Tuesday Open Thread
Via Soup for Teachers, a thought-provoking piece from NPR from a new book, Becoming Brilliant: What Science Tells Us About Raising Successful Children, on raising bright kids.
Good editorial from the Islands' Sounder about how the Orcas Island Education Foundation has been shoring up schools on Orcas and other islands for years.
What's on your mind?
We're training kids to do what computers do, which is spit back facts. And computers are always going to be better than human beings at that. But what they're not going to be better at is being social, navigating relationships, being citizens in a community. So we need to change the whole definition of what success in school, and out of school, means.
NPR:A new book for kids caught my eye, My First Kafka: Runaways, Rodents, and Giant Bugs.
You present something you call the 21st-century report card. And it contains six C's, which I've seen versions of elsewhere: collaboration, communication, content, critical thinking, creative innovation and confidence. But what's new is the way you relate these skills to each other, and also, you've described what they look like at four levels of development.
Good editorial from the Islands' Sounder about how the Orcas Island Education Foundation has been shoring up schools on Orcas and other islands for years.
OIEF is committed to providing funding to the Orcas School District when the state has failed to do so.There's a new parent group at Garfield, One Hundred Black Parents, that's out there but the only info I can find is a sign-up page. Anyone know anything about this group?
Thanks to OIEF, our students' school experience is enriched with classes in such topics as guitar building, theater, debate and physics.
The foundation also oversees two very special programs: Arts for Orcas Kids, known as A-OK, and Farm to Cafeteria. A-Ok brings local artists into the classroom to bring visual arts to life, and Farm to Cafeteria allows students to maintain the 8,000-square-foot school garden. In addition, school meals are now entirely cooked from scratch and include local produce, fruits and meats.
What's on your mind?
Comments
HP
Unlivable environment? Crisis? I don't see how anything they discuss is that different than 20 yrs ago, and we're all still here... Should we help our kids learn to communicate effectively, collaborate, learn, be confident and creative, etc? Of course. But is that really so different? It may be more challenging, in some ways, to teach them some of those things than it was before, although you could probably also argue it's easier in some ways, too.
Common Sense (a 7th "C" to add to their list?)
Anyone who thinks this is what schools are doing is not visiting very many classrooms. I've seen many classrooms in action, and regurgitating "facts" is hardly the limit to the work I see kids doing.
In my own classroom, we're way more about researching or observing evidence, and using that to state a claim, model an understanding of something, or support/disprove a hypothesis.
-SPS teacher
"Garfield was the designated APP site for the district many years ago. Now every neighborhood school is providing AP courses for their neighborhood populations. To answer your question. Does Garfield need permission from Michael Tolley, School Board, or Sarah Pritchett to make Academia changes. The short answer to your question is NO."
How can one set of teachers/administrators dismantle an entire pathway like this? Combined with the language being used to describe HCC kids (white fragility and unconscious elitism/racism), how can HCC families send their kids to Garfield next year?
upset
This - plus the changes Thurgood Marshall wants to make - may be the opening salvo in a wider struggle.
-sleeper
I hate to hear about academic flight because of this change. I understand why it is alarming. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The cohort is strong and has amazing opportunities at GHS that can't be found anywhere else. The leadership possibilities in student government and beyond, music, both orchestra and jazz, sports (yes, many HCC kids are captains of sports teams at GHS too), the broadest offering of AP classes in SPS, and many teachers who love to teach the cohort. Until it is clear that the district really is mandating a one size fit all education for all kids regardless of ability, which is against the law I believe, fight to keep all that is good about GHS for your kids. The kids do love it, and are proud to be Bulldogs. Part of that pride is that they know how to interact with all kinds of people, not just those who are in the cohort or live north.
I understand the reaction to run far away from this mess. But it seems so off on so many levels that there must be a fix, a possible negotiation. Like the teachers that hold HCC kids in contempt should not teach them. Or maybe shouldn't teach at GHS. I think you have allies on the staff, sure of it. And does Ted Howard view the HCC kids with this contempt? The article pointed out that he has much more personal relationships with the black kids than the white kids. The kids at GHS will tell you this is true. I did not know it might cross the bridge into supporting a hostile faction of the staff. He did not communicate this change to anyone prior to summer, except the Seattle Times reporter. Interesting.
The cohort and their families have been a vital part of the Garfield fabric for a long time. Just like the UK is waffling over enacting Article 50 and starting the withdrawl process from the EU, negotiate to keep your stake at GHS. It's good for both GHS and the kids. Garfield would be a much different school without you. And many more would leave with you.
Old Bulldog
[begin quote] For a teacher to harbor such hostility towards certain students is indeed alarming. As both a School Board director and parent of HCC children, I too find such prejudice against a group of students distasteful and deeply troubling.
It is never acceptable to mock, stereotype or insult any students or diminish their worth (“the fragile products of APP”), nor to make inflammatory accusations against parents or guardians (“obnoxious elitist unconscious racists,” “APP apparatheid”).
This is not the way to create a healthy culture of understanding within our schools and among our diverse student populations. Instead it perpetuates a culture of ‘us versus them’ that has been a fault line within SPS for many years and a trend I would like to see reversed. [End quote]
--Peters Fan
Split time
· 15-60 district failed to provide the parent with progress reporting
· 15-61 told parent that an IEP team could amend an IEP only once.
· 15-62 complaint was withdrawn. District hired additional IA.
· 15-78 complaint was withdrawn. District hired additional IA.
· 16-28
· 16-31
· 16-40 *
· 16-41 *
· 16-46 *
· 16-47 complaint was withdrawn. District granted parents request.
· 16-49 *
· 16-55 *
· 16-56 *
· 16-57 *
* denotes decision pending
Sped Parent
J'accuse
Is this the reason most AP students don't simply move up a grade or two? My child moved-up and it was the best thing we could have done for her.
It just seems best to move up a grade or two if that is where you perform academically. Doesn't it all level out in Collage?
AP2
How, exactly, would you filter for that? The sentiment expressed by Garfield's teacher is not limited to one teacher at one school. She just expressed it openly.
-dismayed
We don't skip a grade or two because:
We want them to have what most other students have - both appropriate instruction and healthy relationships with children their own age
We want them to have a full eighteen years of mental, physical and emotional development before they leave home for college
We know that skipping a year or two is a temporary fix - it adds a challenge but they do catch up and the pace with which they learn means the new grade level won't be a good fit for long.
No - it's doesn't all level out in college but it does get better. While the pace at which they learn remains faster than that of other students, the floor in the classroom is now higher.
I must ask whether the goal here is to address the problems of students who are underachieving, or address inequality and injustice. Because all I see is a desire to punish kids and teach them a lesson. If your goal is social and racial justice, this is not how you go about it, and this is not how you will achieve it. Turning teachers and a school against a small group of diverse students is morally wrong and shame on all of you who are doing it.
Non-HCC Parent
Where did Sue Peters make that response? I find her response deeply disturbing and incendiary and completely off base. A teacher expressed her lived experience of "obnoxious elitist unconscious racists." If that is a true statement for her, she should certainly be able to express it without fear of attack or being forced out from her job, as some people on the various blogs have pledged to do. Disagree with people all you want, bu the vitriol expressed on this blog and the APP blog is truly appalling.
GHS is a segregated school and the 9th grade LA Honors serves as a gate keeping pathway that excludes students from upper level courses later on. Dismantling it is a good idea and will lead to more opportunities for many students. Advanced classes on all fronts still abound at GHS and students will still get an amazing education. - Capitol Hill Parent
Good one.
"I am horrified that Director Peters refuses to acknowledge her privilege and that of her children who have a publicly financed education, exclusive of the social and cultural range of SPS demographics."
If you take Director Peter's one statement on the GHS teacher comment as her whole view, you'd be wrong. Director Peter's is a culturally competent person. As well, HCC is not exclusive. Does it reflect the entire demographic of SPS? Not really but given that anyone can apply (and get free private testing on appeal if F/RL) and that the district has truly tried to get more students of color in the program, I'm not sure it's fair to lay this all on Peters.
And you are equating having a gifted program to not supporting all learners. That's not fair and, I believe that's an apples to oranges comparison.
Lastly, J'accuse, if you are going to make such a sweeping indictment about others, have the courage to sign your name. Because when Emile Zola first wrote that phrase to the president of France in 1898, he signed his name.
How exactly was 9th grade LA Honors a "gate keeping pathway" when it was open to anyone reading/writing at grade level, and when Language Arts 10H says it has no prerequisites (meaning you don't have to have taken the honors level class in 9th grade) and when AP World History (10th grade) is also open to anyone whether they took honors or non-honors world history in 9th? Which upper level courses are students being excluded from?
There's a lot of talk of "tracks" and "gatekeeping" at Garfield, but it doesn't seem to based on reality. Social pressures, self-selection and other factors may be at play, but don't make it sound like the academic policies are the cause.
DisAPPointed
Ridiculous
EdVoter
J'accuse
If we dismantle hcc at Garfield, it will become an impoverished school with very little opportunity, and rhs and bhs will become whiter, richer, and even more full of advanced classes. Having hcc at Garfield increases spreads the opportunity to another school. So yes I think it is integrating.
-sleeper
Annie Wright School*
Bishop Blanchet High School
The Bush School
Deerfield Academy, MA*
Eastside Preparatory School
Explorer West Middle School
Forest Ridge School of the Sacred Heart
The Hill School, PA*
Holy Names High School
Lake Washington Girls' School
Lakeside School
The Northwest School
O'Dea High School
Oregon Episcopal School, OR*
The Overlake School
Philips Exeter Academy, NH*
Seattle Academy of Arts and Sciences
Seattle Lutheran High School
Seattle Preparatory School
Shawnigan Lake School, BC*
St. Michael's University School, BC*
University Preparatory Academy
Villa Academy
Westside School
My kids' public K-8 had about 10 African American kids in each of their classes (out of 60), and not one of them continued on to public high school. All received scholarships to private schools in Seattle. One African American dad told me, who lived within blocks of Garfield, that he would never let his son go to Garfield.
The best and brightest among the African American community are cherry picked by private schools and Garfield is left with a sticky problem. African American high achieving peer mentors are few and far between at GHS. It's out of balance. If all the high achieving African Americans that lived near Garfield attended Garfield, or were HCC, the honors and AP classes would look different. But parents don't want their high achieving kids to be tempted by the being smart is not cool stigma, the peer pressure, which we know is huge in high school.
It would be great if this new program, honors for all, works at GHS. We just received a very positive letter from incoming PTSA chairs supporting the change. There is a segregation that would not exist if everyone went to public school, but that is not the case. I truly hope the teachers have a magic wand that will create engaged learners who will make the naysayers wrong. But it might take a magic wand.
Old Bulldog
I disagree. This change enables many, including my well-educated and sophisticated immigrant parents, to push for more secondary HCC offerings available to families like ours. Thereby, we open doors to advanced learners from different backgrounds, more able to work towards the betterment of those who follow behind us. This is reality.
Public school teachers by and large do not like the idea of tracking. (With an asterisk for special education.) It does not matter that there is an argument to be made that HCC isn't tracking. What matters is what the teachers and administrators think. And it appears they thought the freshman English course taken by most HCCers veered toward tracking. So Howard is doing something about it. If that causes HCC families to revert to their neighborhood schools it is unlikely staff will do anything beyond shrug. And yes, that is even with capacity issues in some areas of the city.
Further, class offerings and staffing are done at the end of the academic year as much as possible (minus the awful SPS surprise teacher rebalancing of the past few years.) If Garfield has decided all students are taking Honors English, even if philosophical arguments rage here, my supposition is the die is cast.
EdVoter
Trying ToUnderstand
I agree that GHS has capacity problems now, too, like almost every corner of the city. I am not sure dismantling the HCC pathway after open enrollment is a remotely fair way to deal with that.
-sleeper
-sleeper
No, Peters said at the Board meeting that she could not, in good conscience, refuse to listen to ALL parents. Go back and listen again.
This blog is an open forum so be careful what you assign as being "promoted" here. I do not support a bell curve theory for educating students.
J'accuse, you are certainly on a high horse for someone who won't sign their name especially if you are calling for a censure for an elected official.
Old Bulldog, thank you for those details. Interesting.
[BEGIN QUOTE]
"I’m troubled by the message we got tonight from a few people that we should not listen to certain people who come to us, who come to the board, because they are maybe louder than others. I don’t think we as a board can embrace that message. We have to listen to everybody who comes to us, whether they’re loud or quiet.
Yes, we have to reach out to those who we are not hearing from a lot. But I have to say that in my three years on the board, there have been quite a few different communities who have come to us on many different issues, people from various walks of life and backgrounds who’ve been passionate, who come to us. I will not ignore any of them.
It worries me when we get into a situation where we seem to be playing a zero-sum game, where we’re pitting groups against each other. And naive as it may seem, I want to embrace all of our children, all of our 53,000 students and meet the needs of all of them. I recognize it requires priorities, but I will not dismiss the concerns of any of our groups.
It is my hope and my goal that we address issues of equity and fairness with an eye to all of the students in need, and that we don’t forget any of our students."
[END QUOTE]
Clearly J'accuse has an ax to grind and it has nothing to do with equity or truthfulness or real dialogue. Making stuff up doesn't advance a point of view, it just comes off as a meaningless rant.
--GHS Parent
Dear Garfield Families,
Members of the PTSA met with Principal Howard and Language Arts/Social Studies (LA/SS) teachers last week to learn more about the proposed changes to the 9th grade LA/SS curriculum. We requested the meeting after The Seattle Times published an article about Ted Howard and Garfield that discussed the school's race and equity challenges. The article indicated that 9th grade LA/SS Honors was going to be cut.
Principal Howard and the teachers clarified that The Times story mischaracterized the LA/SS Honors change. In fact, the school plans to offer Honors curriculum to all 9th graders. There will no longer be two curricula tracks for LA/SS - regular and honors. Now, all students will take the LA/SS Honors curriculum and be held to the same standard: Honors for All. The PTSA, the school and the teachers feel this is an important change to demonstrate to a greater number of Garfield students that they can enroll, and take on the rigor of more challenging courses, and succeed in that environment.
The teaching staff are 100% committed to Honors for All and to its success. All of the teachers are certified and trained to teach Honors and to teach a wide range of learning styles. They voted unanimously to make this change and to supporting each other as a team.
The teachers explained they help initiate the change because it would hold all students to a similar standard and it will be a rich learning environment. Classroom discussions will be enriched with the new classroom composition and the teachers will introduce project-based learning, a nationally recognized teaching tool. It will enhance learning for all as students will have the opportunity for individualized learning and peer learning opportunities will grow.
The teachers acknowledged the challenges they will face and shared how they were preparing for them. It is a challenge to teach Honors to a broad spectrum of students. The LA/SS teaching teams have been preparing for several years: enrolling in courses to teach differentiated learning; researching the newest teaching methods; studying high schools that have already made this change. Principal Howard also announced a new reading class for students to improve their reading skills.
Principal Howard and the district are committed to supporting this change, and the PTSA will work with the school and the district to ensure its success. The PTSA is requesting that the teachers share their implementation plan for this change and communicate the plan to the community, and it will also request quarterly check-ins to learn how it is going and to identify where we can best support the students, teachers and classrooms.
In the short term, the PTSA has shared parent questions with the teachers, and next week the teachers plan to address the questions and share their implementation plan for LA/SS Honors for All. The PTSA will continue to invite feedback and update the community. We are committed to partnering with the school - One Garfield! - to deliver an excellent education to the entire student body.
Garfield HS PTSA Executive Board
Sally Hulsman and Barbara Kelley
sally_hulsman@yahoo.com 206.992.0924
bjkelley62@hotmail.com 206.349.1697
J'accuse
If you believe everyone in HCC is "monied and well-connected," well, that's your right to have an opinion. I just know there's a wider group of parents in the program than most people think.
What I hear J'accuse saying is this new equity banner whereby if you wave it, everyone else is wrong, racist, or worse. Equity is important but as I said elsewhere, there are many roads to get there. No one group - not even principals - have all the answers nor should they have all the power.
And again, even sarcasm used against children is unseemingly.
And that last item "it is your politics" shows just how very much some people WANT to make this about politics and not public education which is truly what this blog is about - public education.
It seems anytime the district tries to make progress in this direction you deflect to the many roads argument. When is there going to be a road that you think is right? This dialogue has been going on for years. It is time for change. The principals know the challenges of their schools. Many of them have years of experience. They haven't jumped ship. Sure they don't have all the answers but they do know that the one simple solution is to detract. Why are you so opposed? Richer more evenly balanced classes will be a benefit to all. Why fight that?
J'accuse
-sleeper
-sleeper
Go Leslie
By the way, this: "and the teachers will introduce project-based learning, a nationally recognized teaching tool."
Seems really important and needing further discussion. Seems like a further massive change that will primarily hurt underachieving kids - you know, the same kids whose needs have been totally ignored in this mad rush to punish HCC kids for the crime of being different.
Non-HCC Parent
How will students get the training in academic writing and literary analysis they need by doing projects?
Sue Peters clearly is a dedicated school board member. However, she made a serious ethics breach by conflating her roles as parent and director by publicly rebuking a district teacher. Personnel matters are routinely closed door at school board meetings in order to preserve the rights and due process of employees. This matter should be addressed promptly by an district review of her behavior since it fueled a witch hunt as a result of an abuse of her position as an elected position. The quoting of Peters' email on this thread confirms the severity of attack on this employee's basic rights by an elected board member.
Similarly, it calls into question Peters' ability to address equity issues in the district without implicit bias. I concur fully with J'Accuse's appraisal.
--voter
-sleeper
The words are the words provided by the speaker. The interpretation - especially the interpretation that the words actually mean the opposite of what they mean at face value - comes from the listener. In this case I think I'll trust that the speaker means what she said instead of what the listener claims she meant. I think the speaker is a better authority on what she means than the listener.
-woke
Here is what Sue Peters wrote. Tell which part of it is objectionable.
"For a teacher to harbor such hostility towards certain students is indeed alarming."
Anyone want to disagree with that? Is it not alarming for a teacher to be hostile to a group of students or is that okay?
" As both a School Board director and parent of HCC children, I too find such prejudice against a group of students distasteful and deeply troubling."
Anyone not find prejudice distasteful and troubling or are there some here in favor of prejudice?
"It is never acceptable to mock, stereotype or insult any students or diminish their worth ('the fragile products of APP'), nor to make inflammatory accusations against parents or guardians ('obnoxious elitist unconscious racists,' 'APP apparatheid')."
Who will stand up for teachers mocking, stereotyping, or insulting students? Who will support inflammatory accusations against parents and guardians? Who thinks that's okay for teachers to do?
"This is not the way to create a healthy culture of understanding within our schools and among our diverse student populations."
Anyone want to disagree with that? Anyone want to promote mocking vitriol as the path to a healthy culture of understanding?
"Instead it perpetuates a culture of ‘us versus them’ that has been a fault line within SPS for many years and a trend I would like to see reversed."
Who here wants to continue the "us versus them" practice?
Oh, right. J'accuse isn't alarmed when a teacher is hostile towards a group of students. J'accuse is totally okay with prejudice (so long as it is pointed in the right direction). J'accuse will stand up for teachers mocking, stereotyping, and insulting students and inflammatory accusations against parents and guardians. And J'accuse wants to perpetuate the "us versus them" tribalism. I guess I have my answer. I would have thought those were rhetorical questions, but I guess they aren't.
Catching crap for writing horrible things is not a violation of First Amendment rights; it's a natural consequence. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone freedom from disagreement.
On the other hand, I did write to the Board about this issue (and the overall issue of Garfield re: the Times article.) I did name the teacher because she posted as herself at Facebook (and, despite repeated attempts at two different contact points, she hasn't answered me back.)
I agree with Charlie; post something fairly inflammatory with your name in a public place, work for a public entity and not expect it to come back to you? Hard to believe but that's probably why she then took it down. Luckily, there's a thing called a screenshot.
Woke, a couple of people did address the teacher's statement, saying they saw nothing wrong in what she said. It takes every kind of people.
I've spent the morning reading about institutional racism in education and gifted programs. I have NOT seen the placement of high school students that run the entire gamut of achievement levels in one level of a class proposed as any kind of solution.
Where was the outrage when there was no money for talent development of underrepresented students after the universal screening? That is almost universally where long-term solutions are focused -- on universal testing and opt-in for low SES/underrepresented minorities. As sleeper proposes, I think the majority of us would support 100% opt-in with no requirements for honors classes.
Project-based group learning, unless students are grouped by achievement, which I'll take a wild guess is not their plan, will be academically appropriate instruction for exactly nobody.
TC
"The teaching staff are 100% committed to Honors for All and to its success."
I have virtually never - in all my years in Seattle public education - ever heard of 100% of teaching staff agreeing on one thing and certainly not on one academic thing. I'd like to see that vote. (I'm assuming here because they didn't say "100% of the LA teaching staff" that they mean the entire GHS teaching corps.)
Right now there are ThM parents who are afraid to speak against their proposed plan because of appearances. It's a type of implicit "social bullying" to conform, which isn't all that different from some of the behaviors we're hoping to eliminate in our schools and city, but they persist.
I've asked the PTSA to forward that question to the staff for clarification. I expect it was 100% agreement from the staff teaching these particular students. I know a few teachers there who'd think this was a ridiculous idea.
I don't know why these employees at TM and Garfield believe that their ideology trumps state law, board policy and the district's commitment to parent and community engagement but they must be brought back in line. Are they incapable of doing the jobs they were hired for, within those parameters?
I believe Stephan Blanford is behind this and hope the rest of the board doesn't let him get away with it.
Capital Hill Parent, I disagree. A teacher can have his or her opinions, even about a program, but the line is crossed when there is characterizations of parents and students. That teacher crossed the line and there should be a discussion about it with Principal Howard. I didn't advocate for anything else myself.
I say ...
It's not easy being at the mercy of the squeaky wheel crowd, consider that before you get your torches.
GHT
I'm sure as an LA teacher she knows words have meaning.
I would like to note that even know I know who the Garfield teacher is (as do others), no one has named that person. Thank you for that.
What has ever stopped the teachers at Garfield from offering anything to their students? They could have installed an honors curriculum in general ed classes a long time ago, if that is what they wanted, or cared about. But that in itself seems not to interest them. If the current curriculum of general ed at Garfield reflects "instutitional racism", who are the perpetrators? It can't be anyone other than those very teachers, can it? Those teachers who are in 100% agreement to eliminate HCC are the only ones who could be behind the supposed institutional racism. No, none of it makes sense as stated.
I have no involvement in Garfield, and don't even know anyone in a SPS high school, so this is not an informed view. But as a far-away observer trying to make sense of it, here is the only way it makes sense: "Honors for all" is a newspeak phrase that means "gen ed for all". The goal is not to increase opportunity for anyone (something they could have done a long time ago if they wanted.) The goal is to eliminate HCC, and cut back the education offered in SPS to "privileged" students. What am I missing?
But you are right; there was nothing -apparently- stopping Ted Howard and his staff from enriching or making more rigorous the Gen Ed classrooms.
I noticed that someone said else said that HCC kids got to "escape" some unruly Gen Ed classrooms. I'm don't think anyone can say that HCC kids are better behaved than Gen Ed students but classroom control is the teacher's job so if Gen Ed classes are more unruly, that's for the teachers and the principal to fix.
Why has Mr. Howard and the teachers allowed Gen Ed classes to be less rigorous and more unruly? I don't know but again, it has very little to do with the HCC program.
Oh. Wait.
Gen Ed Mom
"..the principal didn't notice until I brought this to her attention around Christmas time because even though this was a brand new teacher with a very difficult split class, the principal was not able to visit her classroom to see what she was doing or how she was handling the difficult task she was assigned. Nor was the principal able to direct much energy to the problem even after I brought it to her attention. It meant standing outside the principal's office for 3 days and stalking her in order to get a chance to talk to her. The principal had "too many other fires to put out".
That you had to "stalk her" seems pretty drastic. Sorry I misunderstood.
As well, you seem to think that HCC kids are having a lot of fun in their classes while other kids in Gen Ed are not. That's what I meant in terms of "fun." I'm sorry your daughter had to have the same gender imbalance that my son did. No matter, I think it's wrong.
I'm sorry; I did misread your statement on teachers and gifted kids.
Lastly, could you please write in paragraphs? It's pretty hard to track what you say in one long paragraph.
I've been educating myself by checking out other local programs and grilling my friends and office mates. I find G&T programs and special ed challenging and many are poorly implemented for too many reasons to get into. It doesn't addressed the highly and profoundly gifted well or at all. If your child have a learning disability, it's even more hellish. It's probably impossible to find that ideal because standard K-12 education is highly sequential, heavily dependent on achievement testings and emphasize acceleration over enrichment so that many potentially bright and gifted kids are missed or are ill served and underserved. And because intelligence is fluid and comes in many forms which aren't well addressed in the widget making school system, I think the frustration and fear lead to such strong feelings. The same can be said of many other populations who just don't fit well on that conveyor belt too.
The weird thing as I read more about the ideal G&T curriculum or program, I can see how the same ideal is just as applicable to a gen ed classroom too. why? Because kids don't come in as one type of learners regardless of their academic designation. You have students who may have ADD/ADHD and can't jump through the hoops to make the cut, much less do well in regular classroom because of behavior problems but have very active and curious mind. You have different learning types, some of whom are asynchronous. Under these conditions, I think there has to be some ability grouping in certain subjects with flexibility to adjust for the strengths and weaknesses of students where possible. I think elementary SS can accommodate more blending and much of that success will depend on the teachers and the support of the community.
my 2cents
So I assume either the honors class were already not really different than their gen-ed counterparts or that all the classes will regress to the mean. The idea that given a large population you can do anything that will consistently lead to above-average results seems naive.
-pragmatist
Yes there is! It would still have all those gen Ed students in it. That's what we're trying to avoid. It doesn't matter how good the class is, only who is in it. We signed up for a cohort.
curious
That's 100 percent true about the principal. But I know there were people who did get to talk to her. I know there were classes where she did know what was going on. it really did seem like two schools.
And like I said, EVEN when I told her that the class had done no writing she pretty much told me there wasn't much she could do about it. She was busy. But she had demands on her time that didn't seem to have anything to do with my kid and her classmates.
Like I said, getting "more" can mean that you are in the group who gets your fires put out.
But it wasn't just the principal. It was the teachers too.
One day I stood in the hallway and watched my daughter's class stand outside their locked classroom for 10 minutes while every adult who walked by yelled at them to be quiet because other classes were trying to learn. What about their right to learn? What were they doing at school, locked out of the classroom? Why didn't any adult at that school care that they were wasting their time and not learning?
You seem to think my daughter had a bad year because it wasn't "fun". No.
She came home one day mid year and told me "this school is not for me." And she was right. She's a funny, happy, resilient kid who makes friends easily and loves school. All she needed was a setting where she could learn and connect with a few people. She spent most of the year reading the Percy Jackson series in class and she was given a pass to visit the nurse's office any time she needed a break from the classroom. She wasn't the only child in that class to get such a pass. That the principal was giving multiple passes to kids to escape a classroom that she had no time to visit - when she was in fact busy every day with "fires," says something.
It was also suggested by the school that we home school her. Not because there was anything out of the ordinary about her. She's an average student but the school couldn't meet her needs. I have to ask why.
You'll remember when I first brought this situation up on the blog, the school community reacted exactly as you did and exactly as the teacher in this situation did. Instead of being reflective about how this situation might have some valuable information that says something about the school culture, people attacked me and my daughter. They said the principal was doing the best she could. They said I should not have put my daughter in a new school because this kind of thing happens to new kids. They put 100 percent of the blame on a "bad teacher" just as you are putting 100 percent of the blame on the principal. Someone said maybe my daughter suffers from anxiety (no). They pointed out that I never volunteered at the school. They said this was just "one bad year". But actually, I talked to many parents and some of the kids in this group had more than one bad year.
Again, this situation was not about "fun". And the fact that you think that's it, speaks volumes.
Thanks Maureen. My daughter is doing great now. She really isn't a difficult or high maintenance kid at all. She's really happy at her school now.
Gen Ed Mom
Thank you for sharing your experience. I am glad that your daughter is doing great now and I think she is lucky to have a mom like you. Melissa, I wish you had not shut down the TM thread as there were a lot of depthy and thoughtful comments there. -NP
"Yes there is! It would still have all those gen Ed students in it. That's what we're trying to avoid."
Are you being sarcastic or did you really mean to say that?
Gen Ed Mom, I totally regret using the word "fun" as you are continuing to misread it. I make no assumptions about your child or anyone else's and their school year. I did not attack you. I made some comments based on your writing.
NP, the comments are there to read. I didn't delete the thread. But the comments were getting pretty circular and when that happens, the discussion is not as useful.
...some classrooms and students were getting this principal's attention. But it was not equally distributed.
It rarely is. But that's not necessarily a function of AL vs. GE, even though you imply the lack of attention had to do with being GE. It could be poor principal management skills, a focus on needs you're not aware of, teacher-specific issues (as opposed to kid-specific issues, as you assume), etc. I seriously doubt that AL classrooms overall get an unfair share of principal attention--and I can give you lots of examples of inadequate principal attention being paid to AL classrooms, if you like.
You suggest that "fires" are more common in "schools that contain more than one community/program." I think you meant that to suggest that schools shouldn't have multiple programs. I don't know if you're suggesting that AL should be stand-alone instead, or if you're using that to suggest the programs to serve those students just shouldn't exist at all. But how many schools do we have that only contain a single community? I don't know of any. All schools have challenges to deal with--some just handle them better than others.
You said we all know that Sped students don't get nearly enough attention in this school district; that's why there are so many lawsuits. There are not infinite amounts of time, resources and energy. Some kids might be getting more of it, and it may not look like it's more...
Ok, how do you define "more"? As I understand it, provider:student ratios in SpEd are much higher, so SpEd students actually get more "attention." They need more attention, so better ratios make sense. They may not be getting the RIGHT attention, but that's a different matter. It's a useful example, though, in that it's not only the quantity of the attention that matters. I think you hint at this in your commentary on the impact of teacher attitudes, prejudices, and expectations re: their students, but you make it sound very unidirectional--that if teachers" are told they have the 'dumb class' they may assume the worst" and "if a teacher has a 'gifted' class they may try harder to engage and challenge that child." In reality, it goes both ways. The "gifted" label can just as easily result in students often getting "less." Many teachers and administrators have a very negative view of gifted children and highly capable programs, and have no qualms about expressing their dislike, disbelief, disinterest, etc. Students are seen as spoiled, fragile, socially incompetent, etc., and their parents are seen as obnoxious, elitist, racist, etc. Teachers often don't bother to understand the needs and abilities of these students, assuming they will just be fine. My own HC children's needs have rarely been met in the classroom (whether GE or HCC), and I have a hard time seeing that they've gotten something "more." A little different, perhaps, but not more. Your comment that getting "more" can mean that you are in the group who gets your fires put out is so puzzling to me. You seem to think gifted students are the group who regularly gets its fires put out, whereas in reality gifted students are the ones routinely UNDER FIRE. (And can you please not refer to students NOT in AL as "dumb," please? That's awful.)
DisAPPointed
The state recognizes the needs of advanced learners and provides funding for these students. I"m not sure why a particular individual feels the need to attack one of our best school board directors.
I watched the last school board meeting. Families of Deaf and Hard of Hearing were advocating for their children, as well. Our school board members must recognize the needs of ALL students.
It is unacceptable for a teacher(s) to show disdain for ANY group of students. This teacher should be dealt with.
I grew-up poor and have worked for decades to over-come generational poverty. I"m disgusted that J'accuse freely throws the word "privilege" around. He/she has no way of knowing an individual's life story or experience.
I'm taking Melissa's advice and will ignore the troll.
Yes, Licton Springs does have multigrade classrooms. K-2 actually have separate small classes, after that 3/4, 5/6 and 7/8 are combined classes.
Mom of 4
-wondering
http://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=14926
HP
HP
my 2cents wrote: "I think elementary SS can accommodate more blending and much of that success will depend on the teachers and the support of the community."
See? Lots of agreement disguised as disagreement.
No one is saying that the proposed mixed social studies classes at Thurgood Marshall cannot succeed. They can succeed, but we don't all share the same definition of success.
For some, the very fact that the children sit together in the same classroom is a success. These folks have no measurable academic goals for the change. The only greater success they can envision would be to have the children grouped together all the time, again, without any concern for the academic outcomes.
Other people want to have the mixed classes - so long as the academic outcomes do not suffer as a result. And while the principals and the teachers can promise, promise, promise that the academics won't suffer, that's not enough. They have to show that the academics have not suffered by setting benchmarks and making assessments to determine if the benchmarks have been met.
It's the same with the "Honors for all" change for 9th grade ELA at Garfield. For some, it's all about getting the students into the same room together. For others it's about what they do in that room.
The problem isn't the mixing. The problem is that the folks who are making these decisions - the principals and staff at Thurgood Marshall and Garfield - aren't addressing themselves AT ALL to the legitimate concerns of those in the community who want to be assured that academic standards will be maintained. Instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of these concerns, they either discount them entirely or dismiss them with a wave and express their trust in the ability of their teachers to accomplish the task.
Well guess what? Not everyone is ready to trust the teachers that completely and these people want to see objective measures that document the fulfillment of the promises. That's not a problem, is it? Surely the people who blithely assure the community that academic outcomes will be improved rather than diminished should not only be willing to assess the effects of the change, they should WANT to assess the effects of the change. They should be begging to assess the effects of the change. Only they aren't. They are, in fact, refusing to assess the effects of the change.
So that's what we have. We have two groups which are each willing to embark on an experiment. One side wants assessments to measure the effect of the experiment and one side that refuses to allow any such assessment or allow any question about it.
2AP, AP is a college testing system to take classes in high school that might provide college credit. APP, now called HCC, is the cohort.
Watchful parent
-complicated
Well sure, why would simply having the assessments in place be enough to convince people who are hesitant? The "just trust us to do what we want, and we'll look at the data later to see if it worked" approach isn't a good one.
But the fact is, there's no evidence that an assessment process IS in place. A meaningful assessment and evaluation process would need to identify the outcomes of interest, as well as a sufficiently details plan for how those outcomes could be achieved. Simply saying "honors for all" isn't enough. Charlie spoke not only of assessment to see how things went, but also of setting benchmarks to ensure that academics don't suffer along the way. Implicit in that benchmarking process is an understanding of your intervention and its likely impacts (positive and negative).
So show me a fully developed assessment plan and THEN I can make a decision as to whether or not to get on board. If the intervention and goals and assessment process all sound reasonable, count me in. But a sound assessment process on a not-so-sound intervention? Nope.
Stunned
Yes, my opinions are all based on my experience at a school where those in the self contained program swore that none of the kids were getting anything more - just something different. Except that when I asked the principal how my kid ended up in the class she was in with the teacher she had (brand new, no teaching experience, hired the day before school started) she told me "well we had a lot of kids who had to be grouped together and then a lot of parents who had been given promises by a previous principal and then we had . . .(long pause) and I filled in "A bunch of leftovers?" She said she would never phrase it that way. But boy, it sure sounds like some kids' needs were given more consideration than other kids' needs. Doesn't it?
And it wasn't a problem with the students. It was absolutely a problem with the way the classes had been configured based on other kids' needs and the teacher who was not capable of teaching a class that would have been nearly impossible for a very experienced teacher.
I have no idea what other fires she had to put out. But this class got no writing instruction at all for over half a year and that didn't merit any promises to me that things would improve. I am not at all implying that schools with more than one program have more fires. I AM saying my kid's classroom was ON FIRE and no one came to put the fire out. Instead I was told to take her out of the burning classroom and teach her myself. But I know the principal was working on putting some other fires out. That's why she had no time to do more than offer my child a nurse's pass.
Have you ever heard of the Rosenthal Effect? Look it up. Children were picked at random and identified as gifted and at the end of the year those kids, who were no more gifted than their peers, had outperformed their peers.
Do you have a counter study that shows bias against those labeled gifted?
Your experience of being told your HCC kids will be fine is not unique to HCC kids! Guess what? My Gen Ed kids are going to be fine too! I have been told that any time I questioned anything. One of my kids lost a whole year of schooling. I asked for Summer School or at the very least grade level work to do at home with her over the Summer. "She'll be fine!" The Math is pretty weak and I'm afraid they won't be ready for High School "They'll be fine!" (I hope so, but I still got them a Math tutor). I could go on and on, but I have been told they will be fine because they have involved parents and we eat dinner together and we have books in our house (that's nice, I'd still like you to teach them Math!) So that may be less of an HCC curse and more of an overall Seattle Public School attitude toward parents who show any kind of concern.
So it may seem you are getting less. I's say you probably aren't. And in SPS you might not even know you're getting more until you see what getting less really is.
I know my kid is not dumb. But you know what? Her teacher at the school with the self contained program thought she was until her test scores came out mid year. How sad to be defined by test scores to such an extent and not be seen as a whole person! I can see that if a kid was defined by test scores year after year it could really wear her down and change her for the worse. Add in other biases and, wow, well, I can see how a school with two programs could really be destructive to certain kids.
Gen Ed Mom
And yes, test scores - defining kids by them - is increasingly a problem.
I saw the downside of being in an overcrowded neighborhood school with a self contained advanced learning program first hand. The kids who were not in the program were negatively affected even though many people in the program couldn't see it. I think many of your readers can't imagine anything could really be that much worse than what their kids are getting. I understand why because I don't think anyone is getting anything spectacular under the current, overcrowded underfunded conditions. It's not likely to get better either.
I think the overcrowding is only going to get worse resulting in the elimination of programs because there just isn't going to be room for anybody to get anything different without really negatively impacting others in a way that might not even be visible upon first inspection.
I guess the district should have done some capacity planning 20 years ago and maybe we wouldn't be in this situation.
Gen Ed Mom
I do think we need a program for gifted/advanced students, and advanced classes in high school for whoever wants them (though I think it is absurd that they used the MSP for entance. Just stop doing that; don't get rid of them altogether.)
-sleeper
I was very disheartened to get that letter from the district about split classes. Having splits that just put random kids together will detract so much from any benefit of having smaller class sizes that there will be no net benefit. In fact, the results will probably be worse. Splits have to be planned very carefully by teachers who know the kids. If I had kids who were still in elementary school I'd be thinking about taking them out of SPS rather than deal with the thought that every year might be a split.
Gen Ed Mom
I wanted to make that point above in the last post, but all I can think about now is Dallas. So this is clipped, I know, and not as well thought out as I would like. I don't love anecdata, but can't even begin to imagine how we would collect actual data. I know splits can sometimes be done well- with smaller class sizes than regular, carefully chosen kids, carefully chosen teacher. But if any one of those are gone it's not a good experience, and for the most part one of those is gone (esp the class size).
-sleeper
I'm disturbed that J'accuse would bring a board member's children into a public discussion. Disgusting.
Stop with this red herring about attacking children. This is used on every occasion someone tries to scrutinize any aspect of HCC to intimidate and stop discussion. It's a deflection strategy and is used to silence. It's legitimate to question the effectiveness and politics of HCC and who benefits and doesn't. HCC is composed of students/children. They are part of the discussion. As I have said before they are lovely children, as all children are. No one is disparaging children, just raising concerns about a serious matter that impacts all children in the district, not just those in HCC.
J'accuse
Most of the directors are also SPS parents. Of course their children will benefit from policies they enact. If they make the district better, all kids will benefit. Congresspeople are also citizens of their states, and it's not really a problem for them to advocate in congress for things that benefit their state. It is how representation is supposed to work. Dir Geary is I believe a special ed parent, and I dearly hope she uses her knowledge and closeness to the situation to advocate for special ed students.
-sleeper
Realize that you have a problem, J'accuse. Keep the kids out of discussion; it reflects poorly on you.
How are we going to talk about HCC if we don't talk about who is in it. It's like talking about the bus Rosa Parks was on instead of the people riding it and where they are seated. Remember children rode that bus too.
J'accuse
-sleeper
Calling attention to a board member's special need child- and the services they receive- would be equally offensive.
Children of elected officials are off limits.
Who are your remarks directed to?
Also you just called some one something by saying you wouldn't, but you did. I believe your unfortunate analogy is indicative of your thinking and the way you see the world. Not inspiring.
J'accuse
No, I used the word to explain the word, but not as a descriptive of any actual people, unlike the teacher who was talking about actual students she has had in her clasd. The harm is not in uttering the word, like it's a magic spell, but in using it to dismiss a group of children.
-sleeper
EquityEverywhere
These are good changes. The sky is not falling.
We all know that if the district were to "measure" something, or "evaluate" something - the results would be whatever the district wanted them to be. So let's not feign that we really care about that "evaluation"; and let's not feign that we really care that SPS pretends to measure something - and then declare a victory as it usually does. If SPS did that, nobody would believe them anyway. So skip the moaning when they don't do that - cheer instead.
Really folks - there's more to life than who your kid sits next to in 9th grade in a couple of highly open ended content based classes. Truly there is. Nobody is dying. Right on Garfield mom.
EquityEverywhere
Wasted Time
You are wasting your time here. Those who seek to destroy AL in the service of "equity," are not interested. They are fine for someone else's child to learn nothing for a year.
Even thought Equity does not mean what "equity everywhere" thinks it does, we must have equity no matter what. EE - you really should educate yourself about the difference between the word "equity" and "equality." You'll find they don't mean the same thing.
-random
You have expressed it more directly than most parents who post here, but this idea of "wasting time" does seem to underlie much of the parents motivation in enrolling their kids in HCC. In fact, it is often paired with the word "boredom." I would argue that quality Project Based Learning can provide more than just the content a student would learn to ace the AP Gov exam and in fact would teach useful life and career skills that would be well worth their time and prevent boredom.
Project-based learning is not always deeper and more meaningful. Sometimes it just presents the material in several different ways or requires the student to "discover" the answers for themselves. These methods of teaching are helpful for students who need the repetition or are not engaged in learning the subject.
A child who is generally engaged and does not need the repetition could cover the material more quickly and move on to learn something else. Some students just want to learn more and resent spending weeks on a unit that for example covers one novel.
Schools should provide for the learning needs of all these students.
Wasted Time
Equity
How ironic that the mention of integration, for the briefest period, for something likely to be well done and enlightening, from people who cherish learning from a cohort, brings out the torches at a school named Thurgood Marshall. Let's at least rename the school to something more appropriate. Like George Wallace Elementary.
Staff
I am certainly not smart enough to understand your post. It makes zero sense.
Equity is finding which type of education works best for each kid and allowing them to do that. PBL can be a good fit for some but it is not for others. One size fits all leaves many kids out.
Random
E
Old Bulldog
You're thinking of the Contemporary World Issues class at Garfield:
CONTEMPORARY WORLD ISSUES (CWI)
Credits: 0.5 credit
Grade(s): APP Seniors & those missing WH or SS elective credit
Length of Course: One Semester Prerequisite: None
Graduation Requirement Satisfied: Elective * NCAA Initial Clearinghouse Approved Course
This is a project-based, one semester course for 11th and 12th grade students. The purpose of the course is to increase student understanding of contemporary problems facing our global society. Students will investigate issues through examination of the historical or cultural roots, as well as current solutions. Topics will include: economics and politics, national issues such as governmental policies, and international issues such as trade, military conflict, and environmental concerns.
The year-long AP US Government class is an ongoing experiment by the UW. http://old.seattletimes.com/html/education/2023026649_edlabadvancedplacementxml.html
E, clearly you need to educate yourself then, on what PBL means to a lot of teachers in real life. Art projects in history and math. Video projects in LA, etc. It's not a matter of getting to pick and choose, you don't get to write a research paper on a topic or person of interest. You have to do what the teacher thinks would be a "fun project". Is this "real" project based learning? That is up for debate, but it's the reality in many (most, in my experience) classrooms.
The worst part is that these are often assigned as group projects, with little to no classroom time, requiring kids to figure out how to meet as a group outside school. In a neighborhood school that might semi-okay, but at an HCC school that means cross-town coordination, so you're dragging parents into the picture for scheduling and transportation. Even in high school, at Garfield in particular, there are kids from the very southern border of the city, both east and west, to the very northern border of the city, both east and west. Even if they didn't have full schedules that often have no free-time overlap with other kids, good luck figuring out the logistics of getting 4 or 5 kids from opposite sides of the city together in one place. Do we want our 14 year olds riding metro alone, trying to figure out where they're going? Maybe some kids can do that, but many simply do not have that skill at that age.
Does PBL require that projects are group-based, and that kids need to meet outside school? No, certainly not, but that's what happens. There should be some limits.