth with your questions and concerns. If there are questions about my email, please let me know and I am happy to clarify what I know.
Lori Hiltz, President
Special Ed PTSA"
I will see if I can get an interview with him.
wondering
Ambushed
Old Bulldog
"Parents in AL were never informed this was the case. The AL department never acknowledged this. It may have been "systematically" done but with no notice. As for your second sentence, what is the data to show that? As well, the numbers for HCC have grown and this is very likely because of the end of Spectrum."
1st: parents were most definitely informed and as I recall the process at Lawton was exhaustive and well-documented.
2nd: look at the school climate surveys before and after the removal of self-contained classrooms.
3rd: the mass increase in HCC enrollment is most likely the result of herd mentality, i.e, parents see other students they want their kids around going to the cohort and follow them. Just wait until you see the numbers going into the cohort for 6th grade next year, it's a stampede.
Finally, yes, AL changed the delivery model for Spectrum to include cluster-grouping.
Tom
Climate surveys are not academic outcomes. They ARE important but we are being told this is for academic outcomes.
No, it's not herd mentality. It's the inability to get their kid's needs met in their school.
Yes, AL changed that but again, without discussion or notice to parents at large.
The information about CogAT should have been already known (probably is not).
Does the author talk about the validity of multiple testings or retestings within a certain window?
The high numbers of qualified students in the "hot zones" take on a new meaning with Lohman's explanation.
I also agree regarding the teachers: that this approach is a reaction of despair at unfairness that is otherwise beyond their control, rather than a correct, systematic approach to educating students (which should include groupings).
When the entire identification scheme is invalid and does not follow the discrepancy model that is intrinsic to proper scoring, the status of the current program itself is in doubt.
The silence of response to your information is interesting.
Many thanks for your post.h
FWIW
I saw somewhere that Olympic View is creating a classroom for advanced students in at least one grade.
"Climate surveys are not academic outcomes. They ARE important but we are being told this is for academic outcomes."
Prove that kids are doing worse academically. You can't.
"No, it's not herd mentality. It's the inability to get their kid's needs met in their school."
Again you have no proof, whereas I actually have a student in SPS and know parents who have moved into the cohort, some stayed, some left, some with HC status never entered. You hear from your pro-cohort friends and fans, I hear from parents without an axe on the grinder.
"Yes, AL changed that but again, without discussion or notice to parents at large."
It was posted on the AL website and each school affected had lengthy discussion.
Tom
-SPSparent
I have often thought about having just the top few percent if each school go to hcc, because the hot zones thing is offensive as well as the outlier thing, but then we need to allow each school to meet the needs of the average kid who is there, rather than the average kid in Seattle. So North Beach will be teaching a much more advanced curriculum than Wing Luke. Which seems more inequitable than having more kids from one school or another come to hcc.
-sleeper
Tom
BTW, Lynn, we're you or are you a Lawton parent? How do they follow or not follow the Brulles model? Do they do walk-to's or pull-outs? How about Whittier and Wedgwood, do you know how or if they follow Brulles' model?
Tom
We have teachers and schools claiming that they offer differentiated instruction in their classrooms to meet the needs of advanced learners. Do they? Maybe. What proof can they offer? None. When they teach advanced learners to a different set of academic expectations, what Standards are they using? We don't know. Where is that documented? Nowhere.
I'm really troubled by that. I would like it if the Board Directors were also troubled by that.
People say that the district's Advanced Learning programs are great. Really? What could possibly form the basis for that conclusion? I don't know how a family can be happy with the Advanced Learning services their child is receiving without knowing what their child is supposed to be taught. In the absence of any sort of advanced curriculum or Standards, what could form the basis for any evaluation of the service? How can you possibly answer that the schools are doing the job if you have no description of the job they are supposed to do?
I want to make it very, very clear. This is not a pedagogical problem. This is a management problem. Problem? No, this isn't a management problem; this is a raging management failure.
And it's not just Advanced Learning. The District spends all kinds of money on language immersion. Why? What is it supposed to achieve? And if we knew what it was supposed to achieve, how can we know if it is achieving it? Same for Montessori. Same for all of the option schools. I won't include Special Education in this list because I have been chastised for doing so. Where is there any evidence that any of the District's programs or services do what they are supposed to be doing? There is none. We do have the state test scores for the schools, but I have to ask, is that the purpose of the schools? To get kids to pass the state tests?
With the Garfield de-tracking of 9th grade English and Social Studies through the compulsory enrollment in Honors for every student, we see at least lip service being paid to the definition of Standards beyond the state Standards and at least lip service being paid to assessing the consequences of the change.
(Not everything is a conspiracy...)
-parent
"Prove that kids are doing worse academically. You can't."
You said they were doing better. I said a climate survey isn't academics. So did you mean better from a school climate or academics? I don't have to prove anything.
Tom, info was posted AFTER the fact. I am talking about the district being upfront with the changes occurring. I also know there WAS pushback at Lawton and View Ridge because I got e-mails from parents at the time asking for help.
Ms. Brulles actually came to View Ridge to speak (and I never got an answer as to who paid for it) and said View Ridge was not following her recommended plan for integration.
SPS Parent, I have heard this as well over the years - the black kids who take and score well on the HCC test get recruited to go to Lakeside, etc.
"It sounds as though his intention is working toward deconstructing the silos that exist in this district by integrating "special services" across different domains, increasing accountability and increasing strategic planning and data driven decision making."
This appears to mean the total elimination of all advanced learning programs and possibly special ed programs too, combining all kids into one class, with one curriculum, and using testing and probably "personalized learning" (i.e. iPads) to provide differentiated instruction.
In other words, a total disaster.
-Done Deal
Why should AL parents get special treatment?
And Melissa you brought up academics, not me, I said read the climate surveys, so ya, prove it if you think academics are down. Test scores from schools that eliminated self-contained don't show a drop so I don't know what you're talking about.
Parents were emailing you to help them? What kind of help and why do you side with those parents and not the gened parents who found the segregating by ability very harmful?
Tom
"Each school where it was removed has done fine, better in fact."
Better in what way? I asked and you said school climate surveys were up. Okay but that's not academics. You now say they are doing better by test scores. How hard was that to answer? Naturally, I will be interested to see if that is "in fact" true.
I'm not really siding with one group or another. (And, for the record, I help ANY parent who writes to me. I don't control who contacts me and who doesn't.)
What I am saying - and you are not hearing - is that the district's website and its AL department has never made what they are doing clear on Spectrum for years now despite being asked (and again, I have the emails where I did ask and was told "nothing" was changing.)
I do support Advanced Learning programs especially for those in HCC. I do believe in the cohort model. But also believe all kids have things to learn from each other so some inclusion is fine.
But what Charlie and I consistent argue for is transparency, consistency and family engagement. I don't see this in the Garfield initiative. We have been around this district a long time and when you see something brought out as a done deal, it's the time to get suspicious.
You can believe whatever you want about segregated versus non-segregated. But it's the HOW rather than the actual that bothers me.
You said: Each school where it was removed has done fine, better in fact. The open sore of segregation by "ability" has been healed and the families and students are very happy that the labeling and animosity are gone.
You mean the schools are better after they've, essentially, forced out the students who most needed HC services? Better off once families of students for whom the school refused to meet their academic needs left for HCC? Nice.
Herd mentality based on who parents want their kids to be around? That's complete BS if you're suggesting they want a segregated cohort, as I suspect you are. But yes, I admit I moved my child to HCC not wholly for the academics, but also the people. He was tired of other kids making fun of his interests, his knowledge level, his "uniqueness", etc. He was tired of not having many friends he could relate to. He was tired of his teacher not letting him answer questions because it made the other kids feel bad. He was tired of the class celebrating if he made a mistake, since it was so rare. And I was tired of other parents trying to get their digs in, and tired of having to avoid talking about my kid so I didn't make them feel bad about their own, since parents are weird that way. But herd mentality? Hardly.
Stunned
One comment of interest - posted elsewhere - is what the make-up of the high schools will look like after BEX IV and the reopening of Lincoln. It could be quite different and will likely have real and lasting impacts on schools.
What I hope would happen with this Garfield pilot (and I assume the district plans to do this elsewhere) is that the teachers will have such great content that students will be engaged and the lessons will be lively. Of course, with large class sizes and this district's history of NOT supporting new initiatives, I worry.
I feel there is a bit more of social justice programming in this move than necessarily straight academics but that the more engaging lessons will be beneficial to all. It certainly won't be the same as an AP class but AP is a much more specific kind of class that doesn't necessarily involve as much discussion as might happen in these new classes.
I am also being told that the PTSA knew about this effort and that the teachers had attempted to come to a PTSA meeting to talk about it but it didn't happen. So it is unclear to me if the school made any real effort to inform ALL parents (because we all know not all parents go to or are part of the PTSA). Would be a good question for Director Blanford except he cancelled his community meeting for Saturday.
dictionary user
Me too.
guitar player
Melissa, Oh my gosh, are you going to complain because the Principal and teachers ONLY tried to talk to the PTSA and didn't go door to door to make sure everyone knew about this "enough" in advance (whatever that would be.) Now you are really splitting hairs. Do you not hold the PTSA responsible for representing and communicating with ALL of the families at the school? If so (knowing you were a PTSA officer at some point) I am SO glad my kids' schools generally had PTOs not PTSAs. Gotta say, I was a PTSA member at RHS and I never felt particularly well informed there so heaven help the people who didn't pay their dues.
Uhhh, wouldn't the most appropriate group to inform be the families on incoming 9th graders? Did the Principal and teachers announce this at the open houses? Did the counselors announce it when kids were registering for classes? No need to go door to door when they have a list of who's supposed to be coming in the fall.
And THAT is what informing people "enough in advance" would look like (in case you actually wondered, which I doubt).
Common Sense
Exactly. When did Garfield decide upon de-tracking? The district has a responsibility to inform all parents before enrollment. If the principal, PTA and teachers knew of this change...the change should have been communicated to parents during Open House visits.
I find this whole "I'm shocked and angry that Ted Howard didn't send my HCC 8th grader a personal note about this in time for them to choose Roosevelt or Ingraham or Nova or the Center School or Cleveland or private instead of what is still the best HS in Seattle for advanced learners" really annoying.
I guess I get it. Some of you are new here. And most of you feel like your kid has lost something. But it's just another sign of privilege that so many of you have an expectation that your kid should get notified of something like this when the reality is that SPS has zero history of communicating effectively with families about anything the least bit controversial. I was actually pleasantly surprised that some attempt was made to talk to the PTSA. Guess I'm too old and jaded. Good thing my kids are done.
Over one summer, one teacher and one parent went to Susan Enfield and got her ok to chang the spectrum delivery. There was no plan for what was to come. That actually came out from research and discussion a year later after the news broke and questions went unanswered. I was there and I watched how rough the next year was. People left. And not all because of the loss of self contained or were even spectrum parents. . I know personally quite a few left because they were blindsided by the news when it broke and surprised by the harsh vitriols. Some were nervous of staying because things got so divisive. Some left because it was too much drama and want more stability. Many of these people were vested in the school and were heavy lifters, volunteering with all the kids in the school, not just in their child's class. One parent told me before she left for a different school it was maddening to have people who never bothered to talk to her to all of sudden telling her what she was thinking as if they knew her, her beliefs, and her family. What they said was hurtful and ironically racist, because people didn't get they were repeating stereotypes to her face and had no clue about her family history. If people had asked what the spectrum parents were actually thinking, they might have been surprised. My friend didn't need self containment for her child. What she and many of the parents wanted to know was a clear plan in place with the dismantling. That wasn't there. It was a confusing time. The reasons to dismantle became one of classroom management, segregation and elitism. I'm not sure when parents submitted the paperwork for testing, this was what they were walking into. The instructions for the testing and the AL info gave no indication of this. What's even more ironic this parent didn't want HCC because she wanted her kids to have that diversity in her local school. Yet some of the parents who supported the end of spectrum and calling out fellow parents for being elitists ended up later with their kids in HCC.
That's how mess up this whole thing is.
weary
"But it's just another sign of privilege that so many of you have an expectation that your kid should get notified..." Wow.
Actually, Tom, as usual, Charlie wrote about the failure to assess quality and efficacy in all those programs.
See this paragraph from my comment on 7/12 at 12:58pm:
"And it's not just Advanced Learning. The District spends all kinds of money on language immersion. Why? What is it supposed to achieve? And if we knew what it was supposed to achieve, how can we know if it is achieving it? Same for Montessori. Same for all of the option schools. I won't include Special Education in this list because I have been chastised for doing so. Where is there any evidence that any of the District's programs or services do what they are supposed to be doing? There is none. We do have the state test scores for the schools, but I have to ask, is that the purpose of the schools? To get kids to pass the state tests?"
This concern for evaluations of ALL programs has been a consistent theme for me for several years now. The only way for you not to know that would be through willful ignorance.
Do ever read what other people write or do you just presume that you know what they will write?
As for communication, the former HCC students entering Garfield are not the ones experiencing a change here and therefore not the ones who should have received communication about de-tracking. The former HCC students signed up for Honors classes and are getting them. No change. The students who should have been informed are those who signed up for regular English or regular Social Studies and have been forced into an Honors class that they did not want. They could have chosen the Honors class if they wanted it, but they didn't want it. Now that choice has been taken from them. Moreover, a number of them have also been forced into a non-credit English prep class. That not only takes away their opportunity for an elective as freshmen but also takes away an opportunity for them to earn a credit.
Yes, by all means, let's complain about the lack of communication, but not for the HCC students - for the students who chose against Honors.
Interesting. My HCC qualified child, in a MS "Spectrum" program that has become "blended", told me the other day that she thinks she's become arrogant about her intelligence. She's a great kid and it surprised me to hear it, but I think I notice it in her, too. She's treated by other kids and the teachers as the smart one. She ends up grouped for projects with kids that don't do the work. She is resenting it.
Qwerty
At Lawton, Wedgwood, McClure, Washington, and everywhere else that Spectrum was dismantled, the decision was announced, not discussed.
Again, this isn't special for Advanced Learning; it's how Seattle Public Schools does business. Garfield in particular has a dreadful record of community engagement - with all communities.
Unhappy to be shut out of discussions about your child's education?
Hit them where they hurt. Opt out of the standardized tests. Write a clear letter in which you remove your child from testing and make it very clear WHY you're doing it. Tell them that your child is not a pawn to be moved about on their chess board. Tell them that your child is not a resource for the school, but that the school should be a resource for your child.
Your child's test score is the one thing you have that the school wants.
Sure, one person might not be able to negotiate much through the control of one test score, but what if families bargained collectively? What if a group of families said that they would opt their children out of the tests if they didn't get straight answers? Then you would have something.
What if every ALO family in a school said that they would opt their child out of the tests and encourage other families to opt out of the tests until they received a coherent set of academic expectations for ALO, an enforceable description of the implementation, and an evaluation of the program's quality and efficacy? Mind you, not a promise of these things, but these actual things. In other words - opting out this year even if the school agrees, then, next year, after the work is done, the students start taking the tests again. Do not accept promises, do not give credit. Credit is for honest people with a track record of fulfilling their side of bargains. That's not the District.
Stop complaining that the District walk all over you. Do something about it. Opt out until they negotiate a settlement.
You are more optimistic than I am that this will really be an honors class. Not all kids want, or can, exert the effort it requires to succeed in an actual honors class. An honors class requires an honors curriculum, not just a name change. I don't believe that 100% of kids at any high school are ready for and capable of honors level work.
I fear that this is "honors" in name only.
-cotton
Didn't Garfield just have the biggest MAP sit out, already documented and in the news? Yep. Hale got 100% opt out too. Some more HCC students, late to the party is going to make a huge impact. I notice they aren't opting out of SBA now that it's a grad requirement. And that starts this year for everything. Isn't opting out of SBA in other grades, all the rage? Yes. Write that letter. 500+ irate blog posts about your kids' suffering from Honors Deprivation isn't enough. We need letters, we need Opt Outs. Rally the troops. Storm the hill. You can win this one...
You are really
Outta Touch
We need to start an online petition on this, and the situation at GHS. Many many people would sign.
DO SOMETHING
Melissa, here are the facts regarding this.
In May, one of the teachers reached out and said they wanted to get some time on the PTSA agenda for something unspecified. We were doing nominations, budget and other things and didn't have room. After a bit of going back and forth (and finding out what the teachers wanted to talk about) they were invited to speak at both the PTSA board and general meetings. I have all of this in my email.
They declined and asked for a smaller meeting. At that meeting, they talked philosophically about what they wanted to do, without specifics and at no time suggested that this was something they were doing for all students in 2016-17. After the meeting, the Principal told PTSA leaders that the teachers were not ready and this would not be implemented in 2016-2017. The feedback we gave the teachers in the meeting was this was way too late for implementation and they needed to start a process to share a detailed plan and get community feedback.
That is the last I heard about this (and I was the PTSA president) until Claudia Rowe told me what the Principal told her - that Garfield was eliminating 9th grade LA and SS.
July 12th 5:40 PM has this right: this is being done this way (during the summer, no notice) to avoid having to do the hard work of getting feedback, providing a detailed plan etc.
DO SOMETHING
Parents were informed. Want to know how I know? I was co-PTSA president and we made sure parents knew. The kids knew.
"What happened when all the APP programs were split over the years?"
We wrote about it here extensively. The district did discuss this because of facilities, not because of academics changing.
Also, no one here wants a personal note (and I'm pretty surprised you would put it that way.) I want this for ALL the parents and students at GHS, not just HCC.
Do Something, thank you for the explanation. That was not what I was told and I am disappointed to hear a quite different story.
What's your point? Are you saying that the post from the PTSA president is wrong?
That the PTSA was "dysfunctional" does not mean that the president was uninformed.
-persimmon
Which of the Garfield PTSA functions were not performed?
I also agree with weary: that period at Lawton was divisive in the extreme. It could be a case study in how NOT to manage change. There was no principal during the summer when the change was proposed to JSC, and a very green principal who implemented the change. It was sad to watch.
Witness
I can see why parents are upset at not knowing about the change earlier, but honestly I think they would have been upset whenever they were told. So often in SPS change doesn't mean improvement. Though we are talking, I think, about 2 out of 24 classes. Most of the high school classes will be tracked, if that is the main concern.
In my experience rigor is more teacher dependent than honors dependent & given a choice I prefer a more diverse class (culturally, racially, ability & economically diverse), so I don't really care about having my children in an honors class. I care a lot about which teachers they get & can't choose that at all.
-done it
Charlie makes some good points. Here is what is disturbing to me: School buildings have the capacity to dismantle advanced learning options.
Charlie also makes a good point about students that might now want Honors LA. A student may want an advanced math class and general LA, but that option no longer exists. GPAs count in high school.
I know exactly how Wedgwood tore down their Spectrum program. Yes, I had a kid there, and yes, I know many families in follow-on years with kids there. I attended at least 3 meetings related to their elimination of self-contained, and spoke directly with the principal on multiple occasions. Are my 'credentials' good enough for you?
They actually flew Dr. Brulles here to Seattle to give a talk on best practices for cluster grouping, which I attended as well, and spoke directly at some length with Dr. Brulles.
What Wedgwood did was the exact opposite of the recommendation. Let me explain in simple terms what best practices according to Dr. Brulles model, which incidentally, has been shown to be very effective in her own school district as well as many others that follow their plan.
First, the best option from an academic standpoint is self-contained where possible. Read their literature (and many others).
Where that's not possible due to not having enough kids to fill entire classrooms, there is a very specific clustering model, which groups kids in 5 levels according to their current abilities. Kids from different groups are assigned to classrooms using very specific patterns to maximize the best outcomes for all groups. There is blending among different levels, but, for example, you do not group the very top kids with the very bottom kids in the same classrooms, because that has been shown to not work well for either group.
What did Wedgwood do? They classified the kids, then did the absolutely worst thing possible, which was to evenly spread all the Spectrum kids among each classroom, without regard to anything else. Their goal was to simply eliminate any possibility of maximizing anything at all, and they went for the worst configuration possible.
This maximized the challenges for the teachers, but they all had to deal with the same problems equally, which was part of the school's goal. Homogenization of classrooms and "equality" for teachers.
What happened? There was a terrible battle and the community was left in shambles. I personally know 9 Spectrum families that left the school the following year because of this decision. Most pushed up into APP, others went to Shoreline or other nearby schools. Most of the families that moved to APP would have been happy to stay in their neighborhood school if it was even remotely serving their kids, but it was very clear that was not the goal.
So what did the surveys look like the following couple years? They were probably fine, but it's really irrelevant to the discussion, because the affected kids/families were forced out and not part of any subsequent climate surveys. That's one way to get a good rating.
LisaG
Isn't the point that only social science and English courses were tracked? This means that 8 out of 24 were tracked in the past, but only 6 will be tracked from now on. That is why parents are concerned.
I strongly believe that the HCC kids need to work to get an A. It needs to be earned, which means stretching oneself, taking some risks, and putting some effort in. No one should get an A for showing up and doing the bare minimum. Honestly, that's sort of the point of the self-contained cohort - to increase the bar and make sure kids are learning how to learn and working at the edge of their current knowledge.
Yet, what an A might look like for an HCC kid may not be realistic for other students to achieve with the same amount of effort. So is it like Olympic scoring, where there is a "degree of difficulty" put into the rubric that the student is assessed against? And is that fair? So one person gets an A for significantly less effort?
I don't think colleges look at whether you were in APP/HCC, right? They just look at your GPA and what grades you got in the highest level courses, which suggests there needs to be only one scoring system in Honors classes - but then that doesn't feel fair either to the gen ed kids who might not have even wanted to take Honors LA or history.
Have the teachers addressed this? Seems important.
100% of kids cannot do honors level work and any sensible person knows this. We should have higher expectations of general education - where the majority of kids are - and not put this pressure on kids.
-crikey
Actually, according to last year's master schedule, there were 12 sections of honors English and 5 sections of general ed.
In social studies, there were 12 sections of honors and 6 sections of general ed.
The honors classes have a very wide range of students in them, not just HCC kids. So, the classes are heterogeneous anyway.
There are honors, advanced, audition only, AP and other advanced classes at Garfield for many subject areas. I personally don't think that means that each class will be at the academic threshold for every kid, but it seems to be what most parents who are choosing Garfield for advanced students want for their kids. Only 2 of those classes are changing.
-done it
4. 9th Grade: 300 pages (reg. credit) 500 pages (honors credit)
10th Grade: 400 pages (reg. credit)600 pages (honors credit)
11th Grade: 700 pages
12th Grade: 700
-honors?
Stunned
Everyone takes the same classes and if you want honors credit you do extra work. For some junior and senior classes, if you want to take the AP test you are given a guide to do the extra studying necessary.
It seems to be a good level of rigor for general ed students, but for more advanced kids it isn't. Many students do Running Start if they want more challenging classes. Most HCC students avoid Hale, like my current high school student.
Momof2
-honors?
Melissa, I know you publicized the AP Geo thing. I expect I read it here before I heard anything at all from Brian Whatshisname but I said: And when they are informed, their complaints are virtually never heard. You had a tremendous bully pulpit and it had no lasting impact on that change. None. (I guess I should have said "acted on," not "heard.")
Outrage may possibly have an impact. I don't really know, I can't really remember a time it has for SPS (certainly not for APP/HCC families). What I would recommend is analysis that goes counter to what SPS thinks you think your interest is. At TOPS (my little corner) we managed to get transportation extended a little while for our poor kids. It took a tremendous amount of effort and professional expertise because SPS thought we were whining about busing for our own kids (we weren't) and we caught them off guard and used real analysis to show that it was in their interest (and the school's and the poor kids') to create community stops and get those kids to TOPS. We (the generally white-ish, generally middle class-ish people) also thought it was in our interest because we valued diversity in the school, but that wasn't what swayed the decision makers.
So, if you think this is a bad decision for the kids at Garfield who read below grade level, then put together an analysis and a presentation and go at it sincerely. If you just don't want your kid to be in a classroom with those kids then I don't have much advice for you (except consider whether you would prefer for those same kids to all be REQUIRED to be in AP Lit with your kid as a junior, not having gone through Honors LA as a freshman, because that is the accepted model at other High Schools in the District.)
**
I agree with done it
Talked with my son (GHS grad) earlier about this. He wondered what HCC parents do when their student in AP or Honors classes gets one of the less effective teachers for the class. What if the gen ed class is actually getting a better education due to having a better teacher? How do HCC parents solve for that?
Oh Well
Garfield Mom, don't add fuel to a fire here unless you are willing to explain. I find that kind of thing less than helpful to a discussion.
-confused
And no, neither he nor I are equating Honors for All to a poorly taught AP or honors class. I'm not sure what gave that impression. More like the opposite, really. I'm probably not explaining his point well in trying to distill it for this forum.
Students are tested and grouped for instruction in order to more efficiently provide appropriately advanced work. Many bus out of their neighborhood to access a program that is supposed to provide the appropriate acceleration. The cohort provides the critical mass of students needed for schools to offer advanced courses ("high school" biology and geometry in 8th, for example). The program accelerates their coursework, and up until just a few years ago, LA/SS was part of that acceleration. The Garfield pathway allowed for a continuum of the acceleration that neighborhood schools couldn't offer.
After years of this being the model, the district began to take away the acceleration. Spectrum self-contained is no more. Accelerated LA/SS courses were eliminated in most middle school APP/HCC schools as they were told to align to grade level standards. They are supposed to get differentiated assignments within the framework of grade level standards. In theory, that could work for LA/SS. But all students need to be taught, whether HCC or not. They all need some direct instruction in reading and writing and analysis, but the instruction for students working at grade level may be different from what's needed for those working above or below grade level.
So the message is what? The Garfield pathway is supposed to provide the continuum, but at the same time, the district is eliminating some of the acceleration (in the name of equity?). It's like they can't decide what to do with the students. The cohort makes it easier for the district to manage capacity or balance school demographics, but at the same time there is some kind of resistance to providing the accelerated coursework.
Meanwhile, HCC families are demonized for expecting the continuum that the district has set up. So now what? There is no clear vision for AL and the internal conflicts with HCC delivery continue. Students are caught in the middle.
-now what?
The discussion about pathways,etc. is now moot, folks. Your child's score for entrance into the program was invalid because the district doesn't follow the author of the test's scoring guidelines.
Those of you who are so worried about district procedures? Start with getting your student's test scores re-evaluated based on the school's demographics when your student took the test. You may not even have skin in this particular game.
FWIW
And we all have an interest in public education - whether or not we have a child in the program or at Garfield.
Then there's the other off-topic issue, the one raised by GarfieldMom about less effective teachers. Variations in teacher effectiveness actually make the class Standards more of an issue. The academic standards for the class are enforceable and can form the basis for a legitimate complaint about a teacher. Since the Honors class has a defined and more rigorous set of Standards, families can compare student assignments to those Standards and make effective complaints based on objective facts. In the absence of specific Standards, such as in a class that only makes vague promises of acceleration, no legitimate complaint is possible.
Finally, if you're going to say that a group is dysfunctional, then you better be ready to explain how they are dysfunctional. Since you have not been able to do so, we can now dismiss your statement as false and even further lower our judgement of your credibility.
Oh sweetie, you're so excited to have this new point to argue. It's cute but sad. Lohman's point is that you look at the discrepancy model if you want to find the top 2% or 5% or 10% of students in each group. That gives you gifted classes that look like the rest of the district. The trouble is that those students aren't necessarily gifted. If you want to find and serve gifted students you have to use IQ tests and those are not normed by race or ELL status or income level. Only these ridiculous teachers at Marshall and Washington and Garfield care more about the color of the kids in advanced classes than whether students are being challenged in school.
Moving On
Honestly, it reminds me of high school gymnastics where it might be in your best interest to do a lower level stunt perfectly rather than a more difficult stunt less than perfectly. It is a numbers game.
Universities do look at the level of difficulty of classes, GPAs, class rank, test scores, etc. So you can have a lower GPA but if they see that H or AP listed, they give you a boost for that meaning a 4.0 with no honors or AP may very well be ranked lower than a 3.8 with H's and AP classes mixed in.
HP
Using the discrepancy model is not a choice for cases to promote affirmative action; it is for designated scoring model in order to control for baises. The district has chosen CogAT as the gatekeeper test but producing using invalid scores and using them as qualification for HCC.
This is certainly not irrelevant to this topic or thread, but is the foundation of the discussion. Denying the origins is like a creationist arguing against evolution.
FWIW
HP, thank you for that input for Hale. Very helpful.
FWIW, then your argument is with the district, not the parents. They are following the procedure the district uses for their program. Is it the right instrument for all students? Probably not and that's where advocacy comes in.
"The discussion about pathways,etc. is now moot, folks. Your child's score for entrance into the program was invalid because the district doesn't follow the author of the test's scoring guidelines."
Whether the District's process is optimal or not, it is the District's process. In that context (that context being the one in which we find ourselves, you know, reality) the discussion is not moot at all and it's just goofy to suggest that it is.
Standford and other Educational research has demonstrated that the achievement gap has been narrowed greatly between blacks & whites past 30 years, but during the same period has doubled between classes. Research indicates income is the strongest factor in the achievement gap, not race. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/economy/education-gap-between-rich-and-poor-is-growing-wider.html?_r=0
-Jeannie
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/economy/education-gap-between-rich-and-poor-is-growing-wider.html?_r=0
- Theresa
-Theresa.
Stunned
Stunned
Charlie, Do we know that this is true?
If so, do the standards cover what the teacher presents or what the student is expected to learn? I can imagine that it is often true that the standards for a class are rigorous, but not every student meets those standards. Does that mean the course does not meet the standard? Or is this where grades come in? So rigorous standards would lead to students who don't meet the standard necessarily receiving bad grades in the course?
Could a course be rigorous, but some students be graded on a less than rigorous standard than others so they can still do well (grade wise) in the class?
NJP
-Theresa
-Theresa
Anonymous said...
@ Charlie Mas, absolutely, "desegregation" is the primary goal for the teachers. If this was a homogeneous school, we aren't even having this conversation.
This is part of a bigger issue with the faculty at Garfield - they see themselves as the vanguard of a social justice movement first and as educators second. Parents are a nuisance, particularly the "elitist, obnoxious, racist" HCC parents. Carol Burton decided the district's field trip processes were not sufficiently progressive and decided to just let students do whatever they wanted while she partied. These teachers didn't feel it necessary to do any community engagement or follow any kind of process in making a huge change.
The teaching quality at Garfield is uneven at best and highly suspect in many areas. The administration randomly veers from one initiative (restorative justice) to another (detracking) without any semblance of a longer term plan. Classrooms are staffed by long term subs (Spanish as an example) who can't teach their class.
There is no accountability at all. Lack of accountability is endemic in Seattle Public Schools - this is why so many families just opt out.
7/18/16, 11:43 AM
++++
This has also been our experience.
-more Garfield