Tuesday Open Thread
I want to open with news from the 43rd Dems - the so-called PAC, Moms for Seattle sent out a mailer that shows a playground with a tent erected on it. Except the graffiti and the tent have been photoshopped in. 
Folks, I get that this city has homeless issues. Whether you believe that electeds in the city are doing enough is for you to decide. But lying about it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Shame on Moms for Seattle.
For the next two nights, America will again be hearing from the (many) Democratic candidates for president. There is one new reporter among the media - eleven-year old Jaden Jefferson. He's really good and I hope he can continue his work.
Jaden, who identifies as a freelance reporter in Toledo, runs the account "Jaden Reports." He has quickly gained thousands of followers overnight after getting an exclusive interview with Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren.Another hope I have seeing a question about public education especially around charter schools, an issue that the Dem candidates seem to want to avoid.
To that end, noted public education expert, Diane Ravitch, called out candidate Pete
Buttigieg.
But on education, he is a stealth corporate reformer.
Mayor Pete may have many things going for him, but his education agenda is not one of them. If he were President, he would continue the failed Bush-Obama agenda.I agree with Diane. But it's not just Buttigieg. Corey Booker is a long-time charter school supporter while Beto O'Rouke's wife started a charter school in El Paso, Texas.
If he runs against Trump, I will of course support him and vote for him. I will vote for anyone who wins the Democratic nomination.
Interesting idea - PD about teaching that comes from students. Via Education Week.
Renton SD buys school supplies for elementary students in bulk. Parents can choose to participate in buying from them or not.
Our families can again this year choose to pay a low, one-time fee for school supplies for students including replacements throughout the school year. The district implemented the program last year as a way to reduce cost for families and make the school supply process more streamlined and economical. The program is voluntary: families can choose to continue to purchase their own school supplies.Apparently some SPS elementaries do this already; Concord, North Beach, Queen Anne, Boren STEM.
Families pay a low, one-time fee of $30 ($10 for families on free/reduced lunch) for a year's worth of school supplies. You can pay by check/cash at school at the start of the school year, or pay online anytime at https://wa-renton.intouchreceipting.com.
I missed this event but there was a national movement to stand up for the children being held in caged detention by the Trump Administration. On Sunday, July 28th, via Kids Take a Stand, lemonade stands popped up all over Seattle; the money raised goes to two orgs that support those kids. Thank you to all the kids and parents who participated to help others.
All proceeds from the lemonade stands will be donated to 2 incredible organizations: the Rio Grande Valley Rapid Response and KIND (Kids in Need of Defense). The mission of Rio Grande Valley Rapid Response is to welcome, orient, feed, clothe, and otherwise serve the immigrants and refugees being released en masse in the Rio Grande Valley. KIND has a robust national network of pro bono attorneys who have represented unaccompanied children in their search for safety, and provides legal services and social services for released migrant children.The Native American group that supports Native youth, Clear Sky, will be vacating their space at Robert Eagle Staff Middle School this week per the district's edict that they are no longer a partner. The fight still goes on but Clear Sky's sponsor, the Urban Native Education Alliance, is obeying an order to vacate. The district should be much, much more transparent about why this is happening.
I will not be able to attend tomorrow night's event put on by the SE Seattle Education Coalition to meet the candidates who are competing to replace retiring director Betty Patu. I will have an open thread on Thursday for anyone who does attend and wants to weigh in on first impressions.
WHEN: Wednesday, July 31 | 6-8 p.m. | Doors at 5.30 p.m. Program starts promptly at 6 p.m.
WHERE: Rainier Avenue Church*, 5900 Rainier Ave S, Seattle, WA 98118
*The Fellowship Hall entrance is around the back of the church, where the parking lot is located.
What's on your mind?
Comments
This is not to suggest that charters aren’t often plagued by their own problems, nor that they don’t need more transparency and accountability—but these are somewhat of a myth in public schools, too. Take SPS, for example: the only accountability seems to be that we can keep voting a few directors out every once in a while and start over, crossing our fingers that maybe this batch of newbies will finally bring about increased transparency and accountability. When it doesn’t, we try and try again. Those running things behind the scene down at JSCEE often seem to have their own hidden agendas, and don’t really seem to listen to parents, and there seems to be little we can do about it. Many students are ill-served, and many more will be. I’m not sure how the absence of charters would change that.
All types
Good luck
--Please leave
MSRP
Simpletons con
Good Luck, I have never hidden that I am a Dem and I despise Trump. Job #1 for me is working to get rid of him. If that offends you, you might seek out another blog. Again, I already announced - multiple times - that the blog IS changing its focus to more national/broad-based issues and not SPS-specific ones.
Simpletons, the district posts regular meetings of the Taskforce. You can read the minutes.
The money is not the district's it's the taxpayer's. I say it's SPS that's doing the stealing.
Go charters
APPparent
Under the category of diabolical imaginations, other moms have figured out a legal approach to game the system: apparently parents are literally disowning their own children at the jump off point to the college application process so that they can get free money that was intended for children from poor households.
It is not a widespread practice, yet nevertheless, the lengths to which some people will go to is pretty awful. And it also is awful because you know that this is going to be used to indite all parents who advocate for their kids’ educational needs. The pendulum is swinging wildly left and right, smashing everything in our commons as a result. Nobody wins in this kind of game. It will all end badly for everyone.
The rich: "Poor people are just takers and moochers who love free money!"
also the rich: "I will literally disown my own child to mooch some free money meant for needy people."
Jaw-dropping story in the Wall Street Journal.
High-income parents in Chicago are transferring legal guardianship of their children to friends so the kids can claim financial aid.
College Financial-Aid Loophole: Wealthy Parents Transfer Guardianship of Their Teens to Get Aid
Education Department, universities are investigating the practice, which has been used in the Chicago area
https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-financial-aid-loophole-wealthy-parents-transfer-guardianship-of-their-teens-to-get-aid-11564450828
dismayed
Before you go, however, you might consider we are in a radically more conservative era than was the case before President Reagan. That man's initiation of "Relevant Education" (I.e., education should only be for the purpose of making money for yourself, not for studying History or Literature) led to a huge dumbing down of the general populace. This has made "Liberals" today more akin to Eisenhower Republicans than, for example, to liberals of the 1960s. "Conservatives" have become emotion-driven-foaming-at-the-mouth-can't-focus-on-one-thought-long-enough-to-discuss-it-coherently reactionaries. Letters and comments from these folks are hard to decipher as they throw several topics into a single comment without showing connections (usually because there aren't any) between the topics. Today's conservatives are so reactionary that they consider traditional, coherent, readable conservatives like David Brooks irrelevant centrists. So,how clear are your comments Good luck.?
Maybe if public school districts didn't feel so entitled to our money and kids they'd try to do a better job of listening and serving
all types
I would be ok with charters if they were required to take AND keep ALL students who choose to go to their school, which is what public schools are required to do. They should also be required to have all students take the same standardized tests as public schools and have the data available like all schools.
Teresa
Go charters
Same continuum as those referenced above, along with the pay for play admittance fraudster parents at USC and other schools.
IMBY
If I were going to fake an address, I think I might be tempted to fake one outside of SPS...
Sped Parent
I've come to the conclusion that our public education system is hopelessly broken. I expect Seattle Public Schools to be in a steady state of decline.
Similar to Amplify, shall the Advanced Learning Taskforce issue a preordained outcome??
Today, the Seattle Times reports that home prices are falling. This means less funding for Seattle Public Schools.
I am against charter schools. I actively campaigned against them with WEA and some key Olympia legislators. However, having said that, I am deeply conflicted now: Amplify was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
Seattle public schools is a hopelessly broken institution. They vacuum our money at an ever increasing clip, yet failed to deliver any value for that money.
They don’t educate kids with special needs, they do not do much of a job educating kids from impoverished backgrounds, kids experiencing homelessness, kids who are English language learners, kids who are gifted. Under the circumstances, I can’t blame anybody who’s trying to jump the SPS ship to try and get their kid(s) educated. Education should be about excellence, it should be about how how high can you fly. SPS in my opinion is only about the optics of *seeming* to do the right thing, not about robust evidence-based information driving sound educational policy. SPS in my opinion would rather be thought of as doing the right thing rather than actually doing the right thing. Because doing the right thing is hard, but pointing fingers and assigning blame and getting parents pitted against each other, well that’s easy. It’s also disgusting. Education is not a zero-sum game. Taking care of the needs of kids is their mandate, when they perpetually fail to take care of some kids, their big idea seems to be “well, let’s start failing most kids if not all kids and then, in that way, we are being completely fair!” That is their version of equity.
Families with flexibility or means or the right circumstances are fleeing. And that’s a problem. Because like a health insurance pool, if all the healthy people leave, it can’t work for those who remain. Blaming the families who live is also not going to solve any problems. Or make things better for the kids who remain. Similarly, blaming the teachers or the teacher union is equally stupid. They are the actual adults who show up in the room to care for kids. So what if they want to get paid as professionals, they earn it!
So, the conundrum: can’t blame parents for trying to get their kids to go to a place where they will be challenged to learn something for every day that they attend school (that’s what they’re supposed to do right?), but I also see how diverting pupils away from public schools is going to be the death knell for the premise of public education, which is exactly what the Koch brothers are aiming for in their radical libertarian dreams.
Charter schools are also ripe for abuse and fraud, and can be run by charlatans who milk the system for dollars while not caring a whit about the kids in their school (there have been egregious cases in California for example). But I also see the appeal of charters for parents who want to breaking away from the awfulness of the many systemic failures of SPS to get situated in a one-off charter school focused on delivering academics and going for the absolute highest standards possible.
We live in a free and democratic society. Parents can’t be forced to submit their children to public schools. They can go private, parochial, homeschool, and now in the state of Washington they can go charter. It behooves Seattle Public School‘s to start doing the right things right. Not look like they’re doing the right things right, but do the things that nurture students’ minds. Seattle Public School picked Amplify. It is crap in every dimension. They’re going to have to live with the consequences. Declining enrollment. Spiraling costs. Bad test scores. Disaffected parents. And one day, possibly, a failed ed levy.
Dismayed
However, I disagree somewhat with your position that you "would be ok with charters if they were required to take AND keep ALL students who choose to go to their school, which is what public schools are required to do." As someone else suggested, while public schools may be technically required to take all comers and keep all who "choose" to stay, they are not required to provide services that make it likely that everyone will want to stay. A district may technically need to give your student a seat, but if that seat won't meet your student's needs, what good is that seat? SPS unofficially exits some students by not meeting their needs and driving them out--at the school level, or at the district level.
It should also be noted that not every public school in every district is required to meet the needs of every type of student. There are economies of scale that make it important to cluster certain programs and services. While it would be great if charters could figure out how to serve anyone and everyone well, I don't think that's completely reasonable. (They could probably do better, I don't know.) But if they are NOT retaining certain students that take more work, such as ELL or special ed students, I assume they also lose the dollars that come with such students. Then when SPS reabsorbs those students, I assume those extra dollars come with them. The funding system may not be perfect and may need tweaking, but I don't see that charters are skimming the most qualified and easiest to educate students. The data seem to suggest they do have a lot of students who have struggled in public non-charter schools.
I'm certainly not an expert on charters, and maybe there do need to be stronger requirements re: acceptance and retention, I don't know. But if a charter truly can't serve a kid well, I don't think they should be forced to keep that poor kid there, just because. [NOTE: Even with public school districts, the legislature provides wiggle room re: the provision of "mandatory" services based on things like financial feasibility (e.g., "such program shall recognize the limits of the resources provided by the state").]
I'm still not a big charter fan myself, but I think there are valid arguments to made on both sides.
all types
We left for private and have never looked back, because we will never come back.
-Public2 Private
APP Parent, the AL taskforce had a retreat in July and a meeting in June and the minutes are there at the SPS website.
As I said, I'll have a separate charter school discussion but I agree that SPS has done little to nothing to keep students. I don't see that changing soon.
Sometimes I smile at how much real estate I have in some people's heads.
Advanced Learning Taskforce Committee information can be found here:
https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=87981412
I can't Advanced Learning Taskforce Committee meeting minutes. Anyone?
For years I was anti charter. Not anymore.
For years I was a loud and proud backer of SPS.
Not anymore. I’ve been involves for more than 15 years. There has never been more money, yet there are fewer programs. Advanced learning is being dismantled. With all the money is the IB program at Rainier free of financial concern should? SPED is no closer to being adequately funded than it was decades ago.
Achievement gaps, despite armies of consultants and “educational professions” remain stubbornly stable.
Transportation? Really, you can’t get the busses to and from the local schools.
This fall the teachers will get more and the students will get less.
It’s time for something new, it’s time for charters.
They weren't as of my posting, and were missing over a months minutes.
Looks like they are trying to ram it through like High School pathways. Fast and furious. No Board member should allow that.
APPparent
"...package deliver expected for Superintendent in August. Deadline of Sept 8th to have a draft rec presented to the CA&I committee. Board Action is set to be October."
Some tidbits:
- "One committee member spoke about language in the document, and potential impacts to student who *need* services." Hmm. When they say "need," are they referring to those generally working *more* than 2 grade levels ahead, or ?
- "Presentation on student voice. 4 HC middle schoolers (all males of color) from Washington Middle School were selected to participate." Only males and only students from one school (and middle school only?)? And a school which was anything but stable last year? They reported: "Frustrations they expressed did not seem to be HC related. Students said they felt comfortable and valued in the program."
- "program design- prototypes were given out including looking at neighborhood programs, Explanation of MTSS and Tier 1 and 2 services. Group discussion on the potential models,
and how a student would be placed in any given service pathway"
And listed in red print (under program design discussion):
1. Advancement Services- MTSS, scaffolding
2. Highly Capable Program -grouping models within the neighborhood school targeting need, applied acceleration groups, weekly enrichment groups, student learning plans
3. Profoundly Gifted Program- option for ‘outliers’ multi-age classrooms a synchronous support strength-based SDI for 2E
*I put these in red in case you want to cut so they aren’t in the public record as a draft before the group has a recommendation [end comment included in the minutes]
interesting
What is the definition of “profoundly gifted”?
Profoundly gifted individuals score in the 99.9th percentile on IQ tests and have an exceptionally high level of intellectual prowess. These students score at least three standard deviations above the norm on the bell curve, so they are at the extreme end of the intelligence, or IQ, continuum.
Is SPS capable of 1) identifying and then 2) designing and delivering appropriate services for those identified as "profoundly gifted?" I'm guessing such students and families will continue to fend for themselves and find "make work" solutions until they can access college level work.
reality
MSRP
I would say that my comments about charter schools verses public schools would be based a well-run district. As someone who has worked in SPS for 18 years, I would never say that SPS is well run. We are just too big for that to ever happen. There are always lots of ideas about how to fix the problem, however you hardly ever hear people talk about breaking it up. In my opinion, until that happens we will never solve the problems.
As a general ed science teacher my knowledge of what happens with Special Education comes only from what I see in my classroom. I thought under the new model that all students were assigned to their neighborhood schools. SPS has never considered science to be one the "inclusion" classrooms-meaning that I have never co-taught with a special ed teacher like what happens in Language Arts and Math. The best I can hope for is that if the student need is great enough, then an IA will be there for a period or two. I do know that SPS has never funded the Special Ed as they can or should and I know that this has caused many good teachers to leave special education and/or the district.
@dismayed- well said.
Teresa
I was told there would be a template regarding this issue.
Time will tell...
What happens to gifted students in a traditional, one-size-fits-all learning environment where they are not allowed to soar ahead?
Many parents report that their children become frustrated, unmotivated and develop behavioral problems when they are not appropriately challenged in school. Students, especially girls, will “dumb-down” and hide their intelligence to fit in socially. [bold added]
reality
It's a weird thing. Seattle Schools is a mid-sized urban district. It's not huge so it shouldn't be that unwieldy. It's urban in that there is diversity and differing needs throughout the district. I have never supported the "we should break it up into smaller districts."
Despite a Strategic Plan, I'm not sure everyone IS on the same page at JSCEE. And, I'm not sure I believe that everyone is committed beyond saying so. I mean, why this spending on a new logo, new motto? Does that mean it's a new day in SPS? Nope, it means someone wants to put their stamp on the district.
Are charter schools going to help or hurt? Both. Clearly, some areas of the city where charters are concentrated will feel the pain of losing students. But, when parents don't feel listened to, don't feel the commitment to ALL students in the district, well, a charter school could look mighty appealing.
Just know that if your kid doesn't fit their box, they will find a way to exit your child. And it's not just about Sped services of ELL services. It could be a number of things - they might not like you, the parent. So there's no guarantee if you start in a charter, you'll finish at that same charter.
You have to think about what is best for your child.
But back to SPS. I think that Superintendent Juneau firmly has the reins. And, with the number of departing school board incumbents, she will have fewer people to check her work. While I think she is a caring person, I also think she is ambitious (nothing wrong there). I am hoping that just checking boxes is not good enough for her. I am hoping that she sincerely cares about the academic success of every single child in the district.
But I'm not sure at this point what she really thinks. And, that, my friends, is a problem for all parents in the district.
Huh? Do outliers need something different? Absolutely. But what qualifies as profoundly gifted in SPS? Hoagies Gifted says it's IQ of 180+, which occurs in fewer than 1 per million. That would be a pretty small "academy", no? And how does SPS plan to identify profoundly gifted students via its eligibility procedures? What about "exceptionally" gifted students (still very rare in SPS, given 1:10,000 - 1:1 million)? Maybe "highly gifted" would be more appropriate, since those occur more like 1:1,000 - 1:10,000...meaning about 5-55 students at this level in SPS. Still a pretty small academy, especially if students opted out due to long travel times (if one site) and the absence of a reasonable cohort of peers (you'd be luck to have another student or two in your same grade, and the chances of having one who you really got along with would be even slimmer). Sucks to be more than moderately gifted in SPS, no?
all types
I don't have any love for HCC but if it gets eliminated you can bet money that the option schools are next in line.
JR
That sounds like ALO, which was less than Spectrum, which was less than APP. Ugh.
all types
Some group members felt that the traditional practice of cohorting does not necessarily violate the new mission vision and commitments. Staff shared that some schools that were able to provide separate services successfully. A specific school that has been struggling was called out as an example of not all schools being able to serve all students. Group discussion on why middle school wasn’t included in the prototype model and was told that the group charge is for guidance, not necessarily specific programmatic design. Discussion was had on barrier free access at the middle school level. The group felt continuum needs to be developed with oversight at the secondary level, and discussion was had about if the prototype carries assumptions about the label or designation needed for accessing services.
I'm sorry, but that's BS. If you're not going to discuss the specifics (e.g., middle school; disparities in school capacities; how --and whether--various programmatic designs are feasible; how many students would be included in each category of services, such as 2e or profoundly gifted). You can't really develop a general prototype that is supposed to be overarching if you aren't considering the many commonplace situations that might not align with that generic and hypothetical prototype.
It's sounding a lot like the recommendation the 24-credit task force came up with... You know, the one they acknowledged might not work for certain kids (e.g., IB students), but that they didn't bother to look into that before making their recommendation anyway.
Hey ALTF members--don't let the district staff force you into presenting recommendations that are premature and that have or been evaluated for feasibility. Consider what sort of numbers you're talking about for each group, including the smaller groups like 2e or profoundly gifted. Make sure the schools and teachers have reasonable capacity to implement something consistent with the guidelines. Think about how the social and emotional development of kids in some of these smaller service categories would be impacted, including highly gifted students with LDs that have 504 plans but that could potentially qualify for IEPs if that didn't force them into this hypothetical 2e SDI service). You need to break things down into finer groups, better explaining who would qualify for which category of service and what that service might entail.
I know the downtown folks don't want to you to provide more than vague guidelines, but that's so they can do whatever they want and act like it fits your vision. Don't fall for it. Be explicit. Where there are serious concerns that need to be addressed first--by the task force or another public group, not staff--spell that out. Don't let them use you as cover. Please.
all types
Please don't start quoting from the gifted manuals to try to keep your
golden ticket.
SPS HC is NOT a "gifted program." Period.
In fact, its entrance requirements actually keep many actual gifted students
from getting in.
Gifted programming started out to help the students who were underachieving
in general education.
This program is a national disgrace as is. Juneau and others are not stupid.
Maybe it takes "top down" management (aka backbone) to finally get this montrosity under control.
comment
Do I think profoundly (and highly and exceptionally) gifted students in SPS need something different? Yes. Do I think we need to do better at identifying these students and providing appropriate services? Also yes. Does it appear the ALTF has addressed these issues of identification and services? No. Do I think they need to think more about the logistics of how to do both. Absolutely. That was my point.
Also, I have no clue what you're talking about re: keeping my golden ticket. I actually agree with what I assume undergirds your comment, that there's an important distinction between high achievement and giftedness (though many student can certainly exhibit both). You referred to "actual gifted students," so I assume you do believe intellectual giftedness (i.e., extreme outliers) does exist. Nothing I said is contrary to that.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions that just aren't true. If you have a specific question, I'm happy to respond.
all types
Given the SPS programming trajectory of the last ten years, it seems highly unlikely SPS will create something similar in the near future. They won't even supervise or support students who are working independently with online coursework. They recently put procedural barriers in place for students wanting to access accelerated coursework online.
reality
Seattle's IPP was experimental. I am all for a self-contained program that is reserved for outliers. That parallels least restrictive environment.
The rest should receive a continuum of services in their neighborhood schools.
comment
University Child Development School originated as a pilot study on campus at the UW in connection with Harvard, of gifted preschoolers.
Was that the same study you are referencing reality?
I’m not familiar with all the history, and I hadn’t heard that IPP/APP was a part of that, although I did observe a few Horizon classrooms.
So not impressed with Horizon classrooms, which was really unfortunate.
I don’t remember if I viewed Madrona, but as our oldest didn’t meet criteria for any enriched classroom in the district that was moot anyway.
However, she was part of another study at CDMRC, where she worked with Dr Robinson who advocated for her to attend UCDS.
It took us a year of trying to find alternatives, including hoping for admittance at Summit K-12, but she did eventually land at UCDS when they “ made us an offer we couldn’t refuse”.
It’s really a shame our district does not see the potential in students who have more variability than off the rack.
It’s more stressful than it needs to be for parents and for the kids.
I certainly am sympathetic to families who are looking for more input to their child’s education experience.
But I’m not optimistic that charters will fill that need anymore than Seattle public schools.
If you have a child who is proficient at reading before Kindergarten then you are a fool to let any SPS teacher near them.
You must home school with outside resources.
2e
Water well under the bridge. Now we have Kari Hanson preparing the great lie to the Board. "It's clear the majority of our handpicked TF members who have been presented limited info have decided in haste to say yes to doing something different. So MTSS is different and we now say that is what they want because the likes of Devin Bruckner, who stole speaking seats for her Gates nonprofit, says so.
Golden tickets don't exist in SPS. You buy your ticket for the only rigged system which is option schools.
Squirrelisnuts
In spite of being born ten weeks early and having intercrainal bleeds.
The kindergarten teacher at our neighborhood school freaked me out when I simply asked if there was other stuff she could do besides learning the alphabet. She suggested we look elsewhere.
I was very young and only noticed that there was a school within a few blocks when we moved in.
I thought that was all I needed to know!
I really feel for young parents.
Hey ALTF members,
Please don't let the district staff force you into presenting recommendations that are premature and that have NOT been thoroughly evaluated for feasibility. For example, consider what sort of numbers you're talking about for each group, including the smaller groups like 2e or profoundly gifted. If you're going to propose a "profoundly gifted academy," who would qualify and how would they be identified and how and where would they be taught? This is important information to discuss NOW--even if staff don't want you to--because otherwise you have no way of knowing if your proposed "prototype" is viable. At all. And if it isn't, the district will just have their way with it and do whatever they want, saying gosh, the ALTF recommended x but that doesn't really work, so we'll just eliminate that component and stick with classroom-based services for all (AKA no HC services).
Make sure the schools and teachers have reasonable capacity to implement something consistent with your prototype/guidelines, too. You expressed concerns about differences in capacity, and yes, you're probably on the right track there. So how does this influence your recommendations? Oversight isn't enough (and rarely happens in SPS anyway). So how do you come up with guidelines/recommendations/prototypical services that are "immune" to these disparities that we all know exist? You need something robust, and something specific enough to address these challenges. It's simply not enough to acknowledge them and not deal with them.
What about the social and emotional development of kids, especially kids in some of these smaller service categories that aren't explicitly called out in your generalized planning? How, for example, would highly gifted students with learning disabilities be treated? Would those with IEPs end up in multi-grade level SDI 2e classes, while those with 504 plans might end up in regular classes? What if either group also meets the outlier criteria for the proposed academy--would they be welcome there? In a school with fewer HC students--and thus even fewer 2e students--how many kids would be in a SDI 2e class, and would that really provide a reasonable social/emotional experience for those kids? You have to look at the numbers--and not just averages.
I know the downtown folks don't want to you to provide more than vague and general guidelines, but there is considerable risk in not thoroughly thinking through the unique situations. You're talking about outliers, who are by their definition not typical. You're also talking about outliers among outliers. One outlier is not like another, and they can't be easily lumped together into a single prototypical service category. This is not really an area conducive to a lot of generalization and oversimplification. Downtown wants you to not think too deeply about the specifics so they can turn around and do whatever they want and claim (a) that it aligns with your vision and recommendations, or (b) that your recommendations didn't really address x, y or z, or weren't really practical, so they are taking a different approach. Don't fall for it. As your recent minutes demonstrate, there are legitimate concerns and questions coming up, but there are still WAY too many unanswered questions for you to be anywhere near ready to make any legitimate recommendations. There is a LOT more analysis and consideration that still needs to happen for this ALTF work to come off as credible. I'm not saying you haven't done a lot of good work thus far--but you've still got a long ways to go. Please don't punt. Keep driving.
all types
"This program is a national disgrace as is. Juneau and others are not stupid.
Maybe it takes "top down" management (aka backbone) to finally get this montrosity under control."
Hyperbole much? You really negate your points with that kind of over-the-top nonsense.
All Types:
"Downtown wants you to not think too deeply about the specifics so they can turn around and do whatever they want and claim (a) that it aligns with your vision and recommendations, or (b) that your recommendations didn't really address x, y or z, or weren't really practical, so they are taking a different approach."
Yes, yes, yes.
ds
You’re mistaken that SPS HC is not a gifted program.
SPS uses the most effective* curriculum intervention for gifted students, acceleration (*per gifted experts report, “A Nation Deceived”).
It’s very cost effective, clear-cut and relatively easy to implement.
Given SPS economic realities, it’s the one thing they do right. The expense of Specialized gifted curriculum a la Bellevue or enrichment would be shot down in an instant by the equity folks as you well know.
Other modes of gifted teaching strategies such as depth, complexity and pace are in theory enmeshed in acceleration yet in practice vary by teacher, training and sometimes misinterpreted as the case where people think pace = fast.
I do agree with you that using achievement tests to block entry belies a true understanding of the purpose of teaching.
National disgrace? Joke? No, that’s obvious hyperbole. What SPS may be known for nationally is its far left politics and achievement gap, but not HCC.
As to disgrace, you may want to consider that the head of Equity in HCC used an appeal to gain her child entry into HCC yet refuses to give up her “golden ticket” despite working with Wyeth Jesse to remove appeals for everyone else behind her.
I can’t respect someone who doesn’t live by their ideals.
Moc
https://www.knkx.org/post/new-strategic-plan-place-seattle-school-district-plans-marketing-campaign
Just a small example, but part of a pattern of the district making questionable choices in its priorities and expenditures.
One possible slogan the district is considering is "We Are Excellence: One City. One District. One Goal." Another option is “Seattle Excellence. Engage. Empower. Educate.”
Seriously? Our city has one goal? If so, I doubt it's education. Our district has one goal? The new SPS strategic plan they are trying to market via this slogan literally has 4 priorities and 12--TWELVE--explicit goals.
RE: the second option, how do those words even fit together? Is "Seattle Excellence" the goal, and someone (?) needs to engage, empower, and educate to get there? Or are they saying we have achieved excellence, because we already do these things (to some extent)? Are these school-related, or citywide? It sounds like it could just as easily be a motto for the City Council instead of the school district.
Also, how do "engage," "empower," and "educate" relate to the strategic plan? I see "engage" is one of the priorities, and education (for at least some groups) is also a priority, but the other two don't seem to address "empowering," so that seems out of left field. And if better operational systems and a more culturally responsive workforce were both so important that they rose to the level of top 4 priorities in the new strategic plan, why are they also not reflected in the slogan?
Maybe the consultant needs some help. Ideas, anyone? I'm not good at coming up with this sort of PR BS, but I can recognize when things look "off."
How about:
Striving for Excellence: Educational Justice. Operational Efficiency. Cultural Responsiveness.
[Cuz we all know they ain't there yet, and they don't need to include the last priority re: engagement since it's only re: those furthest from educational justice and is thus already covered.]
Or maybe something a little more honest, like:
Excellence in Education: One Size. Fits All. Well Enough.
or
Seattle Style Education: Don't like it? You can leave.
Seriously, we need some decent slogan options.
Ideas, anyone?
SPS HC an achievement-oriented program. Period.
Because SPS is so backward in HC for a large school district, it is a national disgrace. I didn't say that it's on the nightly news.
"Hyperbole"? That's a straw man argument to avoid addressing the actual issue.
I agree that someone who got their kids in by appeal and now wants that type of appeals closed is a hypocrite.
So what? That, again, is a diversion from the actual issues.
comment
As for the calendars versus bogus logos and slogans I'm with Sue p. We hang that calendar every year not sure we're going to do without it. Thank God we have access to computers. I looked over last year's calendar and it had five dozen annotations. I will never look at the logo or slogan and think boy that's helpful. I agree with Melissa this is just Juneau's attempt to quickly put a stamp on this district so she can DeWolf out of here. I guess I'm scratching my head right now what was so bad about Enfield?
Bada absentee
Nyland absentee
Juneau - ? Leaning DeWolf/Geary
squirrel isnuts
Teresa
HCC can be BOTH a gifted program AND and achievement-oriented program at the same time. Are the eligibility criteria skewed toward high-achievers, and likely to miss some gifted students? Yes. But HCC also includes many gifted students, and since acceleration is considered one effective approach to gifted ed, it's gifted ed for them. For those who wouldn't technically meet some "gifted" threshold eligibility criterion but who do qualify for HCC based on high achievement, I guess you could argue it's an achievement-oriented program.
This is actually pretty consistent with state legislation, which includes both highly capable and high achieving. Personally, I think the legislature created a lot of these issues by conflating the two, but conflate they did. They refer to "students who perform or show potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels." Performing "at significantly advanced academic levels" sounds like achievement, while showing "potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels" sounds a lot like giftedness. They go on to note that outstanding abilities can be related to "intellectual aptitudes" or "academic abilities," which could also both be interpreted achievement and/or giftedness.
Just because SPS isn't doing a good job at identifying gifted students does not mean it's not a gifted program--it just means it's not a GOOD gifted program. In trying to split the difference between gifted and high-achieving, the program does a disservice to many who need it.
all types
Yes, a reasonable person would consider you calling the program a “national disgrace” hyperbole.
Now that you’re clarifying that your critique is specific to eligibility and not curricular method, I’d still disagree with your conclusion that SPS identification procedures are in stark contrast to other school districts.
If you review other districts eligibility criteria, they’re remarkably similar to SPS, so the “national disgrace” comment is unsubstantiated by facts.
SPS could improve access by following Northshore’s recent change to grant eligibility via one criteria rather than requiring students to jump through every hoop as does SPS. North shore also lowered thresholds.
But make no mistake, Northshore, and other districts, still use ability or achievement tests and have threshold criteria, so if SPS is “backward” as you say, well then all districts are backward.
You’re conflating “actual gifted” (dog whistle) with low achievement. Some students can be both gifted and high achievers, because of temperament, motivation, interest and, frankly, the 1-2 year’s acceleration may still be too easy as to effortlessly achieve top marks.
I’d understand your argument if it was with ALL public school districts use of achievement criteria as a non-negotiable entrance criteria, but I can’t agree with your assumption that this is a situation unique to SPS.
Moc
I’m curious what are your examples of why you think it’s ONLY an achievement program? Is this something your child(ren) personally experienced?
Moc
SPS: Equity! Social Justice! Our centralized bureaucracy knows best! Educational mediocrity for all!
Fed Up
The Stranger also tried to out who is in this group and is biased in their reporting. They lead the readers to infer all members (they think) are in the group come from dubious backgrounds...example a wealthy female real estate broker who descends from "one of the first white settlers of Seattle", someone married to a hedge fund executive etc.
NW resident
My problem with Moms for Seattle is that they are misrepresenting themselves, and trying to manipulate voters using emotionally charged fake photos. If they want to be honest, then they can identify themselves and their issues in an honest & forthright manner. The fact that none of their names is even on their website, leads me to wonder if they are even local. I'm a Seattle mom, no one invited me to join a group of mom's supporting Seattle. When are we meeting?
I am very concerned with issues you mentioned, but I will not be anonymously & dishonestly manipulated like that.
- Seattle Mom
This results in a program that is almost exclusively skewed to children of highly educated parents, which is a national disgrace because Seattle is supposedly so "progressive."
comment
comment
As explained by the maker of the CogAT, whether to use local norms or not is based largely on what services you intend to provide. If you're putting people into the same accelerated course of study, having universal cut-offs makes sense. If you're willing to provide a more developmental approach with tailored services that meet students where they're at--a good idea, but more challenging and expensive--then local norms make sense. In other words, the eligibility criteria and the program of services need to be aligned. The instructional approach needs to match the target population.
And this idea that there is some widespread effort on the part of parents to prep their students for HCC eligibility testing is not consistent with anything I've seen or experienced. Believe it or not, there are kids who pick things up on their own and qualify.
You complain that some kids get an apparently unfair advantage by getting "home enrichment," which can mean things like having a book around, having exposure to more vocabulary words, etc. So what some may call "nurture" is unfair in your eyes and distorts later identification as gifted. Does it also distort the development of giftedness itself, or just the identification of it? I think you've previously argued that giftedness doesn't have a genetic component (though most researchers suggest it's a combo of both nature and nurture), so where does it come from if it's not nature or nurture? You argue it's not innate, but also that disparities in experience distort how we recognize it--which seems to suggest you think it actually is innate. Doesn't make sense. I've never been able to get you to share your thoughts on that contradiction over the years.
Maybe today?
The state law mandates a "continuum of services" not a one-size-fits all model, whether it be achievement or not. Time for SPS to foolow state law. Servies should follow the student. The student should not fit in a service box.
Again, SpEd has been much of model of the state law mandate. Sounds like the district is finally on the right track through a discussion of reserving self-contained for the extreme outliers.
comment
Give me a break.
comment