Tuesday Open Thread

Given some of our discussions here, I'm linking to an event at MOHAI - Segregated Seattle: From Redlining to Gentrification.  The panel includes an SPS teacher, Sean Riley, who teaches at West Seattle High School Blaine K-8 and who wrote in The Stranger about his experience when SPS was busing for integration.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018
7 – 8:30 pm

Seattle is a segregated city. While redlining is now illegal, our city is currently grappling with the racial divides caused by gentrification and economic displacement. Learn about the ongoing impacts of historic segregation in shaping the experiences of all who live in this region.
This program is presented in partnership with the Northwest African American Museum.

Apparently some 5th graders at Thurgood Marshall are taking a knee during the pledge of allegiance.  This was an op-ed published in late December of 2017.  

The Charter Commission is having its monthly meeting this Thursday from 10:00 am – 5:00 pm, at the STAR Center in Tacoma.

Ellensburg SD is yet another Washington state district searching for a superintendent.  Here's how they are doing it and I think it's quite interesting.  They had 32 people apply for the job.
The Ellensburg School District will have open interviews for five to seven superintendent candidate finalists on Feb. 3 in the Morgan Middle School Library, according to a news release.

The board originally put out a call for community volunteers to help them interview candidates, but due to the high volume of responses, the board decided to do the interviews in a public meeting, and open it up to everyone.
 What's on your mind?


Anonymous said…
Aren't their still two fatal flaws in the amendment to serve HC in neighborhood high schools starting 2021?

1. Why would a critical mass of HC students, i.e., those in Ballard/Roosevelt attendance areas, select Lincoln as their HC pathway if it is only a temporary pathway that will be dismantled in 2 years?

2. Isn't this a huge overreach by the current board - trying to dictate boundaries several years in the future?

I've written to the board, but I'm hoping someone at the meeting is able to get the directors to address at least the first question directly and specifically.

I see the board trying to use HC as a chess piece to force schools to meet a basic threshold for advanced learners. It's wrong. They can mandate a basic set of advanced classes at every high school without using these students as leverage.

CD said…
The board should do a cost analysis on this resolution before passing it. And it should do an equity analysis of how this will impact:
1) highly capable children of color (there are over 1,000 and hopefully more now that the state will be paying more for identification)
2) 2e students (most schools do not have the training, the expertise or any interest in meeting the educational needs of these students, so the pathway has been critical thus far in putting enough of these students in one place that it makes sense for PTSAs to raise the money for professional development for the teachers)
3) what the plan is for meeting the needs of HC students at all attendance area high schools beyond Running Start (this would require the district running a report on RS data and which students are most likely to need RS and what classes they needed it for)

Actually, the board should reject it. If they want to localize HS HC, they need to do some ground work first.
CP and CD, some on the Board and staff seem to think the work should come after the vote. It's baffling. I sent the Board an email, including comments by readers here. I hope they listen.
Anonymous said…
@CP- Jill Geary is interested in eliminating the "appearance" of a racial gap between students at Garfield. The reality is that Garfield's AP courses are open to the majority minority students at the school and there is no track.

There are black and low income students who take advantage of these courses at their school and take classes alongside the kids coming there HC identified, but they are lost in this conversation.

It seems that Geary is more interested in a "symbolic" gesture than a real measure to level the playing field. But here are some likely outcomes:

1. Sending the HC kids (majority middle class, white, asian) back to their neighborhood schools where there are kids of the same demographic does nothing for low income and/or African American and other kids of color at Garfield.

2. SPS knows where HC kids live. There are less in low income neighborhoods. HC kids who come from low income neighborhoods or are in zones where neighborhood schools don't offer appropriate coursework are in a minority in those areas. These kids who previously would have had opportunity, will see a loss of equity. They will now see their peer group and curriculum diminished.
3. Boundaries will likely be affected in 2+ years with this plan. Sending HC kids back to Ballard & Roosevelt will result in a boundary shift. Magnolia will probably be pulled out of BHS & into Lincoln for example.
Anonymous said…
"2e students (most schools do not have the training, the expertise or any interest in meeting the educational needs of these students, so the pathway has been critical thus far in putting enough of these students in one place that it makes sense for PTSAs to raise the money for professional development for the teachers)". Has this happened anywhere? Has any PTSA done this? And, why shouldn't we expect SPS to provide this training and accountability?

Eric B said…
PTSAs and PTOs absolutely spend money on teacher professional development. I don't know if they spend money on 2e PD. We should expect a lot of things from SPS/state funding that we don't get.
Anonymous said…
Many 2E students in SPS are never identifed as 2E as a result of an identification process that is not designed to find actual gifted students. It ignores single domain gifted students (like Albert Einstein).

Instead, SPS took APP (a program for highly achieving students) and changed the name to HCC.

That is within SPS control and is not about money but about getting on board with HC research and the mandates of the law.

Also, Bellevue and Northshore do a lot better at most things, not just HC.

Willful Ignorance

Anonymous said…
Albert Einstein single domain theory gets 4 pinocchio's.


Anonymous said…
HCC does need to be fixed, but HCC advocates should not be attacking SPED spending. There are a percentage of spectrum kiddos that are dangerous and need intense work. We should not expose teachers and others to possible violence. Many of you rant and rave on this blog for services for immigrants that are needed for them to participate in public schools, well some of our kiddos need other types of services, services that only certain institutions can provide. Have some...

Anonymous said…
@ Compassion, who is attacking SPED spending here?

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
No teachers said…
A friend of mine teaches in another district. High school science. He has two classes of AP biology with 39 students each. None of his classes have fewer than 32 students. I asked him about 25 kids in a class. He said good luck with that. There aren't enough quality science teachers to get to that ratio and you are better of as a student in a class of 39 with a quality teacher than a class of 25 with a subpar teacher.

I asked if he likes 39 students. "We make it work"
Anonymous said…
@no caps. I know that HIMS was at Lincoln during the renovation. I, personally, wouldn't say a kid went to 'Lincoln' if my school was only housed there, unless I was referring to APP/Lowell/Lincoln/HCC/Cascadia, but the timeline fits her having a child there during that period. Please note that I am not defending her proposal, which I think is a bad idea wrapped up in optics.

Anonymous said…
10 -11 hims opened
11-12 ibx opened so yeah could have been to both wms and hims and started ibx.

no lincoln though

no caps
Anonymous said…
thanks krab the wms split didn't happen until 10-11 and they didn't have an interim app ms at lincoln.

no caps

and i agree. the only optics i see now is that it will be great for those northern schools. no concern for the south hc students though. see that as crystal clear.

also said that her kid's experience with multiple changes was do to no planning. ibx was well thought out and hims had hcc parents/staff on the design team. there was a ton of planning and engagement then and neither happened with this crap amendment. just because you weren't part of the planning, she wasn't, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Anonymous said…

dewolf has decided that brown = white. as in asian = white. strange unless you have an ax to grind. geary and dewolf are grinding away. unseemly.

and thought exchange dance is unbelievable. if you wasted your time doing that lame experiment you are now a number being used against you. there is nothing valuable out of that survey other than the kudgel that jesse and tolley are using it for to kill hcc.

folks it is plain they are killing it from the head first. if there is nothing for your senior year other than running start why get in a dead-ending program?

i applaud director harris - this is a bridge too far - jesse and everyone of those staff members are lying, they don't think they can do this. we aren't even doing it right at ghs now! so lets do it poorly at every school as we have very limited resources. finally, placing hcc in every high school is not outreach people.

no caps
Anonymous said…
seattle public schools hcc population is 70 percent white not 90 percent as stated incorrectly and repeatedly by dewolf. (with their 50% frl status sps' asian families should be up in arms of this dismissal. he covers the id and beacon too, right?)

city of seattle is 70 percent white. so is hcc. strange how we have a race problem when those numbers align? so let's just lump in the asians. disgusting.

but not as bad as jesse, enrollment head and communication head singing the praises of thought exchange. warning to anyone who cares about the truth that is lie generator. it will generate any lie staff wants because it was all garbage in so garbage out.

first, it talked about al and not once did it mention highly capable. second, it was sent to every family regardless if they were identified hc. finally, it was a survey in search of a problem. not, "here are concrete issues we need to solve" how would you like to solve it. and geary got up there blathered and then had staff come in and dance around it to respond to public testimony. and all they said was thought exchange - viola. we need to make these dramatic changes as that is what people said. no what people said last night was that the school principals including ted howard have not been contacted. the people said doing this would mean less diversity in our schools. the people, who have been lied to by staff before, said they have zero confidence in this plan. there was a lot said but not one said "thought exchange, viola." this is what staff wants. and we are letting them get it.

this is not our northern star. this is an attempt to put lipstick on a pig,

i would say, have those three who blathered on adding zero rebuke to the realistic concerns the public stated, put their pay on the line, to back up their north star moment. we should request a full refund if their promises (pipe dreams) are not met in 2021-22. show us the equity baby or sign over your house. show us the junior and senior year hcc plan for rbhs, hale, sealth and franklin. oh that is right they have moved on to their next dog and pony show.

and that would be the promises to those families now thinking they will be going to bhs and rhs. kiss that dream goodbye too.

it is a sham folks, all to take down hcc and has been going on ever since michael tolley came to town. wake up because your little li, sped, ib or alternative high school is just one thoughtexchange away from being dismantled and then we will all will be equal.

harris is right they can't even get mtss going. they have yet to do pd on this as they have continued to cram class full of varied ability. know one cares about labeling sped students such. never an objection. why is it pejorative to use the term used by the state. geez you folks really think what you call the program is elitist call the program something else then. ipp (before app) was pretty comical, let's go back to that. in fact i am going to start saying my kid is one of those previously called ipp kids.

you should have seen it with spectrum, i did. michael tolly is coming for your program. are applications still being accepted to most private schools? better get yours in if you want any say in how your kid is educated.

no caps

No caps, you seemed to have fired off without knowing all the facts and called Director Geary a liar. Now that others have filled you in, I expect to see a retraction or your comment goes.

I would agree that she is being rather confusing about the need for planning but hey, they didn't have it for her kid and look how great it turned out.

I watched 6 hours of the meeting before I stopped. They still had 6 items left to discuss (and apparently heard thunder - maybe a sign?) I will have some suggestions as to how to shorten these meetings.

I will say that many of the HCC parents' testimony clearly had an effect on the directors. As well, the point that the principals had not been asked about HCC pathways or boundaries was shocking. What are we paying the Executive Directors to do? Not one single time in all this has any staff member said they polled the principals. A parent group did this work recently and referenced it last night.

Listening to comments last night on the HCC resolution, I would say it's in trouble. Mack and Pinkham clearly have issues about it, Harris was her usual thoughtful and pragmatic self and that would leave Burke - who left early for a trip - as the deciding vote. (I am also unclear about Patu but I suspect she'd vote yes.)

DeWolf in particular had some comments that were just plain wrong and whoa, Nellie! out of line.

More to come but I'm off to the Charter Commission meeting this morning and then the Superintendent Search Town Hall tonight.

GLP said…
From the Resolution (and per staff last night), “the community expressed a strong and consistent desire for better access to a variety of advanced course offerings closer to home”.


Every student has the option to go to their attendance area school.

However, hundreds of HC students go to Garfield instead.

So, either they aren’t satisfied with the advanced course offering at their attendance area school

they want to attend school with the HC cohort.

Dismantling the HC pathways does not allow students to attend school with the HC cohort.

Dismantling the HC pathways does not ensure that there will be enough advanced course offerings at their attendance area school. (cart before horse)

Per Carrie Campbell at the Board Meeting, “closer to home” was number 1 item from NW, NE and SW families (I think I heard that right). But... respondents did not say they necessarily wanted to attend their attendance area school, or that they did not want the HC pathway.

Put pathways at Lincoln and West Seattle (and keep Garfield). Let them fully roll up for four years. Then assess.

The spin from this Thought Exchange survey is killing me.

GLP, and that spin needs to be called out to the Board. I looked at that data and I'm not sure what staff is saying is the fullest picture of the answers.
Anonymous said…
To me it seems like this the beginning of a sustained effort to eliminate self-contained classrooms, or at least drastically reduce their number.

I think self-contained classrooms have been shown to greatly enhance the academic gains of gifted students and this direction taken by the District is troubling.

The change in appeal criteria also seems to foreshadow an extreme contraction of the self-contained cohort or the HCC program as a whole.

I know this came up at last night's meeting but it needs to be emphasized more strongly:

This HCC mess stems in large part because the JSCEE staff destroyed advanced learning options at the neighborhood schools.

They did that without a public process, without a public discussion, without a board vote.

So when Jill Geary trotted the staff out to talk about how awesome they are on this stuff, that backfired badly. Those staff were the least credible people possible to speak on this. The staff need to be held accountable for destroying the very situation that Geary says she wants - more advanced learning in neighborhood schools.

The staff's actions meant that HCC was the only game in town for advanced learning in SPS. They created an artificial scarcity. And now those staff are trying to destroy HCC. The sum total of those actions is to show parents that the JSCEE staff cannot be trusted to actually deliver advanced learning in SPS no matter where it happens - in a self-contained cohort or in neighborhood schools.

So I look at the Geary/DeWolf resolution and agree it has very good intent. But nobody believes it will work out as promised because - rightly - there is no public trust in the JSCEE staff to properly implement it. Why would anyone trust that the JSCEE staff would successfully implement a neighborhood school-based HC model when that very same JSCEE staff destroyed the neighborhood school-based HC model?

At some point the board is going to have to realize and accept that all of their good intentions and visions are going nowhere without a housecleaning at the JSCEE. Last night's meeting and the whole saga of advanced learning/HCC should have conclusively demonstrated this to everyone.
Anonymous said…
DeWolf's ridiculous and deliberate misrepresentations of the numbers last night threw his credibility into the toilet. Perhaps most telling that another behind-the-scenes fix is in was Geary's motherly/creepily too familiar addressing of Director DeWolf as "Zachary" - as though he was a little boy. Weird.

Leaving that aside, it's utterly obvious that ideologues and emotions have overtaken the Board, and facts be damned. With Trump in the White House, THIS board is standing up for Diversity! Except they aren't. They are doing the exact opposite. What they're actually doing is doubling down on further segregation and separation of our kids from each other, while stoking a class-war fueled by racial divisions and hysterical prejudice. But, if we can say "everything is equal" on paper, that's all that matters, right?

We are already supposed to have Advanced Learning Opportunities in all schools as of 2009. Are the programs in place? Not even close. ALO is the joke of the past decade, unsupported by principals, undefined by district staff, and unavailable in the classroom despite promises, promises, promises. Where is the institutional memory and the honest reflection upon what has been promised, tried and failed? Harris was the only board member addressing any of that last night. WSDWG
Eric B said…
This is the school closure debacle all over again. Schools needed to be closed because we decided to close schools. Data showing that we didn't need to close schools was ignored because we needed to close schools. $50M plus and four years later...

In HC decentralization, if this resolution passes, we have decided to decentralize HC. No matter what the planning process finds as reasons not to decentralize HC, we will decentralize.

There's still time to fix this. Ask directors to either vote no or to amend the resolution to study/plan this issue over the next year for a decision next year at this time and implementation in 2021-22. There's no difference in when implementation happens, we all just get a look at what will really happen before making a decision.

Let's not do another Ready, Fire, Aim adventure.
Anonymous said…
which map was voted in last night and did they resolve those abc areas? what about lang. immersion? thanks.
Anonymous said…
I hope these 4 comments by Laurel, Robert Cruikshank, WSDWG and Eric B make it to the board.

Also, I'm so thankful for Director Harris.

Anonymous said…
Blog Rule: No name calling

"No caps, you seemed to have fired off without knowing all the facts and called Director Geary a liar. Now that others have filled you in, I expect to see a retraction or your comment goes."

So, why wasn't this already deleted?

Situational Ethics

GLP said…
Curious - It was only Introduction last night. The vote will be on 1/31. They only looked at map F4.3 last night and they didn't resolve areas A, B, C, & D. I think the staff would have liked them to weigh in on the areas so they could get it closer to the final. But, Director Burke had left (he had to catch a plane), and Board members were very tired by the time they got to Boundaries. It was not a very thorough conversation. They did discuss language immersion briefly (lots of frowns from Director Geary). I think if people want language immersion at Lincoln they should be sure to email the Board to say they support this amendment.

Anonymous said…
It should be pointed out that a Garfield teacher/Ingraham IB parent (speaker 6) spoke in favor of moving in the direction of eliminating cohorts/pathways and IHS has made several changes in that direction, for better or for worse.


Some parent responses to the 2016 guest essay:

...This is nonsense. My son (who is student at Ingraham, but not in the IBS program) has nevertheless, taken 5 or 6 IBS classes in his high school career so far. Teachers don't kick anyone out of their classes if they are not in the IBS "program." They just need a signature from the teacher to be in the class...This is a good program for many students - leave it alone.

...The author implicitly cites Bellevue's Interlake High School as a scourge of white elitism from which Ingraham's program was spawned.. At Interlake, the white student population is in the minority, 34% are Asian, 14% are Hispanic, 8% are multiracial, and 3% are African-American. The valedictorians are regularly of different racial backgrounds. Does [the teacher] value the success of different people of color in these programs depending on their color? Should we discount the success of Asian students as an achievement of diversity – because they already 'act white"?

...I have child in the 9th grade "Honors for all" classes at Garfield where [teacher] is the History chair. Let me share some facts that he isn't sharing here.

First, in order to achieve their goals around "racial integration", the teachers are teaching all of the students the exact same material in the History and LA classes. They've effectively taken an honors curriculum and dialed it down to a level that all students can learn. So if your child is highly capable and wanting to be challenged, too bad. They haven't broadcast this because it detracts from their story about how wonderful the teachers are and the outcomes they are delivering. Simple solution: eliminate all of the advanced learning and you can claim victory!

...and so on.

He is misrepresenting the original program, suggesting that it was intended for K-8 only at its inception. It started with a UW study of "precocious" children, aged 2-5, then expanded to support a both a gifted preschool and a K-high school program. That's right, IPP was created as a K-12 program.


darn facts
Anonymous said…
Got to call out the misogyny going on here regarding Geary.

You can disagree with her, even not like her, but this misogyny is not acceptable.

"Geary's motherly/creepily too familiar addressing of Director DeWolf as "Zachary" - as though he was a little boy."

No the first time this has happened. Needs to stop.

Her Too
Anonymous said…
thanks MW for a chance to explain geary lied or dramatically overstated in a sophist argument fashion the number of schools her son went to and the lack of planning behind those schools.

ibx was a brilliant plan... that staff were unable to provide the senior year for 3 years later. it was modeled after a very successful program on the eastside, and had complete buy in from the community. also it was optional. no north Star there just great planning.

she is clearly conflating arguments and why is she? perhaps because as she said the heat maps show that hcc kids live near these schools, except that is only mostly true in the north and very much untrue in the south.

hell yes hale will be in trouble. rbx, csx are doomed if not optional with 90 kids per grade. franklin is fairly certain to not be, well below a critical mass. i also am concerned about wsh even with harris' commitment to be ready in two years. that is going to be close to a bridge to far.

no caps
Anonymous said…
no caps made threats against me the other day on this blog. The threats were deleted but he is still allowed to post here--including calling Geary a liar--and is allowed to "retract".

Seriously, what is going one here? People keep posting like the Emperor's New Clothes, pretending that this is normal and acceptable.

JS was allowed to make post after post about how awful Haiti is--after MW apologized about Trump--and even compared Haitians to Neanderthals.

No problem!!

no ethics
Anonymous said…
no. i. didn't. no idea who you are nor you me, so let's keep it that way. have no idea what your talking about.

no caps
kellie said…
IMHO, this resolution could be a text book example of poor governance and micromanagement.

I agree with all the commentators who state that this resolution is well-intentioned. It is.

However, the structure of the resolutions mandates a very specific operations change that has sweeping operational and cost impacts. This very specific operational instructions is supposed to be the answer for a sweeping list of institutional challenges.

"But, if we can say "everything is equal" on paper, that's all that matters, right?"

Yes and saying you did something isn't the same thing as actually doing it.

Curious, the vote on the resolution and on the boundaries isn't until the next Board meeting.

Situational Ethics, I am going to delete the comment. I was giving nocaps a chance to do the right thing. And, I spent my whole morning in Tacoma at the Charter Commission and now am getting ready for the Town Hall on the superintendent search tonight. So excuse me, if I didn't your "situational ethnics' done on your timetable.

Nocaps did not admit he/she was wrong on some issues around calling Director Geary a liar (even when proved so) and that comment goes.
Anonymous said…

kellie what is the good intention if you end hc services to lower frl students in the south at rbs, sealth and franklin - for equity? like jesse said we aren't delivering everything for everyone already. i guess that means we should offer even less... to those students who could easily be served at ghs. same goes to hale students at lincoln.

this is not our north star moment this is staff's. again put your paycheck where your pipedreams are. i am sure they see all those poor confused staff people who just don't want choice and want simplified executable master schedules at every school. and again that means no li, even more marginalized sped programs and no more nova, cleveland or center school. just one more thoughtwarpingexchange away. why not get tops in the mix. too popular so was hcc.

on that, since bob vaughan left and the district has repeatedly etched away at hcc things seem pretty dire. that was the high water mark with ibx opening and 90% of the parents who surveyed said they felt the program met their kids needs. stephen martin does not have the guts to do that survey today. i am sure it would be less than half are satisfied. but the district gave up on real surveys for amorphous and meaningless surveys.

no caps
Anonymous said…

ok mw. fair enough she may not have "lied" but i would hope that a board member who is trying to effect nearly the majority of hs students with hcc for none would at least know that there was a ton of preparation for hcc at hims and ibx. the later was her choice as it was optional. she must have liked the planning or why choose it.

the common thread is she feels kids should stick to their highly segregated neighborhood schools because the inherent racism ghs' program represent to her. yet has anyone looked at il programs with the same scrutiny? and how does this solve anything? if putting hc in hs buildings is outreach those seeking equity have failed everyone.

look folks you can't win when you are told voluntary assignment to a class is institutionalized racism. that because of the failed attempt to "integrate" classes at ghs we need to do the same at rbhs, franklin and sealth to prove what?
that ahha, there was systemic racism in ghs. (without even asking the principals what they thought!)

all in all this is a travesty and i agree with whomever posted it before, it as large as the closing buildings under mgj. who was there then? michael tolley!

no caps
Anonymous said…
the common thread is she feels kids should stick to their highly segregated neighborhood schools because the inherent racism ghs' program represent to her. yet has anyone looked at il programs with the same scrutiny?

should read:

the common thread is she feels kids should stick to their highly segregated neighborhood schools because the inherent racism ghs' program represent to her. yet has anyone looked at LI programs with the same scrutiny?

no caps
kellie said…
@ no caps,

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I respect that Directors Geary and DeWolf are sincere in their intention to take the opportunity of opening Lincoln to address equity issues.

That said, the resolution is fundamentally flawed. It is bad governance, micromanaging, and has zero data to support the intention. This resolution will ultimate do far more harm to students than any good.

The switch to the NSAP is a data rich research opportunity. In the last 10 years, SPS's FRL numbers have dropped from over 50% to the low 30's. The vast majority of our schools are more diverse and less impacted by poverty than under the old system. There is a tremendous opportunity to do some real research and see if these sweeping population changes at many schools had any impact on the classes offered and AL.

But rather than do the real meaningful work of seeing what is working, we are getting this "resolutions" to once again re-arrange the deck chairs.

Anonymous said…
kellie said "IMHO, this resolution could be a text book example of poor governance and micromanagement."

At least HCC finally got a text book? Ugh.

So Sad!
Anonymous said…

thanks kellie, aren't the schools that will not have meaningful cohorts the high frl schools: rbhs, franklin, sealth and hale? the district has buried those numbers in their constant website renovations. that is how i remember it and roosevelt ballard as the big bank schools.

no caps
Anonymous said…
So Sad!, LOL. Good one.

Anonymous said…
@Darn Facts- There was also a critique of Richard Truax's the Garfield teacher with IB kid at Ingraham article here http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2016/11/friday-open-thread_25.html

Since IBX students are taking classes alongside regular IB students including general ed kids coming from Whitman, Broadview Thompson and everywhere else Ingraham draws from and there are not special closed IBX classes, the main point of his article is completely inaccurate. The IBX kids just complete requirements earlier, but no closed cohort classes exist at Ingraham. I think when he wrote the article he was under a wrong assumption as he does not have an IBX kid.
Anonymous said…
Well KP I didn't read the link but 9th grade IBx is mostly self contained as the were coming in two years advanced. Not so much anymore with the HIMS lack of rigor. When Geary's kid went it was a well planned self contained high school that they opted into.

Big church
Anonymous said…
Cruickshank nailed it - as per usual. Please go back and read his statements. I too, have watched this all play out as he describes.

We are aging out of the district and have gotten a pretty good education by the skin of our teeth, with the help of some dedicated teachers (many of whom are retiring), and with a large amount of emergency supplementation (costing us both in dollars and time). Early on, we benefited immensely from neighborhood advanced learning that had an organized curriculum and excellent school oversight. That program was summarily removed mid-year by the district. Removed both without warning and against the wishes of parents and teachers at the school. And the rest is history. Those of you with kids who are young should read what Robert Cruickshank says and demand a housecleaning at JSCEE. I feel that you will not experience the positive benefits that we did in the SPS if things continue as they are. Eight to ten years ago I would have advised new Seattle transplants to enroll their kids in SPS. Now I would not.


Anonymous said…

cynic = realist, 100% agree.

no caps
Anonymous said…
I too am almost done with SPS. I think for gened families things have gotten much better with the NSAP. Local schools where we live have become very strong.

I sympathize with HCC families, it's a poorly run program and it sounds like neighboring districts do a much better job.

Anonymous said…

The problem is that it's not supposed to be "program" but instead (by state law) a service.

SPS decided to turn convert APP (last P stands for "program") into HC services when WA state mandated state law services.

This was a lazy, easy and (as we have found out) unsustainable attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole.

By the time the law went into effect, many connected parents had learned how to game the system, the identification process was outdated and against best practices for ID-ing historically underserved students, and the self-contained model was/is a one-size fits all (program, not service).

Quite frankly, APP/HCC has been a pretty cushy public school experience, despite all of the complaints.

As Frederick Douglass sagely observed, "Power concedes nothing without a demand."

In all honesty, the gig is up.

Rosemary andThyme
Anonymous said…
@Kyle: That's been a big upside for a lot of schools. Unfortunately, it spotlights some schools that haven't improved in other areas. But the system overall is vastly and overwhelmingly better with neighborhood schools. Look no further than the high schools. Under choice, everyone wanted Ballard, Roosevelt or Garfield, so much so that, in it's first iteration, Sheryl Chow pushed the Garfield Boundary so far South it looped in the entire North Beacon Hill Neighborhood, which was within walking distance of Franklin, which suffered under choice. Today, RB, Cleveland and Franklin have all vastly improved under the NSAP and there is literally no HS that people try to avoid en masse, like they did under the choice model. Local parents have realized what a difference they can make when their children attend a nearby school that isn't a 60 to 90 minute drive away for conferences, athletics and PTA meetings. There will always be schools that lag, but under choice, many schools were utterly ignored, and the remedy if you didn't like your school was to go somewhere else. Nothing got addressed or fixed under that "Zero Accountability" Model. Overjoyed that it's gone.

HCC is a different story and a problem entirely of the district's own making as a result of the district never, ever keeping it's promises for Spectrum kids, ALO kids and HCC. ALO's were a cruel joke. Spectrum is essentially dead, and HCC has ballooned into a huge cohort, pressuring neighborhood schools, breeding resentment, and screwing over kids both inside and outside the program. It's really an outrage how careless and obtuse this district has been toward all Advanced Learning, in favor of harmonious appearances. Rather obvious how much tension and resentment lies just beneath the surface in SPS, stoked by ineffectual, highly paid administrators who would rather throw people under the bus than serve the tax-paying public that pays their salaries. Really disgusting. WSDWG
Anonymous said…

"SPS's FRL numbers have dropped from over 50% to the low 30's"

Having FRL number drop almost in half, along with gentrification, has no small part in the changes in high school dynamics.

Spectrum was dead-on-arrival after HC state law was enacted, since it violated LRE in many, many cases. Clustering the many ELL students who didn't test into Spectrum wasn't defensible (legally, morally, etc.) either. Multiple lawsuits waiting to happen. Since we're talking about SPS, they were likely responding to multiple lawsuits or the threats thereof. They are a very reactionary bunch.

It's disheartening to read such highly educated people, many who have been well-advantaged, mistake correlation for causation.

It's also disheartening to hear the talking point of "well-intentioned yet misinformed" being used so coherently and systematically. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd think someone coached you. It's probably just osmosis.

Parsley Sage
Anonymous said…
Gen Education isn't better under NSAP and there is still lots of segregation in schools. This desire to insulate HCC from the general problems in SPS and an over emphasis on a select group of students is ridiculous.
Anonymous said…
More late night legal advice from grumpy "teacher?" Brought to you by,
Brute rose
Anonymous said…
"mistake correlation for causation."

That is your total racism case garfunkeled. Hypocritical much? HCC is as white as Seattle... Therefore it must be racist... But only if you count Asians as white like DeWolf seems to think is just fine. His lack of racial sensitivity is strange and unnerving and I am personal offended by his BS antics.

Brute rose
Anonymous said…
Just the facts, ma'am.

Joe Friday
kellie said…
There is a few very interesting themes that have come up in this thread, in addition to the troll attacks.

1) What's better with the NSAP? Plans started in about 2002. It was approved during the 2009-10 school year and started the 2010-11 school year. There is more than enough data to do some real analysis of what changed.

2) Threatening the narrative. I would say this blog threatens the narrative every day. I think most people come to this blog to genuinely learn what is happening in our public schools. There are many narratives that start on this blog with great criticism. I have posted many things over the years that were deeply criticized at first. A few years ago when I started posting that "high school is the master schedule" there was a lot of push back. Now that is part of the narrative.

When I first started to push back that the "only way to fix a capacity problem was to add more capacity" there was a lot of push back. Then a few years later, a new person, used my quote to critique something new I was posting.

The narrative evolves. People who take the time to consistently invest in a moniker of any sort, help that narrative to evolve. Trolls have the right to protect their anonymity. But the cost of that anonymity is the inability to influence the narrative.

kellie said…
"well-intentioned yet misinformed" ...

Ah, if I had a nickel for every time that phrase is used. When I first started to attend meetings at JSIS, that phrase was hurled at me many times. Believe it or not, that phrase is still used towards me and sometimes it is true. I am generally pretty happy when that happens because there is always something new to learn.

Now, I use that phrase very often, particularly when I am speaking to new advocates. Public school is a very complex system with lots of moving parts. It takes years to begin to understand all the connections between initiatives, budget, staff, staff turnover, etc.

In all the years, I can with great confidence state, that at least 99% of the people I have met, had very good intent. The people without good intent are so rare as to be distinctly memorable. If you ever had to work with Don Kennedy, you know what I mean.

kellie said…
"This desire to insulate HCC from the general problems in SPS and an over emphasis on a select group of students is ridiculous.

Yes, it is ridiculous and not true. Pathways are about CAPACITY. It is not about insulating HCC from the general problems. That entire narrative is just silly.

People are directing upset over self-contained elementary school classes at high school that is NOT SELF CONTAINED. High School is very different from K8. The funding is different. The needs of students are different and vary widely. And most importantly, high school is full of young adults who are exploring how they want to launch their lives and these students deserve to have access to some choices.

We have a high school choice system that covers 18 high schools. This choice system has been neglected by staff who don't understand the mechanics and overwhelmed by capacity issues. The opening of Lincoln high school as high school #19 is a unique opportunity to restore high school choice.

The Geary/DeWolf resolution is actually the death of any high school choice. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that this is an unintended consequence, on their part. It is an obvious consequence to anyone who has followed AL and capacity for years.

Anonymous said…
wow kellie that is certainly a generous assessment of g/d's proposal. you did notice who championed it. staff. the same staff that started this whole process with no pathways for anyone and lincoln is off the table. the same staff that said there is no such benefit of the cohort although it is written into 2190. the same staff that have created ad hoc their own wait list policy removing choice. some of those staff were there when they closed buildings eliminating choice. same staff that said principals can do as they please - which included killing spectrum and watering down hcc. staff wants it simple and choice is anything but.

that is why i implore li, special-sped programs (you know who you are), option high school and anyone who doesn't feel in a cookie cutter program - speak up because they are coming for you next. you are just one thoughtexchange away from obliteration. notice they stopped talking 3/5 cards those were informed statements and they don't compute with their intent to homogenize sps's offerings... but not their classrooms.

you have also stated who spoke against the lack of choice, the vast majority of well meaning speakers that g/d scawled at as they talked.

no surprise here that you give them the benefit of the doubt as you seem very generous with your thoughts and have an opened minded approach. i see it as g/d's way to follow blandford over to the city and this little board gig is just a stepping stone. sad to say, but when you conflate your arguments as much as they do it leaves me with only one conclusion. oh and geary all but resigned already for another office. too bad on that one not sticking.

no caps
Anonymous said…
intent to homogenize sps's offerings... but not their classrooms.

should have said "intent to homogenize sps's offerings... but not do anything about the very racial homogenous neighborhood which are exasperated by lack of choice,

no caps

Anonymous said…
@Big Church- No IBX has never been self contained, as they have always been integrated into IB classes alongside the majority of 11th grade general ed, spectrum (& now HC) IB students who are taking those classes. Never closed classes of IBX students only. The school is a majority 11th & 12th grade IB program. It is no different than some younger kids taking AP classes with older kids. In addition, as you mentioned 2/3 of the 26% population HC kids at Ingraham are taking regular IB not IBX. So that means maybe 7-8% of kids are currently pursuing IBX at Ingraham which only means they are completing a year earlier. No closed or cohort only classes.
Anonymous said…
Back when they started IBx 9th graders coming from HIMS or WMS couldn't take 9th grade classes at IHS as they already had them in prior years. So they had other classes that only HCC kids went to. By definition self contained. That is how I remember it. And that is how I believe I stated it. However things may have changed with the lack of rigor at HIMS.

Big church
Anonymous said…
@@WSDWG" HCC has ballooned into a huge cohort, pressuring neighborhood schools, breeding resentment, and screwing over kids both inside and outside the program. "

HCC has grown alongside the huge balloon in population growth in Seattle. We have seen a population boom of all kids and not enough schools. Seattle has ballooned WSDWG. It is why we need to open more schools and why we are building all over Seattle. Even taking HC kids out of the equation, Seattle still has overcrowded schools.

Anonymous said…
I'm confused regarding the program vs. services comment above for HC. Reading the January 5th Friday Memo, the word "program" is used quite often. In fact, the suggested change put forth by the SPS lawyer incorporated the word "program". I copied the one time "services" is used (from the WAC), which is in the same sentence as "program", and the paragraph containing the lawyer's suggestion.

From the WAC (4) A description of the services the highly capable program will offer;

"Based on the foregoing, I don’t see that the resolution would be in violation of the law. The resolution
resolves that the change, “provides sufficient courses to meet the statutory requirements for highly capable
learners and provides access to advanced coursework and creative educational opportunities for all students”
and should be sufficient. However, a change of wording to something such as, “provides a sufficient program
for highly capable students in each attendance area high school that meets the statutory requirements” may
help to alleviate some concern."

Anyway, SPS really should have provided a draft plan to OSPI before getting this far along. Or perhaps they know it will be rubber stamped?

Seeking Clarity
Anonymous said…
@Big Church- Truax's article (which I linked the SSS thread with critique) was written in Nov 2016 and it was completely misinformed at that time and now. The entering HC 9th graders at Ingraham take same classes as any other student except for science and their math which they may take with any other student accelerated in math, same as any other school.
Anonymous said…
There is already an elitist HCC blog so why turn this blog into a second one?

Anonymous said…
This continued focus on the travails of HCC is beyond absurd. We’ve got IB at 3 high schools in all regions of the city. The laments about the poor, disadvantaged advanced learner marooned at RBHS is what??? Advanced students are welcomed. There’s even a program, just for them. IB. But NO! HCC students, simply can not, not, NOT go to RBHS and be in THOSE advanced classes. Eeeew! Now, why would that be? It looks like a pretty obvious answer. The very same program at IHS is just plain hunky dory! The HCC are not taking the oh so advanced IBX - mostly they’re in just plain old IB. IHS might even have to close it based on current student aptitude. And then, we’ve got another IB is just sitting over in W. Seattle. And wow! Nobody in HCC can stand going to Chief Sealth either. Gotta a have a segregated program at W.Seattle. The schools that have more integrated curriculum, where social justice and diversity are actually valued, are right next door to highly structured no nonsense schools with IB. Don’t want differentiatied diverse learning? Go to the nearby IB school. And there’s the plain old AP classes. Still not good enough? RS is for you! Since when was it ok to demand that your kid alone have the absolute most perfect fit. “Oh we didn’t really think IB was the best fit for George.” You know, it would be great for the district to solve a few other problems besides providing every single advantage possible to the most comfortable people in the city.

"Quite frankly, APP/HCC has been a pretty cushy public school experience, despite all of the complaints."

You don't get to make a bold statement like that without explanation. Why do you think it was "cushy?"

I find it amusing that "all these lawsuits waiting to happen" - for years and years - never materialized. Hmmm.

"This desire to insulate HCC from the general problems in SPS and an over emphasis on a select group of students is ridiculous."

Another big statement - specifics, please. What "general problems?" How so "over-emphasis?"

Truax testified at the Board meeting and said many of the same things.

"Even taking HC kids out of the equation, Seattle still has overcrowded schools."

Yup and what a mystery how HCC is driving so much conversation. Weird.

"But the cost of that anonymity is the inability to influence the narrative."

Bravo (as usual), Kellie

"There’s even a program, just for them. IB."

Nope, you're wrong. IB is open to ANYONE, even for a single class. At RBHS, ALL students have to take one IB class. Helps to know what you are talking about.
Anonymous said…
>>>>Nope, you're wrong. IB is open to ANYONE, even for a single class. At RBHS, ALL students have to take one IB class. Helps to know what you are talking about.

Ever the district apologist. Yay!!! We all know that IB is “open to all”. Was that the point? No, it was not. The machinations are about HCC not having advanced offerings at RBHS, and special everything everywhere.. Well duh! Sign up for IB! Never heard anyone complain about the rigor in IB, in fact tons of HCC can’t even do the special IBX. But clearly the lack of appropriate advanced offerings isn’t the problem at RBHS. Or a problem at all. The problem is who you might have to sit next to when you take that advanced class.

"Never heard anyone complain about the rigor in IB, in fact tons of HCC can’t even do the special IBX."

You have absolute no data that can back that up so next time, Next, say, "in my opinion."

And yes the point was this narrative that IB and AP classes are not open to everyone - I'm not going to let those statements stand because they are simply not true.

There are some high schools that have more AP classes than others. Fact. If you are fulfilling the state mandate to serve advanced learners, than those other high schools will likely need to have more. Even IB classes might need to be expanded.
Anonymous said…
Yes. Different offerings at different high schools. That’s a good thing, I thought. Was that the point? Nope. Again missing it. The constant refrain is that HCC kids can’t get their needs met and don’t have every imaginable high school option. And it has to better than what’s offered to others, and there has to be choice.... for them only. Clearly there are options galore for HCC, in every corner of the district. More for them than anybody else. Do ya really have to monopolize all the airwaves and all the resources? Even if IB isn’t the exact Goldilocks choice, or your favorite AP science offering isn’t at your high school, or the perfect jazz band is at a different school, those choices still constitute an advanced offering beyond what others receive. The district doesn’t have to create Goldilocks perfection.

As to data. What about data demonstrating continued giftedness, and that HCC is producing benefits not available at locals schools indicating an actual need for so many to receive a special perk? Oh yeah. Silence on periodic requalification checks.

Anonymous said…
@Next - Ingraham is majority minority, reminder HC is only 26% of the pop. IBX as promised as
a "pathway" lured them away from Garfield, is closer and is listed as an alternative pathway by the district... so they go. The district set it up. The majority of HC kids who attend Ingraham live north of ship canal. You want them to commute to Rainier Beach? Weird. Or maybe you are referring to south end Garfield kids who were not lured away by the district. I have no idea.

They have the choice to take IBX or IB depending upon whether they have the executive functioning skills to be organized in 10th or not. This has nothing to do with their ability for academics.

Personally I love all kids. I don't get the constant urge for some to pick on any kids, especially vulnerable kids or kids who choose a peer group for socio-emotional and 2E challenges, it is bullying behavior. These are kids...reminder.

Also, the majority of these kids choose Garfield or Ingraham both majority minority schools over their less diverse neighborhood high schools and classes are open to all at both places.
Some people
Anonymous said…
Was the charge that north end students lack advanced offerings? No. Nice that your kid gets plenty to meet his/her every need and desire. Just remember, others don’t get that. Reminder. The charge was that Franklin and RBHS area residents don’t have HCC unless there’s a pathway. Uhhh. RBHS doors are wide open. And plenty advanced... but clearly not the real point.

Next, you are still wrong on your assertions about HCC and choice. I've allowed you to make the same point several times. Move on.

When my sons were in Spectrum (long ago), the district DID take teacher recommendations for students who they thought were misplaced/not able to do the work. Why the district stopped doing this? I was told "parents complained" but "we don't have the money for staff to do these reviews."

I find it interesting that so much of this venom is directed at parents when this is the district's program, carried out by them, directed by them and they hardly ever listen to parents.

Anonymous said…
Seattle is 70% white, but the district is 46.6% white (according to OSPI).

And the HC program is 70% white, according to Red Brute.

Many of the most well-to-do and well-educated white families send their kids to private schools.

How does anyone expect the HC program to be 70% white and not have something considered very amiss?

Also, I am wondering about Red Brute using unfounded adjectives and ad hominem attacks.

Why does the moderator continue to allow such uncivil behavior, which violates most blog standards? Other than Breitbart, I have read no other blog that allows this type of offense. Like Breitbart, the attacks are against those who dare question the dominant opinion.

Brutish Behavior

Anonymous said…
Yikes you have one of those too. And Breitbart as well!?!

Very complicated-101

Anonymous said…
Brutish Behavior/Next/Rosemary/Sage/For Progress/FWIW,

Very young children hide by covering their eyes and conflate their own lack of vision with "invisibility" to others. Endless repetition of the same themes and phrases ("spectrum lre", "best practices for id", "ad hominem", attacking Melissa, Kelli and "blog standards" and calling for deletions) under various guises reveal a stunning lack of self-awareness and perception. Trolling is base behavior and does nothing for your "cause".

King Phil
Anonymous said…

yeah i wonder in this open thread how you define troll. kp points outs some of the obvious weaknesses. repetitive factless claims that sometimes make legal arguments which seem to have more with ethyl alcohol than a true legal brief. and yeah i would add dewolf's 90 percent claim in the troll pen. but seriously what is a troll? if you are a parent with an understanding that is broader than most shouldn't you share it if it the exposes the weak and sophist arguments made by other. i was inspired by kellie's post that said talked about her push back which made me think i am glad she kept pushing! and that folks should listen more than they speak.

there are folks on this blog i have learned a ton from whom i only occasionally agreed with but i have read with welcoming interest. and then are those who in my mind their arguments. if a, b, c, are true then x is true. it is simple when you hear a sound argument, it is less simple when you hear a sophist argument that conflates a ton of garbage together than argues nothing can be solved because we live in a dump (see trump).

so no i don't think fwiw is trying to close their eyes and pretend we are not there. they are hoping as they throw shit at us as if it is relevant so we will close our eyes. tired and blinded is where they want us.


Anonymous said…

part 2

mw thanks for this great blog and now a scoop. i am not sure if you remember but on the thurgood marshall equity team (which seemed to expand beyond that to the hcc all of equity team) https://hccequity.wordpress.com/ website they were claiming a district grant for their work. which seems odd that they were then seeding the speaker list with speakers even if hcc equity was not even on the list. 3-5 speakers would go up with signs and you know what. now you have to be 3 sd's from the norm to present your data on a independent licensed test for an appeal which is not scientific but fits their agenda,

but that is not the scoop. who paid for all of this? the district staff did. it was all over their website a couple weeks ago and now is gone. i am sure there is a money trail and that trail should eventually get to michael tolley. no tinfoil hats here.

most of that has been scrubbed from their website but you can go back and see they were pushing forward speakers for generalized board meetings up until i mentioned the grant.

Anonymous said…

here is a recent post from the above cited website. i might add all the principles including devin bruckner have stripped their names from the about section on their (district staff financed?) website.

January 10, 2018
Leave a comment
In the coming weeks, the Seattle School Board will make big decisions about high school boundaries and Highly Capable (HC) pathways. Here is more information about the options the Board is considering for HC pathways and why we support the proposal to localize (decentralize) HC services in high school.

HOW TO ADVOCATE: There is momentum to open up access to advanced learning in all neighborhood high schools. Help us encourage the board to vote for HC pathways in every high school starting in 2021-2022:

Attend the School Board meeting on Jan. 17 and Jan. 31. Our team is attending and speaking at the meeting to show our support. We are looking for people to stand with us! Public testimony is from 5:15-6:30. SIGN UP HERE!
Email the board (schoolboard@seattleschools.org). It takes just 5 minutes and makes a big difference! Send board members a short personal email to say you support the proposal and why.
Share with your local PTSA/school community and friends. Share this post with others so they can let their voice be heard. We’d love to connect with school groups/PTSAs. Please reach out to Devin at devinbruckner@gmail.com if you’d like to connect or be involved in our advocacy.
Racial Equity in HCC supports localization as we believe it can increase access to advanced learning options and AP classes for all students, while serving HC students well in their neighborhood schools! Many students can take and benefit from AP classes — not just those identified as “HC” through our admittedly-flawed process. Offering services in all schools can also increase community awareness of advanced learning options, improve diversity in AP classes and improve school dynamics. Learn more here.
Anonymous said…
no caps above
Anonymous said…
keeping home at score? here is how it breaks down:

if true based on their website ((if not they have a much bigger issue)). the district approved a grant to fund their activities which included soliciting a speakers regardless if equity was even on the topic to the seattle school board meetings. thereby limiting the number of topics to cover to just theirs and a few others.

11/15 meeting there were 20 items mostly introduction and none to do with hcc equity and yet:

8. Andrea Peterman Equitable Access to Advanced Learning
9. Venessa Goldberg Equitable Access to Advanced Learning
11. Karen Willemsen Equitable Access to Higher Learning

seems karen didn't get the memo.

10/18 meeting there are only introductory items. But who jammed up the speaker list! None of these people should have spoken they have nothing to do with the dozen of important introductory items.

11. Brian Terry Equitable Access to Advanced Learning
13. Cynthia Kniffin Equitable Access to Advanced Learning
15. Jorji Knickrehm Equitable Access to Advanced Learning
16. Kate Poux Equitable Access to Advanced Learning

that must make everyone feel great all with the same speaking item. but not on the agenda folks.

ok here is the last one for tonight because...

9/20/17 meeting with nothing to with hcc and equity. i should add all of the above had nothing to do with hcc. or equity either. opps i already said that.

5. Brian Terry Equitable Access to Advanced Learning
6. Devin Bruckner Equitable Access to Advanced Learning
8. Julie Popper Equity in HCC
10. Janice Blackmore Equitable Access to Advanced Learning
13. Vanessa Meraki Equitable Access to Advanced Learning
14. Briktawite Yimer Equitable Access to Advanced Learning

6/20 speakers had nothing to do with the topic at hand. please people you need to understand. they don't care about the rules. and they don't care about the fact that staff has provided them with a grant. which is trackable. right?!?!

no caps
Anonymous said…
The 8-period day thing is fascinating. Not necessarily in a good way, but fascinating nonetheless.

No matter how you slice it, you get less time devoted to each class (except any that may require 2 periods). If kids are taking 8 classes in the same number of minutes as 6, they will cover less material in each. You can't just squeeze in two new subjects and not expect some losses in the other 6. In effect, then, it seems like it will require making many high school classes easier, less rigorous--or in district-speak, more accessible! So that's one goal accomplished, no?

The student article on the 8-period day suggests that AP classes would need to be double periods. Do honors classes also need to be double periods, or only AP classes? What an about remedial classes for students who are having trouble--it would seem they could use additional time spent in their challenging subjects, not less time like they'll get under the 8-period day. If AP classes are the main/only type of classes forced to double up, what an ingenious way to limit access to AP classes. Nobody would be able to take more than 2 or so per term, so that would help reduce the disparities in AP course participation. Another goal accomplished!

Reducing the number of AP classes students can take will mean a decrease in the number of AP classes you need to offer, too. Which means--you guessed it!--it will be easier to offer "enough" AP classes at all high schools, making it easier to dismantle HCC high school pathways and localize HC service. Yet another goal met!

Unfortunately, ALL THREE of the above are based on REDUCING rigor. So much for that whole "the people said they want increased access to advanced learning close to home" argument. These changes work together to DECREASE access to advanced offerings.

SPS officials should be ashamed of themselves for these efforts, intentional or unintentional, that will undermine the quality of education SPS students can receive. Why are they so intent upon making things easier, less rigorous instead of raising the level of challenge? It makes no sense.

Anonymous said…
Looks like this is now the Save Seattle public schools HCC blog. Too bad.

Much complaining
kellie said…
Once again, Pathways are about capacity and choice. How do you create high school choice? You create pathways.

The high school system is a constrained system. The plan for the mythical 10% choice seats is based in option schools and pathways. It is not possible to have precisely 10% of choice seats at every school. Instead you build at least 10% choice seats into the high school network. The more choice seats in the system, the more options ALL STUDENTS have.

High School choice is essentially a game of musical chairs. There is the same number of chairs as students. Students get choice, when another student vacated their chair.

The choice seats at Nova, Center and Cleveland create some movement. The service schools create some movement. The Pathways also create some movement. RS and other Dual Credit programs create some movement. You either have a lcoked system or a fluid system. And we have a network of 18 schools, soon to be 19.

There are many people who would love to kill all choice, because there is an administrative burden to managing this system so that it actually creates optiosn. For the record, I am just as opposed to changing Cleveland’s option status as I am to the dissolution of pathways. Because high school students need options.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Weirdness in Seattle Public Schools Abounds and Astounds

Anaylsis of Seattle School Board Decision to Bring "Student Outcome Focused Governance"