Houston, We Have a Problem..Outside Thurgood Marshall
A reader sent me this and said there were 2-3 of these around signage at Thurgood Marshall. I am told the Board knows about this.
I was kind of surprised to hear an HCC parent at Soup for Teachers say this: I agree with the sentiment (and I'm an HCC parent) but I wouldn't do it this way. Let's not shame kids.
Okay, HCC parents, do you think your child is enrolled in a "apartheid" program? Here's what the dictionary says (after explained it means "a state of being apart," an Afrikaans word.
"Apartheid was a system of racial segregation in South Africa enforced through legislation..."
There is no enforced separate in HCC. The program is open to anyone. The program is not just one race, there are many, many Asian students (despite attempts to make that sound like it does count which baffles me.) Of course, there is underrepresentation by black, Native American and Latino students and that needs to change. But apartheid?
I was kind of surprised to hear an HCC parent at Soup for Teachers say this: I agree with the sentiment (and I'm an HCC parent) but I wouldn't do it this way. Let's not shame kids.
Okay, HCC parents, do you think your child is enrolled in a "apartheid" program? Here's what the dictionary says (after explained it means "a state of being apart," an Afrikaans word.
"Apartheid was a system of racial segregation in South Africa enforced through legislation..."
There is no enforced separate in HCC. The program is open to anyone. The program is not just one race, there are many, many Asian students (despite attempts to make that sound like it does count which baffles me.) Of course, there is underrepresentation by black, Native American and Latino students and that needs to change. But apartheid?
Comments
--DistrictWatcher
Stop attacking children like this. This is not how we build a beloved community that is anti-racist and meets the needs of all children.
Harry Schwarz
AKA
I am saddened that a day/week of solidarity intended to unify people around love and acceptance has turned into a day/week of divisiveness targeting the HCC program.
Differentiated learning all in one classroom does NOT work for these students.
Here's an idea: AL for all, K-2, where the teachers assume and expect students have the potential and ability to learn 1-2 years ahead of the current dumbed down curriculum. Universal testing in K offering extensions to those on the far end of the spectrum, universal testing again in 2nd, with HCC cohorts beginning in 3rd grade, check everyone again before 6th grade and all students enter whatever class level they are ready for in middle school.
Caveat--families who don't want any sort of academic acceleration or extensions in K-2 would need to go to option schools that take a different approach, like Thornton Creek or Salmon Bay.
Fix AL
K.
"curious"
This makes me really sad.
rb
The inequity comes long before the kids start kindergarten.
Fix AL
This is not the way to bring people together to solve the issue. Did any of these righteous white people actually read the Seattle Times article quoting DeShawn Jackson?
“I’m black, and it’s always been ‘Black Lives Matter’ for me, but this was really for our kids,” Jackson said. “And then the message just kind of strayed away from the message I had envisioned.”
Talk about white privilege. I could redefine that as thinking you know what is better for black people than they do so you must come to their rescue. How embarrassing. And, I am SO SORRY this happened Mr. Jackson since your beautiful message was totally ruined.
Anyone who thinks the new leader of soup for teachers has turned a community building idea (supporting striking teachers) into a divisive hate-filled environment should drop out of the group immediately. Otherwise, Liza can take the divisiveness to the District and claim she is representing 3000+ people.
-longtime reader
wow
TM parent
-SPSParent
As well, I hope families at TM will report this to the district, as it seems to fly in the face of district policy--and state law--regarding bullying, harassment and intimidation. This type of behavior is not ok.
rb
HEELAROUS.. file under white peoples problems
- Left of Center
RE disaster
Question: Are teachers' personal email accounts subject to public records requests, if they organized SPS-approved events through those?
DisAPPointed
I'd also like to know specifically which schools are less diverse than Cascadia. I hear that on this blog but never see the demographic numbers.
Outraged
-invisible
Why label, blame, and shame childen and their parents who are simply participating in a state mandated, district provided program that is open to ALL students who meet the academic criteria (which are pretty much standard if you take a look at similar programs in any school district). Why should our children and families be made to feel guilty that we are somehow keeping people down/or racist when we are at the same school, with the same teaching corps, and the same curriculum but 2 yrs advanced in reading/math? NO I don't buy that and I refuse to feel guilty or ashamed of wanting my chlld to access more advanced reading/math if he meets the criteria and is clearly capable of the work. Doesn't everyone want what is the best for their children; what will help them to be well-balanced, well educated, productive adults. We ARE NOT taking anything away from any other family or child by being in HCC. The existence of HCC is not taking any educational resources away from any other group in SPS. Why are some people (activist teachers?? other parents?? who exactly is behind this?) trying to take something away from our child/family in the misguided attempt to level the playing field. Hint - it won't work. The so-called white privileged children in HCC will still be white and still have the advantages of parental education, socioeconomic group (which largely relates to parental education), and early childhood experiences. Nobody chooses HCC in order to be segregated - they choose if because it provides the most appropriate level of instruction in math/LA for their kids. Getting rid of HCC is not going to create more diversity in schools or improve outcomes for those underrepresented in it currently. It's not the district fault, or participating families fault if these groups are underrepresented - they have tried to recruit them. SPS can't change our society/fix the problems that have lead to this, nor should it be expected to. Getting rid of HCC gets rid of an option that exists equally to serve smart/high potential but poor kids/black kids. It's called 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'.
If anything, the activists will succeed in creating an even more segregated system that what they rail against - one in which families of high performing/HCC-qualifying students who have the means to do so will flee to private schools or to the other school districts (Eastside/Shoreline) that will happily provide their children with advanced learning opportunities, without the baggage that comes with SPS. Who will that leave in SPS - that's right, predominately the very children that folks claim are being 'kept out' and 'kept down' by HCC. Be careful what you wish for.
APPalled
Cascadia is 13% Asian, 13% mixed race, a smattering of other, 70% white
Fix AL
On guard
Do you have data to support your contention that HCC students come from an advantaged socioeconomic group (as a result of parental education, and providing for richer childhood experiences)? Is there F/RL data on HCC?
Are you saying that HCC students are mainly the children of wealthier parents?
APPalled
~Tired
I think it is pretty well accepted /there is a lot of research that children of financially comfortable, well educated parents with a stable home life get a lot of advantageous early childhood educational experiences - reading aloud, exposure to greater vocabulary than children of poor, less educated, otherwise socially disadvantaged parents and this gives then an educational advantage that persists one they enter the school system. There is probably some luck of genetic lottery too (ie you'd expect the offspring of highly educated high IQ parents to also have a fairly high IQ) That probably accounts, in a fairly large way, for the demographics we see in HCC - not institutionalized racism in SPS, or parents seeking segregation, just the hard facts about our society, brain development etc. If we really want to level the playing field it, much of the work needs to be done outside of the school system and well before school age.
APPalled
I agree that it is a combination of, perhaps, genetic lottery and wealth that leads to the conditions that have a kid being advanced in ability (content and skill, both) in some respects.
Yes, it is a societal issue (why can't ALL kids have that opportunity, the wealth part that allows for enrichment?) but perhaps this is a big driver of those who express dissatisfaction with advanced classes: "the rich get richer"; or "it's a self-perpetuating loop - the children of wealth benefit and therefore GET the benefits; why can't we all?"
These are legitimate questions. I in no way condone the stickers or the attitude - it IS "Appalling" - but I understand the frustration of those who feel they are left out of the loop.
I have no solutions, but there are equity issues that need discussion.
Stickers around HCC program schools are not that discussion.
(Conversely, 9th grade is not the time to do this. Advanced level classes should exist in 9th grade, on an opt-in basis so anyone can choose to take them).
However, that being said, I know of families with single parents who are F & R lunch. I also know of families who likely just barely do not qualify for F & R lunch. They are certainly not all wealthy. Many parents seem college educated, but my observation is anecdotal. I wish the district broke down socio data better than F & R lunch status alone.
Recent research by Reardon out of Standford is pointing toward income gap as the primary determinant of the achievement gap. They state that actually black/white gap has narrowed over 30 years. Problem is that African Americans are disproportinately low income.
Poverty affects achievement scores. Why can't HCC enroll a percentage of the top scoring cogat/achievement underrep kids? OR why can't their be a program tailored to low socio/underrep kids? It could offer mentor and support services as well as acceleration and be funded more per pupil than HCC is now.
-NW
K.
I don't understand why all the hand wringing is focused on the demographics of HCC when the real issue is that Black children in Seattle overwhelmingly grow up in poverty. That's what we should be outraged about.
There is no evidence that having an AL program is the proximate cause of attainment gaps for African Americans. Supporters of "detracking" suggest that it does improve attainment but that isn't the same thing. Does anybody really believe that if we eliminated the HCC program, that attainment gaps would just close? Given that it is a small number of students relative to the general population, and that many students test in but don't attend, this seems really implausible.
Which leads me to my other point: the conversation about eliminating APP/HCC really feels like what you do when you have run out of other ideas. In a city where we have a number of companies literally changing the world, is the most ambitious idea we have to close the gaps to eliminate advanced learning? Given that we self-fund a large part of the school budget through the levy, why isn't there a proposal to increase funding to create more support programs? If that came with specific goals and accountability, I believe a lot of people could get behind this.
As I have read on this blog a number of times, there is a false scarcity issue here. AL programs in general cost less. Why not just make the program open to all who want to take the accelerated classes? (Note that this was the case at Garfield - all Honors and AP are open to all). Why throw the baby out with the bath water?
My personal assessment is that we have a broken system with really bad leadership coming from a number of directions. I will credit the teachers behind some of these things with good intentions, but really bad judgement and poor decision making. The school board, as evidenced by your coverage, is totally ineffective. And the Stanford Center is just sort of letting this happen.
There is a very reasonable solution here: keep advanced learning and widen the intake considerably. We can either hope for the teachers to start thinking like adults, hope for leadership from the Stanford center - or maybe we start targeting school board seats. Blanford is up in 2017.
Cap Hill
HCC families can't win.
NoNo
I live in Rainier Beach, and just within a couple of blocks of me, I know of 5 kids of color who are exceptionally smart and attend private schools: three at Lakeside, two at other private middle schools. Look at Lakeside's home page; they care deeply about diversity and work hard to get a diverse student body. When we toured Lake Washington Girls School a few years ago, they boasted that a full 50% of the student body consisted of students of color: that obviously is a higher percentage than the city as a whole.
I'm just saying that if African-Americans are underrepresented in HCC, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are all languishing in under-performing schools.
These are all real issues with equity of opportunity in Seattle schools that lead to problems with equity of outcomes. To fix them, the district needs to cap the class sizes at the high FRL schools at 15 through 5th grade. It needs to staff full-time music teachers and librarians and science and math aids. It needs to provide free after school music lessons and chess and robotics classes. And it needs to provide block grants to teachers for supplies at these schools.
With money, the real issues of “equity of opportunity” could be fixed. But it’s going to cost a lot of money.
On the other hand, getting rid of “Spectrum” and “HCC” and other “tracking” doesn’t cost any money. That may make some people feel better, but it’s not going to make any meaningful difference in fixing the real problem.
I suspect these came from outside the Thurgood Marshall community.
Sad at TM
This focus on HCC is crazy given how inequitable the resources are between pretty much all the elementary schools in the district. Seriously. Go visit the school libraries at a bunch of different SPS schools. If you love books and kids I pretty much guarantee that one of the libraries you visit will have you on the verge of tears. Utterly inequitable. SPS needs to fix the problems with its HCC admissions system, yes, but it's only a tiny fraction of what needs fixing.
And it's not just the libraries! It's after school class offerings, it's access to art, access to counselors/librarians/PE teachers, recess monitors, whether the kids are allowed to to have recess when it's raining or have to sit at their desks, whether you get in big trouble for saying the word gun or no one really cares, whether you lose recess time as punishment or not, whether the kids who start out at your school with you in kindergarten and you make friends with stick around or whether you have to make new friends every year because families are pulling out of your school the minute they can or have to to try for something better. The list goes on.
I just don't understand why the debate is focused on HCC. It's such a small part of what's going on that affects such a relatively small number of the district's more than 50,000 kids. Why so much focus on HCC? The district (and the state) has WAY bigger problems in terms of equity of opportunity for all students to learn and thrive.
-T2
HCC parents and teachers have been pleading for improvements to the way children are identified and placed in the program to help make it more diverse. And parents more broadly want SPS to reverse their attack on advanced learning in neighborhood schools. This is all easily solved if we restore and improve Spectrum (or something like it). HCC enrollment would drop and more kids of color, especially Black kids, would get included in advanced learning.
Let's keep in mind the true racism here was when SPS went after Middle College. Where were all the anti-HCC folks when that was going down? Where were they when SPS imposed racist standardized tests? Should I go on?
As to Soup for Teachers...don't leave, don't quit. Push back. Gently, but firmly. Don't let a small group of people nursing deep personal resentments take a great community - or an important issue like racial equity - and hijack it for their embittered agenda of crushing HCC and the kids who need it.
Finally..."white fragility" is a ridiculous concept used to gaslight people. Conversations about racism are hard. You're not "fragile" if you find them hard, you're a human. And you're not "fragile" if you disagree with someone. Disagreement is OK as long as we are committed to working it through together - and committed to ending racism.
Harry Schwarz
~Tired
2) Cap Hill, please consider running against Stephan Blanford next year when his term is up. Contact me if you want just to talk about what a campaign would look like,etc. Happy to help.
3) Get Real, very helpful, cogent thoughts. No matter what, Advanced Learning is not the big or real reason for the opportunity gap.
Sad at TM, I am aghast these got put up during testing.
I agree with SusanH, I know several exceptionally bright HCC-eligible (by testing) black kids who are not at all well off financially. They were in public school. These kids have all been offered full ride scholarships to local private schools which were accepted. I applaud Lakeside and Seattle Country Day for their generous scholarships for these students in need.
For this reason, I do not believe that the racial disparity stats represent all the data. I also believe that the district is inflaming the divisiveness as an opportunity to eliminate AL services to students because it makes it easier to manage capacity and allows them to spread those kids through the district to raise the test scores. That's how I see it.
-IMO
"403. That’s an error. Your client does not have permission to get URL"
Again, it makes me sad to see the vitriol directed at HCC students and their families. We just care about our kids and want an appropriate education. And no, we sure don't get any special benefits from the district. If anything, we get less and we give more. For evidence of that I'll cite the two moves my son had to make which entailed setting up two new schools. One of those schools, Lincoln, has had 500-700 students for now 6 years without ever having a real playground.
I remember the Board meeting - I think in November 2013 - when HCC parents were desperately trying to get their kids grandfathered for 8th grade at Hamilton, instead of being moved during a sensitive time in life to JAMS which would be a brand-new school in an old building. Every other group lobbying for relief that night got it, except the HCC kids: Pinehurst and Native American kids were given an interim home at Lincoln and then a permanent home at Eaglestaff, Wedgwood kids were taken out of JAMS and assigned back to Eckstein, a boundary issue in the south end was agreed upon, etc.
HCC parents put up with a lot in order to get an appropriate education for our kids. Many students go to HCC from schools with much richer PTAs, more active volunteers, better buildings, etc., but they do it because it's necessary for the kids' education.
Momof2
Sadly, I think IMO is on the right track - there's something afoot here at the district level, who as usual, seem to be seeking the lowest common denominator to handle highly complicated issues - how much simpler would Enrollment/Capacity planning's life be without having to factor in HCC pathways etc?
reader47
Could you please explain what you meant by this?
"kids were taken out of JAMS and assigned back to Eckstein"
I'm sure some parents tried to get their kids back into Eckstein through open enrollment, but 7th and 8th graders were geo-split from Eckstein to JAMS.
-North-end Mom
Momof2
I agree as well. I also know of at least four African American kids who are attending private schools. They are kids of African American parents who are middle class and/or educated, or affluent. There is a larger picture.
If they take away a public school program that largely serves asian & white bright middle class kids, those kids will move to the suburbs or if they can afford it private school. It does not fix the root cause of the issue.
I also believe high poverty schools get much more in funds than schools with low F & R lunch. The district is spending more on lower income kids. We just are not spending enough & there are some issues that need a broader economic solution than SPS can provide. If we do away with achievement tests and it still does not help diversity within HCC, I think creating a targeted scholars program for bright low income and/or African American kids is a solution. More money and supports could be provided to these students than what they would receive in HCC.
-TY
-SPSParent
-SPSParent
big picture
Fix advanced learning.
-SpectrumHCCparent
2HC
Unfortunately the above statement is untrue and especially untrue at Thurgood Marshall. When SPS moved the HCC (then APP program) from Lowell to TM the socio-economic make up of the school changed considerably. The influx of the new, more affluent community resulted in TM losing Title 1 funding and all the supports previously provided to economically disadvantaged kids and families. Did HCC families intend that to happen? Of course not - and many in the HCC community expressed concerns to the school board and were ignored at the time. But the reality is that neighborhood kids suffered due to loss of funds, counselors, and supports. - NP
- 98144
Capacity mismanagement
Momof2
Capacity Mismanagement
But did the District do that? No. The District went exactly against the recommendations from the experts and put HCC into a predominantly Black school with high poverty and low achievement.
The problem is manufactured by forcing these two contrasting populations together. There is no claim that HCC in the north-end is apartheid, is there? No. There isn't. The objection isn't to HCC; it's to the sharply contrasting demographics.
Lots. Check their web page.
It would be great if more HCC kids would boycott testing. There's nothing they need to prove and no effort is spent on test prep beyond how to run the test on the computer. Many do opt out. But it gives the program more zero scores which are averaged in, then used against the cohort. See, they say, kids in the cohort score lower ON AVERAGE than eligible kids who stay at neighborhood schools. Therefore, they say, the cohort isn't a needed intervention...
open ears
It does not mean that simply saying 'we've increased rigor' or 'this is honors for all' meets the needs of gifted students. These uninformed reactions entirely miss the point. The point these statements do make is that those individual have purposefully allowed their rigor to lapse. Who should really take the blame there?
These are students who need cognitive interventions to help them understand and grow into themselves. That's it. The byproduct of these gifted diagnoses often translates into academic success but it is not the root of giftedness.
This core misunderstanding then creeps into an equity perspective because if you think that gifted education is merely advanced coursework without the targeted interventions then of course it looks like preferential treatment of some sort.
It is not. If a teacher can't believe in their students who are needing these interventions then how is that any different from a teacher not believing in the abilities of students of color?
There is a brutal lack of support and absolute silence to defend these students when they and their program is attacked. That is a true shame because when we talk about solidarity and every student in every class every day there is a glaring omission.
I have asked my students to tell me a time that they were praised for being who they are as gifted students. None of them could answer except for awards they earned. Never a compliment or encouraging statement about who they are. In fact none of them even knew what HCC or Spectrum was there to do for them. That it is a service specially designed for them. That they have intrinsic human value and that it is okay to love yourself for being gifted rather than made ashamed by adults for who they are. Adults who don't believe in them but will reap the rewards of their intensity, focus, creativity, and especially their forgiveness. The beauty of the students I've gotten to work with is that they will forgive and 'understand' even when they are being wronged.
Mr. Theo Moriarty
It seemed as if the app kids and their parents took up all the oxygen in the room. The focus of the school was on the app kids and their needs. I'm not talking about any additional district resources but local administration energy and pta funds went disproportionately to the app needs.
I and most of the gen ed parents were happy when the app kids got their own school, so they could thrive in an appropriate environment and our kids too.
Unfortunately we are now at Washington where it feels as if there is a two track system, my kids feels like a second class students because the hcc kids get the best teachers.
Of course the students at TM should not be subjected to any kind of negative politics, but in many schools around the district there is a feeling that the process is not fair for all.
I find your comment SO disrespectful to the committed and hard-working Washington teachers who are pretty stellar staff-wide. HCC kids get the best teachers? A total of nine teachers out of the whole staff? Yes, they are good, but so are the rest of the staff. Again the perception that HCC kids get something special, something more, rather than just an appropriate education for where they are academically.
open ears
Thank you, once again, for speaking up. I was close to tears reading your comment. You are one of the rare teachers who really "gets" these kids and sees that they do need something different. Not better, but different. I've been impressed over the years by your ability to engage students in meaningful discussion and inspire them to finally challenge themselves. I also greatly appreciate your understanding of the complexities of feelings these young people are experiencing as they try to find their way in a world in which they are often out of sync, and in which they face multiple internal, external and often competing pressures to excel, fit in, be a role model, be a regular teen, etc. Their road it much tougher than people on the outside often assume, and it's good to know that at least one teacher truly understands them and thinks they are worth fighting for. Thank you.
ex-Hamiltonian
Can argue
So people think gentrified is a bad thing? It seems like that's what the American dream is all about.
End PC
I was a Lowell parent at this time and this statement is NOT true. The gen ed kids were added into Lowell when half of the APP cohort was sent to TM and the three programs were only at the school together for two years so everyone was new to having three programs in the building. I went to virtually every PTA meeting and was very involved. Parents and staff worked really hard to try to make the school work. PTA funds were NOT disproportionately spent on APP. Funds were spent so that every kid got to go on field trips, the 5th-grade camping trip, etc, regardless of the parents' ability to pay. APP was the biggest program in the building, but the entire PTA worked hard to make every kid feel welcome and included.
It seems like you want to feel slighted, no matter what.
-boring
Debbie downer
What's your proof of this? (I've heard this charge before.)
I agree with Debbie downer.
I cannot write as eloquently as ex-Hamiltonian did previously, but my sentiment is the same. Thank you.
Current HIMS parent
You obviously have much more knowledge than some people who are at our district level and some teachers. I really appreciate you sharing your understanding of what gifted education is about.
Thank you,
another HIMS parent.
"I think we're missing an underlying factor here. Teachers make assumptions about students of color and overlook these students from day one! They don't design culturally responsive lessons that engage all learners. The assumptions we make as educators can prevent learning. It's not about ability. Its about color. This is why teachers are "activists." I know that's meant to slander, but that's a badge of honor for me. I work hard to correct these errors. For many teachers it's a case of ignorance and a fairly easy fix. For others, they've dug their heels in the sand and say stupid things like, "I don't see color," the most common of all microaggressions, and the most insidious, imo. The people who fall in the latter category need to go! I was accused of shutting down conversations because I take the stance of being correct. Yes. When you try to move the conversation away from race, you are wrong. Period. All data proves you wrong. There is no discussion at that point. At that point you are using typical white fragility tactics."
Signed: Floored
Yikes. Trying not to engage in hyperbole here ... but this seems undemocratic.
I wonder how many times a day this teacher delivers the message to students, whether overtly or inferred: You are wrong. I take the stance of being correct.
Signed: Floored
My assumption is not that there is a " two track system", but the level of expectations is low for the kids in gen ed at Washington.
I know that the pta in years earlier tried to include the gen ed and special needs kids. But, I did hear from many parents after the split that many of them felt like second class citizens. This may be because the App was the largest group of kids and the gen ed was new to the school. I think it was and is a challenge to incorporate different programs into one building and have them integrate into one student body.
But we should not get off message in condemning anything that would shame kids for conditions out of their control. No kid should feel like they have done something wrong just by going to school.
Thank you, Erik, for your on-the-ground assessment.
I simply cut and pasted it from above, since the original was unsigned Anonymous. I didn't want it to be deleted, so I cut and pasted it and signed it. Since I can't confirm its source, I would have no problem with you deleting my comments. Maybe the original poster can enlighten us as to its source.
Signed: Floored
This part in particular had me shaking and in tears:
"Adults who don't believe in them but will reap the rewards of their intensity, focus, creativity, and especially their forgiveness. The beauty of the students I've gotten to work with is that they will forgive and 'understand' even when they are being wronged."
I was jolted by the ominous single quotes around 'understand'. The word sent a shiver up my spine thinking about what these forgiving, focused, creative, intense "students of yours" might 'understand' about people like me, who wronged them, by saying the cohort should shrink to its original target group of kids working four or more grade levels above their peers.
What if one of these kids is my doctor when I'm old and they find out I advocated for changing the program, that I wronged them?
Will they 'understand' as they 'forget' to tell me about the new life saving genetic treatment?
You spin a scary tale M. Moriarty.
All of the above is my opinion and/or satire.
Umbrella Bird
We would not eliminate private testing because you would eliminate more students of color (likely thru appeals testing) AND you would get fewer twice-gifted kids.
I am going to start a different and difficult thread on that.
Yes - the district should screen every student.
If private testing is almost always successful (and where's your data on that?) it is most likely because when the scores from private testing aren't high enough to qualify, parents don't use them in an appeal. Who files an appeal with IQ scores below the 95th percentile? That's what it would take to make private testing less successful.
Eliminating private testing would increase the number of children who need services but can't access them. Is that what equity looks like to you?
Bye Bye
I think it will be very difficult to get a culturally responsive self-contained HCC program that supports true and deep diversity across races. I would welcome an example in a different District with similar demographics. The percentages of kids by race in itself has an identity impact.
Then this
The stickers are meant to be offensive, no? They are statements of rage. The rage is part of the conversation. To ignore it will likely result in same ol', same ol' seems to me.
I read this as pretty open opposition to self-contained HCC.
TC
TC, I have heard Director Geary discuss HCC and I believe you are correct.
So offensive rage is okay? Good to know.
As to private testing, there's no evidence that private testing is almost always successful (people usually only submit qualifying scores to SPS, since there's not much point to submitting lower scores), and there are valid reasons to allow retesting (e.g., students with special needs, learning disabilities, ADHD, anxiety issues, etc.). As noted previously, free private testing is available to FRL students.
While testing all students might help reduce disparities (or it might not, if it identifies proportionally more whites and/or Asians), testing is (a) expensive; (b) requires parental permission, by state law; and (c) is a waste of time, since students not meeting the achievement requirements are not eligible for the program in the first place.
rb
First, wtf Jill Geary? Your job as a board director is to listen to parents and then help find a solution that works for everyone. It is NOT OK for you or any other board member to endorse offensive attacks on SPS children. Ever. For any reason. Jill Geary owes the entire city an apology.
Second, HCC parents have been working for years to address inequities. To erase that history is to mislead people about the truth. HCC is currently the only form of advanced learning left in the district, which is a problem. Restore real advanced learning in neighborhood schools and a lot of this problem gets solved.
Third, let's have a discussion about "white fragility." This is a flawed, gaslighting concept used to intimidate white folks into shutting up and endorsing one particular individual's interpretation of things. Every parent should be obligated to center their own child's needs. That's a good thing and needs no apology - because if that doesn't happen, those children get neglected, maybe even abused. But what should happen is people recognize that your child isn't alone, that other kids have needs too, that racism is real and must be addressed, and that we can do that while also advocating for our own kids' needs. If anyone tells you that you're wrong for advocating for your child, they're wrong. You would do well to step far away from such a person and no longer engage them.
If someone says you're a racist showing "white fragility" merely for advocating for your child, don't respond with anger or defensiveness. Just calmly yet firmly point out that they are wrong, that anti-racist work must never mean we neglect our own children, and that a beloved community such as the one MLK fought for is one where we work together to eliminate bias, hate, structural racism, and ensure everyone's needs are met. Keep persisting with that calm, loving, firm approach and message and you'll be able to handle whatever ridiculous gaslighting nonsense is thrown your way.
Harry Schwarz
Is free retesting also available for the achievement tests, or only the CogAT tests for FRL students?
I support appeals because there could be a variety of reasons why a student, say a kindergartner, might not do their very best on their first tries at 4 tests (math achievement, reading achievement, and two CogAT sub tests) in a single year, but may very well be qualified with a single retest.
But I didn't realize the district would pay for new achievement tests as well. If they do, that's great. If they don't, that's clearly discriminatory against FRL students.
RT
no caps
Fix AL
I have been reading about gifted education models, advantages & disadvantages of various models. As one comparison (not stating this is the best model) where I grew up they use a pull out once per week model grades 3-6, kids are transported to school that provides specific gifted curriculum & resources. Information about the program is very clear and posted on the website. It is referred to as a "Gifted & Talented" program. They proudly display the activities and projects of these students on the website. The rest of the week they are mainstreamed at their regular school. In middle school they take honors classes & high school AP. But demographics are different than SPS & it is a very small district.
-NW
After "no?" she should have said:
"And they are offensive to the students in the program and their program. But the context is it comes from a point of rage."
As for pull-out programs, they don't really work. I researched those years back and what ends up happening is the kids who stay behind in class wonder what they are missing and parents of those kids wonder and everyone is once again unhappy. (Not to mention that one day provides no real continuity in learning.)
This is about research and best practices,which SPS is not following.
From David Lohman, author of CoGAT:
Nonetheless, inferences about aptitude that are sometimes made from test scores
presume that examinees have had similar opportunities to acquire
the knowledge and skills that are sampled by the test. I refer here,
not to the case in which inferences are made about innate ability,
which are never justified...The issue is particularly important when test
scores are used to identify minority students who do not currently achieve at an exceptional level but who are most likely to develop academic excellence if given
additional assistance. Such comparisons are best made by compar-
ing a student’s scores on the relevant aptitude test to those of other
students who have had similar opportunities to develop the knowl-
edge and skills measured by the test. Elsewhere (Lohman, in press),
I demonstrate how one can simultaneously compare a student’s
scores to three reference groups (the nation, the local population,
and a subgroup within the local population) using a few simple pro-
cedures on test scores that have been entered in a spreadsheed.
FWIW
wrong direction
Tired
worser&worser
You can be making below Seattle median income and not qualify for FRL, or be able to afford private testing.
Our kids had private iq testing that was actually covered by insurance because it was part of a study at the UW for high risk kids.
The results were interesting, but we did not use it to enroll in the gifted program, ( although one child measured above 160)
I agree that many parents do not know about the qualification process, and we would not have known either normally.
It is fascinating to me now to look compare how they did in elementary school, with how they did in high school and college, and how they are doing now as adults years afterwards.
Good lord Stevens parent, I would agree that seems rudimentary.
In 6th grade at Summit, all kids had to write and perform a short speech in character ( without notes)- about 6-7 minutes.
Many kids did choose scientists of some type.
I really appreciated the culture of performance Summit provided.
The arts were a huge part of the school, choir, dance, drama as well as studio arts.
They learned a lot from being in front of an audience.
But of course that sort of experience can be hard to quantify.
"I am going to Nashville the beginning of November and will attempt to see what they are doing. It appears they serve their kids with a weekly project pull out class that is in every school."
Does she mean for all kids who qualify for AL? Don't know. It is NO replacement for HCC.
"various people" can keep explaining, but unless it is based on research and state law it is incorrect information. The state law part about "age, experiences, or environments" draws from the research of Lohman. SPS is actually REQIUIRED to identify by using correct norming, which they currently are not doing:
WAC 392-170-035
“…students who perform or show potential for performing
at significantly advanced academic levels when compared
with others of their age, experiences, or environments.
Outstanding abilities are seen within students' general
intellectual aptitudes, specific academic abilities, and/or
creative productivities within a specific domain. These
students are present not only in the general populace,
but are present within all protected classes according to
chapters 28A.640 and 28A.642 RCW.”
FWIW
worser&worser
Thank you Melissa. I am guessing there are ALOT of variables as to how well they work. My child was moved to HCC in middle school. The once per week day of enrichment that provides a special gifted curriculum is more than what she received in her ALO elementary. I am reading about a Maker's Faire kids attend etc. It sounds really great also reading about specialized gifted curriculum and resources provided at that district. Besides a cohort of similar kids, I am not really seeing gifted services in middle school in Seattle. Why not opt in honors classes in middle school plus a gifted pull out one day per week for gifted kids? Elementary could offer opt in spectrum. Acceleration could be treated separately. Gifted curriculum offered one day per week for students who qualify. I don't think acceleration alone is great either.
-NW
http://www.walnuthillseagles.com/about-us/
The district serves 35,000 students, and has a significantly higher AA population than SPS. Excellence is out there.
-looking around
Suggestions for Policy
How can educators implement a policy consistent with the principles outlined here?
1. What are the purposes of the TAG program? Is the emphasis on T (Talent) or
G (Gifted)? 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.
FWIW, are you advocating for the development of a new program specifically for talent development minority and ELL students? Qualification for HCC is designed to be based on current academic achievement levels.
Misquoting Lohman
-NW
Lohman's research informed state law but is not the state law itself. From the WAC that I just referenced above:
WAC 392-170-035
“…students who perform or SHOW POTENTIAL for performing
at significantly advanced academic levels when compared
with others of their age, experiences, or environments."
Sounds like SPS has some work to do since it currently
excludes these students and is not following state law.
FWIW
Jill Geary does not need to visit another one-size-fits all program. The school board directors should concentrate on understanding and applying HC state law to SPS. The services should range from in-class differentiating to clustering to pullout to self-contained--depending on the (sometimes changing) needs of the individual child.
WAC 392-170-078 Program Services
"Districts shall make a VARIETY of appropriate program services available to students who participate in the district's program for highly capable students."
WAC 392-170-080
"Each student identified as a highly capable student shall be provided educational opportunities which take into account such student's unique needs and capabilities."
FWIW
-NW
-sleeper
"Our 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, with approximately 40% public (APP/Spectrum, Challenge, Discovery, AP/Honors) and nearly 60% private (independent, parochial and boarding school placements)."
-NW
Your parsing of wording led to the wrong conclusion.
"Or" means both child profiles should be included,
and the "or" was used to distinguish between the
profiles.
It is up to the "blogosphere" to determine who
keeps getting excluded illegally from HC.
FWIW
Are you being sarcastic? (If so, don't do that because it's very hard to discern in written form unless you are Fran Lebowitz.)
I would love to see a wider variety of advanced learning programs. Rainier Scholars is very small, selective, and incredibly intense. Maybe a lower key version.
-sleeper
I have to agree with this comment. Not the part about the teachers necessarily, but definitely the two track system. We toured Washington Middle School a few years ago and the emphasis at the general parent meeting and during the tour was clearly on APP (and at that point Spectrum). NO mention of General Ed classes - AT ALL. When I asked, the people leading the tour looked at me like I was crazy and said they had no information on that. Another person suggested I go find a counselor - none were available. We chose not to enroll our child at Washington. -NP
But sometimes I don't know what the meaning of is is.
I'll be the first to admit I'm not a lawyer. The point is to let
people know that the potentiality of students is part of the law, unlike
what some posters on this thread implied.
SPS is diverse. One demographic keeps getting
identified in higher proportion by far than Eastside schools
with similar demographics, Historically oppressed groups are
highly underrepresented.
Even for a non-lawyer reading HC law on OSPI, it is very
clear that SPS is not following either the intent
or mandate of HC law.
Many people in the community have made it clear that this will
no longer be accepted or tolerated. That's good news.
FWIW
White Fragility
Wed. Oct. 26, 2016 7:30 p.m.
Kane Hall 130, UW Campus
Robin DiAngelo, ’95, Ph.D. ’04
Director of Equity, Sound Generations, Seattle/King County
White people in the U.S. live in a racially insular environment. Because of this environment of rarely challenged racial perspectives, a stamina needed to tolerate racial stress is too often underdeveloped. Dr. Robin DiAngelo conceptualizes this lack of stamina as “White fragility.” White fragility triggers a range of defensive moves including: argumentation, invalidation, silence, withdrawal and claims of being “attacked” and “unsafe.” While these moves are effective at blocking the challenge and regaining our racial equilibrium, they are also damaging to people of color and prevent the development of skills we need to create a racially just society. Dr. DiAngelo will overview the socialization that leads to white fragility and provide the perspectives needed for more constructive cross-racial interactions.
DiAngelo has numerous publications and just released her second book, “What Does it Mean to be White? Developing White Racial Literacy.” Her previous book (with Özlem Sensoy), “Is Everyone Really Equal: An Introduction to Social Justice Education” received the Critics’ Choice Award by the American Educational Studies Association. Her work on White Fragility has appeared in Alternet, Salon.com, NPR, Colorlines, Huffington Post and The Good Men Project.
-NP
"If someone says you're a racist showing "white fragility" merely for advocating for your child, don't respond with anger or defensiveness. Just calmly yet firmly point out that they are wrong, that anti-racist work must never mean we neglect our own children, and that a beloved community such as the one MLK fought for is one where we work together to eliminate bias, hate, structural racism, and ensure everyone's needs are met. Keep persisting with that calm, loving, firm approach and message and you'll be able to handle whatever ridiculous gaslighting nonsense is thrown your way.
Harry Schwarz
10/21/16, 2:42 PM"
-JM
"And there are a lot of people in this room tonight who themselves, or their parents or grandparents, came here as immigrants, made a life for yourselves, took advantage of the American dream and the greatest system that has ever been created in the history of the world to unleash the individual talents and energy and ambition of everyone willing to work hard."
-JM
I am appalled by the treatment of the HCC community by SPS. Shame on whoever came up with those stickers.
Parent of 2E
Are the people in this "one demographic who "keep getting identified" undeserving as you imply?
Have you ever truly listened with an open mind and heart to the stories of members of this "one demographic" - perhaps they are members of your community, leaders in your church, neighbors....
This "one demographic" has suffered from racism also, and I find it unacceptable if you continue to target this group.
- One of the "Ones"
My older kid could have tested in at any time with an empty stomach and no sleep because he was that kind of kid. He could also learn in pretty much any academic environment. He is a pretty conventional and adaptable learner (like me). My other kid could easily have spent half of the test sitting under the table glaring at the kid next to her because they were humming, or maybe her socks felt funny. Her MAP scores were all over the map (ha!). But she is the one of my two who really benefited from a flexible, advanced learning environment.
They were both lucky enough to spend nine years at a diverse K-8 that (more often than not) challenged them and worked with their strengths. If they had been at a different school, we probably would have scraped together the $500 (gulp) and had her privately tested and she would have joined the cohort.
The idea that the fact that people who are poor enough and have it together to fill out the FRL forms can get free testing (if they know and can find a tester before the deadline and understand this might keep their kid from being suspended in Middle School...) makes this system equitable in so many peoples' eyes is a real head scratcher for me. Even the fact that some years or some schools now have tested every kid still does not make me believe that the kids who really have different learning needs are the ones who end up in the cohort 100% (or maybe even 48%) of the time.
I do agree that the private schools are really smart about pealing off the smart and, even perhaps gifted, kids of color who could be at Hamilton/WMS/GHS/IHS and that impacts our stats. Good for them! Good for the kids. But that doesn't justify the vanishingly small percent of black and ELL students that the SPS system identifies as being qualified to benefit from an advanced learning environment.
I have real sympathy for all of you who just want your kids to like school. Like me, you read to your kid at bedtime, you build baking soda volcanoes, you go to the beach and turn over rocks. You hurt when your kids are stuck sitting quietly in a class of 28 while the teacher works with the ten kids who can't wrap their minds around multiplication. I get it. But I'm not convinced that HCC is the answer to this problem.
NP- "anti-racist work must never mean we neglect our own children, and that a beloved community such as the one MLK fought for is one where we work together to eliminate bias, hate, structural racism, and ensure everyone's needs are met."
That being said, Rainier Scholars is doing great work. The program needs to be expanded. How fortunate Seattle is to have this program. I wish they also included low income white kids as well.
-NW
As for your concern that HCC isn't finding the truly deserving students, an IQ of 130 is generally accepted to indicate giftedness. Not every gifted student has other obvious differences - but they're still gifted and still in need of accelerated and enhanced instruction.
How would eliminating the HCC program as it is, solve the problem you so nicely described?
-JM
I do not equate a cutoff IQ of 130 with requiring a need for "enhanced" instruction which I would interpret as being something different than accelerated. Some high IQ kids are fine in conventional classrooms. Other lower IQ kids would benefit from "enhanced" instruction, We know this because some parents of high IQ kids report that they are fine in their neighborhood schools and other kids with IQs of only 115 kill themselves because they find school so awful.
Sorry, but he whole concept of test score cutoffs gets me a little ... annoyed.
I'm not sure I want to "eliminate" HCC. I just think there should be a focus on potential, as opposed to academic attainment. So maybe the first step would be to eliminate the achievement test (SBAC/MAP) element and have all 3rd graders take the CogAt (is there an oral version at that level? If so, use that to eliminate issues of dysgraphia/lexia and lack of parent support.) Shift the focus in GenEd K-2 classrooms to something more like Montessori (or old-TOPS: play to learn) that provides support for those who are behind in skills, but engages all of them in multiage groups and provides them with materials to read and write at the level that works for them.
Are there other evaluation methods that are valid for learning styles/needs?
Is there away to include kids who are single subject "gifted?"
Lynn,
Does "low income" = FRL?
And please define "arranges"
I don't know who Harry Schwartz is quoting, but I included the info about white fragility because people didn't seem to know the definition of the term. -NP
open ears
I'm referring to the one demographic of highly educated parents
not living in poverty. If you misunderstood my reference,
I'm glad to have been able to clarify.
FWIW
open ears
You state, “But I'm not convinced that HCC is the answer to this problem.” As a white middle class Seattle resident, I see HCC as the only answer to the problem.
I say this because I went to school in this state in an above average district without an HCC program, and when I got to college, I realized I was years behind. And I had graduated from high school at the top of my class.
In general, the top performing kids at elite colleges have either gone to selective public schools (i.e. HCC) or elite private schools where the instruction was appropriately targeted for their abilities.
In Seattle, many of the high achieving moneyed elite go to private school. In Seattle, many of the high achieving minorities get scholarships to go to private school. But what about the high achieving white (or Asian) middle class Seattle student that can’t afford private school?
Based on achievement scores, my child in first grade was reading better than 30% of high school freshman. What the heck is she supposed to do for the next seven years if when she gets to high school everyone is going to be lumped together in the same English class?
I fully support spending extra money on schools with high levels of FRL students. And I would support adjusting the test norms in such cases, which is apparently now happening. But getting rid of HCC across the district will do nothing for those students. At the same time, collocating HCC at a high FRL / minority school has to be terrible for the self-esteem and sense of community for the gen ed students and is outrageous. If I was a parent at such a school, I would be irate. The Garfield Pathway and HCC at TM should absolutely end.
Marc
With the placement at Thurgood Marshall, the District repeated the mistake of the placement at Madrona. This mistake was made due to a lack of institutional memory and an abundance of arrogance.
Elementary HCC should be placed in stand alone buildings specifically to avoid these issues.
the "issues" exist as long as SPS continues to defy state law and best
practices in both identification and program delivery.
The essence of the problem is that SPS is perpetuating the "Matthew Effect"
and HCC is Exhibit A. The neighborhood assignment plan is tied for Exhibit A.
The good news: Many, many people are mad as hell and aren't going to take
it anymore. From your pulpit in Virginia, you may not have gotten that memo yet.
FWIW
-a parent
https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/reardon%20whither%20opportunity%20-%20chapter%205.pdf
But additional research shows that the gap varies between whites/blacks depending upon where they live. So in affluent cities (Seattle comes to mind), the gap between blacks/whites is wider. This is likely because whites are richer in these cities. Important research with wide implications for small town, rural America, small cities versus large rich cities.
"Richer places have bigger achievement gaps than poorer places, all else being equal--which is quite striking and disturbing, since you'd hope that those places that have the most resources would be most effective at reducing the gaps, but in fact they seem to have the largest gaps," Reardon"
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2016/04/achievement_gaps_school_segregation_reardon.html
-NW
-NW
Students on IEPs are continually evaluated on the need for services. HCC kids aren't. It's these sorts of anomalies that cause people to question the need/legitimacy of HCC services for the majority of the kids in HCC. I am not referring to true outliers who are 4 grades ahead as in the IPP program. - NP
-Bring back spectrum.
While you may believe that Seattle Public Schools is in violation of state law, that is not the opinion of the District nor is it the opinion of those charged with enforcing the state law. I have read what you have written and your rationale, and I find the District and the OSPI to be the more credible parties in this difference of opinion. If you think the law is being broken, I suggest you call a cop.
While you may not believe that Seattle Public Schools is following best practices for identification or program delivery that opinion is not shared by the District nor by leading experts in the field. Again, I have read your rationale and I find the District and the experts to be more credible.
There is a clear inequity here. The solution to the inequity is to provide students with opportunities, not to deny access to the program to some qualified children based on the presumption that they are only so capable due to privilege nor to put children in the program based on the presumption that they were denied opportunities and, if not for that denial, they would be highly capable.
That solution is inappropriate because we don't know what supports any students received or did not receive and we certainly have no way of determining what the students capabilities would be in some alternative universe in which they either did or did not benefit from those supports. The program exists in this reality to meet the real academic needs of real students with actual capabilities - however they were acquired.
It isn't difficult to find people, including experts in the field, who disagree. That doesn't make them right and it doesn't make the district, the OSPI, and all of the other experts wrong. It just means that there is a difference of opinion.
In the end, I feel that the District and the OSPI are on more defensible ground when they rely on actual data instead of conjecture to meet actual needs instead of presumed needs.
The way to make HCC more representative of the districtwide demographics is to provide students with a baseline of preparation, support, and motivation and to support students capable of working beyond the Standards in all schools so they all have a fair opportunity to reach their potential and demonstrate their capabilities.
Any other initiative would be misguided.
"Open Ears and others, if you have to test in to get into the program, why not have students test in annually to remain in the program?"
And that's why I mentioned above that, yes, the Advanced Learning office looks at achievement test scores of the cohort every year. They stay high. Why spend district resources to run cognitive tests on them all year after year? What a waste! Do you think their intellect will somehow diminish from year to year? These kids with brainy educated parents living in print and experience rich verbal environments, who attend schools with accelerated teaching? Like Charlie said, however they got there, they are there. It's the appropriate placement.
Why do you need them to annually prove anything?
open ears
The experience that many of us had at the height of the choice system, simply does not exist any longer and is just not a fair comparison.
At the height of the choice system, ANY school with a waitlist had a degree of stability and the capacity to provide differentiated learning that just doesn't exist any longer. Trying to compare the HCC situation of today with the differentiated learning that you received in the past is unrealistic and unkind.
Under the choice system, a school with a wait list had benefits that no longer exist. Those schools had the opportunity to plan staff continuity and had stable hiring and stable budgets. Parents invested in a community, often for multiple children and for a decade. Reasonable class sizes and students that were knows between teachers meant that there were many advanced learners who not only did "fine" in their schools but also thrived. The choice system was an era when schools actively worked to engage and retain their advanced learned because the benefits were great both to the school as test scores and to the stable teaching staff.
In other words, any school with a waitlist had the benefit of a cohort.
Fast forward to today and you have buildings that are way past their capacity, classrooms sizes that are way too big, emergency staffing every October and ... a culture of capacity management. For many schools, with a long history of serving advanced learner, this is a now a message of you-don't-belong-here.
My two children are separated by just two schools years. The experience between my two students could not be more different. Child #1 had a very stable and predictable experience. Child #2 had a K class of 30 students and overloaded classed every single year.
I completely understand why these families desperately want a cohort. It is the only benefit that they are getting while they are actively counseled out of their neighborhood school.
When districts are under 95% capacity, they tend to actively build multiple types of advanced learning programs in order to engage the middle class. During the years when Seattle had excess capacity, Spectrum was the solution places at many under-enrolled schools and it worked.
Once a district goes above that 95% capacity mark, there is no longer that need to engage the middle class and the focus is on the legal obligation of providing a seat.
Then you have a more delicate dance, because when you actively no longer engage the middle class, they leave and you have much bigger problems. The private school enrollment in Seattle is a real part of the equation. It is thriving and growing. No advanced learning conversation is completely without that demographic information.
From my capacity management standpoint, it is not surprising that once the district starting running closer to 120% capacity, that it became suddenly OK to just criticize advance learning. Criticizing the program is free. Creating multiple programs that serve multiple types of needs is expensive and ... requires the capacity to do it.
Fortunately, there is some significant excess capacity in SE Seattle. If there was any political will to work on the problem, there is the space to start creating multiple programs.
I think it is important to give kids the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of the belief that there is a reason they are there. Are there likely kids who don't belong. Of course, basic statistics tells you there were will be a few outliers who test in but don't fit. The outliers should not define the conversation.
Are there also kids all over the district who are at their current schools, because their parents faked an address? Do we need to have annual address verification?
Kids on IEP have to re-qualify every few years because there are significant dollars that go with the IEP. If there were equally significant dollars that went with HCC, you bet there would be re-qualification.
Just my sample set of one, but thought I'd share. However, we didn't return. Despite the huge cost and sacrifice for my family to pay the ridiculous tuition, it is beyond worth it. I keep hoping that SPS is going to get it together, but it doesn't look like it. Also, like Kellie, our older child had a far more stable experience.
FormerAPP
HCC kids ARE continually evaluated on the need for services. That's what teachers do. All year long, year in, year out. Quizzes, chapter tests, unit assessments, project grades, etc. You get a kid in your class who isn't up to the work, you start the process of counseling them out. If a kid is consistently unable to perform at the expected level or unable to keep up, it doesn't do them any good to be there, so they leave. You don't need an expensive test to tell you that a placement is wrong.
If your concern is that HCC program rigor has eroded over the years and they are now serving kid who aren't quite as highly capable, the solution is to make the program more rigorous. Then there will be natural attrition as kids and families who find it too challenging will leave.
rb
The switch from the choice program to the assignment program, created a hockey stick like growth in all the parts of town where demand was greater than supply. If you go back to the very old enrollment reports and look at the last year of the choice plan and you simply add the enrollment plus the waitlist, that is now the current enrollment at most schools.
This is a good time to start building new AL programs that are different from HCC. But there is no reason to dismantle HCC in order to create additional programs.
If they magically fit, the kids would dominate class discussions, derail teachers' lessons with pedantic corrections and slightly OT minutiae, and find unproductive ways to deal with their boredom, or completely check out, do the minimum academically, and read all day to avoid standing out (many gifted girls). Formerly happy gen ed kids would shut down, because, why bother? Teachers will have so many more IEPs and 504s to properly accommodate as all the 2e ADHD, autism spectrum, asynchronous disgraphic, and high anxiety kids are put back into regular school.
Or we could acknowledge that there is value in having a program where teachers take all this in stride as part of the territory.
open ears
the only reason app went to tm was to bolster mg-j's bogus resume. test scores sure did go up for the school no doubt.
no caps
During the closures, Meg Diaz did an exceptional analysis of out migration that was a direct result of the closures. In other words, Meg was able to document that the closures "worked" because a large segment of the schools being closed did not move students to other programs but rather moved families out of SPS to either private or other districts.
Rather than return to a school where families know their student won't receive services, because they already left that school once, families would leave the district and they would most likely leave in significant numbers, just like the closures, with all the bitterness that created.
The southend would suffer from this brain drain and there would likely be subtle impacts at many schools, with a likely increase in poverty as more middle class families left. Please note, there has been almost no enrollment increase in the SE, despite growth in all other parts of Seattle. This stagnation would likely increase.
However, in the northend there would be draconian boundary changes and geo-splits of at least 2,000 elementary students, all being moved one school slightly west to make space for these returning HCC students. This number could easily escalate to 4,000 elementary geo-splits depending on the timing.
As the heat maps clearly show, HCC enrollment is directly related to all of the capacity hot spots. With the greatest hot spot being in the Bryant-View Ridge-Wedgwood zone. In order to draw boundaries so students could return and boundaries to accommodate students no longer leaving, many schools would have their boundaries be a few blocks from the school.
You would see a dramatic decrease in walkability and a dramatic increase in bussing and bussing costs. Bussing for HCC is FREE as it is a state mandated program with extra dollars for bussing. This new bussing requirement will be under the general transportation funding.
At the moment, HCC is the only thing holding capacity together in the NE. The NE has always exported students. Returning students to the NE is like pouring kerosene on fire.
open ears
Ballard would have to absorb another 50 students per grade, Roosevelt another 60. Garfield would lose almost 400 students and Ingraham almost 250.
Washington Middle School would be 17% white and 64% FRL next year without HCC students. The FRL rate at Eckstein would be 11% and JAMS would be 38%. Garfield would have a 42% FRL rate.
Those numbers all assume that students would dutifully return to their neighborhood schools. In reality, parents who have other options would not return their children to schools that have already failed to meet their needs. Families would enroll in private schools or charter schools or move to other districts. The Center School and NOVA would fill their empty seats.
Thurgood Marshall's PTA spends $162,000 on staff funding, enrichment and school supplies. WMS's PTA spends $197,000 on these supports and at Garfield it's $138,000. Those numbers would decrease significantly.
http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2014-02/how-budget-cuts-and-PTA-fundraising-undermined-equity-in-san-francisco-public-schools
Summit had a PTO instead of a PTA but we worked hard ( too hard) to get more parents involved.
We had meetings at Thurgood Marshall to make it easier for parents in the south end to attend. We provided child care and pizza for important meetings, and allowed people to vote without requiring dues.
I was surprised and disappointed by my experience with the Pta at Garfield. The parents seemed like they all knew each other from the gifted program at Washington, and weren't that interested in the interests or concerns of other families who had not been.
I can see why the African American parents felt a need to start a seperate parent group.
The parents were much more isolated than the kids btw.
Kids had friends across Garfield, especially those who were involved in the sport teams, and my daughter was with a group of kids who took remedial courses at the same time they were taking AP classes.
Lynn is correct that the TM PTA funding would dry up and would be replaced with Title 1 money. I have no idea is that would be more or less than the PTA raises.
TM would struggle to fill the rest of the building, because of the lack of enrollment growth in the area. I suspect that the enrollment drop at TM would be backfilled with the pre-schools at Old Van Asselt and that would not add resources or dollars to the K-5 population.
Bottom line: At this point, dissolving HCC would be like a game of 52 card pick up with large numbers of both students and staff shuffled.
Frankly, it would be a lot simpler and a lot cheaper to just add AL options at middle school. For example, Physical Science could be added to all middle schools and students placed into physical science along with their math placement.
, Garfield's boundaries would need to draw some students from the current Roosevelt or Ballard areas, with a southern boundary just south of the school. It would get whiter. Like Meany.
I know a few parents who are waiting for the new Cascadia school building to open before they moved their child over. They didn't want their kid to have to move schools 2 times within a few years. That combined with continuing fall out of dismantling Spectrum, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a spike in HCC enrollment next year at the ES site.
2E parent
That seems to be what people are advocating.
Talk about entitled, privileged hornswoggle.
In my opinion.
Hayseed
Keep positive
- MW
You seem to suggest that HCC would make gen-ed classes difficult because HCC students bring these issues, but plenty of gen-ed students have these very same issues.
-sleeper
The comment about Title 1 funds at TM was mine. The comment was in direct response to a question from Mel about what would happened if HCC were just dissolved from a capacity management perspective.
To be extra clear ... If HCC at TM were dissolved ... The PTA funds would dry up. TM would quality for Title 1 as the % FRL would increase substantially by subtracting non FRL students.
The title 1 dollars may or may not be equivalent to PTA dollars. TM would also lose significant core staffing because there is not significant neighborhood enrollment to back fill the HCC students as there is minimal enrollment growth in the SE.
Finally, the empty space at TM would most likely be filled with pre-school. This would absorb the space but not add Title 1 or WSS dollars.
I am NOT advocating for this solution. I am simply outlining the consequences of dissolving HCC.