Parents, You Have One Week to Apply for Advanced Learning
Has it always been that short a window? I don't remember that it was. From the SPS news page
This year’s referral form for students in grades kindergarten through 8th is available online via The Source starting September 7, 2016. Once you login to your parent or guardian source account, click on the “Advanced Learning Parent Referral” button to start the referral process.I would be interested in hearing from parents at all schools about how well your school is letting you know about this opportunity. Are there forms on the counter in the office? Did your child's teacher say anything? Anything in PTA newsletter?
Read more about how to submit a referral on the Advanced Learning referral webpage.
K-8 eligibility testing for the 2017-18 school year begins in October. Applications for students in grades 9-12 will be available in January.
All k-8 applications are due by October 6, 2016 to determine eligibility for school year 2017-18.
Comments
-sleeper
Separately, I don't know how a teacher would be organized enough to nominate a student they've had for only three weeks. At the earliest, it should be a topic for the conferences at Thanksgiving, but even then, I've known teachers so stretched by classroom management needs that they didn't know my quiet child well enough to know her strengths or weaknesses.
The only way diversity will significantly increase in HCC will be when they
have an identification/testing process that in unbiased (i.e. isn't scored
to favor some and exclude others).
The nomination procedure/time frame should be improved, but that won't change the demographics in any significant way. Neither will putting HCC into a more diverse location. Blaming the TM principal for that, as some have done, is ridiculous, BTW.
She is not a wizard who can magically make the district use scoring norms in a
statisically valid way.
FWIW
He said that it is one of the ways to try to make the results less biased since the proliferation of the CogAT test prep industry has resulted in widespread test preparation for students with parents in-the-know.
FWIW
Jane
Hopeful
"The nomination procedure/time frame should be improved, but that won't change the demographics in any significant way. Neither will putting HCC into a more diverse location."
TM was something MT and MGJ came up with to kill the program. TM principal as is the GHS principals are just pawns to further that and as you should know the TM principal wasn't even there to make the change but the previous admin tried mightily to add gen ed kids into the program. I am not sure there was any success though as none was reported over the 3 years she was there. Could be wrong. So yeah we agree that will not work... as it was never meant to.
What inspires your disdain for the HCC program as it seems personal. Couldn't be that your kids couldn't get in because you have said repeatedly you would never send them there.
-ugh
QA Parent
@ FWIW, the fact that different groups score differently on the tests is not proof of bias. The differences could be real. Perhaps the groups that score lower have poorer educational opportunities (home, preschool, school and extracurricular). Perhaps groups that score lower also experience poorer health environments (e.g., prenatal nutrition, lead exposure, higher stress). Perhaps there are other factors. The tests may accurately reflect these children's abilities. That doesn't imply that IQ is race-based (as you like to suggest any discussion along these lines does...), but instead it could be seen to suggest that some of these negative exposures (and/or the more limited positive exposures) can impact cognitive development and achievement. And you know what? That's what the research shows, too. Poverty, lower parental education, poor nutrition, exposure to toxins, etc. can all negatively impact child brain development. Unfortunately, those negative factors are often more prevalent in populations that tend to not score as high on these tests. And when you're talking about the ability to score at the upper extreme end of the IQ (or similar) curve, it makes sense that a whole lot has to have gone right in early development, right? Early cognitive development has lasting impacts.
That doesn't mean we have to accept the current disparities as the way it is, but we do need to be honest about things if we're going to address the problem. We need to tackle the root causes, and provide more extensive supports--and much earlier (i.e., prenatal). We can also do something to help compensate for these environment-influenced differences, and it sounds like SPS now does that (e.g., more leeway in test score cut-offs for underrepresented groups). But if the score differences reflect actual differences in cognitive development--as they likely do to some extent--it doesn't make sense to adjust the qualification criteria so much that eligibility rates are equal.
reality bites
I don't think teachers nominate students often. It would be saying that the teaching at that school doesn't serve the needs of that child--a negative admission. The best teachers are striving to build a community of learners where all are included. Nominating kids for the gifted program doesn't jibe with that work.
-JAMS parent
Stating that students in K-8 receive a self contained program (as their website does) is factually incorrect if one or more of the primary HCC pathways is moving away from self contained models.
Likewise stating that HCC students in 9-12 receive "Significantly accelerated curriculum in reading, math, science, and social studies based on student need" is also factually incorrect now.
I had to ask about the HCC deadline; the information was not disclosed unless asked for. If asked for advice about a kid who'd tested in, the principal actively discouraged families from sending their students to HCC.
Percentiles Please
http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/StateTesting/TestStatistics.aspx
The page was updated by OSPI on 9/27/16.
Our experience 10 some years ago: The deadline came and went without us knowing about AL testing. It wasn't until a parent asked after the deadline if we tested that we were clued in (a flyer in the office is of little help if you haven't been in the office...). We had our child tested the following year (argh) and when asked for info, the principal bad mouthed AL students and parents. Nice, huh? Many parents had the same attitude. School is north of the ship canal.
-no name
I understand that last issue for schools but someone's kid isn't there to help your school's score. That student is there to get his academic needs met.
I
from National Assoication for Gifted Children:
Giftedness is represented through all racial, ethnic, income levels, and exceptionality groups. Underrepresentation is widely spread. It’s estimated that African American, Hispanic American, and Native American students are underrepresented by at least 50% in programs for the gifted.
Same source, best practices for administrators:
http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=37855
Same source, using local norms for scoring:
Test norms should reflect the local demographic, not only national norms (important for districts with a greater number of individuals from minority or ethnic groups). In some cases, it is important to review subscores, as twice-exceptional students can be overlooked if only using a general score.
David Lohman on Identify Academically Talented Students from Minority Groups and using local norms for scoring:
https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://projectscientist.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/identifying-academcially-talented.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjnt4HagLXPAhXEEpQKHWiGBsYQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNFxjdqc6UvJRlF1UlMqAjE6gpYu1Q
FWIW
Is it appropriate to repeat the information when no one seems to listen? I think so.
zb
HCC Momvocate
And the requirement to be not only 98th percentile or above in cognition (i.e. IQ) but also 95th percentile in BOTH reading and Math is not catching those kids that are EXTREMELY gifted in one or the other, not to mention catching kids that are off the charts super smart high IQ that have not been taught information that makes them score 95th in reading or math. These are the kids we need to be serving.
High IQ kids that aren't meeting their potential in academic achievement are the kids that need tailored services.
The HCC program is not going to catch many of the kids who need it because of the referral and testing process.
Conversely, if a kid DOES manage to score in all of these areas, they are definitely out-liers, and need an education that meets them where they are.
IMHO all kids that qualify need it, but not all kids who need it qualify.
hmmmmmmmmm
FWIW articulates the orthodoxy of the public schools in plain language, not obscured in bureaucratic code and jargon, which makes her (?) the most valuable commenter on the site. I agree that repetition is not a problem, nor sometimes colorful language. She mentioned that I make her want to vomit, and probably the PC police and high bureaucrats at SPS think exactly the same way but won't say it plainly. I appreciate whoever has the nerve to be honest. We all should.
The SPS testing cycle is absurd. It's also absurd to create a shortage of something that is not inherently scarce -- in this case, advanced learning.
Thanks,
GHSmom
It always gets hashed out on his blog as if it has some actual impact in district action.
Complete nonsense, IMO.
The district understands that self-containment of certain groups of students is a good thing, whether that's SpEd students or HC students. The data is available downtown on every student and any subset of students can be pulled up and analyzed.
FWIW makes very good points about the demographics of testing and test prep. Best practices as described by the author of the CogAT are not followed.
The cohort grows and grows as more parents see is as better place for their children compared to their neighborhood school.
The question is what is in the future? I don't have the numbers, but it feels like the cohort is growing percentage-wise, not only in total numbers. Will that become a problem?
Does it in any way hurt the non-HCC population? Will the district really get more black and Hispanic and poor students in the cohort and is that the best place for them?
It's just is so silly to always argue on this blog and act like what we write will affect the decisions downtown.
As regards the PSAT/NMSQT representation in SPS. 1% of eligible SPS high school students, almost all juniors would be roughly 40 students, so we're pretty average in that category, which is indicative of exactly nothing regarding HCC. HCC is not for just National Merit Scholars; who it's for is really up to the AL department and the district, and the board to some extent.
There are better uses for this blog than rehashing the HCC debate every week.
I want to know what happened at Laurel Heights, for example? Did the protests help them out or were they ignored by the district?
Lighthouse
8th graders (privately schooled or otherwise) can test into AL for 9th, and the HC designation will follow them through high school. If they qualify (an essay is now required for 8th graders), they can select Ingraham IBX as an option, though not Garfield. The Garfield pathway is only available for 8th graders currently in the HC cohort. Should they choose their neighborhood high school, they are supposed to get services of some sort, though I'm not quite sure what that includes - access to AP classes? You must meet the October AL deadline for nomination.
-parent
PW
HF
RE: the use of local norms, Lohman indicates this is important because of issues of mismatch. If most kids in a class are high scoring, say 95th percentile, he suggests the mismatch between their needs and the needs of a 98th percentile kid aren't going to be all that different, whereas a 98 in low-scoring class would be more out of sync. True, but in reality, the impact of these difference depend on how the school handles them. If everyone gets the same grade-level curriculum regardless of the makeup of the class, the fact that the mismatch is decreased doesn't do you much good. Plus, those numbers are not typical. A perhaps somewhat likely situation would be that the majority of a class was Spectrum-qualified, so about 88th percentile. We also have a good number of 99th percentile kids--and the level of mismatch there is huge.
As Lohman also points out--in his #1 policy suggestions--the goal of the program is key.
Is the goal to identify and serve those students who demonstrate unusually high levels of academic ability and accomplishment? If so, then traditional procedures of identifying and serving academically "gifted" students can be used. Poor and minority students will be included in this group, although not at a level that approaches their representation in the population.
Attempts to achieve greater minority representation by using nonverbal tests and other measures that are not good measures of scholastic aptitude will indeed include more ELL students in the program. Unfortunately, these will not in general be the most academically promising students.
On the other hand, if the goal is to identify the most academically talented students in underrepresented populations regardless of current levels of academic attainment, then procedures like those outlined in this paper* will be more successful. However, options for educational placement and programming will need to be much more diverse than is currently the case. That's because, as he goes on to note in policy suggestion #2, even when evaluating students by "opportunity to learn" [aka subgroup] and making identification within groups, instructional placements should be primarily on the basis of accomplishments [aka achievement] to date. [*The procedures outlined include using multiple scores (which we already do), or setting targets for each subgroup--which is politically fraught, especially when we don't have evidence as to what the numbers "should" be.]
reality bites
The district is committed to "eliminating the opportunity gap" which is a euphemism for equalizing the rate of passing SBAC for all racial groups. Bright, motivated, high-achieving students of color are likely to pass the SBAC anyhow, so nothing is gained by letting them escape into HCC. On the contrary, loss of their stabilizing influenced in "impacted" schools works against increasing the SBAC passing rate, and therefore perpetuates the "opportunity gap."
HCC has swollen because Spectrum was abolished. A secondary benefit of keeping students of color out of HCC with the convoluted testing regime is that it provides an argument for ending the program altogether. That is what SPS bureaucrats would prefer. But it's politically difficult because of pesky parents of privilege who don't want their kids leveled to a 30th percentile education.
-SE MOM
Did placing APP/HCC at TM increase the diversity of student participation? Has that ever been looked at?
Dismantling continues with baseless attempts by FWIW and all of their other aliases posting about segregation and test fraud. Normally these post talk about a fantasy world with collusion to get kids into a "worthless" program. It really never makes any sense but certainly plays well to those who disparage a kids chances to get the type of classes they need.
2 old
Total Chaos
MadDad
Percentiles Please
Are these simply rhetorical questions or are you answering no and they shouldn't (respectively) by positing them in a such clearly leading/loaded way?
If you believe the answer is that underserved students are less likely to be
gifted, then fess up. (And, if so, where's the evidence?) Otherwise, what's your point?
FWIW
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/710783
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/14/black-child-poverty-rate-holds-steady-even-as-other-groups-see-declines/
https://www.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/17259_Chapter_18.pdf
http://www.elcmdm.org/Knowledge%20Center/reports/Child_Trends-2009_07_10_FR_DisparitiesEL.pdf
You're ridiculous
The articles that "You're ridiculous" posted above are some good evidence, but there's a lot more out there. But I get the sense you don't really want that information, that you're not willing to acknowledge that by the time many kids reach school age, their cognitive development has already been negatively impacted to some extent. That doesn't mean they can't succeed in school, or even excel, but it does make it a little less likely that as many will develop to their potential. It's similar to why we wouldn't expect a group of kids who were denied adequate nutrition to be as tall as a group of well-fed kids.
reality bites
no caps
kids who start out in school behind more privileged kids can catch up
Frederick Douglas was raised with no reading or schooling yet was quite brilliant after getting his education, not to mention his freedom.
the relentless narrative of irredeemable dark-skinned children itself has a negative influence on these kids.
it's dismaying this blog has degenerated into a forum for people trying to "prove" that certain children are doomed to be inferior to their more affluent peers
b-12
I'm not aware of any studies that indicate there are things we can do inside schools that can completely mitigate the effects of poverty.
But background, poverty, etc. can influence HOW that brain develops.
What's important is for schools to find ways to recognize those gifts and develop them AND yes, encourage parents to seek out programs to support those brains.
-Maria
Different perspectives
I'm not understanding your comment. The PSAT measures math and reading skills and NMSF status requires top 1% scores in those skills on a particular day. HC designation requires top 5% scores at some point in a student's school years. In any case, you're overestimating the number of highly capable high school students.
Here are the numbers for last year's junior class:
99 Garfield
75 Ingraham
12 Ballard
12 Roosevelt
5 Hale
1 Chief Sealth
1 Franklin
0 Rainier Beach
0 West Seattle
205 Total
HF
-sleeper
Correct. It's because they use national norms only. Many of these students are tested in the early years and their SPS scores are significantly out of synch with their demographic peers. In some regions/elementary schools of SPS, 20% or more students are HCC qualified. In a nutshell, what you stated is the topic of this ongoing blog "discussion".
That's why Bellevue and other districts use 1% for this demographic to qualify for HC--it's how they norm properly the CogAT for this population.
The results: 1. A hugely inflated HCC program for a particular demographic (with no real accountability for continued elibility even though many tested in during primary grades or Kindergarten, and state law requires accountability for continuation of services) 2. An excluded population of students who don't have the same learning opportunities but are mistakenly (to put it kindly) being scored by the same norms as their more affluent peers of highly educated parents. SPS scoring goes against the scoring protocal strongly advocated by the developer of the CogAT test.
The repurcussions of this mess keeps coming out in the wash in more ways than one. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
FWIW
"The results: 1. A hugely inflated HCC program for a particular demographic"
FWIW is saying that the cohort is too big and caters to non-FRL families mostly white and some Asian.
Let's assume that's true, certainly a valid interpretation of the program, but the question is then why?
New Yorker
different numbers, and yours appear to be the HCC numbers.
In fact, as inflated as HCC is, the HC eligible numbers make those numbers even more shocking.
Maureen does not appear to be overestimating those who were identified as HC.
Your numbers are likely HCC and not HC qualified as you stated.
New Yorker, don't you already know the answer to your question? If not, Frederick Douglas answered it for you:
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
FWIW
The Bellevue School District’s gifted programs are designed to meet the academic needs of students determined through academic and cognitive testing to be in the +2 SD and above, or roughly the 98th percentile and above when compared to the general population.
GESP (Grades 2 – 5), GMSP (Grades 6 – 8) and GHSP (Grades 9 – 11)
•Two CogAT subtest scores at or above 132 SAS (Standard Age Score), one subtest score at or above 126 [95%ile], and the composite score at or above 132 [98%ile].
•Achievement results on the STAR or IOWA Reading and Math assessments at or above 95%.
-fact checker
Lohman says that if the goal is "to identify and serve those students who demonstrate unusually high levels of academic ability and accomplishment... then traditional procedures of identifying and serving academically "gifted" students can be used," while "if the
goal is to identify the most academically talented students in underrepresented populations regardless of current levels of academic attainment, then ... options for educational placement and programming will need to be much more diverse than is currently the
case." That's because "different instructional paths should be available for those who already exhibit high accomplishment and for those who display talent but somewhat lower accomplishment.... If schools cannot provide this sort of differential placement, then it is unlikely that they will be able to satisfy the twin goals of providing developmentally appropriate instruction for academically advanced students while simultaneously increasing the number of underrepresented minority students who are served and who subsequently develop academic excellence."
Using local norms by subgroup, you can identify your top performers in each category. However, as Lohman points out, the tope performers in those overall-lower-scoring groups aren't necessarily ready for the same program/services, because "the curricular needs of these students will generally not be the same as the curricular needs of students who scores placed them at the top of the overall list."
In other words, it's a matter of responding to the needs of already advanced students vs. working to advance those who show potential. While I agree the latter is a laudable goal, the programs/services SPS provides are based on the former. The AL office DID recently try to get funding for a talent development component, but SPS didn't go for it. So based on the services we have, the eligibility criteria we have might not be inappropriate after all. Changing the criteria would require also changing the program--to add in a talent development component for high-scoring students from underrepresented groups that can hopefully help leapfrog them ahead so they'll be ready for HCC services, and to also then add in increased flexibility and differentiation so that all schools and teachers could better meet the needs of very high performing (98th percentile) students who no longer qualified for services.
rb
-NW HCC parent
While threads about AL seem to often just be a back-and-forth, it is certainly unfair to say this blog is just a forum for that single discussion. We work VERY hard to have a wide variety of topics.
As well, I don't agree with your statement at all.
There have been many comments on many threads on this blog implying or outright stating that certain groups of children are underepresented in HCC because they don't have parents who are either gifted or well eduated. Many comments stating that poverty reduces cognitive ability and expains low numbers of FRL, black and Hispanic in HCC.
There have even been oblique comments referencing inherent differences in cognitive ability between races.
As blog admin you set the tone.
I find the overall attitude of the blog to be mildly racist, 2.5 to 3 on a scalee of 0-10, with 0 being racist comment-free.
B-12
-Maria
-AB