A Conversation about HCC (Let's Listen In)

Now to the conversation last weekend at the Central Area Residents Against Violence Facebook page about HCC.  I am teasing out parts of the conversation but you can go to the page and read everything.


As I mentioned, it involved ALTF member, Kari O'Driscoll who seems to be quite confident in her ability to speak for the Task Force and use the current smackdown method to tamp discussion.  Meaning, if she doesn't agree with your points, she'll just use put-down language to try to either make the speaker feel bad about themselves and/or show other readers what will happen to them if they have a differing viewpoint.  This came to me via a reader:

In a CA-RAV FB page weekend discussion of the ST (Seattle Times) What's Next?/Gifted Programs article, ALTF member Kari O'Driscoll smacks down as racist and privileged what I thought was a thoughtful and considerate post by a Seattle dad on his family's frustrations with SPS that led them to seek private. He pointed out that his family was Asian who have also suffered discrimination and she dismisses his perspective outright:

"Black folks are treated as a monoculture in this country. Asian folks are not. Period."

A lot to unpack there but I frankly don't have much to say except that in this district, it is currently the opposite of that.  I mean the new racial designation form has one place for "Asian" but for Blacks, it has multiple identities.

There was also this comment:

It should also be noted that most discussions of HCC tend to ignore Asian students altogether, lumping them in with white students in the white-vs.-POC narrative.

Also from O'Driscoll:

"We don’t {sic} have finite resources in the school district, and making the system more equitable for ALL children may indeed mean that those who are currently benefitting {sic} from the hoarding of resources have to give something up. If you’re not okay with that, you don’t truly want equity for all."

And raising the topic of junior Blanton's response to Danny Westneat's column, she writes that "his word weighs much more heavily on me than a rich, white columnist's do."

"(I chuckled at that one because if any profession rains down the riches it is certainly not journalism.)

There was much more and it was appallingly hostile and inappropriate - and, frankly, racist. I don't know what Kari O'Driscoll's qualifications are but she has no business whatsoever being on any SPS Task Force if she cannot respectfully take into consideration ALL community concerns."

Hoarding of resources.  Now the district could very well provide data that HCC does get more resources  but they never have. As well, the majority of money the program gets (via the state) is used for testing.  So I'm not sure which resources she is repeatedly references.

She also says:

The other complicating factor is that the district is squeezed between state law (which requires the district to give services to all students and eliminate disproportionality) and the fact that each building leader has the power to influence their school's culture and climate and what actually happens. It is incredibly complex but I hope folks know that the people on the task force have worked very hard to have tough conversations and live up to our mandate.

Didn't I just say that elsewhere? Yeah.

And into the fray steps one Jeff Flogel (and again, these are partial quotes):

Samara Louton linked several months ago on this group what I think is a great article on the topic that describes how school districts in gentrifying cities are increasing magnet programs to keep highly capable kids in the neighborhood schools. From my viewpoint, and that parent in West Seattle probably agrees, SPS is doing the exact opposite. 

I'll build on something you did mention about testing, though. If kids aren't getting the support during summer (from their families) to test effectively, how are they going to get the work done to effectively participate in a HCC program? Testing is just getting in the door. Then what? The result of putting unprepared, unsupported kids in a program with prepared, supported kids is going to dilute the program's resources (specifically the teachers), which takes away from everyone.  

Finally, and this is where I'll use a bit stronger language and have no qualms about it. This is not a white vs. black/brown issue. I'm so tired of that. Asians have suffered discrimination, even detention camps for the Japanese during WWII, and yet they're surpassing whites in everything from K-12 performance to family income, but the arguments always come back to those darn white people keeping other people down. It's as tiring as it is inaccurate.

I attended a very small rural school district that didn't have the network to find money or opportunities. It was not an easy road and I had virtually no mentoring to get it done. What I did have, though, was a strong work ethic instilled in my by my parents (probably had something to do with that dairy farm). I look back at my childhood and K-12 and I would love to have had the opportunities kids, any kids, have in SPS and Garfield HS. I couldn't make such complaints being made here as "the school district isn't informing me about programs" or "testing isn't convenient". I simply didn't have the opportunities, the networks, the mentors, etc. I don't think people here realize the opportunities available. Just go across the water to Kitsap County and see if there's a facility like Garfield HS. They, like me growing up, don't even have the same opportunities. But the opportunities here are being dismantled and those who do appreciate them are not going to just stand idly by.

I sampled the meeting minutes you suggested. Confirming my concern outlined above about SPS acting before knowing what to do, I see a lot of decisions to look into things, or to reduce this, or change that wording in a SPS program. These are not actionable items that convince me, for one, that SPS has a clear direction that I can feel confident about. However, I did find one draft recommendation that stuck out and it resonates with me- "Include specific call to focus on participation of African American students." Now if Leschi Elementary had taken that approach, to try to lift people up instead of removing opportunities from everyone, maybe our daughter would be sitting in Leschi as I type this instead of her private option. Maybe you don't like Stephanie Juha's language about dragging everyone down, but I think at least one objective way to describe it is putting everyone in the same learning environment, regardless of how you describe that environment.

That is my argument. If you have cogent arguments to address these concerns, I'd love to hear them. I moved to this neighborhood and was thrilled to learn my neighborhood schools, in 2011, were Leschi, Washington, and Garfield, all with magnet programs. What I've seen since then is so concerning to me that we chose a private option for our first child's kindergarten. I would love nothing more than to be convinced to send her to the neighborhood schools so really, I'm all ears.

I edited this post. In the second to last paragraph I mistakenly used "same opportunities" when "same environments" more accurately reflect my views. I believe that all kids should have the same opportunities, but I think it's naive to expect equal outcomes given the very broad range of preparation, motivation, and support kids show up to the K-12 door with.    

He is fairly calm but clearly, speaks with passion.  And he has a different idea about how to serve all kids.  O'Driscoll, too, is calm at first.

Taking it point by point: First of all, I can only speak for myself and not the task force as a whole, so please understand that. I am not intending to talk about anyone else’s beliefs or values – only factually represent the kinds of conversations that are happening in my experience in that room of incredibly dedicated folks volunteering a lot of their time and energy.

I do think it’s important to note how much time we’ve spent, as well as the kind of work we’ve done digging in to data on testing, cultural and racial biases, data on what has worked and what hasn’t, models from other school districts across the country, etc.

Second, if you’re defining “highly capable kids” in reference to the article Samara linked, it is important to note that there is an abundance of evidence that the way we currently identify who is “highly capable” and who is not is prejudiced and produces a non-representative sample of who could benefit from these services, so “increasing magnet programs to keep highly capable kids in the neighborhood schools” before acknowledging this and redesigning the way we identify students is putting the cart before the horse, and will not result in increased equity, which is what the district has said it wants to do.

I don’t know what to tell you about your belief that the testing issue is a “red herring.” Again, there is ample evidence to show that the standardized tests are racially and culturally inequitable. A simple Google search will provide you with dozens of links going back a decade that bears that out. In addition, leaving the decision of whom to test to parents who *know* about this program in the district and teachers who recommend kids for testing is also incredibly inequitable. Not only do many teachers possess some implicit bias of their own that tells them which kids are “gifted” and which aren’t, but it is also well-known within Seattle that parents with financial resources are able to pay tutors and other specialists to help their kids pass the test, not to mention the fact that they are more easily able to transport their children to the test itself on a Saturday morning. That disadvantages kids living in poverty as well as kids who are not white or proficient in the English language.

If you read the statements, O'Driscoll and Flogel both recognize that the playing field for disadvantaged students is uneven before they walk through the schoolhouse door.

She continues:

Next, I feel like you’re actually making the point about the obvious disadvantaging of certain kids by talking about who is “prepared and supported” to engage in HC programs. It takes money and privilege to “prepare and support” your kid for HC. What I would like to see is a district that prioritizes recognizing potential to benefit from advanced learning opportunities, not just kids whose parents have the time and resources to “prepare them” to participate. 

So, in this case, what does "prepared" mean and what does "supported" mean?  Prepared might mean tutoring or test prep by parents.  But "supported?" That's a place where you get onto difficult societal ground because the income inequality (and the benefits of having a higher income)in this country make it so there are large numbers of kids who aren't "supported."  Is reading to your child supporting? Going to museums or zoos?  The ability to have family meals together and engage in discussion around non-family subjects? I don't know.

She says:

I would agree that this is not an Us v. Them issue, but it is absolutely an issue of allocation of resources.

Resources again? I hope the ALTF recommendations include a breakdown of these resources so we all clearly understand what is being talked about.

Unfortunately, I think that folks using language like Stephanie Juha did perpetuates this Us v. Them mentality and stokes fear within the community of families who are benefitting from this uneven allocation of resources that they will lose the advantages they currently enjoy. It is not helpful in any way, shape, or form, especially if it ends up making the work that our task force has so diligently done entirely moot due to political pressure. I wholeheartedly ask that people recognize that the goal of the task force is to create a more equitable system over time (there will be no sudden changes), and that, in centering the students who are furthest from educational justice in our current system, we hope to raise the level of education for all students.

Well, that's very high-minded of her but there are plenty of people on both sides doing the "us versus them" thing.  

Flogel:

My over-arching concern here, and I think it's shared by Stephanie Juha in the article, is that we get that you and SPS are "working on it". Our question is, why is SPS dismantling programs and taking opportunities away from kids before they've figured out what the long-term solution is? Kids only get one shot at K-12 and it's the foundation for their entire lives. We for one family, and we're hardly alone, are not going to risk our kids' K-12 for a social justice experiment, especially one for which we see no clear vision or path.

That's pretty darn honest but I would think all/most parents live in that belief of "one chance" for your child to get it right.


But I posted earlier why I think testing is a red herring. I don't think it was a vague concept- Leschi Elementary had a racially divided school house even though full-time Montessori vs. standard curriculum was a family decision with zero testing involved. That's my understanding anyway, anyone feel free to correct me on that. Full time Montessori was pulled before our first child was old enough to attend. So how do you explain that away?

Interesting point. 

And then Driscoll fires the first shot:

So much privilege in your answer, and so much misinformation.

We don’t have infinite resources in the school district, and making the system more equitable for ALL children may indeed mean that those who are currently benefitting from the hoarding of resources have to give something up. If you’re not okay with that, you don’t truly want equity for all. 
 
As for relying on PTAs to make things more equal, that is inherently problematic because the PTA funding is inequitable in and of itself across the district, so again, you're relying on entrenched systems of inequity to solve problems they can't solve.

Standardized tests are racially and culturally biased. There is a lot of evidence to show that.

I'll just note that the test the district uses, in the early stages, is a non-verbal test that has been shown to work better for ELL students.

To characterize families who don’t know about Advanced Learning opportunities as “not pursuing the best opportunities for their kids” is incredibly ignorant. The district was created to serve all families.

If you can’t imagine what barriers might exist for a single mother who is a refugee, speaking no English and raising multiple children without a car, you lack imagination and, perhaps, empathy. There are any number of situations that exist where individual families aren’t able to research exhaustively, don’t have a network of friends whose information about the system they can draw on, etc, and it is both the right thing to do for our city and communities as well as the legal mandate that the district find ways to give those students the same opportunities as every other kid in the district. Especially given the intentional barriers that were thrown up for decades to keep students of color from having access to opportunities. It is not a matter of other families not caring as much about their kids as you do, and your implication that it is is truly horrifying. 

As I said elsewhere, when I see, from both the district, the Board and the ALTF wording like "intentional barriers," what I hear is "lawsuit."  Because if the district had created and enacted a program that had "intentional" barriers to some classes of kids, that would be grounds for a lawsuit. And yet, it has never happened.
 
Was Fogel implying that some people don't care about their kids as much as he does about his?  I'm not sure I read that into it but it may be worth considering/studying how some families of color figure out the system and others don't, who they are and what could the district learn from those families.

Fogel is not happy:

"So much privilege in your answer"
"ignorant"
"lack empathy"

You know what Kari O'Driscoll, when you make it personal, it means one thing- that you can't articulate a cogent argument. And you haven't. You've dodged all my questions and finally just resorted to insults and labels. I find it intellectually dishonest and quite honestly, you've validated every reason we've run as fast as we can away from SPS.

You're just playing semantics games. But you know what, I'll give it to you. You tell me what demographic name you want to apply to the Asian demographics who are out-performing whites and just substitute that demographic name into my assertions and then my argument still stands. I'm trying to discuss substance but you, like so many people, just bog down a discussion with race-baiting nonsense to distract everyone from the inconvenient facts that derail your agenda.

You don't know this because you seem to judge faster than you ask questions, but I've logged several years living abroad in countries with a foreign language. I never expected any special favors. I learned the language or figured out how to bridge the gap but I'd never blame the host country for what I don't know in their country. That just seems really rude to me.

I get there are families with tough situations. I don't deny that. What you fail to understand is many people expect SPS to try to pull them up, not tear other people down. Here is the Seattle Times' pictorial representation that I think perfectly captures the sentiment.

https://www.seattletimes.com/.../a-dumb-idea-for-gifted.../

I'll note here that this editorial cartoon by David Horsey got panned by some.

O'Driscoll goes to an old line of attack:

I dodged none of your questions and I challenged you on your internal biases. If that feels personal to you, I’d suggest you own it and work on it.

C'mon, she said things very personal to him and now she's wondering why he feels attacked?

Fogel fires back:

And to top it off, you dismiss my opinion as privilege, ignorance, lack of empathy, and even "horrifying". You might check your own bank of empathy. And if that's what you call "challenging internal biases" then let's just say you and I have different value systems and different ways of sharing thoughts.

That's an interesting thought.  In this very sensitive discussion about access and opportunities and resources, could it include having different value systems, some that could come about because of systemic racism?

She calls him "racist" but then says this:

I apologize if you felt that me pointing out the areas where you were lacking information and/or were saying things that were racially and culturally insensitive was "hostile," but I go back to my stance that the work we are doing is specifically for the purpose of increasing equity across the board and, as such, we have to center kids who are furthest from educational justice, not those who would benefit the most from the system in its current iteration. I don't really have anything else to say to you. You opted out - that's your prerogative. If you feel so strongly about this issue that you feel the need to fight for a certain outcome, I encourage you to apply for the task force starting next year that will look at implementation of our recommendations.

And that's a good point.

Fogel comes back:

We could argue the points all day. I don't have a problem with people having a different opinion. It's the tone. I didn't call you or your ideas ignorant, horrifying, or accuse you of lacking empathy. I challenged the district, the work of your committee, and what's being done to advanced learning and magnet programs in SPS. I didn't put any labels on you as a person or use hostile language.

I think you left the issues and made it personal, I suppose an effort to discredit me instead of just debating the issues. If that's your way of sharing thoughts, so be it. I consider your approach hostile and intolerant of dissenting views. My opinion. You, your committee, and SPS can throw labels on parents like me and ignore us, but don't complain about the families whose opinions and values you reject abandoning their neighborhood schools.

It's too late for us to get involved in SPS. Deciding on a private option is something you do before Kindergarten because after that, there are only very few openings as kids in those schools move, which explains a lot of frustration from parents like Stephanie Juha- parents like her, certainly as a group, are trapped having committed to public schools only to have things change mid-stream. The same frustration came out in a recent Danny Westneat column (he has K-12 aged children in SPS). We as a family feel fortunate to have seen what's going on early enough to make a different choice and our resources are now focused on that school.

I would urge the Board and the district to consider that last paragraph.

O'Driscoll then seems to go momentarily blank as she says:

I really wanted to be done with this, but I have to take issue with the way you characterized what I wrote. I didn't throw any labels on you at all. I *did* call out the comments you made that are rooted in racist assumptions and led with factual information about the inherent bias in standardized testing. I also called out what I saw as ideas rooted in privilege (and btw, I don't consider saying someone is privileged to be disrespectful - again it's simple facts - I am a person of privilege as well, simply because I'm white), and I will not apologize for calling out rhetoric that demonizes other families for not living up to standards you think they ought to live up to. If you can't own your statement about why other parents don't "pursue the opportunities" for their kids as lacking empathy, that's your call, but I absolutely stand by it. As for Westneat's column, it was rebutted by a black student who is in the same program Westneat's kids are, and as someone on a task force who is asked to center students like him, his word weighs much more heavily on me than a rich, white columnist's do.

Again, was he "demonizing" other families? Not sure I heard that.  And was Westneat's column "rebutted" by just one student's experience? Not from my reading. 

O'Driscoll does provide some new information:

Universal testing is in the pilot phase in two schools, and we are also considering what it might look like if we had multiple sources of information for kids who exhibit potential to benefit from these services.

Another reader made this thoughtful comment:

The HCC program is not only more appropriate education for qualifying students, it is the only guarantee SPS high schools will offer advanced courses at all, and those are open to any and all students like mine. Students benefit from HCC even when not part of it.