Not to Start a Fight but Here's News on HCC

Way back in January, I made a public disclosure request to the district for emails and other documentation about the Advanced Learning office.  I recently read a number of emails that offer at least part of the picture of the thinking in that office.  (I have been told that there 10,000 items in response to my question - something of a record for me -and I'll be reading them in installments.)

The emails were largely among several people:
  • Katie May, principal at Thurgood Marshall
  • Stephen Martin, Director of Advanced Learning
  • Mathew Okun, Consulting Teacher
  • Thurgood Marshall parents on their equity team
Details of interest:

 - Mr. Martin received a very regular stream of emails from Ms. May and several parents at Thurgood Marshall.  He was very responsive to those emails.  Most of the emails were around Thurgood Marshall's equity program for HC.

-Martin had his hands full with trying to schedule over 660 students each Saturday during the testing period and lining up space at schools.  He mentions that it's better on Saturday because then students don't lose instructional time.  I find that surprising because it is likely you would test more students  during a school day and finding more students who would benefit from HC services would seem more important than a couple of hours of instructional time.

He tells the principals that "every available space in each school is needed" and that "we" will arrange and pay for costs to the buildings for this effort.

- Martin told the TM parents that his office had identified "over 350 new HC students who are currently in grades K-5 and about 100 are students of color."  He said it was a mixture of students from private and current public school students but he had no way of predicting if they would enroll in an HC program.

- Martin also told May in November 2015 that "it would be useful to investigate again the relative success in HCC of students who qualified via district testing versus those who became eligible via the appeal process (that comparison was last done in 2010 I believe).  At that time the difference in performance was found to be statistically insignificant.  But things change.  The number of appeals is large."

At this juncture I'll interject that it IS statistically significant that during the last several years, the district and schools have weakened and changed the Spectrum program.  That might be a good reason why the numbers in HC have changed.

- In October 2015, the Board was thinking about changes to the NSAP and Principal May asks Martin what he thinks.  He tells her, "Our office did not participate in the NSAP revisions.  The first I heard of it was yesterday when I got a boatload of emails and calls from anxious parents.  I'm sure there is no need to worry about the future of HCC.  I'll investigate further."

May asks Martin in November 2015, "I'm curious...is there any demographic data on the HCC program available?  I'm especially curious about how the racial make-up of the cohort has (or hasn't) changed over time? Or the number of students admitted?"

I'm curious why a principal would think there wasn't demographic data but May seemed to couch the language of her emails with wide-eyed curiosity so it's hard to say what she thinks.

Martin replies, "We have just assembled that very data, Katie.  Perhaps we should disseminate to all principals, I'll talk with staff tomorrow."

Odd that he would not just send out that data to all the HC principals.

- Martin to May in December 2015 (subject unknown) "BTW, we spoke with Cashel today. Working on a rationale that will be useful to you and your HC colleagues.  Stay tuned!"

- Staff gave "special training" to TM staff on equity.  Unclear why/what that was but I can ask what that was about.  Maybe it will be clearer in the next installment.

- Spectrum enrollment dropped from 2,309 in 2013-2014 to 279 one year (my notes don't reflect which year, I'll have to go back and check).  In that same timeframe, ALO participation dropped from 1625 to 512.  Surely such a shift in numbers might explain the huge rise in HC.  I recall Superintendent Nyland calling HCC "a growth industry" when the explanation was right there all along but then again, the district continued to act like Spectrum existed when it didn't.

- July 2016 - TM parent writes to Martin, "While there has been blog activity related to the social studies change, they only speak to smaller set of changes in the SP related to the waiver.  The blogging world doesn't seem to have the latest proposed changes.  That might be a good thing!"

This blog has been around a long time.  I've learned that we may not find out everything on every subject quickly but given the network we have built up, we tend to find out most news sooner or later.

- One TM parent was particularly persistent in outreach to Martin. In one email this parent asks about gender equity as well as racial imbalance.  This parents says that some classes at TM have "shocking" gender imbalances skewed to boys.

I had to smile.  When my younger son was in Spectrum, he was one of just 6 boys for grades 1-3 in a class of 26 and then one of six boys for grades 4-5 in a class of 32.  When some of us parents of boys asked if the waitlist could be adjusted to not continue to skew this way, most of the parents of the girls said they didn't care and didn't support any change to the waitlist.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

-  Martin and his entire office seem very taken with the equity group at Thurgood Marshall.  At one point, he reaches out to a parent and says that he had been talking with someone at OSPI who said this parent had called and he asks this parent, "Is there anything that we can help clarify for you and your team?"

This parent replies and then asks about using race as a factor in HC admissions ("We understand that it can't be the only factor, but can it be one of many factors considered?" and "Can the full Cogat be administered without parental permission as long as the full assessment and decision waits for parental permission?"

Well, like in enrollment, you probably could try to use race as a factor but this district has a bad track record on that.  As for the second question, no.  There are grave privacy issues and no do-gooder gets to decide for another parent what is best for their child.

- Mr. Okun, in reference to the TM equity team, "I continue to see the TM equity team as a partner in our work, and optimistically believe that they can help us achieve our goals...ESPECIALLY regarding appeals."

I'll have to ask about those goals - I have never seen them stated publicly.  If the district wants to get rid of most appeals, they can.  Other districts have.  

Mr. Okun again writes to this parent, "I can assure you that we agree completely with the vast majority of what you recommend."  About screening a large number of never previously referred students.  "Many schools in the northern portion of town currently refer huge percentages of their students while the opposite is true at most Title One schools."

- The main TM parent - who is going to remain nameless at this point - writes to Martin and says, "I definitely hear your point about the pros-cons of universal testing.  We think it is a partial risk, as maybe it will identify more white students."

I note that other readers here have made the same point.


- May claims at one point that parents at her school are on-board with what they are doing around HD and sends comments to Martin that she has received.  There is not a single negative one.  I've been in a lot of schools and I would not believe for one minute that 100% of parents agree with any one thing and that those who don't agree all remain silent.  

One comment came from someone who seems to also have a student at West Seattle High  and they are attempting to "detrack" it as well.

- One email is a TM parent who likes the social studies "interaction" among students but was not told it would also be happening for art, music and PE (which actually might have been a better place to start).  

Okun answers that the "grade level teams" have made their decisions about how and when to keep students in their "social studies groups."  He lets Ms. May know and she says she'll send a letter to parents.  So TM made changes to their entire school structure but didn't notify parents about all of it?

The last item in this email installment is why I'm not going to reveal the name of the parent who is the most active, the most vocal in all this.  

This would be the person who tells Martin that this person's student "got in on appeal and with a private test after we learned about that option for a friend."  This person then goes on, in a later email, to decry appeals and says they should stop.

Sure, after that person got their child in - on appeal using a private test that was paid for by that family - THEN, close the door for others after that. 

Note to that parent -  you are lucky, lucky, lucky that I am not outing you.  Speaking in a manner that some might just call hypocritical under the banner of equity.  I have to say, though, I can't wait for the next batch of emails.

Look, Martin is a good guy and so is most of his staff.  But, like most other AL directors, he has little power.  

I'd like to think that he is as responsive and accessible to ALL parents as he is to the group at Thurgood Marshall.  I'd like to think that he is as responsive and accessible to all principals.  

But if the AL department has goals and a vision of change, then let's hear it.  Do not form this vision behind close doors with just one group of parents.  

FYI, the deadline for the Advanced Learning Task Force is May 24th at noon.  Given these emails, I have to wonder if the group will be packed with the parents who seem to have the ear of this office.  It would look very suspicious if there are not parents from schools across the district.

Discussion at Curriculum & Instruction Committee meeting this week on AL

Wyeth Jessee, head of Student Support Services, gave the Highly Capable Annual Plan to the committee.  To note, this is the plan that was submitted in September 2017 to OSPI for this school year, the money has been flowing to the district for that purpose but it has to get signed off on by the Board by the end of the school year.

Mr. Jessee noted that we are one of 30 states that has to submit such a plan to the state.  He said the manner in which they are expected to answer the questions is more about compliance than being about demonstrating a robust program.

Kari Hanson, Director of Student Support Services, talked about the survey that had gone out to all schools and mentioned a list of the 25 schools with the highest number of HCC qualified students (I'll have to ask for that list). 

Director DeWolf asked about what the plan is for equity in this program.
Stephen Martin stated that they have a process to find out who is F/RL.   

He also said that as of today (that was Wednesday), the first day for AL referrals, that his office had received 52 from parents and 48 from teachers with the first one coming in at 12:20 am.

DeWolf asked about who was on the team that decides who is eligible.  The answer was a psychologist or psychiatrist, teachers of gifted, etc.  They meet in December and work thru until February.

DeWolf then asked about what other people have advisory roles.  (I thought he meant on applications but the answer seemed more general.)  Martin referenced the HC Services Advisory Committee and yet not the Thurgood Marshall equity group with whom he seems to interact with quite frequently).  He said that the HC Services Advisory group meets monthly and that they had "contributed to the information" in the report sent to OSPI and "vetted it" and saw the survey as well.

Well, color me confused because several months ago when De Wolf asked about the HC Advisory group at a Board meeting, staff tried to act like they were some group of parents that staff really knew nothing about and were not sanction ed by the district.  Well, if they are included in the official report to OSPI, I'd say they are pretty official.  I hope that clears up that mystery.

DeWolf persisted, asking when equity in access would be a priority?  Ms. Hanson said they were looking at current policies and creating the taskforce.   

Maybe she's new enough to not remember there have already been two taskforces over the last decade.  Nothing they recommended was ever really implemented, no less listened to.  And this new one is to take a year (!) for their work.  That's a lot of time wasted and I wish Board members would take the lead and ask for some change now.

Director Geary asked about the "creativity" assessment noted on the form.  Martin says there are questions embedded in the parent and teacher referral forms that speak to that but no separate test used.  Geary asked if it was required by the law but it is not.  Martin said that the district "is a performance-based district" and Geary said, "Are we satisfied with that?"  Jessee said that is part of the work of the taskforce.

Director Burke asked about the testing in grade two for all Title One schools.  Martin pointed out that Northshore district tests 1-8 universally but he thought that was too much.  

Hanson said they had 20 applicants for the taskforce so far and she claims it's a diverse group.  Burke thought that a low number but it was pointed out that the taskforce is to have 10 parents plus staff/community.  DeWolf asked if outreach was happening to community groups. 

Also, the Advanced Learning department is asking that schools ensure help for families not in AL by having a computer at school set up for those families to use in order to find more students who qualify.  This sounds good but I have to wonder about how easily schools will have someone who can stop and walk parents thru the process on the computer.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is why I call and send snail mail to folks at JSCEE and to teachers and principals. It's disturbing that Melissa has the names of these parents and it threatening them with "outing".

Opera Lover
Anonymous said…
Thank you, MW. Very enlightening, especially numbers related to Spectrum and ALO.

"We think it is a partial risk, as maybe it [universal testing] will identify more white students." -TM parent

Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

For those interested in reading more about the Supreme Court ruling on Seattle's race based assignment plan, search PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” [Chief Justice] Roberts said.

“What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today,” Thomas said. “The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students’ race. Because ‘our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,’ such race-based decision making is unconstitutional.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/high-court-rejects-school-integration-plans/

wowza
Anonymous said…
Thanks very much Melissa for wading through this morass. It is always a bit of a shock to see what AL parents suspected might be going on: political manipulation of district AL services...confirmed so obviously.

Sigh
Anonymous said…

THANK YOU MW - let the truth be heard. This is very valuable work.

me think opera lover (delete me?) - moniker makeup poster, fwiw you doth protest too much.

hard to schedule pd on equity when you have katie may and the equity group spamming you continuously.

anything about a grant mw for the tm equity group? it was on their website and then poof. just like the bios of all the members including devin bruckner. i believe it had something to do with the outing of their flagrant disregard of stated board policy.

and yeah no more whites in hcc that would be so bad. THAT IS RACIST. so what was s. martin's response? right, crickets. he has no credibility. and he is driving the car over the cliff - following the racist to not be perceived as racist.

no caps
NNE Mom said…
I find it ironic that Katie May and TM parents apparently feel so comfortable talking about this issue to the AL office, because I've heard that families attending HCC at TM are not aloud to talk about the program their kids are in. They can't use the words "gifted" or "highly capable" and have to go through contortionist talk-arounds even to announce a guest speaker or seminar to TM families if it has anything to do with advanced learning. So, it's pretty two-faced that the cone of silence apparently doesn't apply to everyone.
Anonymous said…
Yeah, having an event with "the other half" of the school who are largely immigrants and and FRL would be extra special if the largely privileged group were referred to as "gifted" and "highly capable". Dontcha think?

Seriously, what in fact is so inflammatory about these emails?

Katie May continues to be a beacon of fairness and decency in this district.

MW continues to trash her at every opportunity. Why is that?

Deleted
Anonymous said…
If the person who had a child get into HCC by appeals is now against appeals--then that is such a mess.

Who are these people? Where do they come from? (I already know, just kidding.)

Why is it that it takes such a person to get the ear of the district when many people (for years) without power and privilege have been ignored?

Hey, this is politics. This is how the world works. Sometimes it takes people who are full of cognitive dissonance, who have a job or status that gets them heard (even though they are partaking of the benefits of their privilege for their own), to finally make changes--in spite of their hypocrisy! Guilt manifests in strange ways, now doesn't it?

MW, time to get off of that fence. You've been acting like you support changes to HCC to include those students at your school. You know how smart those little ones are who are learning a second language while they learn to read. Right? You know there are least three or four standouts in that classroom. Right?

Now you're back to the "I'm all about change...BUT" rhetoric.

What's up? (Rhetorical question, btw.)

Delete Me
Anonymous said…
Clarification--HC appeals is mandated by the state.

"How" you get to appeal is up to the district. Bellevue got rid of out-of-district appeals because it is clear that many of those appeals are rigged.

When you have an entire industry who advertises how they can get your kid into HC--better call Saul.

Delete Me
Anonymous said…
Wow, this is super interesting and confirms much of what is already commonly assumed while opening the door to new realizations about the opacity of AL as a department. Thanks for this invaluable journalism, unique in our region that should embarrass the likes of our local newspapers and online/radio journalists. Thanks again for this.

It's disappointing that equity in HC __seems__ to be a topic that only Thurgood Marshall has any say in. These should be open, transparent, district-wide policy discussions. The new HC task force will hopefully not be packed with only Thurgood Marshall parents. I see also that Mr. Martin is an obstacle to some needed equity-related policy changes, for instance, universal testing and testing only during school days so that low-income families can sooner participate. I also disagree with the focus on performance. A child who is highly capable is highly __capable__, not necessarily high-achieving. The difference there is incredibly important and the whole raison d'etre of having HC education in the first place. That people in AL may not grasp this is shocking.

Appeals are necessary because district testing is flawed; human error can always play a role. But group testing is biased against kids with disabilities, so appeals are necessary. To be honest, I'm surprised a legal action hasn't been brought on this basis against the current, statistically indefensible appeals standards.

Lost in the mix? What is a highly capable student, and what are her or his social, emotional, developmental, and academic needs to thrive at school? How does being highly capable interface with disability, socioeconomic status, race, and gender? We easily loose sight of who these children, what makes them vulnerable, what services they need.

-Simone
Opera Lover, I misphrase that sentence about outing. We don't out people here at the blog and I meant this person is lucky we don't. As for using snail mail, that's fine. But public disclosure is a valuable and important government function and I won't be apologizing for using it.

No Caps, I did search for this grant to TM from the Race and Equity team and nothing has turned up so far. But, I, too, had seen notice of it so not sure what happened there.

"Seriously, what in fact is so inflammatory about these emails?"

I didn't say they were inflammatory; I'm printing them to show a couple of issues. One,a pattern in the AL department about their belief in what TM is doing and yet no obvious public stance about it. As I stated, if the AL department has "goals", they should state them to everyone. That would be the fair and transparent way to behave,, no?

Two, to show that this tool of equity may be being used by people who are not all paragons of virtue. None of us are but when you see speakers at the Board meetings who come, meeting after meeting, to somehow shame the Board, you have to wonder.

I have not "trashed" Ms May; I've reported her own words and actions.

"Appeals are necessary because district testing is flawed; human error can always play a role. But group testing is biased against kids with disabilities, so appeals are necessary. To be honest, I'm surprised a legal action hasn't been brought on this basis against the current, statistically indefensible appeals standards."

I agree.

Charlie and I have advocated for change in the Highly Capable program (and the entire Advanced Learning program) for decades. Yes, it's been that long. And the whole thing has gotten worse not better. We have Board members who just don't get that and see no urgency in change. I'm appalled but, at this point, there's not much that can be done except to keep pointing this out. Maybe the new Superintendent will have a different attitude.

I do salute DeWolf for actually standing up and asking hard questions.
Anonymous said…
What is inflammatory about the emails is that you have district administrators, principals and advanced learning administrators, conspiring with a small group of parents to adjust admission policies in order to deny state mandated services to certain groups of children based on race. I do not use the word "conspiring" lightly.

The fact that this is occurring at the central administration level and therefore impacts all students in the districts is particularly problematic. The SPS has always allowed Principals to establish fiefdoms that flaunt state law - but in these cases parents have the ability to transition to another school in the district (we've done that).

I agree with Melissa that Stephen Martin's heart is probably fundamentally in the right place but I believe he should step down in light of these revelations. The idea that implementing a fair and universal testing scheme for advanced placement is inappropriate because it might identify white kids.....That is a problematic policy stance IMO.

One other issue I am confused about. The TM parents paint the appeals process as some kind of alt-white nationalist conspiracy that you have to find out about with a wink and a nod. The process had always been clearly outlined and explained on the SPS website - along with SPS approved psychologists and contact numbers for private testing. Now, I notice that the information is buried behind several links and much more difficult to access - making this process even more inequitable than it used to be.

I think new parents in the district should think hard about what is going on at JSCEE and how it might impact your children. JSCEE was incompetent and corrupt 15 years ago when we started in public school but it was not actively hostile toward certain races. Now they appear to have added this new facet to their policies. Not. Good.

Parent
Anonymous said…
I won't use the name either, but the "TM Equity Team parent leader" has already shared in a Soup for Teachers FB comment the personal information about using an appeal to enter HCC and then later becoming concerned about it.

I agree with Parent.

Thanks for this work, MW.

Reader
Anonymous said…
Thank you for not posting parent names - yet what expectations does one have around privacy when intentionally broadcasting information, repeatedly, including public testimony at Board meetings? And SfT is not private by any means! It's Facebook. Over 3800 members. The post is easily searchable.

How does SPS ensure student privacy with public records requests? With over 10,000 records you have to wonder. We are generally restrained when sending emails to SPS, but the thought of some of them being excerpted out of context - eek. For some issues, we intentionally use emails for documentation, but still, eek.

messy
Messy, the district works very hard at redacting information and that's been my experience. I did see something recently in a public document that I didn't even have to request that I had to call a red flag on to staff because it revealed student information.

As for the parent in question, I know that it would be easy for most to figure out who the person is. But I also knew I'd get harassed for doing so and since it is so easy, then most will know the person's name.
Anonymous said…
Simone and anyone else who longs for some great journalism pertaining to Seattle schools: it's not here. This seems more like a personally motivated attempt to show a conspiracy (or whatever) between the (then-Thurgood Marshall-only) Equity in HCC group and the Advanced Learning Office. As a Thurgood Marshall parent who has followed the school's issues closely, I can tell you that gaining access to a bunch of emails doesn't provide adequate context and information to make conclusions. I'm going to steer clear of the bizarre pre-occupation with "the parent" whose identity is known to all, but here is some more context for some comments:

"May seemed to couch the language of her emails with wide-eyed curiosity so it's hard to say what she thinks." – This seems like an underhanded jab at Katie May, but whatever. Yes, she's very polite ... not naive.

"May claims at one point that parents at her school are on-board with what they are doing around HD and sends comments to Martin that she has received." – I am not sure whether HD is a typo and means HC, or something else, but yes, parents are overwhelmingly in favor of the actions Ms. May has taken to create more academic and social community in a building that houses roughly 1) 350+ HCC students, 2) 200 neighborhood-assigned students and 3) 25 students on the autism Spectrum.

"TM made changes to their entire school structure but didn't notify parents about all of it?" – TM notified parents in several ways, but there always are people who don't read what they are sent. Ms. May is a communications-oriented principal, and I think most parents with experience at multiple schools would agree that TM tries harder than most to be open about issues and changes.

"But if the AL department has goals and a vision of change, then let's hear it. Do not form this vision behind close doors with just one group of parents." – AL programs as a whole need re-visioning and many changes, and I think we all should hope the new task force will have real impact compared to prior ones. I don't think there's any evidence in these 2015 emails that AL is trying to figure out new goals, etc., in secret with one group of parents. These emails mostly focus on equitable identification of AL students and some efforts at Thurgood Marshall to build community among the students.

-TM Parent
Sandor said…
Lowering the number of students identified from one demographic will not result in the identification of more students from other demographics. The correct number of students to identify is all of the students who are highly capable. There are not a limited number of seats. School districts may access basic education funds, in addition to highly capable categorical funds, to provide appropriate highly capable student programs. For highly capable students, access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education (RCW 28A.185.020).

Anonymous said…
I think once you testify at public meetings, chair a public school group, interview in articles in KUOW and SeattleChild, and are generally easily googable you cross the privacy threshold from parent to public figure.

For more info on the actors involved and what's going on officially you can goto:

http://tmlink.org/info/equity-in-education-initiative/

@MDefarge.
TM, you may know who this person is that I am referring to but most of my readers won't. I'm not preoccupied with this person but this is the person who has the most interaction in the emails (among a long list of names that I referenced in my public disclosure request). That Mr. Martin would be talking with someone at OSPI who mentioned this person and then Mr. Martin circles back to that person is beyond what I normally see for any parent.

Ms May, according to her own email, had not fully notified parents about ALL of the changes at TM so I believe you are mistaken in saying that everyone had.

Again, TM, if you read my thread, Mr. Okun seems very aligned with whatever "goals" the TM equity group has and it seems important that the Advanced Learning office share that.

Anonymous said…
As a Thurgood Marshall parent myself, I am not happy about being lumped in with the Racial Equity in HCC group. Not ALL TM HCC parents, or even gen ed parents at TM think the way that group does. Yes, pretty much all of us want to ensure that the kids who need HCC services are identified no matter their ethnicity, and the majority see the racial (and gender, in many cases) disparity in HCC classrooms as indicating a problem with how children are identified, the process, and the supports provided in the classroom. That doesn't mean that we agree with their reasoning or all of their proposed solutions. The fact that the group is majority white, doesn't seem to fully understand who HCC is intended to serve and has created more resentment by not understanding the needs of the population, and seems to ignore the needs of 2e kids is problematic. This issue is very nuanced, and many things that may help identify kids from one group would limit or eliminate the identification of kids from another group. I will say, however, that the "unidentified person" is genuine and well-meaning. I often don't agree with her, but I never doubt her intention.

Melissa- you gleefully reveling in the current gender disparity at TM because of parents who didn't support the problems with gender diversity in your child's class is petty and beneath what I expect on this blog.

Katie May has an incredibly difficult job. You can take issue with her decisions, but she is a person of integrity and treats every single child at Thurgood Marshall with kindness, always. There are a number of decisions that have been made this year (not specifically having to do with HCC) that I disagreed strongly with, but I always know that while they are not the decisions I would have made, she made them after weighing all the factors and with the goal of doing what is best for the school.

Despite the deep challenges created when HCC was placed in a majority African American school strongly against the advice of the consultants hired to help choose the HCC site, it is a warm and welcoming environment where people are diving in and trying to make the school environment the best it can be for every child. There will always be stumbles along the way, but I am not OK with the Thurgood Marshall community being dragged through the mud here. My guess is the AL department has collaborated with the Racial Equity in HCC group and Katie because they are actually wanting to help make the program better and work with them, and they are interested in offering solutions and collaborating. If anyone has different ideas about solutions to the obvious disparities in identification or the program as a whole, I suggest you contact the AL office with a spirit of cooperation. But maybe not by email, since apparently that will be made public.

-TM Parent#2

Anonymous said…
"highly capable categorical funds" don't make it into the classroom. they are for the al team that really are just gatekeepers... and we know now unprofessionally.


"When you have an entire industry who advertises how they can get your kid into HC"

well those should be pretty easy to find. please show us a few of those advertisements.

and there you go about bellevue again. show us where they found that outside testing was rigged. or are you lying?

no caps

Anonymous said…


"wanting to help make the program better and work with them, and they are interested in offering solutions and collaborating. "

how is forcing dr. martin to go against best practices for selection for hcc services improving the program? by allowing less 2e kids in? less frl kids? less ell kids? less white kids? would that make it better? has katie may truly made the program better. you know that how? there has been no tracking of the social studies classes success has there? imho she is a perfect elementary teacher. not so much when it comes to hcc.

no caps

Anonymous said…
michael tolley.

that is who is in charge of this whole debacle starting by putting hcc in two of the lowest ses schools. that was advocated against by app community. and every year since he has done something to dismantle spectrum and diminish hcc.

and now we have a new superintendent! who when was asked about hc - said yeah i understand there is big problem with hcc inequity. excuse me?!?! they have zero hc curriculum (promised by tully at the first split a decade ago), have for decades used hcc to manage capacity issues including bussing kids across town, have rouge admins doing whatever they want without rebuke or community involvement and a program leader who does nothing about all of these issues because he is too busy responding to zealots' emails. sorry. equity is not the big problem with hcc.

no caps
Anonymous said…
TM Parent & TM Parent#2,

I appreciate your heartfelt response and concern.

The critical detail that you may not be aware of is that this "TM Equity Team Parent Leader" may present publicly as geniune, but she anonymously posts inflammatory, insulting comments here about HCC parents, Melissa and especially private appeals.

To protect her online identity (under numerous pseudonyms), I won't quote her comments, but her highly consistent voice, themes and patterns are unmistakable.

Being aware of her background and the fact that her child was admitted based on private appeals, you can imagine how reprehensible we find her hypocrisy at flaming parents who used appeals and successfully advocating for SPS to effectively shut the appeals door behind her.

In the original post, this equity parent was concerned that universal testing would let more white people in.

That says it all. This isn't about increasing access for everyone. This is really about painting an ideologue's caricature of whites and asians and shutting them out.

Using bias to combat bias is unforgivable.


y
Anonymous said…
whoot whoot-y

and of course there is the stacking the board meetings thing too. just sayin. she has an allie in geary (and perhaps dewolf 90% white and won't correct it ). i didn't know that she also was a hypocrite like geary. stating self contained classrooms institutional racism and have her son going to ibx with the only self contained high school classrooms. self righteous folks.

no caps
Anonymous said…
I think the moderator, Melissa, has been fairly sensitive in regard to identities in this matter.

I concur that there is mucho cognitive dissonance going on. While those advocating for more identification and thus equity in regard to HC in general and TM in particular, may seem virtuous, the fact that separate hc services, no matter where they are delivered, hurts the children in contemporary services the most, must not be overlooked. It seems that those arguing for broader identification for HC prefer the fact that their children will get to sit with diverse students in diverse classrooms and thus their guilt is assuaged, over the inconvenience of keeping all children in heterogeneous settings to the benefit of all.

The most equitable solution is to serve children together. We do need more creativity and abolition of cultural bias. But we can’t get there with parallel and separate tracks, regardless of their composition.

For progress
Anonymous said…
no caps

By saying this,"wanting to help make the program better and work with them, and they are interested in offering solutions and collaborating. " I wasn't implying that their solutions were actually good ones, I just think they think they are doing the "right" thing even if many of us don't.

I'm not sure how they are forcing Dr. Martin to do anything. Are they pestering him? Sure, but they don't have any real power.

I don't know what tracking is being done of the social studies classes. I do know that in the lower grades at least it has created more camaraderie between the HCC and gen ed students, and anecdotally I see more parents engaging across programs. For the TM community, that is a positive thing. I can't say what impact it has on HCC generally.

-TM Parent#2

TM PArent#2, I was not gleeful but rueful that the issue of gender still comes up in AL classes. That French phrase is the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I have never said Ms. May is not a good principal. Ever. My intent is not to drag any school community thru any mud. But it does not help when there seems to be evidence, on the eve of the district starting a taskforce on this program, that the AL department has been setting goals with a small group of parents. It seems that would be worthy of discussion.
Anonymous said…
Of course it is worthy of discussion- I too am concerned that the Racial Equity in HCC group seems to have such influence with the AL department- but let's not paint all TM families with that same brush. They are a minority at the school.

I'd appreciate it if in the future you are talking about the Racial Equity in HCC group, you would call that out more clearly rather than calling them Thurgood Marshall parents (and yes, I do realize that in 2015 they were all TM parents). They are now a district wide group and come from all over the city, and even when they weren't, they didn't necessarily represent all/most TM families.

-TM Parent#2
Fair enough, TM#2.

I head heard they are a district-wide group although I’ve never seen numbers.
Cashel's Rationale said…
Martin to May in December 2015 (subject unknown) "BTW, we spoke with Cashel today. Working on a rationale that will be useful to you and your HC colleagues. Stay tuned!"

This may refer to Cashel Toner who is in the Dept. of Early Learning and Special Education? She and Michael Tolley seem to work together a lot possibly on equitable access to programs and services and the city's preschool program?

Working on a rationale for what, one wonders. If this is the Cashel referred to, it makes me wonder what the preschool program and HC have to do with each other.
Anonymous said…
I am blown away that Martin didn’t know how many students tested in by appeal vs district testing between 2010 and at least 2015?!? This is a basic summary statistic that a lot of assumptions have been made about. Yikes. What is the foundation for their decision making in general if they don’t have basic numbers?

-WS mom
Anonymous said…
Don't forget--Martin has been an idol for the HCC crowd since his hiring.

"Call Stephen" has been the go-to on the APP/HC blog since he got hired.

Problem: "Stephen" belatedly saw the writing on the wall. Instead of going with research and best practices eons ago, "Stephen" went to default mode--HCC parents (he had to default to pedigree, of course. (The "little people" who have known that HCC is far removed from best practices don't count, apparently.)

Now he's in a quagmire. It's called karma in some circles.

You never hear his name disparaged from the HCC parent bloc. Tolley, et al. have been victims of their relentless mob mentality, but "Stephen"??? Nary a word.

This guy needs to go. He's clearly all about pleasing the most powerful parent(s) in the room.

Bye, bye.

Delete Me
Anonymous said…
Simone, God bless you.

You are clearly so genuine but you're relatively new to the conversaation.

Background info: When SPS attempted to do "universal" testing at highly impacted schools a few years back, the result was more white kids in HCC.

I'll be honest: I don't have the inclination to read these emails with any depth other than a scan. But that's the background of the conversation that you brought up.

Martin is clearly knowledgeable and educated enough to know that local and sub-norms are the only way to increase diversity in a district such as SPS. He apparently was too busy kowtowing to the HCC bloc to do or suggest the right thing.

According to the postings, he decided to team up with another HCC parent who got her child into the "program" through appeals, but wants to limit her own demographic now that her own child continues to benefit from the system.

Cute, huh?

Simone, are you still surprised that SPS doesn't follow research and best practices for HC identification? Do you know that there are highly impacted schools in this district that receive little-to-non PTA funding and are way over the cusp in terms of FRL statistics to have good outcomes for students?

I'm glad posters compliment your "civil" tone. Give it few years and have skin in the game (in terms of the underserved) and see what happens.

Delete Me
Anonymous said…
"As for the parent in question, I know that it would be easy for most to figure out who the person is. But I also knew I'd get harassed for doing so and since it is so easy, then most will know the person's name." MW

So . . . . Melissa has acknowledged that even without naming the parent who acknowledged in an email that their child used an appeal process to be admitted to HC, she realizes that many of her readers will be able to identify that parent. Several commenters are tiptoeing up to the line of identifying the parent themselves.

Are we tracking that Melissa just released publicly released the private, vulnerable testing data OF A CHILD? In the indelible internet ink of a blog with wide readership? Tell us again about your concerns for data privacy at SPS.

That's Messed Up
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
@that's messed up--

agreed...

This situational ethics of this blog no longer astound.

"No personal information about children"...and all that.

Pretending that by not calling out the name, but saying everything
but the name preserves the "rules."

Saying the parent divulged info in other venues doesn't excuse the
skirting of the situational "blog rules."

What a joke!

Delete Me
Anonymous said…
"Are we tracking that Melissa just released publicly released the private, vulnerable testing data OF A CHILD? In the indelible internet ink of a blog with wide readership? Tell us again about your concerns for data privacy at SPS."

hey giuliani you know that said person did send many emails with their info, right?

hey giuliani you know that said person spoke repeatedly about most of this, making it so some couldn't, as their perceived issues were too important, for the board to hear about transitional housing students, math adoption and etc.

hey giuliani you know mw released nothing. she just shared what said person said. did she hack the stack and get the info? no! said person shared the info.

hey giuliani you know that said poster thinks that access to hcc should be race based (now that their white kid is in). say that outloud three times and thurgood marshall will slap you.

no caps
Anonymous said…
@all caps

The Urban Dictionary appropriation while preserving privilege is so priceless.

"Kept in his own lane" is code for "did our HCC crowd's bidding."

Yeah, the "victim" of board testimony, the man who you claim is overwhelmed when he is supposed to be the Advanced Learning expert, goes way beyond the credibility test.

It's still just the black guy at JSCC who is the root of the problem, right?

Delete Me
Anonymous said…
JSCEE or whatever...

Deleted
Anonymous said…
still struggling with that dyslexia thing. i like that about you.

"Kept in his own lane" is code for "did our HCC crowd's bidding."

no, read what i posted. he didn't. he did what was told to him to do by the michael tolley. lane's are assigned by the powers that be. not by us parents. those that are strangled to incomprehension by white guilt (for other people kids not their as they are in the program) might have a different take.

a reminder, no one thought hcc at tm was a good idea but MICHAEL TOLLEY. in fact that was the south hcc site. the NORTH HCC SITE WAS TO BE ON TOP I90. yeah surprising that did not work. just sayin.

no caps

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
oh me with the map


no caps
Anonymous said…
imho michael tolley has tried his best to make all schools alike.

unless they are options schools
unless they are language immersions schools
unless they are popular high schools

ok so if you are a hcc school you need to look like the neighborhood schools because we don't need you to balance our attendance. shit i need it for high schools!!!! ok no pathways!!!!!!


i have never met michael tolley, so i will trust you fwiw that he is black but all I KNOW IS HE IS ANTI HCC AND has been for a decade.

no caps
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Messed Up and Delete Me, chill out. I didn't divulge anything that the parent hasn't said publicly (or in a public email). That other parents know who this person is speaks more to the advocacy of the parent in public than to me write on the topic of HCC.

Anonymous said…
In my opinion, this whole thread is nauseating and is degenerating into a gossip cess pool. FOIA requests are not intended to "out people" or cast suspicions on people trying to do their jobs (such as Katie May) or parents concerned about their kids and writing to district officials. Selected quotes from emails, sentences taken out of context, hints that there is "more to come" - it's unbecoming, not nice, unhelpful and doesn't really solve any of our problems or move things along to the benefit of all children -whether they are HCC or not.

-NP
NP, I think reporting a pattern that is happening in a program that seems to have importance in all directions is valid. That people are careless in what they say in emails is not my fault. I do think it valid to point out that Mr. Martin seems very responsive to one group of HC parents and their associated principal so hey! that means he is likely to be just as responsive to others. Good to know, no?

I'm not hinting there's more to come - there is because of the volume of items found. If there's nothing in the next installment, I'll say that.



Anonymous said…
I agree with no caps that Michael Tolley is probably a key problem in the continuation of the HCC program. He was brought here by Maria Goodloe-Johnson (MGJ) and remained after she was ousted for corrupt financial practices. In my memory, she instituted the policy of homogenizing all the schools. School choice, which enabled parents to find the school with the best fit for their child, was eliminated at that time. The reasoning, as presented by the SPS, was so that children could attend neighborhood schools and if they move, transition seamlessly between schools within the district and receive exactly the same instruction. In practice, however, it removed the ability for principals' to advocate for what works best for their students. For example, in the past, good schools would monitor how their students did on exams and if something like writing was deficient then the principal could focus on writing within that school. Many schools had waivers for curricula that worked well for their students. There were also many unique, teacher-developed programs that sprang up that gave schools their unique flavor, such as the film program at Ballard. Many of these still remain but I get the feeling they are under assault. All of this was done, in reality, to save money - an ironic approach since MGJ also wasted money for the district in a financial scandal that also involved significant cronyism and lack of transparency.

Since she left (and subsequently passed on after a battle with cancer) one of the key players that she installed, Michael Tolley has continued her legacy of school homogenization of services, including HCC. They cannot remove the program outright because it is required by state law, but they can and have made it a non-starter - lacking a clear vision or curriculum plan and stripping the head of advanced services of all power to build an effective program. Finally, and most destructive, has been the promulgation of an inaccurate meme that HCC is a racist program. All of the fake news methodology that we have seen employed lately in politics have been used to further this rumor. The relatively straightforward proposals to increase identification of under-represented students in HCC have been obstructed by the district in favor, I believe, of dissolving the program by starvation. This is evident in the emails that Melissa recounts here. More disturbing are the proposals by equity groups that apparently have a disproportionately sympathetic ear in the district, to modify admission to the program to restrict access to certain racially defined groups of students. As one commenter said: "YOWZA"!

I would implore the new Superintendent, Denise Juneau, to remove Michael Tolley (and as many other top executives as she is comfortable doing) so that she can establish her own vision for the district. If she does not do this then I must assume she is comfortable to continue the opaque and corrupt legacy of Maria Goodloe-Johnson where money, politics and connections come before students.

Soon my children will graduate out of the district and we do so with a great shout of relief. Excellence in education in this district has remained in the hands of a few motivated, skilled and talented teachers and a few dedicated principals many of whom work around the district overlords in order to follow state law and improve learning for their students. Many have elevated student learning over district politics at the risk of their careers and I applaud them. I hope the new Superintendent appreciates the extent to which teachers have held this district together in the face of central administration fumbling.

Sigh
Anonymous said…
grist for the mill

why not post the emails on Srcibd.com and let people see the context.

methinks you have an agenda, mw, and as such are doing a gross disservice by selectively leaking your favorite tidbits.

but then your pot-stirring may be just what is needed to get the attention of the board

qui sais
Anonymous said…
Melissa's exposure of undue influence and access given to one individual in shaping district-wide policy is both valid and necessary. Further evidence:

#The Parent Leader of Racial Equity in HCC had special, private meetings with the District, and was given drafts of district documents for review and feedback.
https://hccequity.wordpress.com/2017/03/06/meeting-with-sps-are-leading-towards-action-plan/

#pg 5, Board Minutes. "Already,there have been meetings with Mr. Jessee, Mr. Tolley, and the Thurgood Marshall group to organize and create a team."
https://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/16-17agendas/03_01_2017/C01_20170301_20170208_Minutes_Final.pdf

Undemocratic
Anonymous said…
Melissa, you can't get around the fact that you did something that might mean random people outside this child's family now know how the student performed on a test--not through the family's choice, but through YOUR choice. It is not at all far-fetched that some of your readers with considerable animus toward this parent already will share the information more widely. It is also not far-fetched to imagine that other children will learn the information and that this child will have the experience of having the information thrown in their face in a hurtful way in the future. Yes, perhaps the parent chose to share similar info in other contexts, but that DOES NOT MEAN you are ethically entitled to make that decision for the parent. I'm not qualified to know what the legality of it is, you just shared a portion of a child's educational record with the expectation that the child would be identifiable to some of your readership, and if that's not a violation of FERPA, I believe it should be. You frequently state a commitment on the blog to not let disagreements between adults justify name-calling or harm to children, but this action is not consistent with those statements.

That's Messed Up
I actually do not have the emails. I was told that there were so many that I would have to pay and I chose instead to view them at the district for free. I am going to ask for specific ones so I could put them at Scribed but I took nothing out of context.

My "agenda" is to not have yet ANOTHER wasted taskforce where staff goes in with a preconceived idea of what they want to see happen. When I see AL staff telling certain parents that the department's goals are aligned with their goals, then I worry. I think for good reason.
Anonymous said…
The Racial Equity in HCC group is problematic because it purports to represent the interests of the whole district when, at root, it is an outgrowth of the Thurgood Marshall PTA, based on that PTA's own web page. Its relationship to that PTA is not clear to me, but I resent that PTA or that group speaking for me or for others with a vested interest in this issue without seeking our input on it. That gorup holds no official meetings, has no official officers, has no elected chair. Its "membership" merely involves people who have followed its Facebook group and/or Google group, and following either group is not necessarily an endorsement of its values, policies (or lack thereof), or approach. Lurking and surveilling are not endorsement, after all. Even so, there is essentially no activity in either of these forums, and as a group they had only minimal if any involvement in the adoption of Section 105 last session. In practical terms, the Racial Equity in HCC group seems to offer certain outspoken persons an aura of widespread personal support as they interact with the district, when in fact they have no such thing.

This serves either students of Color nor highly capable students.

The context at Thurgood Marshall I would argue is also distinct from the context district wide. The issues that Thurgood Marshall grapples with as a narrow community are not exactly the same systemic issues the district grapples with broadly. They are closely interrelated, certainly, but confusing one for the other is not helpful from a policy perspective!

Policy issues involving equity in HCC require participants to have knowledge of and hold commitments to four areas:
- racial equity
- gender equity
- 2e equity
- the unique developmental differences and social/emotional needs of highly capable children
- science-based best practices in highly capable education and pedagogy

We can't have racial equity in HCC if we forget the HC part, and it's clear that the current Racial Equity in HCC does not have the HC part in mind. Which is surprising, since it's in their name.

It would be sensible if the Racial Equity in HCC group shut down since it is ethically compromised. Instead, the district could roll its advisory functions into its new and officially constituted Task Force, so long as it does not have a whiff of corruption about it - there is a real danger of this now. Another idea would be for the PTAs at the various HC sites to jointly constitute their own advisory/advocacy body, perhaps with a provision for representation of HC students not at HC sites and to represent HC students of Color and their families specifically. Something like this would be a truly pan-district advisory body. It could also be more effectual, as many more stakeholders would be taking active part to get real change made.

In the end, I think that the chief criticism of the current group might be that it has been so ineffectual. Their only achievement has been to ban appeals (de facto), which doesn't even actually get students of Color into HC. It has been a divisive initiative as well. We need to move on from them but also to come together to solve these issues as a community.

-Simone
Anonymous said…
Hahahaha!

The ink is barely dry on the new Superintendent’s contract, and we see “no caps” playing the “poor lil ole white gifted me card”. As predicted! Let’s all cry for the white victims of gifted injustice. A national tragedy of epidemic proportions! Some white people aren’t getting special gifted ed!!!! Some of the crimes against white gifteds? Reduction in obvious repeat testing for gifted identification. Others have to sit next to African American kids when learning about civil rights, in elementary school of all things!!!! The horrors abound. We shouldn’t stop until every single white kid is either gifted or disabled!

Don’t worry “no caps”, you can still take the IQ test a million times, until you hit the jack pot for a free and appropriate exclusive private school education at public expense, and your kid will never sit next to someone who is an undesirable minority. Unfortunately, the repeat-ad-nauseum testing method, along with the private tests, don’t work on the PSAT or SAT where it actually counts for determining true national status against actual norms. Our HCC students barely show up as national merit semifinalists. Eg. You can count them on a single hand in HCC schools. And, 0 made the Presidential Scholars Semifinalist list. Only 1 student in Washington was named a Presidential scholar. Oh. Not in HCC. But there’s an excuse for everybody. It was the horrible HCC education that lowered their IQs as measured by standardized achievement tests we all accept. PSAT, SAT. That horrible education reduced their exceptionality, and turned the highly gifted into Kielloresque above-averages. Oh well, you can still feel good. The kids were exceptionally smart, once!

Nostradamus


Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
'My "agenda" is to not have yet ANOTHER wasted taskforce where staff goes in with a preconceived idea of what they want to see happen. When I see AL staff telling certain parents that the department's goals are aligned with their goals, then I worry. I think for good reason.'

yes for good reason! their goals stated for this tf are about a wholesale change and they originally said that there would be members of the race and equity committee to be on the tf. (anyone have the link to nyland's friday memo that had kari hanson's draft for the tf? and why aren't they linked to his page). same group that is trying to get less white kids into hcc?!?!

this is a travesty. three tf in less than a decade. why???

would sped expect that? hcc they will only get 1/5 parents to represent their needs on a tf and some hc parents' kids may not have kids in the hcc. not a bad thing of course it just means they are limiting any representation to such a small few. also they say come with an open mind and please don't apply if you have been on other task forces. ((MEANS YOU ARE NOT WELCOME CUZ YOU DIDN't GIVE US THE ANSWERS WE WANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE)). do other tf do that? we value your continued advocacy. please stay at home. and if you have no opinions and haven't experienced the district at work close up the more the better.

this coming from thought exchange michael tolley, wyeth jesse and kari hanson. they really really don't care what you think. as long as there is perceived racism they have something to fix regardless of the fact they should be improving the school district and as it is under them the hc program.

when was the last improvement to hc? same curriculum since the splits (none). less visionary leadership imho (sorry stephen you can't even carry bob's water comparatively). bob brought us ibx. stephen brought us ibnothing. we lost honors classes at ghs. we lost ap classes in 9th grade at garfield. we still have ted howard. on the spectrum front... you see. it's gone. katie may and susan folmer where the least qualified hires i have ever seen. imho. may is now moving away from self contained classes and who knows where that stops. folmger got rid of spectrum. poof. rems is now going to be split again. jams is in hcc name only.

the last task force had ~10 recommendations signed in by the board. in my assessment none of them were enacted (aside from the name change to make it more elitist sounding. app at least let you know what the program was.) it included al's oversight of al programs in each building. is that happening? so why am i concerned? because of folks like (ohhh well we know) and her proximity to michael tolley. shutting down hcc is what this is all about.

i am thankful for the robinson's contribution to sps in developing ipp. my kids needs were met. going forward for high iq /high achievement any bets are off. every year tick/tocs away improvements made decades ago.

no caps
Anonymous said…
nostrodumus you are just that. you don't know me. you don't even know how offended i that you call me lil' and white. i am neither. but for a failed political figure who lives in the north seattle with poor grammar and equally inept logic i find your assessments of me false.

delete yourself.

no caps
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
as you see above michael tolley does not care about the amount of time hcc kids waste in buses. does he care about hcc? oh that is his job you say???? he isn't doing his job right???? it isn't volunteer work. MICHAEL TOLLEY please do your job.

imho michael tolley is working for the end of hcc (see no hs hc pathways). kari hanson and wyeth jesse will comply. sorry. you work to not serve your customers what would denny's do? they would fire them all.

as much as fwiw would like to talk about compliance to the law, the state has saved sps a few times and high school pathways was the most recent example.

no caps
Sandy said…
The saddest thing about the TM group is that they portrayed themselves as a group that would fight for gifted students of color. But despite their name they have been consistently fighting (often behind the scenes, we now see) to make things harder for especially for "3E" or "Gifted Cubed" students. Who will fight to help the district make sure all the gifted students of color are receiving the support required for them to truly flourish? Especially the 3E students, who could really use a champion right around now.

Gifted Cubed: Race & Culture
https://giftedhomeschoolers.org/resources/parent-and-professional-resources/articles/gifted-minorities/

More info on 3E here:
http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Publication%20THP/THP_Winter_2018_SpecialPopulations.pdf

Triple Identity Theory
https://journals.uncc.edu/urbaned/article/view/415/523

Scott Barry Kaufman has a whole chapter on being 3E in Twice Exceptional: Supporting and Educating Bright and Creative Students with Learning Difficulties:
https://www.scottbarrykaufman.com/twice-exceptional-movement-supporting-bright-creative-students-learning-difficulties/


Anonymous said…
Back in the early 1980s there was a clear mission for the IPP program. The current descendant of that program is HCC and it has NEVER had a clear mission. Some of us have been asking the board for decades to state in policy what exactly HCC should aspire to accomplish.

Comply with state law, yes.

Provide opportunities for students performing at an advanced level to progress rapidly? Some people think so.

Provide opportunities for highly capable students who are not performing at an advanced level, because their current educational environment stifles them? Some people think so.

Acceleration vs. enrichment, people have all kinds of ideas about appropriate balance.

Provide opportunities for students who demonstrate capability in a wide range of subject areas? in just one area?

Provide opportunities for students whose mix of capabilities is such that they have no academic peers within the district? Nope, the district can't afford to provide completely appropriate education for far outliers, as the Special Ed parents know. If a student is the next Stephen Hawking or Yo-yo Ma or Michael Jordan, the district can't really help with that.

The selection process will NEVER make good sense if it doesn't match the goals of the program, which it can't if there are none.

In the meantime some services are offered for some students, and some of them are happy with the results, but that's more about the luck of where each student ends up and less about any sensible systemic approach.

Irene
Cap hill said…
Not a surprise. The HCC/AL issue has been politicized, and overwhelmingly so by white, progressive parents who either suffer from some traumatizing sense of guilt, or desire to be seen (and feel) "woke" and an "ally". To see that one of them is simultaneously leading the charge to prevent other families from having access to the curriculum they feel like their kids need and using the appeals process is both funny and sad.

This issue is stupid, and there are a tiny number of people who think that this is a real social justice issue. The vast majority of parents believe that accelerated education is both an un-scarce resource and a societal good. Are we really at a place where there are people who feel like we should teach kids less under any circumstances? What kind of hypocrite both puts their kid in an accelerated program and tries to prevent access? Wait, I guess Jill Geary fits in that category as well. The same person who tut-tuts parents about buying access basically bought her entire campaign.

We know this whole thing is a bunch of progressive BS. If we really cared about diversity, we would stop categorizing Asians as white. If we really cared about closing the achievement gaps, instead of the BS Black History month curriculum (queer-affirmative, anyone?), there would be a town hall every single time test scores were released, so that we could discuss the results and understand what schools/teachers/programs were working and which were not. No - what we care about is apparently enabling progressives to feel good about themselves.

And Melissa, while you do a lot of public good with this blog, you are an enabler of this. You continue to support empty progressive politicians like Jill Geary and 90% white Zach DeWolfe (who is 90% white himself). These people are clearly looking to run for another office and are using our school system to polish their public credentials.
Anonymous said…
Huh?

"This issue is stupid, and there are a tiny number of people who think that this is a real social justice issue."

You are completely wrong. The "vast majority of parents" rate fair access to advanced learning as one of the most important issues in the district. Look at the surveys.

You are also completely wrong about diversity and highly capable programs being "progressive BS" since researchers in gifted educated continue to make clear that entire demographics of students are systematically excluded from HC services. For them, prison may be the outcome.

This Jordan Peterson tirade speaks like an HCC parent who is getting their own kids' services. The ones who are being excluded--just a bunch of social warrior whiners.

Thankfully, DeWolfe won that seat. He is demonstrating that he represents the voices of those who don't have the connections and privilege to keep trying to keep other students from receiving the services they should receive.

You continue to not be able to think outside of the APP box, Cap Hill. Don't you know that HC law, and particularly giftedness, are not just about the program model of working x number of grade levels ahead. Educate yourself, please.

Delete Me

Good remarks, Irene.

CapHill, I would not call myself an "enabler." I just try to support the best person at the time who is running for School Board. Geary puzzles me so it's hard to know what to think. I do think her heart is in the right place.

I think the jury is still out on DeWolf but he certainly doesn't seem like he wants to engage with community given his lack of community meetings. I think he does visit schools but that's not helpful to parents who work.

I am unlikely to endorse anyone in the future because I find that many people run as one thing and then change after they get into office. I'm tired of getting burned.

"The "vast majority of parents" rate fair access to advanced learning as one of the most important issues in the district. Look at the surveys."


What survey had parents saying advanced learning was one of the most important issues in the district?

I think we can end this discussion here for now.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Seattle School Board Meeting, Wednesday, September 18,2024