Seattle Time's Westneat Speaks Out on Advanced Learning/HCC

Update: Superintendent Juneau issued a statement yesterday about the majority vote of the Curriculum & Instruction committee to not move forward to the full Board the changes to Policy 2190 about Advanced Learning.  I myself have not often seen a superintendent issue any kind of statement on Board committee decisions; I find it odd.  From the statement:

For 17 months the Advanced Learning Task Force has been meeting to explore solutions to address a lack of diverse representation in the district’s advanced learning programs. Policy changes were introduced to the Curriculum and Instruction Committee on October 8, 2019, that would have dramatically increased advanced learning opportunities for students of color who are furthest away from educational justice. 

Changes to Board Policy 2190 were tabled in committee because directors could not reach a majority vote to move it to the full board. While I am disappointed that the recommended changes won’t be introduced and discussed by the full board later this month, staff remain steadfast in the commitment to desegregating our services and programs and advancing racial equity as outlined in the board approved strategic plan. 

Every student that walks through our doors should know that we believe in their giftedness and potential, and our policies and practices need to reflect this belief.

Just to point out, Juneau and staff were VERY firm on the science curriculum committee and waiting for AND supporting their work. Why is it less so for this policy and the Taskforce created to do this work?

Thru the years, many parents of color have expressed to me their unhappiness that it looked like students of color were disproportionately moved into Special Education.  When does the "desegregating" work for Sped start?

end of update

From KNKX's Ashley Gross on yesterday's Curriculum&Instruction Board committee meeting discussion on Advanced Learning:

The Seattle school district’s proposal to change how it serves academically advanced students hit a roadblock Tuesday, after two school board directors voiced concerns in a committee meeting and chose not to advance a draft policy district leaders had put forward.

Board director Rick Burke said he was concerned that the district pushed ahead with the proposed change before an advanced learning task force of community members finished its work.

“We want our district to operate in a collaborative space. I’ve heard that from our superintendent. I’ve heard that from our board. I feel that myself,” Burke said. “And I do not believe that we’re in a collaborative space on this particular policy.”

Burke and Scott Pinkham, another board director, said they would not support moving the policy change out of the curriculum and instruction policy committee.

“Looking at what I’ve been hearing from the community, they feel that this still needs more work,” Pinkham said. “The people of color on the committee felt that their ideas weren’t included.

The mystery to me is why the district - of its own accord and direction - decided to take nearly two years for the Advanced Learning Taskforce to do its work...and then tried to cut them off at the knees as if the Taskforce wasn't moving fast enough.  The Taskforce is moving at the speed the district gave them.

But, like the overwhelming majority of advisory committees/taskforces, the danger is that their work will be for naught and will be shelved.  Board after board allows this kind of disrespectful action.  There truly needs to be a Board policy on the work of committees/taskforces that the Board and the administration create and what will happen to their work.

The district also weighed in on this story:

Nevertheless, district leaders said separating highly capable students into their own classrooms causes harm to other students who are not in the program.

“Telling our students every year, year in, year out, that, 'Hey, you’re a student of color, you can’t go to that class because you’re not part of highly capable because you didn’t test in when you were in first grade’ – that’s inappropriate,” said Wyeth Jessee, chief of schools and continuous improvement. “I think it’s unacceptable.”

Whoa! What? Who is telling any student they "can't go to a class?"  Because the way to allow kids in "that class" is to expand the ability for ALL students to access it.  And students can and do test in at later grades.

I have spoken with Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times for years, off and on.  He tends to be reserved in some of his writing but I think he hit the nail on the head with his current column.  Reading the comments, many readers - who seem to generally not agree with him - agree.

A high school is a ‘slave ship’? Seattle should be expanding its gifted programs, not maligning them.'

On that comment about Garfield High School being  "a slave ship," I heard that long ago and haven't heard it since but it seems to come back around like a bad penny.  And the Superintendent owes it to students and the public to investigate - not riff - these kinds of rumors or suggestions. Not to repeat them with no evidence.

This column has over 300 comments.

Westneat's central thesis:

No doubt the imbalances should be addressed. But eliminating a program because it reflects gaps in our society seems both knee-jerk and self-defeating. Why not expand opportunities to get into the program instead?

Westneat, like many others, HAS seen suggestions made to make Advanced Learning programs more equitable and yet, the district has done little.

But how about try what they did down in the Miami schools — expand the definition of gifted beyond just IQ test scores, and set up a sliding scale for admission based on socioeconomic status?

It worked — their gifted programs now more closely reflect the schools’ makeup (and achieve academically, too). This newspaper suggested Seattle try this two years ago, but that was ignored.

A group of Seattle parents, convened in 2014, also pushed the district to widen the horizon by testing far more students, especially immigrants and kids of color. Ignored. But when the Northshore School District did this last year it found about 500 low-income or foreign-born students it had missed before.

New York just proposed eliminating many of its advanced programs, for the same racial-divide reasons cited by Juneau. But interestingly some of the most vocal blowback there has come from minority leaders — who argue the only way to truly fix the inequities is to get more of their kids in.

The comments fall in three different ways:

1) We used to live in Seattle.  When we had our kid and began listening to the other parents who were a year or two ahead of us talk about the problems with the Seattle Public Schools (bussing was the deal then) we left Seattle for Bellevue.  Our son had a great education in their gifted programs and his education culminated in an International Baccalaurate and a number of other awards.  We were supportive parents of the schools.  I got my company to donate thousands of dollars of pc's and software and my wife was active in the PTA (president of the High School PTA one year).  
I'd advise any parents with capable kids to leave Seattle politics for the excellent education to be found outside the city. 

2) By all means shut down the the one successful program because it doesn't produce the politically desired outcome. 

Listen to Danny! He's right - expand, don't disband. Good grief! This is a no-brainer. 

In the past I have been critical of Danny, cheapskate liberal, spend other peoples money.  But I have to agree with him on this article.  You don't get rid of a successful academic program because most of the kids are white, political correctness, but rather expand the program, obviously.  Kids learn differently. 

 3) This one is a combo of the two above -
Let's not raise the standard, let's lower the standard so everyone is at a disadvantage equally.  No wonder I moved to the eastside where education and achievement are valued.

4) As the parent of a child who benefited from advanced placement, and a family that supports better funding for an open, nurturing public school system, I support special needs education--and I do resent the "chip on her shoulder" attitude of the new superintendent, because I think that attitude is destructive of the values that I hold and financially support.


Please, set a sliding scale.  Heck, have racial quota if that's what it takes to settle the inequality.  But, DO NOT eliminate a program that challenges advanced students.  That is a disservice to every single student in Seattle Public Schools.

Another misstep for the district.