Thurgood Marshall Waiver is Apparently a Go

I asked some pretty direct questions on this topic but got less-than-direct answers.  However, it seems apparent that it was the Superintendent's call on the waiver for social studies for Thurgood Marshall's HCC program.

From my e-mail to SPS Communications:

- is this waiver approved?

The waiver request has been submitted and is being routed to relevant central office leaders for approval.

- if so, did it need Board approval or only the Superintendent's?

The waiver language is included in Superintendent Procedure 2190SP signed by Dr. Nyland on 8/24/16.

- also, if Garfield did not need a waiver for its Honors for All, why did TM?

The Highly Capable Cohort service model is available in grades 1-8. The waiver language specifically covers HCC elementary sites in social studies only.

Here's what was said at the last Executive Committee meeting on August 17th.
Staff and Directors discussed the process for developing Superintendent Procedures (SP) in relationship to Board Policies. Director Harris vocalized her significant and serious concerns with a SP that does not align with the current Advance Learning and Highly Capable Policy. She further noted that she would like General Counsel to weigh in on this topic and would like to carefully examine the how the District will allow schools to apply for waivers in a standardized fashion. She further noted that if the District allows for one school to issue waivers than it needs to allow for all of them to. Director Patu noted that there has been an ongoing issue and that the District needs to notify parents and families that are served with a clear process. Director Burke noted that these issues may need to be further examined in the upcoming work session and would like to come up with a vision that can be tested against our schools’ unique needs. He noted the need to draw a line between site-based management and accountability. Dr. Nyland noted that he will try to get both Thurgood Marshall and Garfield to present on their waiver process for their schools.
Director Harris moved to approve the August 24th legislative session agenda as amended. Director Burke seconded. This motion passed unanimously.
Thank you to Directors Harris, Patu and Burke for asking these hard questions.  And did you see that last line in the paragraph? Dr. Nyland directly contradicts what Communications just told me on the need for Garfield to get a waiver.
Honestly, I just wish the district would put HCC in their own building. Oh wait, they did at Cascadia and now, apparently in the old Thornton Creek building.  I suspect the HCC program at Thurgood Marshall will be gone in a few years.

I just have to wonder when the district will ever learn that co-housing doesn't work.  And, that if you are not clear about what you are doing and why, you are unlikely to get near complete buy-in from parents.


Charlie Mas said…
One of the reasons that Thurgood Marshall thought they could easily integrate the HCC and general education programs for social studies was that the HCC students' social studies curriculum was the standard grade-level curriculum without any adjustments. That's what the Thurgood Marshall principal told the Board on August 24.

This is, of course, in violation of School Board policy 2190, which reads:
"The variety of instructional programs or services for students identified as Highly Capable will include pathways to sites with adequate cohorts of Highly Capable students in order to provide peer learning and social/emotional opportunities for these students, teachers with experience and/or professional development on the academic and social/emotional needs of these students, appropriate curriculum, appropriately differentiated instruction, deeper learning opportunities, and accelerated pacing."

So here's a funny thing. As a result of the integration plan and the attention it brought to HCC elementary social studies, the HCC students at Thurgood Marshall will now, for the first time, get an appropriately challenging curriculum in social studies because they are taking the class with general education students.
Anonymous said…
At the brief PTA meeting this morning at TM the principal said they're all ready to go on the integration of social studies and that teachers are bursting with plans to make it go well for the various cohorts. But one teacher that I spoke to had no idea about the waiver status and had not participated in any ramp up effort so far.

parent skeptic
Anonymous said…
It's ridiculous to say that HCC students are taught social studies at grade level. When HCC teachers are given grade level materials that students can finish in short order, you'd better believe they are finding ways to go deeper, supplement, enrich, or how would they fill the time - yes, even the TM teachers. But yeah, I guess you could say we're all using the same book...just not in the same way.

open ears
Charlie Mas said…
open ears, I don't know the truth, I only know what the principal told the Board. Do you want a transcript of what she said at the Board meeting?
Anonymous said…
Nah. She said what was expedient for her agenda. She's not in the classroom. I do agree that kids can have rich conversations when they are speaking from different viewpoints, so in that sense I'm interested in the TM project, however I'm troubled by the idea that people think HCC social studies is taught at grade level simply because they are issued the same books as gen ed.

open ears
Anonymous said…
The entire HC identification process in SPS is highly biased in favor of the well-educated demographic and excludes many students who should be in the program.

Focusing on the waiver process of an elementary social studies class while ignoring the invalid HCC (by all statistical best practices) is like trying to put lipstick on a pig.


Lynn said…
Here's something to watch on the topic of social studies and HCC students. Richard Truax (history teacher at Garfield) is on the public testimony list for tonight's board meeting on the topic of Segregation of Highly Capable Cohort Program at Ingraham High. Are Garfield staff now attempting to influence academic program decisions for other schools in the district?
Anonymous said…
The Ingraham IBX program was created as a means of helping Garfield with their overcrowding. Makes you wonder if there's something in water at Garfield.

-what's next?
Watching said…
Lynn, Thanks for the update. Please keep us informed.
Anonymous said…
More from the "Keeping it Classy" Department:

"Makes you wonder if there's something in water at Garfield."

Publicly trashing an entire school of professionals at your
child's school because they decided to deal with separate
and unequal programs in their building, and you don't like
that plan...keep talking and revealing your character.


Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
@ Lynn, Don't we all try to influence others when we see a problem or think we have a good idea? Try listening to what the teachers at GHS have to say instead of publicly bashing them. - CapHill Parent
FWIW, you need to calm down. "Something in the water" is not "publicly trashing an entire school of professionals."

I have listened to the teachers at GHS and I walked away wondering what this is really about. I'd like a real answer.
Anonymous said…
It's not about emotion but about a pattern of derogatory remarks
and accusations against Garfield staff since Honors for All was
enacted. Were it an isolated comment, I would have ignored it.

"..what it's really about" is an ominous comment like you hear
Trump make about Obama and Isis. If you have a direct question,
ask them.

Again, if you read my comment, I HAVE talked to the teachers. They are not being clear on what this is truly about. That's all I can say. You go ask them.
Anonymous said…
They don't like the white privilege. Is that a big secret?

mountain Rainier
Charlie Mas said…
What people don't like is the fact that children who arrive at school prepared, supported, and motivated outperform the students who are not prepared, supported, or motivated. Native ability helps, but it doesn't matter as much as doing the work. That's the growth mindset. The flip side of the growth mindset, the side people don't talk about much, is that native ability that isn't nurtured will be diminished.

What people don't like is the fact that poverty creates barriers for families as they struggle to prepare, support, and motivate their children. So not only are all children living in poverty faced with obstacles to academic achievement, but their families are faced with obstacles that make it more difficult to nurture their native abilities.

What people don't like is the fact that schools do not have the mission, the charge, nor the resources to adequately provide children with the preparation, support, and motivation necessary for success at school if the children are not getting it from their families. Schools cannot mitigate all of the consequences of poverty.

The solution, of course, is to grant the schools the mission, charge, and resources. That solution is not politically feasible due to forces that want to maintain the inequity. Those forces are selfish, cruel, and immoral and must be exposed as selfish, cruel, and immoral at every opportunity.

With the best solution unavailable, some people are trying less effective actions. Among these less effective actions are:

* expressing scorn towards the families that do provide their children with preparation, support, and motivation as being somehow "unfair" or "privileged".

Sorry, you're not going to make people feel guilty for parenting well and you shouldn't be trying to. That's just wrong.

* forcing unprepared, unsupported, or unmotivated students into advanced classes.

This is a good option on the condition that students are given sufficient preparation, support, and motivation to succeed. Show us that they are. If the support isn't there, then the children are just being set up to fail, and that's cruel.

* discontinuing advanced schoolwork opportunities that meet the academic needs of students who are working beyond Standards

This is inequity masquerading as equity and it is just as selfish, cruel, and immoral as refusing to provide support to children who need it.
Charlie Mas said…
FWIW, you have repeatedly stated that the HC eligibility criteria is fatally flawed.

You have also been asked, repeatedly, to suggest an alternative. I even created a thread specifically to allow you the space and opportunity, yet I can't recall what you suggested; could you repeat it?
Jami Kimble said…
Tell me more about HCC in the old Thornton Creek building that you mention. I know a split may be coming for Cascadia - curious what evidence there is it will go to Thornton Creek's old building.
Mt Rainier, that's not their stated reason for Honors for All. If this is about social justice, they should say so. They seem to be putting forth that it is all about academics which it certainly doesn't seem so.

Ditto on Charlie. There is always more than one way to get to an endpoint in public education but man, there are those who believe there is just one. I predict this will either putter out or flame out but either way, probably fail.
Anonymous said…
Charlie, Your point about student preparation is well stated. Looking at the heat maps for HCC kids one notices that there is a large concentration of HCC-eligible kids around the UW. The faculty at UW don't make a lot of money (certainly not even close to the software engineers in the area) so they have a tendency to flood the public schools with well-prepared, well-supported kids who are taught from the cradle to value their education. Parlaying this type of support to under-represented kids is they way to reduce inequities in representation. Great preschools is one place to start. Safe places for academic tutoring outside of school and after school on the school grounds is another solution. Rainier Scholars is a fantastic program that should be expanded if possible. Revising entrance requirements to place unprepared students into advanced classes sounds great, politically, and it sounds great in the newspapers but it is immensely cynical and cruel to the students placed in that position.

Charlie Mas said…
Let's be clear.

According to FWIW, there are lots of students who should be in that program but are not due to flaws in Seattle Public Schools' identification process.

I would like FWIW to tell us who those students are. Where are they? How can the District find them?

One of the ideas I have heard is to use super-local norming. Rather than taking the top 2% for cognitive ability based on national norms, take the top 2% for cognitive ability in each school. By that process, two students could have identical qualifications, but the one from School A qualifies for the program while the one from School B does not. How does that make sense if the purpose of the program is to provide students with an appropriate academic opportunity? If HCC is the appropriate academic opportunity for the first students, how is it not the appropriate academic opportunity for another student with the identical qualifications?
Charlie Mas said…
@Jami Kimble, the evidence that the District is looking to place some HCC students at Decatur comes from the most recent Friday Memo to the Board from the Superintendent. It was mentioned in an earlier post.
Anonymous said…

From Charlie:

"* discontinuing advanced schoolwork opportunities that meet the academic needs of students who are working beyond Standards

This is inequity masquerading as equity and it is just as selfish, cruel, and immoral as refusing to provide support to children who need it."

Not to mention against the law.

@FWIW, the advanced learning office has been putting tremendous effort into identifying under-represented kids for the program. They have not been granted any funds for implementing a program like Rainier Scholars to nurture those who could be boosted into AL programs, and the teachers in many schools have all they can do to serve more academically needy kids. "Go read a book" is the response to "what do we do when we're done?" in most gen ed schools. So those teachers are out of compliance with the law, but what can they do? And bright kids who would be well served by advanced learning programs languish.

open ears
Charlie Mas said…
For a sense of how many African-American students could be in Thurgood Marshall HCC but are not, go to the OSPI web site, pull up the report on every school in the south, and count all of the African-American students outside of HCC who got a Level 4 score on the SBAC.

When she was the Manager of Advanced Learning, Colleen Stump shocked the Board by telling them that even if the District declared eligible every Black student who scored a 4 on the state test, there still wouldn't be enough to create proportionate representation.

Under-representation of African-American students in HCC is not a problem with HCC, it is evidence of a problem elsewhere.
Anonymous said…
Thank you Charlie for clearing spelling out a situation which most of us believe is obviously true.

Be Real
Anonymous said…

Off topic. Why? CM MW you should restrict the post to the thread topic. PLEASE or rude posters will take over every thread because they have only one initiative. As a TM parent I would like to discuss that TM has skirted the no rules-rules. Is that enough? Why do we always have a separate thread that includes heat maps and other bogus arguments. You have a delete button... use it.

Charlie Mas said…
Thank you, Sugar, for asking.

For my part, I would like to keep the blog as open, and unregulated as possible. We can each choose to define topics narrowly or broadly, and I would rather have a few off-topic comments than err by restricting the conversation.

Yes, Sugar, Thurgood Marshall has skirted the rules. The principal and the staff have taken advantage of Seattle Public Schools' culture of lawlessness, the abdication of enforcement responsibility by district staff, the absence of any consequences for violating policy and procedure, and the lack of any accountability.

Thurgood Marshall can do whatever they want and there is nothing that you can do about it.
Anonymous said…
Response to Charlie:

Charlie: "Under-representation of African-American students in HCC is not a problem with HCC, it is evidence of a problem elsewhere."

from Rainier Scholars: "We now have 600 scholars in 14 cohorts, with a new class of 60-65 students added each year. After successful completion of the 14-month Academic Enrichment phase of Rainier Scholars, more than 95% of students in middle and high school are enrolled in private, parochial or public Advanced Learning programs..."

In terms of underrepresented/exclude HCC students: Using national norms for SBAC is as statistically invalid as not using local norms for CogAT. Quoting Colleen Stump as a reference for you position isn't reassuring because it contradicts the scoring protocol of David Lohman, author of CogAT. (See Identifying Academically Talented Minority Students Lohman, David F. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented)

Your entire post is the antithesis of state law and best practices for identifying talented or gifted students.

Rainier Scholars PROVES that ability can be increased without blaming a "problem elsewhere" (whatever that is alluding to).


Anonymous said…
Correction: In terms of underrepresented/excluded HCC students: Using national norms for SBAC is as statistically invalid as not using local norms for CogAT. Quoting Colleen Stump as a reference for your position...

Anonymous said…
There we go. FWIW no need to stick on topic. Another thread filled with your bogus arguments.

I would prefer to discuss the fact that no oversight is being provided towards what HCC kids are learning, the toothless AL department and how MT is dismantling the troublesome HCC.

Anonymous said…
Is there oversight of what non-HCC classes are learning? I ask in all seriousness. What has always baffled me is that MT came from an academic magnet high school in Charleston. Why would he oversee what seems like a slow, deliberate dismantling of AL in SPS?

Anonymous said…
Are there blogs for Bellevue, Lake Washington and North Shore School Districts where I can read and get a feel for how those parent communities regard advanced learning, ability grouping and HC/HCC?

Looking Around
Looking Around, I think there is one in Bellevue but I don't know about the other districts.
Anonymous said…
It's the same attitude everywhere, LA. Folks only want self-contained for the outliers 145 and up. Kids who can do some far out stuff, kids who are Merit Scholar material.

Charlie Mas said…
I'm sorry FWIW, I still didn't get your idea for how HC students should be identified.

Could you state it plainly for us?
Anonymous said…
@Montlake- you're saying ability grouping at all, or just no self contained school for highly capable?

Anonymous said…
Reposting from another thread....

Outsider said...
This could make for an excellent social studies unit for SPS. Something like this:

There are three types of thinking:

1) Linear thinking, where you consider only short chains of cause and effect in isolation;

2) Systems thinking, where you consider feedback loops and interactions with other systems that are connected to the one in question;

3) Not thinking, which is preferred if (1) fails and (2) yields politically incorrect results."

Sometimes, Sugar, when people post things that seem off topic to you, it is because they are engaging in systems thinking, not linear thinking that examines issues very narrowly. -CapHill Parent
Anonymous said…
Follow State Law for Identification: WAC 392-170-035 A selection committee should review multiple evidences, including tests, portfolios, and parent and teacher input.

From OSPI:

"The district identification process must apply equitably to all enrolled students and families from every racial, ethnic and socio-economic population present in the public school population they serve. Districts must review identification
procedures to make sure student selection reflects the demographics of the area they serve."

For the test scoring, WKU Center for Gifted Studies uses local and sub-norms, as recommended by National Center for Gifted Children among others, which I support:

Because of the many issues associated with identification of gifted and talented children, especially with underrepresented populations (Passow & Frasier, 1996), Lohman (2009) argued for a different approach to identification, one based on academic aptitude. One of the major issues when attempting to identify talent in underrepresented populations is the aspect of norm referencing: "Those who do not understand the relativity of norms – especially on ability tests – miss the easiest and most effective way to identify minority students who are most likely to develop academic excellence" (Lohman, p. 976). Too often school districts and others rely on nationally normed referenced tests when, in actuality, local norms are much more appropriate (p. 975). Lohman suggested an identification method that used ability test scores with multiple norms, including local and even subgroups within the local populations (e.g., English Language Learners). Those scores would then be combined for one verbal/reasoning score and one mathematical/quantitative score. In addition to those scores, teacher ratings would be incorporated and compared to the scores. Aptitude would then be based on the group itself, and greater identification of underrepresented populations would occur."


Charlie Mas said…
FWIW, not helping.

Seattle Public Schools DOES follow State Law for Identification. They do have a selection committee that reviews multiple evidences. So, no change there. And the way that the District does it has been reviewed annually and approved annually by OSPI.

Since the OSPI reviews both the process and the outcome, they obviously have no problem with the equity of the process or the demographics of the outcome.

Let's remember that equitable and equal are not synonymous.

How could the District use a local norm, such as Seattle, without CogAT data from anyone but a self-selected group of children who were nominated for testing? You are aware that state law prohibits administration of a CogAT without parental permission, right? And who would pay for and administer a CogAT for every child in Seattle to build the data set for the norming? How often would this data have to be collected?

Data for sub-group norms, on a national basis, may be available. How you would explain to a family that the advanced curriculum of HCC was determined to not be appropriate for their child when another child with lower scores was regarded as ready to succeed with it? Explain to them that a child with lower scores is among the District's Most Highly Capable when their child, with higher scores, is not. Tell them why that is fair and how it makes sense. If that child is ready to succeed with the HCC curriculum then surely their child is as well. Shouldn't every child ready to succeed with the curriculum have the opportunity to be taught it?

How would it look for the District to publish the eligibility criteria for each sub-group? Asian and affluent, White and affluent, Latino and affluent, African-American and affluent, Asian and low income, White and low income, Latino and low income, African-American and low income. What about multi-racial? What about people who lie about their race? How do you enforce that? Will the District really tell someone that they are not Latino enough or Native American enough for the District's racial purity standard? And how will the cut scores be determined? Just keep adjusting them until the demographics of the program represent the demographics of the District?

Gifted education is supposed to be about providing instruction in a way that's appropriate for children who think differently. It's not a prize, it's a special educational need. Students who don't have the need shouldn't be taught this way.

I find it very ironic that you have advocated for the idea that a lot of White and Asian children from affluent homes shouldn't be in the program because they don't really need it, while simultaneously advocating the addition of other students to the program - based on race and affluence - despite their lower demonstrated need for the program.

I'm not saying that these things can't be done or shouldn't be done; but you haven't provided anywhere near enough detail or justification for separate eligibility criteria for each race and SES just by suggesting that a cadre of academics at Western Kentucky University advocates for a general idea along those lines.

So a bit more detail please. What are the classes of students that should each have their own separate eligibility criteria? What should that criteria be? If the norming is local, how will you get the data set? How will you justify excluding higher scoring students, telling them that they don't need the differentiated instruction, while saying that lower scoring students have demonstrated that need with their scores? How will this meet the requirements of the state law that directs districts to select their most highly capable?
Anonymous said…
Since I'm not a statistician, I'll leave that to those who were trained in the field. It is certainly not rocket science. Of course, SPS could use the shortcut of 1 percent in heat zones, like they do in Eastside schools, which have under 5 percent eligibility instead of the 20 percent and up in these SPS schools.

You can call the author of CogAT an "academic" in order to dismiss his scoring protocol but that has the credibility of science climate deniers.

Just because the district has gotten a high-five from OSPI so far does not mean SPS is following the law. In fact, they are not--as shown by the quote and a reading of the law. Talk to Sped parents to find out if an OSPI approval is determinative of compliance. In fact,you know it's not but it did support your indefensible attempts to keep HCC segregated and exclusive, unsupported by all best practices and state law.

Anonymous said…
FWIW--I don't read Charlie's comments as "indefensible attempts to keep HCC segregated and exclusive." Quite the opposite, in fact, he has advocated for the availability of advanced learning for as many students as possible in a variety of settings with appropriate delivery.

Anonymous said…
Some quotes from Charlie this week which contradict state law and reveal his ignorance of the basic facts about testing biases--quotes which were used to defend the segregation (lack of Black and FRL students) in HCC which would maintain its current segregation and exclusivity:

"One of the consequences of our failure to overcome poverty is the under-representation of students living in poverty in highly capable programs across the state and across the nation. That's not hard to figure."

For a sense of how many African-American students could be in Thurgood Marshall HCC but are not, go to the OSPI web site, pull up the report on every school in the south, and count all of the African-American students outside of HCC who got a Level 4 score on the SBAC.

"When she was the Manager of Advanced Learning, Colleen Stump shocked the Board by telling them that even if the District declared eligible every Black student who scored a 4 on the state test, there still wouldn't be enough to create proportionate representation."

"When she was the Manager of Advanced Learning, Colleen Stump shocked the Board by telling them that even if the District declared eligible every Black student who scored a 4 on the state test, there still wouldn't be enough to create proportionate representation."

"Under-representation of African-American students in HCC is not a problem with HCC, it is evidence of a problem elsewhere."

I would ask others to consider at all times that most of have a mix of facts and opinions. There is really no "best practice" for any given issue in public education - you can research and practice in all directions. So when you hear a blanket condemnation (without the accompanying "in my opinion"), you can make your own judgment on its veracity.

I will have to ask if the numbers of students of color at TM have gone up in HCC. If not, why not? I'd lay that directing at the feet of the principal.
Anonymous said…

See Charlie it is just disruptive and name calling. I am not a segregationist. I am offended that you allow the tyrant to lie, smear and then claim I am not a statistician in their defense. Obviously they aren't as HCC is no where near 20%. But does that matter? It is like watching a Trump surrogate defend the indefensible. Facts don't matter.

We know enough about what motivates this person. Sad really. But if you let them dictate every thread with their lies and completely off topic comments, less meaningful discourse will be achieved.

Charlie Mas said…
FWIW, could you please lay out a coherent plan for selecting students for HCC? You have yet to do so. Instead of going on about how the current program is wrong and I am wrong, please tell us, clearly and in enough detail to be meaningful, what would be right - if anything.
Anonymous said…
Also, there is not a special curriculum for these neighborhood schools in "hot zones" with "20% HCC" students that so offend FWIW. Those schools have a gen ed curriculum and are not any different because 80% of their students can be served by teaching to grade-levels standards instead of 95%. They are still SPS neighborhood general education schools. It doesn't matter how many HC students they have, or export. They are not designed to serve them.


Lynn said…

Exactly! Lohman acknowledges that using local norms makes sense only when individual schools are responsive to the needs of their students. In a school where a large number of students are advanced, adjusting the curriculum to meet their needs would allow them to remain in the neighborhood. Our schools would not be allowed to do this - because providing advanced instruction to the students at Bryant would not be equitable if it wasn't also available to the students at Emerson.

Lohman also points out that using local norms to identify students for a district-wide program (like HCC) makes no sense. The small group of students who are working at grade level in a high poverty school do need to be pulled out of their classrooms to receive differentiated instruction, but a one-level fits all program like HCC would be a nightmare for them.

As for Rainier Scholars, they identify 60 students per grade level across three school districts. The students must already be academically successful and they and their parents must commit lots of time and effort to be accepted into the program. They spend loads of money on after school, weekend and summer academic support. Where would the money for that come from?
Anonymous said…
Charlie, the fact that you disagree does not mean I didn't already address selecting students in the information above. Researchers frequently use local and sub-group norms for studies, particularly in health. For the purposes of schools and the law, FRI and ELL would be used first to achieve representation in keeping with OCR. There are plenty of shortcuts availabe, as I noted from Eastside schools. For statistical processes, ask a professional. Not rocket science.

The tendency of you and others to use the rhetorical device of "50 Questions"
when you disagree is not a game I play.

Plenty of school districts around the country have already moved forward in successfully increasing representation in HC. In fact, here is an example from Virginia whose demographics are reflected in the program intentionally. I like some parts of their identification but not all:

Seattle is very far behind nationally.

Yuck, you didn't understand what I wrote. There are some schools in the hot zones that have 20 percent or more eligible students. I did not say that is the HCC percentage. The fact that the current HCC program is working so well for a particular demographic--that it keeps growing (for that demographic) expansively--doesn't make me a liar when I point out that the current program is segregated, unfair, and exclusive.

If these facts make you feel the need to declare,"I am not a segregationist", that is your problem. I didn't call you or anyone else one.

Anonymous said…
Lynn, HCC cohort by state law is not a "district program" but a delivery model that is supposed to be part of a continuum of services (as I have stated many times before and shown you evidence from OSPI).

There should be "no district program" in terms of a delivery model, which means that students in a continuum model would and should receive services in their home school unless a self-contained model was needed for the true outliers.

Once SPS starts to follow the state law, the local norms scoring will be even more relevant to proper servicing because they would, as long as neighborhood schools remain, be with their demographic peers.

Alys, the district will need to start servicing those students in their own schools because that is the state law. Continuing to feed the beast just makes the beast bigger.


Anonymous said…

seg·re·ga·tion·ist. noun. The definition of a segregationist is a person who believes that people of different races should be kept apart. An example of a segregationist is a person who believes that white children and black children should go to different schools.

You are the only one sorting kids by race and that is ridiculous. Should an AA child get into a program merely because of their darker pigment? And should they supplant a less pigmented kid even if that kids demonstrates they warrant the HCC accommodations?

I am not going to let you (not sure why Charlie does) defame a whole program as racist when it clearly is not.

I think every attempt to add FRL, ELL and 2e kids should be made. And many policies have evolved to do just that. But your arbitrary heat maps can only be discerned with a tinfoil hat.

Nice bit of work though as we go arguing identification again on thread that is clearly about delivery. You win again.

-too crazy

Anonymous said…
too crazy, neighborhood patterns are segregated. That is a fact. HCC is segregated by a particular demographic. That is a fact.

A segregationist is a person with the volition to be separate. Housing patterns and HCC are systems, based in an historicaal context, but systems.

I did not attribute volition when I stated the demographic facts of this program.

Anonymous said…

So you are making up new meanings to a hate filled words. I see. Not only are you saying HCC is segregating in race but all of Seattle is. You are deluded to think race comes into play in this day and age when deciding where to live. Your sophist arguments fail to impress me and are clearly OFF topic.

-too crazy

Anonymous said…
"Alys, the district will need to start servicing those students in their own schools because that is the state law. Continuing to feed the beast just makes the beast bigger."

FWIW, you've decided that "those" students in "hot zones" are not "true outliers." Your whole premise is a miss. These students are outliers no matter their school, race or SES because the system is designed around grade level standards. Different standards for different grades. That's it.

A continuum of services would still be based on grade level standards. This would not do anything to eliminate the "hot zones" around Bryant, VR, etc.

Anonymous said…
too crazy,

You need to learn about the history of real estate red-lining in Seattle which persisted into recent memory. Yes, there remains de-facto segregation in this city's neighborhoods which is reflected in our unequal schools. This was exacerbated by Maria Goodloe-Johnson's NSAP.

Why FWIW thinks it's segregation for predominantly White and Asian HiCap children to be served in a different way from other children in their predominantly White and Asian neighborhood schools is beyond me.

open ears
Anonymous said…
Seems like the district should be required to show the board that the HCC program provides a better outcome than neighborhood schools.

Anonymous said…
Seattle not racially segregated? It has been. It is. It is hugely segregated. Many scientific studies back this up. Here is just one. It's recent.

It is a serious problem that otherwise articulate passionate educated public school supporters do not recognize this.

There are teacher and administrator-level SPS employees who can and absolutely do view HCC through the racial disparity lens. Even if this is not a valid or compelling argument from your own point of view, it is important to recognize that many of the people who create and carry out SPS policies do find the racial disparity in the program objectionable. From my viewpoint it is the number one reason HCC is so much less than what it might be: in their hearts, because of this reason, our educators and administrators would rather use their limited resources on those who historically little than on those students who need more complex school work to maximize their own potential. Folks can argue the validity of their decision, but not understanding their conviction won't do much for bettering HCC.

In my own limited time I am more drawn to figuring out how to better the economic disparities that weigh down students from meeting let alone soaring over classroom standards. Is this a category that overlaps with ethnic diversity statistics? Yes, to some extent, although not entirely. But perhaps agreeing to better-address how to get children of poverty identified, entered and positioned to succeed in HCC will be a first step to bettering the HCC system for all. This is where I have landed, at least for the moment, after thinking about the pros and cons of HCC for my family.


Anonymous said…
So much to dismantle in all your post but let's go with this; which is something GHS teachers should learn: the appearance of segregation (see definition above) doesn't mean there is a practice of segregation. Just like the number of tinfoil hats you have stored in socks draw prove you are nuts.

-too crazy
Anonymous said…
Just like the number of tinfoil hats you have stored in socks draw DOESN'T prove you are nuts.

-too crazy
Anonymous said…
Too Crazy can throw around the insults. But (s)he stands on the wrong side of current fact of racial and ethnic segregation in Seattle.

I can take an argument about segregation and its impact or importance to HCC. But as to the existence of racial and ethnic segregation in our city both in terms of geographic segregation and attitudinal segregation, there is nothing to debate. It exists.

But why should we be surprised that Too Crazy is bringing out the tinfoil hat tired old saw? After all, there are people still don't believe in climate change.

Anonymous said…
It is not racial segregation.

It is not redlining, a policy that ended long ago.

Currently Seattle's biggest disruption is gentrification the direct opposite of redlining.

It is a high number of FRL schools performing in Seattle like they do across the nation.

The effects of poverty on learning are well documented.

HCC doesn't exclude folks that are poor systematically, nor does it exclude races.

Your sophist and inflammatory arguments ignore reality.

You deny climate change as well?

-too crazy

Anonymous said…
Could we get back on track and discuss TM?

I think anyone who is a teacher in SPS knows there will be a qualitative difference in what the HC students experience in blended classrooms during SS. ``

flat earth
Anonymous said…
This HCC parent would be fine with my student in blended anything except math, science and LA.

Ability Group
Anonymous said…
Too Crazy, it is hard to be patient at the end of a busy first week. Again, I am attempting to convey what I believe are the concerns of those SPS employees around race and ethnicity and HCC. I am not arguing the validity, I am pointing out why there appears to be a reluctance to make the quality of the program a priority. The people who run the program see racial inequity in student success a more important priority than HCC. I am not debating whether they are making a correct decision there, either. I am stating that at every opportunity within SPS, closing the opportunity gap is a stated top priority and notably HCC is not.

HCC does not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the city - whether it is causation or correlation does not matter *from their point of view*. If you cannot understand the other side's argument - the other side being the policy-makers and staff - then achieving change in the program is going to be a hard road. The evidence here is the dismantling of Spectrum and the uneven if not downright low standards of quality within the current HCC program, despite the concerted, cogent, advocacy of HCC and Spectrum families.

I am also pointing out, again, that setting the whole topic of HCC aside, racial and ethnic segregation in this city is a fact. To deny otherwise is to have no ability to engage with the majority of our city's civil and education leaders, because they are going to tune out everything you have to say after you insist that racial and ethnic segregation does not exist in our neighborhoods. You know what they'll think to themselves? "You can't argue with crazy." Or, in your case, "Too Crazy."

Done with this thread.

Anonymous said…
Not coming from those who work in schools:

from NAGC (Nat'l Assoc. for Gifted Children)

"Tests often exclude underserved gifted students who are English Language Learners (ELLs), disabled, or from minority or low-income backgrounds. An identification strategy that includes multiple assessments—both objective and subjective—is the best way to ensure no gifted learner is overlooked.

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.

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."

FWIW, and? We know this. The question is how to change it. That's really on the district.
Anonymous said…
Many districts add points to the test scores of underrepresented groups.

Anonymous said…
segregation is the purposeful separation of races often times by the majority in the community and often times by racial identification.

That isn't happening at GHS nor is it happening in HCC.

Tell me about these schools with students being assigned based on race? So intriguing... yet false. Just like your denial of man made climate change.

FRL, ELL and 2e are given through their supporting programs a hoist up into HCC and those factors are looked at (meaning they don't have to have the same scores as someone not in those groups) and I am fine with that for assignment. Do much more like cook the books as F/ suggest then we will likely be sued, again.
-2manycrazy monikers

Anonymous said…

Again I remember the day where it was spelled out keep on topic. Delivery shouldn't be debated during identification threads and vis a vis the opposite with stern warnings. That worked mostly. This doesn't as claims are made only to be self refuted. Decent people who work to share a diverse background with their kids are called segregationist.

-oh well
Anonymous said…
@oh well. I agree, it would be nice to have a thread dedicated to delivery without fwiw hijacking the conversation with accusations about identification and participation. Solve one thing at a time.... She's like a pitbull that can't see beyond what she's trying to tear to shreds to realize she is chewing on her tail.

Anonymous said…

yeah i'm not so hopeful sorry. mw and cm need to throw the bums out. folks have said delete me and the rouge posters but i understand it is their blog and i guess they will let them poop non=facts all over. oh well. cm you can't argue with ignorance and you have enough post that only represent that. WHY? you have done it right in the past. why make us re-legislate hcc identification every time.

-no caps
Anonymous said…
Blending at TM and Garfield are to scare parents into staying at local school.

Anonymous said…
If you don't want threads hijacked by off topic posts, do not respond to the off topic posts.

-try it
I appreciate the passion around both this topic and off-topic remarks. I think FWIW feels that saying something once is just plain boring and so repeats the same thing over and over (whether on-topic or not.) Charlie and I can have a discussion about whether any commenter should be allowed to make multiple remarks on the same topic. I have urged readers in the past to ignore some commenters because it's just useless trying to have a dialog with them.

We have talked a lot about this issue; I think we'll end it here.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools