Upcoming Work Session on Advanced Learning

The Board has scheduled a work session on Advanced Learning for an hour and a half on October 5 after the Management Oversight meeting for ELL and Distribution Services.

This is the time to contact the Board as they prepare for this work session. If you do, please remember a couple things. First, the Board's focus is policy work. They should not be engaged in the details of how things are done, but setting a clear purpose and clear expectations. Second, the Board should address themselves to correcting the problems in the system, many of which, not coincidentally, come from the flawed policy in place, but many others come from the central office's refusal or failure to manage schools, enforce policies and procedures, and hold staff accountable.

So what are the problems and how could the Board address them?

Problem 1: NO DEFINITION

Neither the policies nor the procedures offer any meaningful, enforceable definition of HCC, highly capable services, advanced learning, or Spectrum/ALO. A policy that requires the superintendent to write a procedure that provides a clear, objectively measurable, enforceable definition for each service and program is needed. What are these programs and services supposed to be? We can't even begin to discuss them without these definitions.

The current policy defines highly capable services this way:

"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."

This definition includes a list of requirements, but the bulk of them are not objectively measurable or enforceable and therefore meaningless in a policy. They are nothing but puffery.

• Adequate cohorts - this has been defined as 250 in elementary and 270 in middle school. This definition works. It is objectively measurable and the authority is held and exercised in the central office.
• Teachers with relevant experience or training - this is completely undefined and unenforced. Principals assign whomever they like to HCC classrooms without regard to experience or training and the Executive Directors of Schools, who have the duty to supervise and enforce compliance, do nothing to require it. I'm not sure what they could do since there is no set standard for the minimum experience and/or professional development.
• Appropriate curriculum - Appropriate for whom? Where is this curriculum? More about that later. Who is supposed to write it? Doesn't this suggest that the general education curriculum is inappropriate? This is completely undefined and unmeasurable, and therefore unenforceable, and therefore absent. It doesn't set a clear expectation for the student or offer meaningful guidance for the teacher.
• Differentiated instruction - Differentiated how and how much? Is every lesson supposed to be different - and different from what? This is completely undefined and unmeasurable, and therefore unenforceable, and therefore absent. It doesn't set a clear expectation for the student or offer meaningful guidance for the teacher.
• Deeper learning opportunities - What are these? Are they these six deeper learning competencies: mastery of core content, critical thinking skills, ability to work collaboratively, effective communication skills, ability to learn how to learn, and academic mindsets? Are they something else specific? Does it just mean a generally greater depth of understanding of the same content and concepts taught in the grade level Standards? This is completely undefined and unmeasurable, and therefore unenforceable, and therefore absent. It doesn't set a clear expectation for the student or offer meaningful guidance for the teacher.
• Accelerated pacing - How accelerated? Does this mean going through the curriculum faster, like compacted curriculum, or moving on to the next year's curriculum like acceleration? This is completely undefined and unmeasurable, and therefore unenforceable, and therefore absent. It doesn't set a clear expectation for the student or offer meaningful guidance for the teacher.

If a student's family cannot complain effectively to a principal when their child's highly capable service does not include one of these elements, then there's no point in putting that requirement into the policy. Policies are written to be followed and, if not followed, enforced. This policy can neither be followed nor enforced.

As far as Spectrum/ALO goes, the policy makes these requirements:

"Advanced Learning instructional programs will include differentiation, content acceleration, and deeper learning opportunities."

These are all part of the description for highly capable and suffer from all of the same problems as they did in that context. What's interesting, to me, is that advanced learning programs and services don't require adequate cohorts, experienced or trained teachers, or an appropriate curriculum.

Maybe the fault doesn't lie with the Board and the policy. The policy also says:

"The Superintendent is authorized to develop procedures consistent with state guidelines regarding referral, evaluation, and identification of Highly Capable students in order to implement this policy. The procedures will describe the programs and services available to students identified as Highly Capable as well as to those identified as Advanced Learners."

But, if you read the Superintendent's Procedure and you look for the description of the programs and services, you'll find a description only for HCC and nothing else. Maybe the Board only needs to direct the Superintendent to provide the specifics in his procedure.

Problem 2: NO CURRICULUM

You may be surprised, but the Board has no policy governing curriculum or even requiring curricula. Not just for highly capable students or advanced learners; there isn't a curriculum policy for any students. A policy that requires curricula would be extremely helpful. A curriculum is a necessary and critical tool for the instruction of every student. It's funny, because people in the District talk about curriculum all the time, but there isn't, apparently, any curriculum for them to talk about. Honestly, I'm not even really sure what they mean when they say "curriculum" because they are constantly re-defining the word. The District would do well to set a glossary and provide a static definition for all of the education jargon they use. Then we would have a set definition for "curriculum" and we would know what the word means when it appears in a policy or procedure.

Here's something funny. The Superintendent's Procedure, in the program design section, makes reference to "the curriculum", but it never says what the curriculum is. A written, taught, and tested curriculum for highly capable students (as promised in 2009) and for advanced learners would go a long way towards providing the definition that highly capable services and advanced learning so desperately needs (as described above). It would also take a lot of pressure off the cohort. People would be less focused on WHO is taught in the classroom when they are more confident about WHAT is taught in the classroom.

For general education students there is a set of Standards, set by the State for each grade level and core discipline, which sets clear and enforceable expectations for students, families, and teachers. It forms, in essence, the curriculum. If a Standard isn't taught, the student or the family has a legitimate basis for complaint and the teacher and school can be held accountable for failing to teach that Standard. What is analogous to that in the highly capable and advanced learning programs and services? Nothing. No expectations are set for students, families or teachers. Katie May, the principal at Thurgood Marshall, told the Board that she could easily blend general education and HCC students at her school for social studies because they are taught the same material and taught to the same Standards - despite the policy requirement that the HCC students get something different. Principal Kay made this statement without fear of rebuke, and she received none.

Some may assert that the HCC class is, in fact, taught social studies differently or to some different Standards. If that's the case, then produce the Standards and explain why Ms May didn't know about them.

Currently, the advanced learning programs do not offer much other than grade-skipping (if even that), which is not a curriculum designed for highly capable students or advanced learners. Moreover, the grade-skipping is only for math in grades 1-5 for HCC students and some Spectrum/ALO students and for science in grades 6-8 for HCC students. That's it. Everything else is taught at grade level except middle school math placement, which is made without regard to eligibility for highly capable or advanced learning services.

Problem 3: NO ASSURANCES/COMPLIANCE/ACCOUNTABILITY

The advanced learning community doesn't believe that their children are getting advanced instruction in Spectrum/ALO programs, and why should they? Other than "Walk to Math" at a few elementary schools, there is no evidence of advanced instruction in Spectrum/ALO programs, Spectrum/ALO lacks any meaningful definition, Spectrum/ALO is different in every school, there is no curriculum or set of academic expectations for advanced learners, and the Advanced Learning students are in the general education classroom getting the same instruction as all of the other children in that classroom. The community doesn't believe that their children are getting advanced instruction and in a lot of cases they are right. Schools routinely fail/refuse to provide advanced learning services. That's a big problem.

It has become a problem because there are no assurances of advanced learning services and no consequences or accountability for schools that refuse to provide them. They aren't even at risk of losing the Spectrum/ALO designation. The bulk of Spectrum/ALO schools cannot describe their program - and do not describe their program either on their web site, on the District web site, or in their CSIP. An enforceable policy that offers some accountability or consequences for schools that fail to offer advanced learning is badly needed.

The Board cannot assess for compliance or apply the accountability themselves. Nor can the Board require that of anyone but the Superintendent. They can, however, use the policy to direct him to describe his plan to assess program quality. I'm not sure they can ask for an accountability plan in the procedure, but they can probably direct him to take some sort of action if program quality wanes. He, in turn, will delegate the work to either the Advanced Learning Department or the Executive Directors of Schools. Currently, neither of them assesses program quality - or even the presence of advanced instruction - nor do they provide any accountability. They do not direct schools to address non-compliance with policy or procedure.

Since advanced learning services are now a required element in Continuous School Improvement Plans (CSIPs), and since the Board is interested in making the CSIP an accountability tool instead of a meaningless bureaucratic requirement, perhaps the compliance element for this belongs in the policy that addresses CSIPs rather than the Advanced Learning policy.

I find it odd that the District headquarters staff has so much energy and enthusiasm for addressing non-compliance with field trip procedures and does it with such ruthless effectiveness, yet lacks any similar interest or effectiveness when it comes to policing more important issues like instructional requirements.

Problem 4: UNCLEAR AUTHORITY LIMITS

The principals at McClure and Washington and all designated elementary schools have dissolved their Spectrum programs. This change does not appear to be within their authority since the Student Assignment Plan and Superintendent procedure calls for a Spectrum program at every comprehensive middle school and at specific elementary sites. These schools claim that they still offer Spectrum but there is no evidence to support their claims.

Despite the apparent violations of policy and procedure, there doesn't appear to be anyone at the District level with the authority to direct the schools to restore the programs. In fact, the District continues to designate the schools as Spectrum sites even after the programs were dissolved. The creation, modification, or elimination of Spectrum/ALO programs is governed by the program placement policy, which delegates the siting of Spectrum to the superintendent and ALO to the schools. But the schools usurped that authority from the superintendent when they decided to convert their Spectrum programs to ALOs. The central office was complicit in the dissolution of Spectrum by constraining the enrollment for the programs to numbers far below the demand and below the capacity necessary to sustain self-contained classes. It's easy for a school to say they can't do self-contained Spectrum when they don't have enough Spectrum students to form self-contained classes. Of course, the only reason there aren't enough students is because the enrollment office capped the Spectrum enrollment at twelve students per grade - even if there are three times that many who want to enroll.

The authority of the Advanced Learning Department and the central administration as a whole, around the location, size, and nature of an ALO is nil. There is no one in the JSCEE with the authority to direct a school to comply with the policies and procedures that govern advanced learning programs. The District needs a policy that makes clear which elements of highly capable services and advanced learning are governed by the District and which are site-based decisions. Of those, the only one that needs to be set at the District level is the academic expectations and the superintendent's procedure is the appropriate place for that. Just as important as setting the academic expectations, someone at the District level needs the authority to enforce those academic expectations. The Executive Directors of Schools have not demonstrated any ability to assess schools' efforts along these lines or to exercise authority over schools and would therefore be a risky choice for this work, but the assignment of the responsibility needs to be spelled out in the Superintendent's procedure as well. Providing curricula, definition, and assurances would all work to clarify the areas of authority and responsibility for the District over the schools.

Problem 5: MISUNDERSTANDING OF SERVICES

There is a perception that highly capable and advanced learning services and programs are a prize rather than an accommodation to provide special needs students with an appropriate academic opportunity. The popular erroneous perception that HCC or Spectrum/ALO are something "more" or "better" provided exclusively for an elite must be aggressively confronted and corrected.

This line of thought is misguided, but it only makes trouble when people use it as a rationale to dismantle the programs, discontinue the services, and reduce the academic rigor for students. That only takes service away without adding any, which is not a positive change. When a school dissolves the class, they typically claim that they will continue to provide the services through differentiated instruction or some other magical process. What they never do, however, is assess the impact of the change to confirm that they haven't reduced the rigor.

If people think that the highly capable students or advanced learners are not that special and that there are a lot of other students who could be successful with the advanced curriculum, then add those other students to the class. And assess to confirm that the class is still taught to the same Standards as before.

If people think that the advanced curriculum is something wonderful that is should be made available to all students, then they can simply step up the rigor in all classes to match it. No one is stopping them. Problem solved. That's what Garfield wants to do with their Honors for All Humanities. Their effort is credible because they have provided a clear set of academic expectations. There have been a few schools that, over the years, have claimed that they teach all of their classes to the Spectrum Standards. Those claims have been less credible because there are no such Standards.

If there were a curriculum and some accountability to assure that the advanced curriculum were taught, then there wouldn't be any drama over who is in the classroom or how the curriculum is delivered. This is a problem that will go away when the other problems are properly addressed.

Problem 6: DISPROPORTIONATE RACIAL / SES REPRESENTATION

Students living in poverty and students in some racial groups are under-represented in HCC and Spectrum/ALO. This is not a problem specific to Seattle or to the advanced learning programs, but reflective of the broader academic gaps in education across the District and the nation. There are no easy solutions to these deeply ingrained and longstanding disparities.

The Advanced Learning Department makes some outreach efforts, but has not been able to make much difference in the numbers. The nomination and eligibility process presents bureaucratic barriers, but, even before the students reach that barrier, the District has not been effective in identifying talented FRL, Latino, or African-American students to bring to nomination.

This problem is not in these programs and the solution will not be found in these programs. The solution to this problem is best delegated to broader efforts to address disproportionate outcomes in education. Quick fixes, like super-local norming or extreme adjustments in eligibility criteria by race or SES, would create unbearable inequities and unintended consequences which would not only pose greater problems than we have now, but would alter the intent of the program away from serving a set of students with special needs.

Until those broader problems are addressed and resolved, it is counterproductive for Board Directors and others to refer to the programs with contempt or as "unfair". The fault does not lie in the programs, the teachers, the community, or the students. They don't deserve your contempt. We need to stay focused on students and their needs and not allow the focus to shift away from them.

The Board needs to act by revising policies to create definition, assurance, and accountability in advanced learning. This can has been kicked down the road for nearly fifteen years. Previous Boards have shied away from addressing it. As a result the situation has suffered not so much from mismanagement as from a lack of management. I am optimistic that this Board will finally address these problems directly and resolve them.