Disqus

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Alliance of Black School Educators Candidate Forum for Seattle School Board


  • MLK Fame Community Center 3201 E Republican St. Seattle (map)
This may be your last opportunity to hear from the candidates.

Advanced Learning Task Force meeting today from 4-7 pm at JSCEE.  Agenda

From SPS Communications:

The College Board has changed its Advanced Placement policies for the 2019-20 school year. Registration will now take place in the fall for spring testing. Previously, students registered for the tests, which take place in May, just a few weeks prior. Seattle Public Schools students must now register to take their AP exams by November 1, 2019.
 
Students eligible for free or reduced lunch are also eligible for an AP Fee Waiver and should complete an updated Free and Reduced Lunch Form for 2019-20. The fee to take an AP Exam at Seattle Public Schools is $102 per exam.
Speaking of AP, news from Illinois from WTTW
A group of Democratic Illinois lawmakers believes the vendor that develops and administers the SAT and Advanced Placement exams may be violating state law by selling student data to colleges, universities and scholarship providers.

The crux of their arguments comes from testimony by one of the College Board’s own representatives, who testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee in May and confirmed the organization does distribute student data from the group’s Student Search Service survey at a rate of 45 cents per name, according to the letter. That price has since risen to 47 cents per name.

According to the legislators, the College Board does ask students for their consent in disclosing their data to colleges, universities and scholarship providers. But they apparently do not inform students or parents that this information is sold off.
I may give AG Ferguson a ring on this one.

Speaking of making money, a story from Talking Points Memo on Pearson, the textbook/test developer.
Three days after taking office, George W. Bush unveiled his signature domestic policy, No Child Left Behind. The bill would triple the number of exams the federal government required of students, while dangling stiff penalties over struggling schools. For many educators it felt like a depth charge. 

The mood was different at Pearson Education, a division of the London-based conglomerate Pearson PLC. As the education community was still absorbing the shock in February 2001, Pearson Education chief executive Peter Jovanovich spoke to a group of Wall Street investment analysts. He pointed them to the proposed annual testing requirements and school report cards. “This,” Jovanovich said, “almost reads like our business plan.”

Pearson Education’s profits increased 175 percent in the decade following No Child Left Behind.  “Our assessment businesses are in the sweet spot of education policy,” Scardino told investors in 2005 – a year when more than 60 percent of American school kids lived in states giving Pearson tests.
And Sped parents might do a spit take at the excuse this father used to a judge after he had been found guilty in the college entrance scandal story. From the NY Times:
“I’m going to start off by saying, your honor, that I am deeply sorry for the actions that I have taken and the awful and destructive impact it has had on the family, my children,” and children “just like me who have severe learning issues,” Mr. Henriquez said without further explanation. “I never intended to hurt anybody in this process.”
Let me help this guy out with what he meant to say: I never intended - with all my money and privilege to hurt other students, without those two advantages, who were trying to get into college. 

Feds are playing hardball with holdout parents pleading not guilty: 
According to several of the lawyers involved in the case, prosecutors gave some parents deadlines of Monday or a few days before to agree to plead guilty, or risk facing a new charge that had the potential to bring a longer sentence. These lawyers said they now expected prosecutors to bring that new charge — known as federal programs bribery — against most, if not all, of the parents who stick to their not-guilty pleas.
Two documentaries of interest.  One is The Kids We Lose which is available for viewing online thru PBS.
When behaviorally-challenged children enter schools many educators are not able to mitigate the nonconforming behaviors. This film investigates how the system uses discipline rather than effective measures, leading to a school-to-prison pipeline for many disadvantaged students. 
The other is one made locally by Native youth called Honoring Licton Springs.  A viewing will be at Seattle Central Library on Saturday, October 26th from 1-3 pm.
What happens when a group of talented Native youth learn skills to be civic leaders and budding community journalists? In early 2019, members of Clear Sky Native Youth Council began investigating the importance of sacred sites. By interviewing local Indigenous elders and learning how to do video interviews, the group lays out a compelling understanding why Licton Springs, Seattle’s last publicly known Native sacred site is a place to be honored and cared for.
The video screening of their short documentary will be accompanied by a youth discussion and mini keynote from Thomas Speer and Matt Remle.  This project was made possible with a grant from Seattle Public Library Foundation with production support from Indigenous Showcase.
What's on your mind?

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow. The Seattle Times Education Lab article hit a new low with the sheer volume of falsehoods propagated in their latest piece. Such irresponsible reporting. Who the F is feeding them this garbage? To be fair, some of it came directly from SPS, in their misleading presentation to the Board about AL. For the record, the IPP program, which later became APP, was born out a study done by UW. The intent was to serve the academic needs of young students who were significantly advanced beyond grade level.

new low



Anonymous said...

https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/faq-whats-next-for-seattle-schools-gifted-programs/

agreed. here is the link. dr. robinson should respond to the district and to juneau and let her know that she's neither a segregationist or a white supremacist.

Seriously kari Hanson, Wyeth Jessie and Juneau's presentation were not much less inflammatory than the president's lynching comment. I expect we will be there soon.
no caps (mostly)

Anonymous said...

Hannah and Dahlia, if you want correct your piece with more responsible reporting, you can begin by reading about the University of Washington Child Development Research Group (now known as Robinson Center). For starters:

http://www.davidsongifted.org/search-database/entry/a10022

new low

Anonymous said...

No one but the privileged want HCC.


What egos

Melissa Westbrook said...

I'll throw up a post on the Times' story today.

I know Nancy Robinson and she is none of those things. Who said that no caps?

What egos, you are wrong. For the last three Board meetings, parents of color have come before the Board asking to keep it going for THEIR children.

Anonymous said...

Keeping this post about responsible use of language by public officials, I fully agree that JSCEE senior staff should be ashamed of the language they have been using re: AL. Theoretically Juneau should hold senior staff responsible, but we all know she's on board with it...so the Board needs to hold her responsible.

1. They never should have allowed that slide show to proceed as is. When staff show up with a presentation that declares a school district program is segregation, Board officials need to stop them right there and clarify that no, it is not--that no SPS programs are racially segregated, that they can't let the presentation go on with that incorrect language, and that the'll need to revise the language to clarify the nature of the racial disparities to which they refer.

2. The Board should make it known to Juneau that such language and inflammatory efforts are unacceptable for someone in her role. They should lay out consequences for further such actions, as well as potential steps to apologize for and/or clarify the incorrect and inflammatory statements.

3. The Board should consider a Resolution clarifying that while racial (and income, and other) disparities do exist in access to, eligibility for, and/or utilization of some district programs and services, no district services are segregated by race.

Civil discourse may be dying a much quicker death under Trump, but we should not let Juneau help Trump stoke the flames of division in Seattle. There are ways to improve things in SPS without resorting to such unprofessional and race-baiting rhetoric. If Juneau is half the leader people hoped she would be, she should be capable of getting good things done via a more honest approach that includes community engagement and buy-in.

HF

Anonymous said...

Juneau and now because of that the ST.

Juneau doesn't know the history so is defaming HCC to dismantle it. IPP was not devised to stem white flight and to segregate our schools. Brian Terry said the program is "created" by white supremacist. Juneau Said it was despicable and a blight on our history -- redlining. I am certain the Robinsons would be surprised to hear that. Nancy Herzog who has attended the ALTF meetings should correct the simple fact the district is spreading propaganda to execute one of its State mandated services. If she doesn't that's shameful.

NC'ish

Anonymous said...

It is segregated, you would have to be blind not to see it. The administration calls it segregated. The majority of the board calls it segregated. The Superintendent calls it segregated. The common belief among most students is that it's segregated.

We are suppose to believe that they are all wrong?

The new board will move quickly to finish it off and restore trust with the SPS majority.

BLMS

Melissa Westbrook said...

The administration calls it segregated. The majority of the board calls it segregated. "

And you know what? They are the people in charge. How come no superintendent has done anything about it? Many had the opportunity. No, they wanted to grind this into the ground in order to escalate the temperature.

"The new board will move quickly to finish it off..."

That is some truly ugly wording.

Delbert Brock said...

OMG, that Seattle Times piece should have been an opinion piece!

It was full of slant and anti-intellectual bias. How would the old IPP program even have made a dent fighting "white flight" given that it only had a few hundred students in it and they definitely weren't all white. A couple hundred students working a couple of years ahead is nothing in a city with 50,000 students.

The article also says that SPS screens all kindergarten, first and second graders. THEY DO NO SUCH THING! Families have been begging them to do exactly this for eons and they have yet to do it.

The article also says there are about 5,000 students in the highly capable cohort. FALSE. The district says only 3,800. Did the Seattle Times not even check with the district before running this story?

The article also says the highly capable cohort is 59% white. That would be excellent considering it's disproportional. But sadly it's FALSE. HCC is 67% white. Seriously, did they not check with anyone? What shoddy reporting. Laughable. The whole point of their article is about race and advanced learning and they can't even get the percentage of white students in HCC right?

And finally, school districts all over the country were starting programs for gifted students at the same time that Seattle was. Most of these districts were small, suburban districts. There was no busing in my little town of 30,000 in another state, but around the time Seattle set up Horizon and IPP, my little town started a gifted program as well. This was true all over the country. States were responding to the Marland Report from the 70s and other national-level issues in setting up gifted programs. It wasn't all about race. The programs did not do a good job of identifying lots of groups of students (low income, ELL, foster kids, SOC, etc.). Districts needed to look differently for those students and they didn't know or they didn't care about that. SPS has known about that for decades and they have shown over and over again that they don't care.

The district and the Times should be ashamed of drying to deal with this nuanced issue with a sledgehammer. Time and time again students from populations furthest from educational justice who are highly capable and neglected by our inflammatory district are the most hurt by this approach.

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, the liberals are turning against each other and are willing to tear SPS apart in the process. If you play with fire, well you know and they are.

SJW > HCC is where SPS is headed. It's the new ethic math.

This has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with Seattle.

Reality sucks

Anonymous said...






@Dilbert

I think you should read what you wrote and btw, gifted students (cough cough)are not furthest from educational justice.

Nice try










Anonymous said...

In response to the intriguing research questions which developed as we began to work with these precocious children, as well as to the needs which their families expressed, our program has evolved and expanded....The activities of the Child Development Research Group now include:

3. A kindergarten-through-high-school program for children and young people exhibiting extraordinary advancement in academic skills. This Individual Progress Program (IPP) is run by the Seattle Public Schools in collaboration with the Child Development Research Group...
Begun in 1978, the IPP currently serves 75 children, balanced for sex and reflecting the racial makeup of the Seattle population.

Additional corrections (some mentioned by others):

* walk-to-math, where a 3rd grader may visit a 5th grade classroom for math, is largely being done away with (if it ever happened...and what happens when that 4th grader needs 6th grade math? There's no 6th grade class to walk to...)

* HC cohort programs may require leaving the neighborhood school, but they are now placed more regionally (as opposed to the single site locations of the original IPP). The idea is to have a critical mass of students so that 4th graders needing 6th grade math, for example, actually have a cohort of students working at the same instructional level. Students should not have to sit at the back of the class and self-teach because they may be the only student working at that level.

* It would be a stretch to say high school HC pathways "cater to [HC] advanced abilities." They offer the possibility that schools will have large enough cohorts to offer the most advanced coursework in later high school years, such as Calc BC, but SPS does not seem interested in actually "catering" to advanced abilities. What they are required to do is provide a "continuum of services," K-12 (see WAC 392-170-078).

* It is suggested that AL services in neighborhood schools are "inconsistent." Guess what, so are HC classes! Individual teachers and schools vary in how they deliver coursework, HC or not.

* "District officials" say they screen all K, 1st, and 2nd graders for giftedness? Huh? Since when? Misleading at best. Cognitive screening needs parental consent (as opposed to achievement assessments which can be done at school with no additional consent). Universal testing in SPS? Bring.it.on. They would STILL need parental consent (with the ability to opt out) and of course, it costs money.

* Teacher identification of gifted students?? That's being held up as somehow better? Gah. That's been shown to be filled with bias. Quiet, well behaved girls get passed over...and so on.

new low

Outsider said...

This was a doozy:

"A highly capable third grader may enroll at their neighborhood school, for instance, and visit a fifth-grade classroom to learn math."

That's a screaming blatant falsehood, right up there with Trump's inaugural crowd being the largest in history. Easily check and shown to be false, if people writing for the times were "reporters" rather than propagandists. How is it false? Let me count the ways.

1. It's impossible in most schools because the daily schedule does not align between grades.

2. Even where the schedules happened to align, no school in the city would do it proactively. It would always require persistent requests from parents, and even then, probably 90% of Seattle schools would say no.

3. No school in Seattle would ever prepare a third grader to be ready for 5th grade math. Their K-2 instruction simply doesn't do it. Students could only ever reach that position by supplementing heavily at home. The opportunity even to ask and be refused is limited to kids who like to spend their free time on Khan Academy, and have parents who can guide and support them.

The idea that "Their plan also would have brought most advanced opportunities back to neighborhood schools" is their big lie, which they want to make people believe simply by repeating it endlessly. But it's absurd. Abolishing the cohort will simply cause the number of Seattle students who are 2 years accelerated in math to plummet, and nearly all who remain would be upper income with highly educated parents. That in turn would prove that walk-to math is racist and must be abolished, ending all pretense of advanced math in neighborhood schools.

This policy change is not about providing advanced learning to any student who doesn't have it now. (They could have done that any time, and chose not to.) It's entirely about taking advanced learning away from students who have it now.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how this SPS "six-year plan" could affect HCC kids going to high school next year if it's put into action? Would north end HCC kids no longer have a pathway to Lincoln HS? Is there any plan at all as we decide on our kids' futures?

Spike

Anonymous said...

@ egos, my child has the "privilege" of being learning disabled, but I still want HCC. I guess that's my privilege coming through?

interesting take

Mighty Marmot said...

The six-year plan will send all of Wedgwood Elementary to Jane Addams Middle school to make room at Eckstein for the return of almost 300 HCC students.

Transparency Please said...

So where does the district want to place TAF's new HIGH SCHOOL?

https://crosscut.com/sites/default/files/files/taf_mou_signed.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2tVnOyEuYyZ71jTQZm9peQMnMwKCdLnBdiF9ozzWCCESJeJHVJrgYw00A

Is the plan to put TAF into WMS, break HCC and then look for another location? Is the plan to make WMS a TAF high school?

How about some transparency?

Anonymous said...

https://www.seattlesymphony.org/inthecommunity/community-concerts/side-by-side

In case you missed the other thread, upcoming are two free concerts by the Seattle Symphony Orchestra (SSO) in tandem with Garfield on Oct 22 at GHS and Roosevelt Oct 24 at RHS at 7pm.

Each concert is free and lasts 1 hour and is an awesome way to check out these schools and enjoy beautiful music. Don’t be shy, come!

Bonus: one of the SSO musicians is a RHS alum! Sort of a wonderful homecoming to show off what wonderful things are possible with dedication and hard work :-)

With so much turmoil in SPS, it is nice to focus in on a bright spot that is happy.


music

Melissa Westbrook said...

Mighty Marmot, yes, that is exactly what will happen. These unintended consequences.

Transparency Please, TAF usually has a 6-12 model but I think it's all being worked out. The district and TAF have many community meetings. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to attend one.

Geary's Dilema said...

POC attend board meetings. They stand before Geary. These people tell Geary that they don't want to dismantle HCC.

Geary, a woman of privilege, sits in her chair and tells people they are racists. Then, jets across the ocean.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

@interesting take. My kid has the privilege of being slow and fat, and I still want him on the basketball team. I guess that’s my privilege shining through.

Privileged

Anonymous said...

Any word from the ALTF and did Herzog stick up for the Robinson's center? If not her silence would represent utter lack of professional responsibility.

Racist is as racist does and the HCC program with all its faults is not segregated, redlined or developed by white supremacist.

MCT

Anonymous said...

The slow, fat kit needs the exercise the most. We need more no-cut teams. But, schools are ACADEMIC institutions, not sports clubs, so yes, cutting competitive sports would be just fine for a public school, even though sports are used for college application padding currently.

Remember HCC is a way to save more money for the no-cut academic team. It would be very expensive to provide private coaching/teaching for a few kids at every school. HCC is just the cheapest way to provide ACADEMIC challenge for advanced students.

And the whole mission is to provide appropriate academic challenge for every student so that every student has the opportunity to learn. Duh. It's a school for the WHOLE public, not just those testing at the 40-52nd percentile.

Instead of cutting HCC/Spectrum/ALO/IB/Walk-to-programs staff should be focused on other cheap ways to PROVIDE academic challenge for those who need it. We need to say no to age segregation, and yes grade skipping, and expanded walk-to services. That's the cheapest way to provide services- not the best, but the cheapest.

There should be no talk of cutting programs until AFTER there is a clear plan for TEACHING the effected students some other way.

Also, in 10 years- MTSS has proven itself completely ineffective with the diversity of academic needs in our large classrooms. 10 years is enough of this farce.

West

Anonymous said...

https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/heres-whats-at-stake-in-2-north-seattle-school-board-races/

ST review of the SB candidates north of the ship canal.

Silo Shade

Lurn Books said...

40% of Seattle students are getting 4s on their SBAC tests. That's a LOT of students who are ready to learn more. SPS is dismantling Walk To Math and they already killed Spectrum. So, the question really is, how will SPS educate these kids.

Happily section 502, page 49, of HB 1599 should help some of them actually access advanced learning.
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/05/07/1818737/0/en/FIRST-IN-NATION-LAW-TO-REDUCE-BARRIERS-TO-ADVANCED-CLASSES-FOR-ALL-STUDENTS-ADOPTED-IN-WASHINGTON-STATE.html

It's a big city, SPS. Better get educating. Otherwise we'll be overrun by our East Side overlords.

Anonymous said...

Grade skipping is not an ideal solution. The goal is to provide access to accelerated learning, but not necessarily put students on a fast track to graduation. Sure, allow it as a carefully considered option, but don't make it the default. For a young-for-their-grade student, a grade skip could put several years between them and the oldest students in the class. And the academic boost is sometimes short lived, as the pace of learning hasn't changed, just the grade level.

Scores of 4 on SBAC mean they have mastered grade level standards, right? Maybe some are ready for more advanced work, and maybe some aren't. But, yes, what is the actual plan?

no plan

suep. said...

On the topic of the School Board election, I am also voting for Rebeca Muniz for Seattle School Board in District 3, for the following reasons:

Rebeca brings a sensibility and insight that will well serve the Seattle School District’s many diverse students. As the first in her family to go to college, and with a Master's degree in Education Policy & Leadership from UW, Rebeca understands firsthand what less-advantaged students need to succeed. Her commitment to authentic community engagement and outreach to Seattle's immigrant and ELL families, as well as her keen empathy, intelligence and fresh perspective will be great assets on the School Board.

-- Sue Peters

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Misleading Statements said...

The Curriculum & Instruction Committee held back policy changes because they awaited an ALTF Committee report. In essence, the district simply wanted to force through changes before the ALTF weighed in.

Juneau responded by a misleading statement. The statement showed the ALTF met, but she failed to inform community members that the ALTF did not issue a report.

Here is Juneau's language:

"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. "

Rankin, via her twitter account, felt the need to retweet Juneau's misleading statement.


"Liza Rankin Retweeted
Seattle Public Schools‏ @SeaPubSchools Oct 10


You can read @SeattleSupt's response to the Curriculum & Instruction Committee decision to not move revised Board Policy 2190, Highly Capable Services and Advanced Learning Programs, to the full board for introduction here: http://ow.ly/4ohE50wHJiX #SPSConnects"

Anonymous said...

Juneau and Rankin are stating the obvious: HC in SPS is a segregated side show, based almost exclusively on parent educational attainment.

Blame the messenger at your peril. They are stating the obvious, and history is on their side.

Nice Try

Anonymous said...

@ Nice Try,

HC in SPS is a segregated side show, based almost exclusively on parent educational attainment.
What exactly do you mean?

HC refers to a student designation. Students who are tested and meet certain very high cognitive and achievement cut-offs are designated as HC. HC students are also in all/most schools, although some schools have many and some very few.

HCC (with the extra "C" for "cohort") serves a similar demographic as those identified as HC, but a smaller subset since not all participate in HCC for various reasons. HCC is intended to provide HC students an education that is somewhat better aligned to their academic and social/emotional needs than the GE program is, since the GE program is designed for typical students (which makes senses, since such students make up the bulk of our population and are the students for whom curricula are written, grade level standards are developed, etc.). Most education is tailored to the GE population (hence the "general").

Now, a lot of people like to complain about HCC-the-cohort, claiming it's "segregated," although in reality it's open to anyone who meets the cut-offs (and district numbers show the students across racial groups have been identified/participated.) Eligibility is not based on race, but rather test scores. However, HC eligibility is not racially proportionate to the overall SPS population, so neither is cohort participation, and thus HC/HCC may look like segregation.

But you bring up an important point by mentioning parent educational attainment, although it's important to note that both HC designation and HCC participation are correlated with parent educational attainment. In other words, high-achieving parents are more likely to have high achieving students. I would add that parental income is also correlated with HC/HCC. One has to wonder how much of the supposed racial segregation in HC/HCC would disappear if the analyses controlled for both parental educational attainment and income.

Your comment also begs the question: When we're talking about education, isn't current level of students' own educational attainment a KEY factor in determining instruction? How much have you learned so far, and what makes sense to learn next? Indeed, that's exactly what MTSS and the fake promise of differentiation would have us believe--that students will be served based on how they are currently performing, using all sorts of ongoing assessments and monitoring to awesomely track their progress and needs. If student educational attainment is important re: service provision, isn't it only natural that the resulting service provision will likely track somewhat to parental educational attainment as well?

If MTSS is fully implemented as it would need to be for HC students, there would still be a differentiation of services--which would likely still be correlated to parental ed attainment and income. After all, it's the same students. HC students will still be HC students--it's just that they'd be served by individually tailored services in the classroom, as opposed to more efficient HCC bulk services. The big difference would be either in (a) the optics, because the race/income/parent ed-based differentiation would be hidden from view and people could pretend it wasn't happening; or (b) the loss of services, because the promised MTSS differentiation wouldn't really happen, so HC students wouldn't get appropriate services.

HCC is a tool to deal with the reality that educational attainments differs--and WILL differ--significantly among students of the same age. In the absence of a better, feasible way to deal with the achievement gap--which is observable even before SPS students begin kindergarten, HCC makes sense. If it's a side show, it's a cheap and easy side show.

need coffee


Anonymous said...

Of course kids from middle class/upper income households with educated parents will be those in the highest walk to math groups, as well as those who opt into AP/IB classes.

These same people are against differentiation and opt in honors classes. The recent articles and interviews in the media are criticizing white kids who make up the majority of AP classes which are opt in at Garfield.

It is also why schools are now moving away from opt in honors classes. These people have stated they are aware that certain kids opt into honors and want to remedy that situation.

The downside is that honors for all classes in our experience are a stark contrast to other subject honors only classes, in which syllabus and stated teacher goals are preparing students for the rigor of AP classes. The teachers of the honors for all subjects at our school do not state this goal.

HS Parent

Anonymous said...

@need coffee, I don't think any amount of explanation is going to sway those who don't "believe" in the cohort. The goal doesn't seem to be one of using limited district resources efficiently, or actually providing some base level of acceleration to academically advanced students.

another observer

Montlake MDs said...

I don't get it. The goal is to create student programs where the parents'/guardians' level of education reflects the diversity of adults in the city? In the neighborhood? Inside the school boundary? Does SPS know what students' parents' level of educational attainment is?

I mean, Director Jill G. went to law school. Chandra H. has a B.A from Stanford University and an MBA from the University of Washington. So, do we need to dismantle View Ridge Elementary and Sand Point Elementary? Are you really trying to say that if an MD sends his kids to Montlake Elementary, we need to shut down Montlake?

Which school has the parents with the highest level of education? It's not Concord. So, should we close Concorde for accumulating too many parents who don't have a college degree?

There's a hole in your argument.

Anonymous said...

Yes @need coffee!

You can give them whatever designation you like, or none at all, but the kids who are currently known as HC or in the HCC program aren't going to disappear if you get rid of the cohort. They are still going to be mostly getting 4s in the SBAC where ever you put them or what ever you call them. How is this going to help the kids that the district is really concerned about, the ones who are getting 1 and 2s on the SBAC? Putting HC kids in their classrooms is not going to make them suddenly start getting 3s and 4s.

The differences in achievement between ethnic groups and socioeconomic groups in Seattle schools are still going to be there. The district will still look like its failing to close the achievement gap when the state testing scores come out. These proposed changes are just window dressing. Doing something that looks like a big bold move but that will really have no meaningful effect at all.

It's much harder and more costly to actually provide additional services and staffing than to just take something away. The district has never been able to provide differentiated learning opportunities consistently and equitably throughout its schools so what makes anyone think they can now? Actions speak louder than words - pay attention to what they do not what they say. Spectrum, walk to math, 'advanced learning opportunities', separate honors classes ....... all disappeared, never provided, or disappearing. Money for staff and resources in classrooms (vs JSCEE) - never materializes; school resources are always being cut back.

Lets see the stats for the honors for all classes at Garfield for example. What is the breakdown in grades/scores based on race/FRL status? I'd wager that the higher achieving students (who would have previously taken a separate honors class) are still predominantly white and/or better off than the lowest performing ones. I'd love to be proved wrong, so show us how honors for all has improved the performance of those furthest from educational justice. If we never see any data from the district about these classes it suggests that what it shows doesn't fit their narrative.

The students who exceed grade level standards currently will continue to do so even if you only teach at grade level, or teach to the lowest common denominator. It will just be easier for them. They'll have time to complete all their homework in class. They'll goof off and distract other kids because they got it the first time and repetition bores the shit out of them. They'll get 'A's. But they will be woefully unprepared to handle a real academic challenge when it eventually comes in college or the workplace - having never had to really work hard or put in extra time to succeed or overcome academic difficulties. And please explain how this helps the students who aren't meeting grade level expectations to do better? It may soothe the SJW's troubled hearts and look good on their resumes but does it really help the students?

SPSuspicious minds

Anonymous said...

Seattle Liberals (like Sue Peters) are in a pickle, while their global views align with their groups, get Trump, get Trump and get Trump, their local views do not. Liberal Seattlites like Peters tend to talk the talk until they are directly effected. It's clear that HCC is incompatible with social justice and something has to give.

Seattle's twisted view of Global warming solutions is to punish people who are just trying to live their lives by taxing or eliminating their cars and heating sources.

A struggling family can't go out and just buy a Prius or just buy an expensive heat pump.

They can't supplement transportation across the city to attend the HC program of their choice.

They don't get to go on vacations every single school break or visit east coast colleges.

Now the elitist are interested in vocational training and what they are really saying is, we HCC elitist will go on to higher learning and the rest of you can learn to serve us.

Crystal clear

Anonymous said...

@SPSuspicious minds

That you for proving my point!

Crystal clear

Montlake MDs said...

Yeah, McGilvra & Montlake families aren't going on expensive vacations and buying heat pumps. LOL! Have you been to Queen Anne/Magnolia? Ballard? Capitol Hill? The PTA officers at some of our highest FRL schools take lavish foreign vacations and post about them on social media. This is not an HCC problem. It's a wealthy west coast city problem.

Anonymous said...

Students do not just get to attend a HC program of their choice across town. They are assigned to an HCC pathway school based on the neighborhood attendance area - but yes. it could be in a different part of town depending on where they live.
Transportation is provided to the assigned HCC school via school bus.

What do Prius's and heat pumps and vacations have to do with this?

Crystal clear, you prove the point that this animus toward HCC is at least partly driven by jealousy.

How is dismantling the HCC program going to solve problems related to educational achievement and justice? The families that you disparage for driving new cars, or taking overseas vacations, or installing heat pumps are still going to be attending public schools alongside your kids. What do you propose the school district does about that?

What is your point?



Anonymous said...

I think the worst endorsement for HCC came from the dad of color at a recent school board meeting, I think he was being sincerer and genuine, but he was really making an argument for making school more meaningful and full filling for all students. The dad did not mention anything about social emotional supports, he mentioned rigor and engaging. Shouldn't all students experience more rigor and be more engaged?

I wish HCC proponents would stop with the vial threat , "If you break up HCC then we are coming to your local classrooms!" really what does that even mean. or "If you think teachers have it rough now , just wait!". Just wait for what, little Einstein flu ?

When did all this HCC nonsense start in Seattle, I guess I missed it while fighting for schoolbooks for every student.

I guess we won't be getting back to learning anytime soon.

NRB

Misleading Statements said...

Nice Try,

Are you saying it is ok for a highly paid public employee to create and disseminate misleading public messages? Are you saying it is ok candidates to distribute misleading information? Where does honesty fit into the equation?

Melissa Westbrook said...

Want to make a comment about a candidate you support? Swell. Want to disagree with someone about their choice? Swell. But take personal swipes at someone for their opinion? Nope. If you do that, you will be deleted.

Nice Try, I see you ignore the issue of the AL Taskforce getting their work done. That is a completely valid point. Why ask people to work so hard, for 18 months, only to forge ahead before their full recommendations and assessments. That is wrong.

Crystal Clear, just to note, no one pays for transportation to an HC school. In fact, the district doesn’t either; the state does.

What amuses me is that it is liberal on liberal arguing.

Anonymous said...

I just heard a really great interview on KUOW this morning with presidential candidate Andrew Yang. I find him excellent on addresses many issues. Among other things, he mentioned educational research data reports that 2/3 of student outcomes are directly related to factors outside of the K-12 educational system. Yet we place 100% of the burden on teachers. Factors like poverty, educational attainment of parents, stress level in the home and others. He mentioned a good understanding of what is needed to address multiple issues in K-12.

However Seattle Public Schools, some on the school board, and some candidates for school board in practice are imposing one standard for all, as if all kids are the same. You cannot have one standard for all. If anything you need to be working to help disadvantaged kids obtain a higher standard! Instead of dismantling honors classes for example, why not make at least one AP or IB class mandatory for all kids and provide the supports for all kids to do well?

Parents would not likely object about watered down AP/IB coursework as AP and IB are not controlled by the district and have more standardized curriculum. I find it interesting that they are not imposing AP/IB options for all. Instead they want to dismantle true AL options.

A Parent

Anonymous said...

We're still talking about a plan with no plan. If HCC is to be transitioned to neighborhood schools, boundaries for many schools must change. If the service model is to change, identification procedures and score cutoffs may change as well. The Board should not approve any changes without a comprehensive, Board approved plan. What will it cost? What might be some unintended consequences? What options are being considered?

no plan

Misleading Statements said...

Denise Juneau oversees a publicly funded school district. Taxpayers have invested $1.5B per year into Seattle Public Schools. We deserve an honest superintendent.

Juneau would be smart to embrace honesty. Otherwise, things are not going to work out very well.

Anonymous said...

Remember the plan to change all high schools to a trimester schedule as a means of meeting the 24 credit requirement? The task force proposed a massive, system wide change which would have effectively reduced the total yearly hours allotted for each core class, eliminated year long electives and severely limited AP and IB course options. Year long classes would have been truncated into 2-trimester chunks that may not even be offered the same year or sequentially. When the "plan" was daylighted, it sank like a rock. Will a similar scenario play out with the plan to eliminate HCC?

no plan

Anonymous said...

@MW Do you have something constructive to add ? Did your kids ride a metro bus across town for school?

When your child is 10 plus miles away and it's winter and they have to stay after school, then parents need to drive to pick them up. We also need to pick them up for appointments too. Have ever ridden the buses north and south? Would you really want your 14 year old on one of those routes?

We do not have the luxury of a stay at home parent who can drop everything to run the forgotten lunch box over to school.

I know it's hard for some people to grasp the importance of neighborhood schools delivering MTSS, but that's were we are heading. Maybe you could skip a couple of vacations a year and then pay for private school, because it seems you think if your children are too smart for us regular folks.

It's hard to lose a good thing and I get that. HCC and its supporters wiggled their way into getting their very own new schools, but that is what has brought so much unwanted attention and criticism to HCC, you should have thought that one through.

--Good luck

Melissa Westbrook said...

If the district ws providing transportation for the 98% of the time my child was in an academic program that I thought was worth it, yes, I would do it. Other parents might make a different choice.

My comment was constructive - it let people know that transportation is available for HCC students and it costs the district nothing.

I do not care for your tone, Good Luck, either to me or others. You might want to think about reformulating your comments.