Updates on Advanced Learning

The information I present comes from several sources.  One of them is a member of the Advanced Learning Task Force, Kari O'Driscoll.  (I'll just state that when I was on the Closure and Consolidation Committee, we were warned NOT to talk about our work and allow the designated folks on the Committee, the chairs, to make all public comments. But that was ages ago - maybe service on a taskforce or committee has changed since then.)

It appears that Superintendent Juneau and staff are forging straight ahead with changes to HCC without waiting for the recommendations from the Advanced Learning Taskforce or Board approval.  Actually, I don’t think they need the Board’s approval but letting the Board know there are changes being made BEFORE they enact them would be a professional courtesy.

Evidence (phrasing in red indicates findings)

• I saw at the Loyal Heights principal's page that there is an Advanced Learning survey. I clicked open the link and it was indeed live and seems distinctly geared to parents.

The Seattle Public Schools (SPS) Advanced Learning Task Force (ALTF) is interested in hearing from families about their experiences with Advanced Learning in SPS. This survey is specifically focused on students identified as Highly Capable (HC). Please complete the following survey using the following link: https://forms.gle/TtHUEEP7gHsx5rSu9

However, there is nothing at the AL page or the AL Task Force page so I asked Kari Hanson. Here’s what I was told:

This survey is for students. And a “sub-group working at the behest of the ALTF are (sic) the owners of the survey.  So it's an ALTF survey but the district gives no system-wide notice of it? Gee, almost as if they want to discourage participation and then, discount any findings.

• Also there are two Phases to the ALTF work (this might have been mention previously and I overlooked it):

- Phase One (I don’t know precise star or end dates)

- Phase Two “of the project will be focused on reaching historically underserved populations to seek input from groups who have not had access or opportunities. An update from the Student voice sub- group that provides more details can be found in the minutes from our October meeting due to publish this week."  

I will provide the link to those minutes when they become available.

• Kari O’Driscoll said on a Facebook page that the AL Taskforce was not told anything about STEM by TAF and there were members who were "shocked" to learn about this initiative.

On that information, O'Driscoll at the CA-RAV Facebook page, has a back-and-forth with several readers about changing HCC at WMS:

Emily Lieberman 

I appreciate your service on the task force and everyone who volunteers for SPS! I know this suggestion didn’t come from the task force, but what Samara Louton said is true at the middle school level; the district is planning to end the “HCC” model in our area at Washington Middle School while continuing to provide it north of the ship canal. This was discussed at the Southeast Seattle Education Coalition (SESEC) meeting this past week and is known by families at WMS and in the WMS pathway. (Instead the district is hoping to bring in an organization called the Technology Access Foundation to co-manage the school under their model—that might be for a different post.) This is of concern to the parents of highly capable students who feel that it's inequitable to end access to HCC in one part of the city only (and especially if that’s the southeast, where about 40% of the HC students at WMS are nonwhite). Parents know and appreciate that you (the task force) are working on recommendations to address the inequities in our current system, but until the district implements a new plan for providing HC services, it is upsetting to see the only access to HC services being eliminated in our area only.

Wyeth Jessee is the person who said there that next year the HCC model would be discontinued in our area only if TAF comes to WMS. I’d be interested in chatting further about this if you’re interested, I have kids at TM and WMS and know many parents who are concerned that the district keeps saying this despite the fact that the Advanced Learning Task Force hasn’t made its recommendations yet and the Board has not changed its highly capable policy to allow HCC to be discontinued in the south end only.

Ms. Lieberman makes a good point - the district seems to NOT be waiting for the Board or the ALTF to forge ahead.

Another commenter, Chantel Hazlewood says:

You should know that at a PTA meeting at TM this week, Wyeth Jesse was directly asked that question, since implementing TAF at WMS would eliminate a cohort there (this was confirmed by the TAF leadership at a meeting on Saturday). A parent asked him “is a similar plan being proposed north of the ship canal at this time” and he said no.

Another good point - changing HCC just for one school while keeping it the same elsewhere until the entire program is changed seems, well, inequitable to some parents.

• O'Driscoll also said there is “another group of folks who are working specifically on secondary ed programs and there isn’t community representation overlap between their group and the ALTF."

The district confirms the existence of this other group but I believe it is made up of district staff only. This pivots off "a Board Resolution in 2017-2018 where the board directs the Superintendent and staff to engage in a collaborative planning process to develop a scope and sequence of advanced courses that will be provided at all high schools and address preparation needs for such a plan at middle schools. A report is to be produced this fall that will detail the plan.” It will also include “a definition and a working description of honors course work."

• I am seeing use of this phrasing both inside and outside the district, almost like someone got their talking points to others.  It is “to seek input from groups who have not had access or opportunities.”

Here’s what I said to Ms. Hanson:

You can ask Legal about this phrasing but it makes it sound like the district deliberately prevented some students from accessing HCC. I don’t think that is a factual statement in terms of the district’s program.

And I asked “Are you saying that the district deliberately did not allow access to HCC programming to some students? 

• There will be a Highly Capable & Racial Equity Services Advisory Committee (HCRESAC?) “similar to the HC Advisory Committees of the past.”

“This group will have a new charge that will align to current needs for engaging with policy, but will primarily focus on newly developed future procedures should/as they form. The new charge and subsequent formation of this committee is anticipated by early 2020 and will involve an application and review/selection process as was used to select the ALTF in the spring of 2018."

• There is also a missive from a lengthy group of people of color activists called “Community Voice for Equity in Seattle Public Schools.”  I will try to get the letter in a form I can link.  I can't find a website or Facebook page for this group.

The letter seems to be only about HCC.  I find it hard to believe a group could think that by changing HCC in Seattle Public Schools, you will fix all equity problems.

• They do have some good wording around segregation saying that keeping the status quo for HCC would "increase" segregation.  I’m glad to see that it is being acknowledged that segregation - separate from any program - exists in this district.
• However they are parroting the line that “students of color do not currently have access to services.” I don’t agree. I do think there are barriers of communication but legally, the district’s highly capable programming is available to all. The group is correct in saying that it’s not good that the majority of the funding for this state-mandate service is spent on testing.
• Serious commitment to AL in all schools provides access, opportunities and resources for all of our students and addresses the potential for high achievement in all of our schools.

Well, that might be true on paper if the policy is changed. 

However, I would want the district to define “access” versus “opportunities.” For example, I know that the Superintendent wants to see equitable access to field trips. I don’t know of a single school that doesn’t have at least one field per year for students in their school. Anyone? And, would that mean the Superintendent would limit the number of field trips any given school could take so no one gets to go on more of them than any other school?  Or would the district pay for field trips for schools that have few?

And as for resources- good luck with that. When the AL office spends most of its funding on testing, I’m not sure there is much left. I suspect it goes for PD for teachers but I know of no HCC program that gets much in the way of resources like consumables. And, if you talking about 100 schools serving HCC students, you’ll have to find money somewhere.

Or the district might try their time-honored ploy of putting in a new initiative and then telling schools to find the money in their own budgets to enact it.

• "All schools should share the responsibility of providing robust learning experiences to students."

Sounds great but please MAKE principals do this. Because they didn’t when there were ALOs so I’d like to know what will be done to compel them to do so in every classroom (especially without more resources).

The lead for this group is none other than Romanita Hairston, one of the applicants for Betty Patu’s job. Other signers include: Manuela Slye, SCPTSA president, Erin Okuno, noted SE Seattle activist, Emijah Smith, yet another one of the applicants for Patu’s job,several staff from MLK, Jr. Elementary, some parents of HCC “identified” students, assorted community members, Jeff Clark, principal at Denny MS, Stephan Blanford former Board director (still trying to be relevant), and the Maple Elementary PTA Board.