Tuesday Open Thread
Update: Roosevelt High's Nevin Harrison is in the news - from NBC Sports:
Don’t forget #RoundUP for charity August 26-29th at our Wallingford location! Bring your friends and your family and "round up" the bill. All proceeds will be donated to the newly re-opened Lincoln High School!
The Seattle Pre-K program is advertising for more students - right now, they have about 80 spots open citywide. Seems odd that they aren't full given their expansion plans.
From Harvard's The Crimson: Incoming Harvard Freshman Deported After Visa Revoked
Via Twitter from Diane Ravitch:
How long can standardized testing fail to do anything but enrich testing corporations without folks demanding change?
I note that several candidates for school board have indeed state their unhappiness with standardized testing. I have been on the record against it as well. But what would it take to change it, given the feds could punish districts that have high opt-out rates? And what would replace it so parents and taxpayers know how students are doing?
Also on Twitter is this story about a Native American-focused charter school in Oklahoma; I saw it because the Washington State Charter Schools Association retweeted it. I did hear that Superintendent Juneau had suggested this to the embattled UNEA group several months ago. But a charter school is a heavy, heavy lift in this state.
I'll have a thread on charter schools soon; apparently one of the newer ones here - Willow - is struggling to keep going.
As well, there is a trend of charter schools being more segregated than public school districts. The KIPP chain has mostly African-American students and many charter schools in LA are mainly Hispanic. And parents like it because they feel more comfortable with their children being in schools where the students and parents look like them. Good thing or bad thing?
One irony for UNEA with the coming revamping of Advanced Learning; I wonder if Cascadia was no longer an HCC school, would the district move Licton Springs K-8 there? (On the premise that HCC services would be provided in every classroom in every school in the district.)
What's on your mind?
Nevin Harrison, a 17-year-old from Seattle, became the first American to earn a world championships medal in a sprint canoe event, and it happened to be gold, surprising herself in the 200m in Szeged, Hungary, on Saturday.Via Twitter from Dick's:
Harrison joined Greg Barton as the only Americans to win an individual world title in sprint canoe or kayak. No U.S. woman has earned Olympic gold in any kayak event.
Women’s canoe debuts at the Tokyo Games. If Harrison can repeat the feat in Tokyo next year, she will become the youngest woman to earn Olympic canoe or kayak gold, breaking the record of legendary German Birgit Fischer-Schmidt, whom some consider the greatest female Olympian in history across all sports with 12 medals and eight golds.
Don’t forget #RoundUP for charity August 26-29th at our Wallingford location! Bring your friends and your family and "round up" the bill. All proceeds will be donated to the newly re-opened Lincoln High School!
The Seattle Pre-K program is advertising for more students - right now, they have about 80 spots open citywide. Seems odd that they aren't full given their expansion plans.
From Harvard's The Crimson: Incoming Harvard Freshman Deported After Visa Revoked
U.S. officials deported Ajjawi, a 17-year-old Palestinian resident of Tyre, Lebanon, Friday night shortly after he arrived at Boston Logan International Airport. Before canceling Ajjawi’s visa, immigration officers subjected him to hours of questioning — at one point leaving to search his phone and computer — according to a written statement by Ajjawi.
Ajjawi wrote that he told the officer he had not made any political posts and that he should not be held responsible for others’ posts.
“I responded that I have no business with such posts and that I didn't like, [s]hare or comment on them and told her that I shouldn't be held responsible for what others post,” he wrote. “I have no single post on my timeline discussing politics.”What is concerning here is what if this kind of heavy-handed treatment starts trickling down? Like to scholarships or college admissions? If your student "likes" or reposts, is that grounds to kick them out of a school or rescind their enrollment?
University officials are currently working to resolve the matter before classes begin on Sept. 3, University spokesperson Jonathan L. Swain wrote in an email.
Via Twitter from Diane Ravitch:
How long can standardized testing fail to do anything but enrich testing corporations without folks demanding change?
I note that several candidates for school board have indeed state their unhappiness with standardized testing. I have been on the record against it as well. But what would it take to change it, given the feds could punish districts that have high opt-out rates? And what would replace it so parents and taxpayers know how students are doing?
Also on Twitter is this story about a Native American-focused charter school in Oklahoma; I saw it because the Washington State Charter Schools Association retweeted it. I did hear that Superintendent Juneau had suggested this to the embattled UNEA group several months ago. But a charter school is a heavy, heavy lift in this state.
I'll have a thread on charter schools soon; apparently one of the newer ones here - Willow - is struggling to keep going.
As well, there is a trend of charter schools being more segregated than public school districts. The KIPP chain has mostly African-American students and many charter schools in LA are mainly Hispanic. And parents like it because they feel more comfortable with their children being in schools where the students and parents look like them. Good thing or bad thing?
One irony for UNEA with the coming revamping of Advanced Learning; I wonder if Cascadia was no longer an HCC school, would the district move Licton Springs K-8 there? (On the premise that HCC services would be provided in every classroom in every school in the district.)
What's on your mind?
Comments
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2019/08/25/two-news-stories-from-abroad-suggest-american-education-is-on-the-wrong-track/#232af53456ed
West
https://twitter.com/PedroANoguera/status/1166458593014685698
"Instead of eliminating gifted programs NY City should expand them. All kids deserve access to a challenging education. Too often we confuse privilege w giftedness. NY has a chance to change this."
Sure are a lot of white women arguing against him though. Not a good look for them.
Noguera Student
"I've read this panel’s report. Comprised solely of diversity advocates (the panel excludes anyone concerned with gifted or accelerated education), they identify real problems with the current system, yet don’t even try to think about the needs of higher achievers, or solutions that would balance the two. Instead, they advocate a system entirely comprised of “non-selective schools”, citing a single study [“footnote 14”] of a single school district that did this successfully. They don’t mention that this poorly conducted study involved a tiny, rich, non-diverse (78% white) school district that poured enormous resources into supplemental classes to help lower performers, didn’t even measure the dropout and attrition rates, and supposedly didn’t ultimately have students with behavior problems. They also don’t acknowledge the impossibility of effectively teaching to more than two ability levels per class. There are so many potential actions that might seek to increase classroom diversity while helping high achievers. They merit an “F” for this poor excuse for an analysis."
deja vu
Giving up on blogging all things SPS...Right, what BS.
Habitual BS-er
The College Board is dropping its plan to give SAT-takers a single score that captures a student's economic hardship. The change comes after blowback from university officials and parents of those taking the college admissions exam.
Announced in May, the "adversity score" was intended to assess the kind of neighborhood the student came from, including factors such as the portion of teens receiving free or reduced lunch, the level of crime and average educational attainment.
In an interview with NPR, College Board CEO David Coleman said that boiling all of that complex information down to one number was problematic and that the company is now reversing its decision.
Some people worried that the adversity score would affect SAT scores, when that was never the case, Coleman said.
"The idea of a single score was confusing because it seemed that all of a sudden the College Board was trying to score adversity. That's not the College Board's mission," Coleman said. "The College Board scores achievement, not adversity."
And so the College Board is launching a tool called Landscape, which will provide admissions counselors with information about a student's background, like average neighborhood income and crime rates, but Coleman said the data points will not be given a score.
The College Board is letting college officials do their own analysis from the government information it provides alongside SAT scores.
"We'll leave the interpretation to the admission's officer," Coleman said. "In other words, we're leaving a lot more room for judgment."
The College Board initially conceived of the idea of providing schools with a student's background information at the request of colleges and universities in an attempt to view a student's objective SAT results in the context of the conditions under which the student lives and learns, Coleman said. The thinking, he said, was that if a student overcame economic or other challenges to earn a certain SAT score, that information should be known by decision-makers.
"The founding mission of the College Board is, it's not about your connections, it's not about who you know," Coleman said. "It's about what you've done."
The adversity score did not account for a student's race, but schools that used the tool reported that the socioeconomic data helped boost nonwhite enrollment.
Revising the approach but keeping the contextual background information will hopefully appease the college counselors and parents who were upset over the adversity score, Coleman said.
"The first move was to admit," he said, "that summing it up in a single score was a mistake, so we've stopped that."
Pushback against the initial score included the criticism that how the information was calculated, along with what each student's score was, remained unavailable to the students and their families. Now, Coleman said, that will change.
"Within a year, we'll be able for every family and student, on their College Board account, to show them their neighborhood and school information transparently," he said.
voteNO
Trying to mislead people like you seem to be doing isn't a good look for you.
Also, while I think we all agree with him that "all kids deserve access to a challenging education," it's important to realize that what's challenging to one student is not necessarily challenging to another.
HF
It’s painful to consider little kids who don’t get a fair shake: it’s outrageous & unacceptable and requires urgent remedy. However, what is the solution? More likely, what are the solutions? I don’t believe one size fits all. It’s complicated and nuanced. Hysteria & dogma is non-productive & ends up penalizing the very kids who need support.
Parents are always going to focus on nurturing their own children, so the perception that academics are getting worse will drive families to exits. And like health insurance, we need everybody to buy into 1 system in order for the system to work for everybody.
Drop-ceiling equity reinforces the low expectations that fail to challenge young people to developmentally mature. Because reality is that everything is a competition, & kids are going to have to hustle, & demonstrate persistence, resilience, & moxie to realize their dreams. Doesn’t matter if they want to be an artist or a carpenter, a banker or a chef, they are going to need to compete & stand out in a positive way to succeed.
At the end of the day, all of these SPS kids are going to be 18-year-olds who are going to be interviewing for internships or jobs at IBM or Hyatt and they’re going to need to present themselves well, be articulate, and share about their own effectiveness & how they can contribute as a team member.
If kids do not demonstrate prosocial behavior in schools, and they’re never corrected because that might trigger some kind of accusations of racism or disproportionate discipline, who’s going to suffer the most? Clearly, the child who doesn’t get that feedback about expectations, who is buffered from the consequences of his actions.
That’s why social emotional learning is so critical, especially for students of color who face blatant or unintentional alienation. Being frustrated &angry is normal and natural, especially if you’re on the receiving end of unremitting institutionalized racism, but to move past those emotions to realize dreams is essential. Getting stuck in the frustration and anger or not growing a tool kit to manage emotions is going to cause further damage.
Solutions need to come from all corners, and everyone bears responsibility to make it better, but drop ceiling equity isn’t a solution and is turning off those who would be allies. So many blog comments talk about evidence-based best practices, and it’s very clear they haven’t done any real reading on the subject matter, because if they had they would see that acceleration and telescoping and self-containment are best practices.
The median percentile for 8th grade math at Eckstein is 90th percentile. You can take apart Eckstein, but that’s not going to do his damn thing for a food-insecure middle schooler living in section 8 housing in south Seattle with a single parent who works 3 minimum-wage jobs to make ends meet.
As I said, I believe there are multiple solutions that require intention from all stakeholders, but taking something away from kids who are doing OK is never going to help kids who aren’t. Look at WMS for that. Did destroying a phenomenal music program do anything for the kids living in economically marginalized circumstances?
Go High
In The Dignity of Working Men, I identified census tracks in the Parisian and New York suburbs with large numbers of working-class people. I define ‘working-class’ as low-status white collar workers, such as people who work in sales and blue-collar workers.
I interviewed randomly-selected people in their homes and elsewhere. I asked them questions designed to discover what criteria they used to evaluate others. I would systematically cull the criteria and then compared the criteria used by the majority group (white workers) with the criteria used by the most stigmatized groups in each country—North-African immigrants in France, and African-Americans in the United States.
There were clear differences in how different groups defined morality. For instance, white workers in the States emphasized the most important dimension of morality was the “disciplined self”; that is, paying your bills and working hard. African-Americans, meanwhile, stressed the “caring self,” which has to do with solidarity and sympathy for other human beings and respect for where they come from.
Go High
That book is not specifically about education, but the sociology discipline can provide context for cultural norms, and thus is a compelling source of insight to apply to the intractable problem in public K-12 education of African American and Hispanic students not performing as well as White or Asian peers.
Also, see Engines of Anxiety: Rankings, Reputation, and Accountability by Michael Sauder & Wendy Espeland.
“This is a very important book. It connects the movement toward growing quantification of performance with growing inequality.
The authors take as their point of departure the publication of law school rankings by U S News and World Report. They show that once these rankings started to be published, many law schools began adjusting their programs to improve their standing in the very dimensions that were being measured. For instance, they would game who they would offer admission to first, so that they could have better statistics on admissions test scores. The authors do lot of interviews with deans and faculty to understand how the quantification of performance perverts the mission of these schools. That is fed by came from the diffusion of performance standards.
Espeland and Sauder frame the book as a contribution to our understanding of about a broader phenomenon—what social scientists call ‘the audit society.’ Individuals and institutions are increasingly quantifying performance with a lot of the perverse and unintended consequences. The movement toward the audit society has been associated with the neo-liberalism, how institutions are using market mechanism to maximize efficacy and outcomes.
Q: You’ve been pointing out that quantitative evaluation can have perverse effects for decades.
Quantitative tools have a flattening effect. For instance, in the United States, teenagers considering college enter their grade point average and test scores into a program called Naviance. The program will suggest what kind of university they should be applying to—which ones are their reach and safety schools.
Naviance creates the sense among teenagers that there is one objective universal hierarchy, and it creates more competition as everyone can be ranked on a single set of standards. If this tool did not exist, it would be easier for applicants to understand that different schools have different missions, and meet the needs of different students. It’s an example of how quantification has perverse effects once institutionalized.”
Go High
For those interested in seeing how another district is handling the equity issue look no further than Shoreline. The difference in tone and commitment to ALL students is striking.
NW Parent
https://twitter.com/PedroANoguera/status/1166458593014685698
"Instead of eliminating gifted programs NY City should expand them. All kids deserve access to a challenging education. Too often we confuse privilege w giftedness. NY has a chance to change this."
He couldn't be more right.
I actually think it hurts kids’ colllege prospects as colleges expect a kid in HCC to get 3.9 gpa just like a kid at a regular HS, yet many cohorted kids can’t seem to manage to do that, for whatever reason. UW and other schools look favorably on students who can get the 3.9 without having to sequester themselves from the non-gifted.
Kids studying for gifted program entrance at 4 years old is not a good thing, but that is what is happening in NY and probably here as well.
JJ
NOTE: The above quote by Noguera is conflating two completely different things. "A challenging education" and "gifted programs" are NOT the same thing. For some students, a grade-level education is challenging enough (as it should be, since grade-level curricula should be designed to allow for challenge and growth). For others, an education even two years above grade-level may not offer challenge. If the grade-level materials and expectations have been lowered too much over the years, then simply raise them. If more people need access to beyond-grade-level educations, find them and serve them. At the same time, if already-above-grade-level students also need more challenging work, provide that, too. We need to meet students where they are. And if we're really that concerned about perpetuating the status quo, we need to devote more resources and more intensive services to those early ages, to help prevent/minimize the disparities before our educational system is practically powerless to overcome them.
I will also note that the reverse of what he said is also often true, and people often mistake giftedness for privilege.
all types
And I don't know which "regular" schools you think have "delivered," but that's certainly not the experience of many. Maybe you were at a school with a high percentage of AL-qualified, or at least above-average performing, students. Surely you can understand that your own experience might not be representative of the district overall, right?
all types
no caps
Reality Check
No reality check probably not lumpy all posters into one category. But I would say it's less than a handful even though they represent a lot of the post and monikers. Tone and language seems to point to at least two posters (perhaps husband and wife?) But not many more than that. The gist of it is that facts don't matter. Slanderish language is the norm. Prestiges classes are where? Ha.
MSRP
Ruthie
But again, why focus on the facts if you can make s*** up to smear and denigrate students and their families.
MSRP
Individuals need to realize that people try to get their students into HCC because advanced learning opportunities have been destroyed.
The same people that want their children in HCC understand that regular classrooms are not meeting the needs of their children. A single teacher can not effectively differentiate. The teacher teaches to the middle. Destroy advanced learning and families will leave.
Reality Check
Dahlia Bazzaz reports:
Another raise is probably on the horizon for the superintendent. Next board meeting, there will be a proposal to bump her salary to $300,900. It's a $6k raise, but she just got a $15k bonus.
It's part of a 2% inflationary increase in salary that the state provides funding for
By TARYN LUNA AUG. 28 2019
Warring factions of California’s K-12 education system have reached an agreement on legislation that would place new restrictions on charter schools and pause a long-standing battle at the state Capitol between politically powerful teachers unions and deep-pocketed charter advocates.
The deal, announced Wednesday, gives public school districts more authority to reject petitions for new charter campuses, phases in stricter credentialing requirements for charter school teachers and places a two-year moratorium on new virtual charter schools. The accord marks a rare compromise between groups that have poured millions into local and statewide campaigns to gain leverage in a fight over public education dollars.
Aides to Gov. Gavin Newsom held separate meetings with each side and acted as an intermediary in intense negotiations over Assembly Bill 1505 that they said began in late spring. The governor, who was publicly optimistic about striking an agreement ahead of a looming legislative deadline, said talks continued throughout the weekend and late into the night this week.
“A lot of hard work has gone into this, and all that matters to me is the result,” Newsom told reporters Tuesday. “If we can pull something off, it’s a significant thing and it’s not easy. A lot of people have strong opinions on both sides.”
The agreement could allow the Newsom administration to move past a complex political issue that has splintered the Capitol and threatened to dominate the education policy debate during his tenure.
Newsom’s office said the bill, the biggest revision of state charter school law in more than 25 years, settles critical points of contention between charters and traditional public schools and lays a foundation for the groups to work together on efforts that are in the best interest of children. Some education advocates are hopeful that charter backers and teachers unions will team up on 2020 ballot measures to increase school funding, instead of fighting over reform.
Charter schools in California are publicly funded and independently operated. Originally authorized in 1992 legislation to promote educational innovation, charter schools have evolved from an experiment to a system that enrolls more than 600,000 students across the state. California ties education funding to enrollment, and charters have often been pitted against traditional neighborhood schools in a competition for students.
Teachers unions and reform advocates have accused charter schools of draining the financial resources of local districts that might already be strapped and have argued that the state gives districts little say when it comes to approving new schools. Critics have also called for more accountability for charter operations and performance.
State law currently requires a school district to approve any new charters that meet basic requirements. Charter school proponents can appeal denials to a county board of education and then the State Board of Education, an entity whose members are appointed by the governor and tended to side with new charters under former Gov. Jerry Brown.
The new agreement provides some notable wins to teachers unions, which negotiated the deal with a labor coalition that included the California Teachers Assn., California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation and California School Employees Assn.
“After months of honest and difficult conversations, we have made significant progress on behalf of our students,” the labor coalition said in a statement. “We believe the measure California lawmakers will vote on will lead to a more equitable learning environment for students in California’s neighborhood public schools.”
Under the bill, local school boards would be allowed to reject new charter petitions based on the school’s potential fiscal effects on the district and whether the charter seeks to offer programs that the district already provides, according to the governor’s office.
Con’t
The deal would require all new charter school teachers to hold the same credentials as traditional public schools next year and phase in requirements for existing teachers over five years, the governor’s office said.
The proposal would also eliminate the state board’s role as a chartering authority, allowing it only to weigh appeals to determine whether a school district abused its discretion in denying the petition.
Under existing law, the agency that grants a petition allowing a charter to operate is often responsible for providing oversight of that school regardless of where its campus is located — the Board of Education in Sacramento has, in some instances, overseen charter schools as far away as Los Angeles and San Diego.
Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach), a former high school teacher who introduced Assembly Bill 1505 this year, criticized the system in a July hearing.
“Local school boards and administrators know their districts and students best and should have the ability to determine which charters are best for their students,” O’Donnell said.
The California Charter Schools Assn. argued that earlier versions of the bill gave too much discretion to local school districts to block new charters without a valid reason. They previously said that Assembly Bill 1505, coupled with other legislative proposals, would effectively implement a moratorium on new public charter schools.
In a concession described as a bonus for charters by people involved in the deal, the legislation would allow county boards of education to retain their role in reviewing appeals for denied charter petitions. The two-year moratorium on virtual and other non-classroom-based charter schools also falls short of calls by unions for a statewide freeze on all new charters.
“We are removing our opposition, and we are certainly doing our part to inform the Legislature that we think this is a balanced resolution to a long-standing debate between charter schools and school districts that affirms the role for high-performing charter schools in California,” said Carlos Marquez, senior vice president of government affairs at the California Charter Schools Assn.
Additional provisions of the agreement would require charter schools to meet the same performance standards as traditional public schools, the governor’s office said. The law would build on legislation passed this year to ensure charters reflect the demographics of special education students, English language learners and other groups in the communities in which they are located, according to the governor’s office.
“This agreement focuses on the needs of our students,” Newsom said in a statement with other state leaders. “It increases accountability for all charter schools, allows high-quality charter schools to thrive, and ensures that the fiscal and community impacts of charter schools on school districts are carefully considered.”
This is the second time Newsom has intervened in the legislative process to help pass new restrictions on charter schools after wealthy charter advocates opposed him in the governor’s race.
Less than two months after assuming office, the governor followed through on a campaign promise and signed a law requiring charters to meet similar transparency standards as traditional public schools. Newsom denied suggestions that the proposal was a form of political payback for charter advocates spending $23 million to back former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Newsom’s Democratic opponent last year. The California Charter Schools Assn. supported the final iteration of the bill.
Newsom’s approach marks a shift from those of Brown and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who supported charters and vetoed similar transparency bills in previous years.
~cynic
At this point, the “sup” is a position of nothing more than a obstructionist figurehead. An empty chair over the last six years probably would’ve been more beneficial to students than having Banda/Nyland/Juneau. I am NOT being rhetorical.
I remember the board giving Nyland more money: quite simply, these people are not minding their fiscal fiduciary responsibilities (which a polite attempt to refrain from calling them idiots). He was already retired, and just clocking in hours to soak up extra dough to pad his retirement. Which he did. Good for him. And Banda? He did NOTHING. He vacuumed money out of our budget for himself, then took off when he realized he could make bank going back down to California because of the pension system structure. Now the current sup? Shades of Goodloe-Johnson: Juneau is dictatorial and holds proven educational strategies with total contempt, it’s all about test scores for her, but she refuses to deploy tools that can actually help kids learn & therefore improve their learning. Juneau took a take-no-prisoners approach to ramming through Amplify: make no mistake, the corporate ed reformers are going to make sure she does well in the predictable 2 to 3 years when she exits Seattle for greener pastures. So predictable.
If we’re cutting our budget by 20%, I would slash it her contract, at the first possible opportunity, if she didn’t like it, she could walk.
That $6000? I’d rather give it to principle of a high free and reduced lunch school and let them choose how to deploy it, whether it’s a reading tutor, recess monitor, or more counselor FTE, that would be a far better for kids.
But anyway, as long as educational levees keep passing automatically every three years, the school district will keep spending money like drunken trust fund teenagers with no concept of return on investment. The money we fork over to them is supposed to nurture kids and help them grow to be their best selves. Instead, it feeds bureaucracy and forces teachers into impossible situations and leaves principles nearly powerless to do right by their communities.
WASTE NOT
all types
I love your frequent line that "you don’t need to sit next to a genius to use your own brain." There's a lot to unpack there. I think you intended to mean that an HC-identified student doesn't need to be in an HCC cohort, because they can just learn on their own! While true to some extent, the reality is that HC students forced to sit in classes operating way below their academic level end up spending a lot of their time bored as the teacher covers things they already know--without the opportunity to "use their own brain" because they need to pay attention to the teacher. Then they also end up doing a bunch of homework that is essentially "busy work," because that's what the teacher assigned. If your premise is that these kids should do regular school first and then do their actual learning as an extracurricular activity, I find that unacceptable. For one, it teaches them to hate school. Two, it denies them the opportunity to learn how to fail, to be challenged in class. Three, it teaches them that their teachers (and the community) don't give a $#!* about them. And four, it teaches them to resent average students who are holding them back and making their school experience miserable. They may not need to sit next to a genius in class to use their own brains on their free time, but they can certainly see that sitting next to students who are not at their academic or intellectual level is negatively impacting their class time. I don't think that teaches the message we want--and it also makes these students feel isolated and different (which they often are).
The other interesting thing about your catchy little comment is that it actually goes both ways. If true that "you don’t need to sit next to a genius to use your own brain," why do you insist that we need to undo HCC and bring HC students back into regular classrooms so that regular students can benefit from having them around? Are you saying that HC don't need other HC students around because they can just figure out how to school themselves on the side, whereas regular students do need HC students around because they do need to sit next because otherwise they can't use their own brains?
all types
Also, why are you assuming that only "gifted" students can take honors and AP/IB/RS classes, anyway? Give regular students some credit.
all types
PS. - Staff can believe what they want, and yes, they'll continue to make decisions as they want--oftentimes, bad ones. But just because staff say or do something it doesn't make it best or right. And really, what percentage of the staff making such decisions are experts in gifted education and assessment? Or would test at the 99th percentile for adult IQs? Statistically, not many.
What? No parent can get their kid into HCC on their own say-so which is what I think you mean by "parental gifted assessment."
And again, any low-income student can get outside testing...for free.
As for prep, I don't know what to tell you. I actually haven't seen that here in Seattle except for getting into private schools.
As for why some staff might not like HCC - no principal and most teachers don't want gifted learners to leave their schools. It brings down their test scores. That might not be the only reason but it certainly is a reason I have heard for years and years.
Beware of people who hide their true selves to run for office.
And, that means no one is buying those Amazon books?
LMAO
no caps
Can’t hide
Reality Check
1) Academically advanced students aren't "really" gifted.
2) Families "game" the system by prepping or private testing or whatever, because they aren't "truly" gifted.
3) Evidence of this "gaming" is the lack of perfect grades in advanced coursework (or not getting NMSF status or not getting into Harvard/Yale/Stanford/MIT or wherever).
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge some students need significant advancement, not just "deeper" materials? No need for prepping, pushing, or private testing.
As to the hostility toward HC students from some teachers, staff, and principals - many students are fully aware. Unfortunately, SPS does not provide meaningful gifted ed training or require gifted ed experience for those teaching HC students. And it is unprofessional and flat out wrong to retaliate against students for the actions of their parents (whatever their concern).
@Barn Fire said: "There is a conversation on SPS Community Discussion A district employee and Liza Rankin seem to want to burn down advanced learning." Why not name the employee, TC-G, who seems very open about the need to "Burn. It. Down." (her very words).
same old
Why only make engaging challenging academics for demanding parents? (If you think sped parents are not demanding, you’ve never in an IEP meeting with me, yet classrooms are often less academically engaging & challenging for my sped kid than for the gen ed kids whose parent aren’t constantly badgering teachers. )
If we are going to have the same experience for all kids why choose the ‘boring’ & ineffective learning experience that folks say students currently have in gen ed. Instead Just start them all 2 years ahead in 1st grade. Then everyone would have that engaging, challenging learning experience that HCC parents demand for their kids.
The real problem is that class sizes are too big to meet the needs of individual students, including HCC classrooms where there is also great variability among students. If teachers can’t meet the needs of sped kids in gen ed classrooms, and they aren’t, then it seems clear that they can’t meet the needs of all variation in learning abilities in one classroom. So just dispersing one group of students who learn differently into gen ed classrooms is not going to solve that problem.
It is hard to believe that teachers really prefer to teach ‘boring’ curriculum. Maybe it is just too much work to teach engaging curriculum given the 190 student loads and limited planning time.
-mythological czech
Reality Check
If grade-level classes--which are presumably at the appropriate level for most students since they were designed with most students in mind--are boring, then we need to adjust our grade-level expectations and make each grade harder than it currently is. I find it hard to believe this is the case, however, given that (a) parents often complain that too much rigor is expected of young children and they would benefit from a more play-focuses approach; (b) many students aren't testing at grade level on state tests; and (c) we still have students who don't graduate. But, if we want to push all kids harder to match the level at which my kid is learning, cool!
However, if you stand by your biased interpretation of my comment as meaning "that some kids deserve the boring classes, 'at their level'"...while other kids deserve "something much more," you still don't get it. The supposed "something much more" ISN'T more--it's just the regular curriculum, a year or two ahead of schedule. If a student has mastered their numbers, addition, and subtraction, doesn't it make sense to move on to multiplication and division? Adding bigger and bigger numbers to fill time and go beyond what the rest of the class is doing isn't going to do much for the student (plus, you'd probably complain anyway, "how come they get bigger numbers?").
I did get a chuckle out of your "given deep and interesting materials all students learn at varying levels" comment. Ha! Yes, IF students were given deep and interesting materials, and IF they had the option to skip the stuff they already knew and move ahead to what they didn't, and IF they could just test out of even the whole book/curriculum if they knew most of already and then "go deeper" on their own, maybe by using a supplemental text or an in-class computer, that sounds great. But that's rarely if ever the case. You want to give my child their own textbook and let them sit in the corner of the room and read through it and see if they can glean any new info from it, without having to sit through a bunch of overly simplified lessons and busy work. Awesome. Let's do it. Then when my kid finishes the book and is ready to move on in a month or two, the teacher will give them maybe a high school level textbook on the same thing? Double awesome. Let's do it. My kid would be in heaven. More importantly, the could learn. (And if you put them only sort of in the corner, some other kids could sit next to them and somehow benefit from watching my kid skip ahead, right?)
"Principals on down truly do not buy into the proposition that kids who privately test, are actually gifted requiring something special." Well, what can I say? If that's the case, "principals on down" are ignorant. They may not get it, they may not have seen/felt it up close, but there truly are some children, and adults, who are of greater intellectual capacity than others. If these teachers and administrators are more likely to "believe" the results of quick, group-based testing conducted by the district rather than privately-conducted and much more extensive testing done by respected professionals, that's their right. Even if they're wrong. Funny that you seem to support them in their reliance on an unreliable test for eligibility.
all types
Hmm. Which to address first, the fact that parents and students have experienced hostility and derision from teachers and administration, even if you have not personally witnessed it, or the suggestion that parent concerns come from "entitlement seeking" parents, which I'd assume you mean parents of HC students?
Ayn
Ooh, I have! Toward students, that is.
How about a teacher pointing out to the entire class that an HC-identified student in a regular GE classroom--a student who nearly always scored 100%--got something wrong, so the whole class could savor the moment and put that student in their place?
How about a principal refusing to allow a student to work ahead independently, even when the teacher requested and advocated for it?
How about a teacher yelling at a student in class for asking a legitimate question because the teacher had contradicted herself (and probably felt embarrassed about it and was paranoid that the kid was trying to make her look bad when in reality the kid was, you know, a young kid with a great memory and a rule follower and was genuinely confused because their "teacher" said something that didn't make sense)?
How about a student being repeatedly admonished that their questions were too complex (because they actually did use their brain as you suggested do some learning outside of the classroom when the boring material in class had piqued their curiosity), and they needed to stick to the basics in the future?
To be fair, I have NOT experienced hostility from teachers toward me as a parent. Mostly just regret, an acknowledgement that they weren't able to serve the student well and we should find ways to supplement at home, or look for a better fit. I appreciated the honesty, as well as their willingness to work with our solutions when possible.
all types
HP
If HCC kids are mostly coming from these white more affluent schools with kids performing higher on tests. then why do they leave for lower income HCC program schools?
The answer is because their kids need something different from their (white or asian more affluent) peers.
In addition parents and families of HCC kids are no different than the other parents and families in their neighborhoods regarding "parent meddling". This generation (& perhaps socioeconomic group) does have more "helicopter parents". I also heard that complaint from a teacher I know who teaches affluent kids in private school.
That being said, let me put a crack in the HCC student stereotype by stating I have an HCC qualified kid who tested in through the school process, not privately. We are also a single parent middle income family and our kid has generations of poverty on both sides of the family.
In addition, we know an HCC qualified kid who also skipped a grade, moved around alot, landed in the SPS HCC, who is also F&R lunch born to extreme disadvantage. I don't want to out the kid by sharing too much info. Both my kid and this other kid were extreme outliers (within top 1% IQ) at their non-HCC schools. We were told by teachers to test. Our kids tested in for 5th grade.
They needed something different. These kids exist. If you are low income or don't come from generations of college educated parents, or ELL etc. it is harder to qualify for these programs, because like any other process, they entail a process that more affluent educated families navigate with more ease.
There should be accelerated coursework available for kids who need it. This would make tons of people happy, as qualifying for HCC I have noticed seems like a prize to my affluent neighbors of kids who don't qualify.
However, there should be also be something else to better engage kids like ours in school and access peers for the socio-component these kids share.
Two cents
NW Parent
First, I find it painful to hear - from all sides - that General Education classes are "boring." It is disrespectful to those teachers. And, it's not true. So please don't denigrate the work of the majority of teachers in SPS.
I think the issue is the quality of teacher versus HCC students are somehow getting a better experience.
They certainly are NOT getting a different curriculum - that's just not true.
I think the issue of class size is absolutely one of main barriers to having all kids stay at their neighborhood schools. You can try to differentiate but when you have some kids who read at a below-grade-level and some who are far above, it's very tough. And then you have the kids right in the middle who may be forgotten in all this.
As for "tracking", please. Come into any elementary classroom and, at some point in the day, kids will be separated (Walk to Math or reading groups). When you allow a teacher or volunteer to work with a group that is all about the same, you are better able to make progress.
"I’ve never witnessed hostility directed to students or even towards entitlement seeking parents."
I have and I've seen it since my own kids were in school. And apparently, you don't listen to Board testimony because plenty of parents come to the mic to decry other parents.
And I agree with all who are saying,"I DID send my kid to the neighborhood school and either the work wasn't rigorous enough OR the principal/teacher is hostile to doing anything differently."
Year after year, there were CSIPs submitted about what each school was doing to meet the needs of AL students and most of it never happened. What is really sad is that schools are required to have something in place for ANY student who wants to access more rigor whether tested or not. That also didn't happen and the district turned its head away.
Blaming parents for this situation is wrong. It's all on the district.
I always thought the issue was that the district was not making the effort to find highly capable students of color. This is serious because there are highly capable youth across all spectrums of race/ethnic background/income and therefore, not finding them meant their academic needs/abilities were not being met.
That latter sentence is still true except the reality I have found is that many people's wants - including principals and teachers - is not for them to be in any program. It's to serve them in their neighborhood school. (It's unclear to me if those kids would need to be identified or not.)
Why? Several reasons. Keeping kids in their neighborhoods for social/cultural reasons. Costs of transportation and time kids are on a bus. Things like that.
But one reason that principals and teachers, especially in Title One schools, don't like to admit is they want to keep their high-level learners at their schools because 1) those kids tend to drive the other kids' interest and 2) it helps their school test scores.
This is not to say that the only curious or excited learners are high-level kids. I know that from my own experience. But teachers like to have kids who can push that discussion along for the rest of the class.
Is any of this bad? Not necessarily but if there is not a real structure in place - at ever single school - to provide supports to meet the needs of kids AND smaller class sizes, then it's all word salad.
I know that most teachers do what they humanly can to meet the needs of all kids in their classrooms but the reality is that if they don't have the supports and the class is 25+ kids, they will teach to the middle or lower. Because their first responsibility is to make sure all kids can read,write and do math and if some kids already are there, they figure those kids will be fine.
The district applied for a grant. The grant is connected to the new science standards/ alignment. The district applied for the grant before Amplify was adopted by the board.
The district once had a staff member that was involved with a scandal.
Community members are smart to analyze staff recommendations.
Reminders of stereotyped inferiority hurt test scores.
A growing body of studies undercuts conventional assumptions that genetics or cultural differences lead some students - such as African Americans or girls - to do poorly on standardized academic tests and other academic performances. Instead, it's become clear that negative stereotypes raise inhibiting doubts and high-pressure anxieties in a test-taker's mind, resulting in the phenomenon of "stereotype threat." Psychologists Claude Steele, PhD, Joshua Aronson, PhD, and Steven Spencer, PhD, have found that even passing reminders that someone belongs to one group or another, such as a group stereotyped as inferior in academics, can wreak havoc with test performance.
Steele, Aronson and Spencer, have examined how group stereotypes can threaten how students evaluate themselves, which then alters academic identity and intellectual performance. This social-psychological predicament can, researchers believe, beset members of any group about whom negative stereotypes exist.
Steele and Aronson gave Black and White college students a half-hour test using difficult items from the verbal Graduate Record Exam (GRE). In the stereotype-threat condition, they told students the test diagnosed intellectual ability, thus potentially eliciting the stereotype that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. In the no-stereotype-threat condition, the researchers told students that the test was a problem-solving lab task that said nothing about ability, presumably rendering stereotypes irrelevant. In the stereotype threat condition, Blacks - who were matched with Whites in their group by SAT scores -- did less well than Whites. In the no stereotype- threat condition-in which the exact same test was described as a lab task that did not indicate ability-Blacks' performance rose to match that of equally skilled Whites. Additional experiments that minimized the stereotype threat endemic to standardized tests also resulted in equal performance. One study found that when students merely recorded their race (presumably making the stereotype salient), and were not told the test was diagnostic of their ability, Blacks still performed worse than Whites.
Spencer, Steele, and Diane Quinn, PhD, also found that merely telling women that a math test does not show gender differences improved their test performance. The researchers gave a math test to men and women after telling half the women that the test had shown gender differences, and telling the rest that it found none. When test administrators told women that that tests showed no gender differences, the women performed equal to men. Those who were told the test showed gender differences did significantly worse than men, just like women who were told nothing about the test. This experiment was conducted with women who were top performers in math, just as the experiments on race were conducted with strong, motivated students.
Psychologist and educators are, through this innovative research, coming to understand the true nature of one of the barriers to equal educational achievement. Although psychologists such as Steele, Aronson and Spencer concede that test-score gaps probably can't be totally attributed to stereotype threat, the threat appears to be sufficiently influential to be heeded by teachers, students, researchers, policymakers and parents. At the very least, the findings undercut the tendency to lay the blame on unsupported genetic and cultural factors, such as whether African Americans "value" education or girls can't do math.
Through careful design, the studies have also shown the subtle and insidious nature of stereotype threat. For example, because stereotype threat affected women even when the researchers said the test showed no gender differences - thus still flagging the possibility - social psychologists believe that even mentioning a stereotype in a benign context can sensitize people.
I have been through the SPS system from K through 12 and can speak to my experience and those that I know.
And yes, I believe kids who have the resilience to achieve a 3.9 at a mixed ability HS are seen as better prospects for UW than those coming from a cohorted background with the same gpa. Universities want well-rounded students who will celebrate diversity and who experience learning with all types of other students.
The district has the stats and I would be curious how the cohorted HC students stack up against the non-cohorted in UW admissions. I’m guessing that information will come out sometime in the future.
For now, I think the pro-cohort crowd needs to relax, mine and many others are off to UW and Princeton and Brown and UCLA this fall without cohorting.
JJ
This is the first time, in my memory, that you revealed you’re an SPS employee.
I remember awhile back you posted that 2e students didn’t exist, because they’re not capable of qualifying for HC.
I can’t believe the public trust and collective tax payer’s dollars are put in the hands of someone so discriminatory.
Maybe its SPS employees like you who’ve created the culture of low expectations and school-induced trauma for students with disabilities.
Its SPS employee beliefs and practices that caused it to receive high-risk status from OSPI with a withholding of SPED funds thus negatively impacting all students.
And lets not forget the scathing transportation audit that skewered the district for missed routes for sped students, lack of verification of background checks for bus drivers and sending sped kids off in taxis with god-knows-who driving.
Isolatiion, restraint, poor outcomes, insufficient educator training, absence of evidence-based interventions for learning disabilities, sexual assault, sped gatekeeping and adverserial stance, yet... exclusion from “students furthest from educational justice” in the strategic plan.
Attitudes like yours are the kindling for the fire.
Plan B
Part 1
If you don’t think there’s been hostile comments, you’re forgetting about the “fragile hcc students” comment by a teacher still employed by the district, the APParthied stickers on school property and A number of presentations , social media posts and surveys from SPS employees.
You also don’t seem to realize the existence of cogat test prep companies (on the east side) and materials is not equivalent to evidence of usage. Try winning in court on supposition!
Contrary to what you posted, SPS does believe in test prep and parent referrals when SPS is the one supplying the test prep to title one schools priior to univeral screening or when SPS is doing community outreach to less advantaged communities in hope of increasing parent referrals.
Plan B
Part 2
One teacher want did not want AP testing at a particular high school.
JJ's experience was not my child's experience. I wish people would stop foisting their beliefs and experiences onto other people's children.
@ Reality Check, re: your comment about "entitled parents" who think their HC student should be challenged at school, to a similar degree that non-HC-identified students are challenged, you might want to remember that students ARE entitled to a basic education, and that, by law, "for highly capable students, access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to a basic education."
WAC
JJ, you falsely assume this is the primary goal of all HC students - acceptance at the most prestigious universities - or that families of HC students have the means to pay for Princeton/Brown/Stanford/etc. Both in and out of the cohort, there are many middle class students leveraging their strong academic achievement to find merit aid, which means attending universities that have acceptance rates well above the 5% range.
other reality
JJ
BTW, what is SPS going to do if students start striking on Fridays for the climate? Young Greta is very popular.
You are making a lot of "guessing" and " I think" comments. Do the research and present.
I work with high school students on college admission and I think we are sending the wrong message & asking the wrong questions. It is not about winning the competition to try to become the student they want at Stanford or UW.
It is about using the opportunities available to you as a high school student to learn what your interests are, what kind of student you are, what things are important to you in life. Then find the college that wants the kind of student you have become.
And there is a great opportunity to start with community college using the Seattle Promise. WA State Community college students have an advantage in admissions at UW. I also know HCC students who have chosen that route, saving tuition $ for post-bac education like medical school.
-No Games
It really doesn’t take a high iQ to gain entry into HC, it’s about preparation for many.
As I stated earlier, the SPS gifted program was started to slow the flight of white families after busing started. Maybe that was a good thing at the time, but in2019 it is not.
I don’t know if anyone has noticed where white entitlement has taken this country. We have a president who is universally seen as a racist bigot and white hate crimes, including mass murder, occurring with increasing frequency.
And before the stories about discrimination against Italians start, again, we have the president’s henchman, Cuccinelli, an Italian immigrant’s descendant, drowning kids in the Rio Grande, locking up families for years and tearing infants from their mothers, which is the same technique used to terrorize people of color from slavery to the attempted destruction of Native American culture.
JJ
I can guess a lot of reasons why all HC (fyi = highly capable, not highly gifted) cohorted kids don't get into UW, even though you seem to think that's the success benchmark for some reason.
1. Didn't apply.
2. Didn't really want to go there, so didn't make a strong application even though parents wanted them to go there. (Yes, students game their parents sometimes.)
3. Had been cohorted in early years (UW won't have any clue as to whether or not they were), but went to a school with a lot of other high-achieving students, so class rank wasn't as high as it would have been had they gone to a school with fewer cohorted kids.
4. Didn't grow up poor.
5. Aren't the first in their family to go to college.
6. Didn't go to a school with limited access to rigorous classes (another marker of disadvantaged background, which can help UW increase its diversity stats)
7. Was overly involved in a lot of extracurriculars because they had many passions, even though schools sometimes see that as trying to pad their resumes.
8. Didn't get a sports scholarship.
9. Got in early (Academy), so don't show up in the regular college application/admission stats.
10. UW doesn't want all the SPS kids, and they want some variety in the SPS kids they admit.
FWIW, college admissions are not purely based on test scores, GPAs, and rank. It seems like you'd actually support that, but if it's a chance to make an unfounded dig at HC students, suddenly those things matter. But the reality is that UW, like most schools, looks for a variety of things--many of which are not as common in former HCC students.
all types
AT
Yuck
Seriously, this is how you get from A to B?
And you take one terrible incident to smear all immigrants? News flash, unless you are Native American, you didn't start here.
And thank you, Yuck. No one group should be demeaned like this.
JJ, move on.
Plan A
And yeah, most people think expanding access to advanced learning opportunities for all students is a great idea—however, what’s advanced for one kid is review for another. A quick pace for one is too slow for another. Depth for one is cursory for another. In that context, expanding access to “advanced learning” is a meaningless concept.
AT
National Association for Gifted Education responds to New York Times article to dismantle advanced education:
Rather than eliminating gifted programs, there is great opportunity in New York City to reframe the equity issue as a challenge to find ways to expand gifted education services for all who would benefit from them. We have learned much in the field of gifted education, including the power of training teachers to recognize giftedness in diverse populations and about using multiple strategies such as universal screening and appropriate use of local norms in the identification process, and classroom instruction to introduce children who have not had prior access to challenging curriculum to prepare for more rigor.
http://www.nagc.org/about-nagc/media/press-releases/reframe-problem-challenge-find-ways-expand-gifted-education-services?fbclid=IwAR1L-BhK1lUexrQmOvZtFvj1fpG7hduwAiNvORc-5N7nrc0q8EcauOp_EK8
It would be a mistake for the district to dismantle advanced learning.
Slow down and read carefully.
Part 1 was about disability.
Part 2 was about hcc.
Since my post was about 2e, that’s why I covered both topics.
If you’re not aware of the issues surrounding sped that I mentioned in Part 1(isolation, restraint, poor outcomes, etc.), its very easy to verify my comments as media coverage, SPS and state documentation has been extensive on the damage done to sped students in this district and beyond.
Plan B
NW Parent
While I knew hooks were key for top tier (e.g. legacy, disadvantaged, sports, contributions), I had no idea how sports trumped nearly all of them.
Daughter of rich, Award-winning actress and actor? Not enough.
Progeny of moneyed, influential parents who sent you to top private schools? Not enough.
These highly advantaged parents still needed the backdoor of fake athletic accomplishments for their kids. Yes, test score manipulation occurred too, but athletics were the primary avenue.
At Harvard, athletes with the highest or second highest academic rating...have an acceptance rate of 83% vs. 16% for non-athletes.
So if someone were to compare college admissions for any group of students, they would need to add columns for legacy, recruited athlete, disadvantaged background (which top tier institutions interpret more broadly than SPS) and child of faculty member. Parent donations matter too, but not probably not as easy to track for this analysis.
Hc vs. non-hc status is irrelevant, because its about money and recruited athletes.
Sam
Seattle Teacher
Then you should not be teaching.
Advance All
And that "warehouse" term is right. You can certainly teach 30, 40, 50 students in a classroom if you force them to sit the whole time, never talk or work collaboratively.
But most parents want their child's teacher to know their child and their academic strengths and weaknesses and keep them in mind. They also hope that the teacher knows something about SEL because every kid has their own emotional state.
You can have your own opinion but you might want to give some credence to a professional.
smart and impractical
Advance All
@ Advance All: you need a reality check. Teachers deal with large class sizes and get no support from the district. They are the ones on the front lines of education. And also, kids should be met where they are, not every kid needs the same level of advancement.
Fake equity
Advance All
College
I do agree that an experienced teacher with good skills is more likely to be able to cover a range of learners. But those teachers are in the minority. I know many kids who are given a worksheet pack with no actual guidance.
Fake equity
It takes new teachers time to get- up to speed.
The notion that teachers have the capacity to differentiate and meet the needs of all students is ridiculous.
Cuccinelli is being criticized by those (including fellow Italian-Americans) who understand the hypocrisy that his own ancestors would not be allowed to immigrate under his policies. However he is not the representative for his ethnicity.
Another Italian-American immigrant descendant Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law recently a scholarship to cover free 4 year state university tuition for all NY state low and middle income families who make under 110,000 and partial scholarships who make under 125,000. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-excelsior-scholarship-application-open-new-applicants-2018-19-academic
Cuomo also signed pay equity legislation for NY women this year. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/statement-governor-andrew-m-cuomo-passage-pay-equity-legislation
Mayor Deblasio, who is part northern Italian, also has been focused on equity in NYC. As one example, although his plan to eliminate gifted programs to help with equity is being criticized by some, his motivations are to help with equity in his city.
JK
There are long lunch and bathroom lines. There are dense crowds of kids to get through in the hallways to make it to the bathroom and lunch room. Kids who buy their lunch, many of whom are also free and reduced lunch qualifying kids at these schools, have little time to eat or play. They all don't have enough time to also go to the bathroom which also has long lines.
https://www.kuow.org/stories/students-don-t-have-enough-time-to-eat-lunch-finds-state-audit?fbclid=IwAR1qwtStZ-le5rAGG9tvrfFTuCp8gm_1xhwNyzkd6oag3nmq_3PH6GbyTSY
NW parent